Airmyn Fact Check responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question AIR1 Site is not necessarily in close proximity of flood defences, 8 unable to confirm if site is 'danger to some' as it is outside the study area of the Level 2 SFRA - suggests amendment to -3 Acknowledged that there would be a detraction from built 13 character but it would not be significant (i.e. does not lead to coalescence) so should score (-) Acknowledged that there would be an impact on landscape 14 character, but this would not be significant (i.e. not in an area of Sites in Airmyn no longer accord with the Settlement Network set high landscape value) so should score (-) out in the Draft Strategy Documnent, so all now fail at stage 1. Potentially some minor contamination on this site given its 19 previous agricultural and commercial use, so should score (+++) No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 AIR2 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 AIR3 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 AIR4 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 AIR5 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 AIR6 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 AIR10 No constraints and deliverable in 15 years 31-33

Aldbrough Fact Check Responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question ALD1 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated ALD2 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated No comments received apart from reference to General Noted ALD3 an agent acting on behalf of landowner ALD4 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated ALD6 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated ALD7 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated

Anlaby Willerby Kirk Ella Fact Check Responses

Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question General Extra school capacity required at Kirk Ella 23 Site Assessment noted the deficiency in school places. Comments Primary. Updating of drainage system required Comment noted No development on AWK2/3(keep wooded)/4(play space)/5/6/7(Greenfield general Comment noted part)/8/9/10 (keep as allotments/30/34 (except for care home). AWK3 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. AWK4 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. Western part of the site has no constraints and 31-33 Site assessment updated. deliverable within 5 years. Site is accessed off first lane. (response from 25 Site assessment amended. owner of southern and western section) AWK5 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. One land bidder no longer has an interest in the 32 Comment noted. Another response shows interest. land as it has been sold. AWK6 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. AWK7 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. Leased to Hull City Council as a School but 31-33 Site assessment updated. either Council can give 3 months notice. School intended to close in August 2014. AWK8 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. With additional supply in years 6-10 due to size 31-33 Site assessment updated. of site. Should score 6 not 5. AWK8/9 should be scored Comment noted. But sites assessed as originally submitted and together as they are in one ownership and will 6 defined. This score is not critical in determining selection or be brought forward as one development. Doing rejection of site. so gives a score of 6. AWK8/9 should be assessed as one. They should 7 Comment noted however the assessment uses the Site Assessment Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question score 6 not 0 and 2. Methodology. Site should Score +++. Site would not erode Comment noted. However it is considered development would open gap and will have less impact than other 9 lead to coalescence. sites to the west. Agree with score. 10 Comment noted. Score should be 0 not ---. Highly sustainable location, with significant surrounding development. Site would not result in serious Comment noted. However it is considered development would intrusion into the open gap or result in 13 lead to coalescence. coalescence. Sites to the west are more important. Settlements would retain their separate identities if site is developed. Should score – not ---. Development would not Comment noted. However it is considered development would 14 lead to detrimental closing of the open gap. lead to coalescence. Assessment should consider that there are a number of schools nearby, even though the site Comment noted. However assessment is based on the Site 23 is not within the catchment area, pupils could Assessment Methodology attend them. Comment noted. Score updated in accordance with the Should score + not -. 24 Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Should score 0 not -. Assessment states potential links with AWK5 and 7. Intention that Assessment comment was referring to possibility of combined AWK8 and 9 developed at the same time. 25 access to First Lane should all of the sites be preferred. Access therefore not a constraint as can come This is not now the case. Comments amended. from first Lane or Hull Road. No routes near the site with a capacity constraint. AWK9 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. With additional supply in years 6-10 due to size 31-33 Site assessment updated. of site. AWK8/9 should be assessed as one. They should Comment noted however the assessment uses the Site Assessment 7 score 6 not 0 and 2. Methodology. Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question Site should Score +++. Site would not erode Comment noted. However it is considered development would open gap and will have less impact than other 9 lead to coalescence. sites to the west. Agree with score. 10 Comment noted. Score should be 0 not ---. Highly sustainable location, with significant surrounding development. Site would not result in serious Comment noted. However it is considered development would intrusion into the open gap or result in 13 lead to coalescence. coalescence. Sites to the west are more important. Settlements would retain their separate identities if site is developed. Should score – not ---. Development would not Comment noted. However it is considered development would 14 lead to detrimental closing of the open gap. lead to coalescence. Assessment should consider that there are a number of schools nearby, even though the site Comment noted. However assessment is based on the Site 23 is not within the catchment area, pupils could Assessment Methodology attend them. Should score + not -. 24 Comment noted. Should score 0 not -. Assessment stats potential links with AWK5 and 7. Intention that Assessment comment was referring to possibility of combined AWK8and9 developed at the same time. Access 25 access to First Lane should all of the sites be preferred. therefore not a constraint as can come from This is not now the case. first Lane or Hull Road. No routes near the site with a capacity constraint. AWK11 Flood zone 3a with a more vulnerable use Site is also at risk of other sources of flooding, such as ground should score -3 not -3.5. Mitigation would be 8 water emergence, therefore -3.5 is appropriate. Amend implemented for any development on the site. assessment comments No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. AWK12 Site is not open space of recreational value. It is Site assessment identifies no loss of open space and bowling green 22 fenced off. to be retained. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question Change of contact details general Comment noted AWK13 Has planning approval and already started Comment noted. The Draft Local plan has a base date of 1st April 31-33 developing, no need to include in Local Plan. 2012. AWK17 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. One response stated they had not submitted 31-33 Comment noted the land bid Site combines with AWK 18 and 19 general Comment noted AWK18 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. Site combines with AWK 17 and 19 general Comment noted. AWK19 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. Site combines with AWK 17 and 18 general Comment noted. AWK20 Site area changed. Includes PDL car park. 5 Site assessment updated. The landscape character has been effected by existing development therefore further 14 Comment noted. development would be suitable. Groundwater zone 2 can be mitigated by 17 This was reflected in the site assessment. sustainable drainage. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. AWK21 Flooded in 2007. Needed for flooding 8 Council records do not show the site to have flooded in 2007. attenuation project. AWK22 Council records do not show the site to have flooded in 2007. Site Flooded in 2007. High flood risk 8 assessment acknowledges site is within flood zone 3a. AWK23 Part of Great Gutter Valley Flood Plain. 8 Site is at low risk of flooding. Building on the site would mean Kirk Ella and The site assessment considers the impact on the character of the 13 Willerby would lose their separate identities. area. Combined sewer already at capacity. 24 There is sufficient capacity, based on the Infrastructure Study. Because of conservation area access would Site assessment suggests site can be accessed from Great Gutter 25 need to be from the A164. Lane. The site assessment acknowledges need for additional arm to Access constraints. 25 roundabout or a right turn lane on Beverley Road. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question AWK24 Part of Great Gutter Valley Flood Plain. Substantial standing water in periods of heavy 8 Site is at low risk of flooding. rain (photos available). Building on the site would mean Kirk Ella and The site assessment considers the impact on the character of the 13 Willerby would lose their separate identities. area. Combined sewer already at capacity. 24 There is sufficient capacity, based on the Infrastructure Study. Because of conservation area access would 25 Site can be accessed from Great Gutter Lane. need to be from the A164. Access constraints. 25 Site can be accessed from Great Gutter Lane. AWK25 Building on would mean Kirk Ella and Willerby The site assessment considers the impact on the character of the 13 would lose their separate identities. area. Because of conservation area access would 25/12 Amended comments reflect this. need to be from the A164. Part of the site cannot be used for development as was left in trust in perpetuity for a local 32 Comment noted. Assessment comments updated charity to benefit the needy of the Parish of Kirk Ella. It could be used for recreation. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. AWK26 Minor change to development limit only. General Comment noted. Shows revised site area to include 151 West Ella general Amendment made to site assessment. Road. Part of Great Gutter Valley Flood Plain. Sewers Site is at low risk of flooding. There is sufficient capacity, based on 8 not adopted by Yorkshire Water. the Infrastructure Study. Existing trees not subject to TPO and site is not within a conservation area. Therefore, trees are not an absolute constraint to development. Comment noted. Assessment acknowledges that trees could be Tree screening encloses site and would provide 11 retained if the site was developed but that this would reduce the screening, integrating development in to the developable area. wider landscape. The design could incorporate an appropriate density whilst retaining as many features as possible. Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question Impact on built character will be very minor. Limited impact on settlement edge and no loss 13 Comment noted. of green space. Site assessment comments updated. However site does not Accessed from West Ella Road or The Paddocks. 25 physically adjoin either of these roads.. No known constraints and deliverable within 5 31-33 Site assessment updated. years. AWK27 Part of Great Gutter Valley Flood Plain. Sewers Site is at low risk of flooding. There is sufficient capacity, based on not adopted by Yorkshire Water. Valley drive 8 the Infrastructure Study. Council records do not show that site flooded in 2007. flooded. AWK28 Part of Great Gutter Valley Flood Plain. Site is at low risk of flooding. Council records do not show that site 8 Properties nearby flooded in 2007. flooded. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. AWK29 Infill site. Scale and masterplan are in keeping Comment noted. Site assessment recognises within existing 13 with the surrounding residential area. residential area. It is assumed to be a Council owned site though it is unclear from the deed pack who owns the 31-33 Site assessment updated. site. It is likely any restriction on use would be surmountable. Developable within 5 years. AWK30 Site will lead to 6 pupils additional. The primary School capacity response updated as result of latest assessments 23 school has capacity for these pupils. of needs. There are 2 easements and underground electricity cable and a sewer. Site is leased to Hull City Council, who may be vacating at the 31-33 Site assessment updated. end of the current term. Site is attractive to the market. Developable within 5 years. AWK31 Land bidder no longer has an interest in the site Comment noted. Site marked is as an existing commitment as it which already has planning permission for 31-33 has planning permission. residential use. AWK33 Site boundary does not reflect the ownership of The site has been assessed on the basis of the land bid that did not general the land owner. Site should be included as part link it with any others land. The site is not reasonably connected to Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question of COT2, part of which the land owner also COT2 and therefore has not been considered as part of COT2. owns. The revised site area would impact on a Scores would not improve by adding it to the adjacent COT2 site. number of the assessment answers. Based on revised site area. Site is immediately Site is within the open gap. The site has not been assessed as part 1 next to built form of Cottingham. of COT2.

Part of the revised site is PDL. 5 The site has not been assessed as part of COT2. Cottingham is identified as part of the MHS which is a focus for development. The Core Strategy vision aims to meet housing needs Site is within the open gap. The site has not been assessed as part 9 through extensions to the Major Haltemprice of COT2. Settlements. As site is immediately south of the built area it should score +++. Question reliability of data collected by the council due to age. Reserve the right to submit 10 Comment noted. further information. Site is adjacent to development limit and would not lead to coalescence. No statutorily protected buildings are located on the site. Site is within the open gap. The site has not been assessed as part 13 Development provides an opportunity to of COT2. reinforce built character and distinctiveness of Cottingham. Landscape character assessment identifies quality as ordinary to good. Propose this part of 14 The area is shown as good in the Landscape Character Assessment. the area is ordinary. Should be scored -. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 3 owners – all with same response to questions 31-33 Site assessment updated. 31-33. AWK35 Score should be higher. Site is only 1 mile from The methodology for answering this question is set out in the Site Willerby centre and 1.5 miles from Carr Lane 7 Assessment Methodology. School. The roads are quiet and have good Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question footpaths. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. AWK36 Comment noted. New site therefore site assessment was not Use not yet determined – possibly residential or general completed for the fact checking exercise. If hotel, then this is commercial or hotel. current use so no need to assess. Comment noted. New site therefore site assessment not yet Brownfield 5 complete.

Adjacent to employment and retail services. Comment noted. New site therefore site assessment not yet And well located for Castle Hill Hospital and a 1/9 complete. number of GP services Has existing access, link to the A164, 3 miles to Comment noted. New site therefore site assessment not yet a train station and Willerby is served by 10 bus 25 complete. services. Comment noted. New site therefore site assessment not yet No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 complete.

Beeford Fact Check Responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question Priority opportunity for development within this large The draft assessment noted the site comprises some brownfield land and BEE1 site promotion exists for the area of previously 5/13 that the removal of unsightly agricultural and commercial buildings would developed land. positively enhance the site. BEE2 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. No insurmountable constraints 31 Site assessment to be updated. Single freehold ownership. No tenancies but subject to farm field access right of way. Site marketability is good - the site was sold subject to planning consent but fell 32 Site assessment to be updated. through due to greenfield moratorium/garden BEE3 development rules. Site would be available immediately as it complements a very recent planning consent granted May 21st 2012 33 Site assessment to be updated. in respect of land in same ownership adjoining and utilising the same access. BEE4 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. The site is an extension of the built area with direct access off Rectory View, an estate developed by Peter Open space provision would have to be significantly in excess of that BEE5 Ward Homes in 2004. 22 required by the normal policy in order to merit a positive score. No action Referring to your point 22, there will actually be an required. opportunity for some open space on this site. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. BEE7 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated.

The site is partly located within the village development The draft assessment noted the site is within/adjacent to the Development line and forms a natural rounding off to the existing Limit and is within the main body of the settlement. Question 13 notes the BEE8 built form. The site is in effect 'infill' within the village 1/13 extreme northern section of the site would extend out into open land. No and developed form. changes proposed.

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question The land is not within a Flood Risk Area and there are no international or national designations for biological No action required. or geological purposes. Greenfield and Brownfield Land (5) is incorrect and defined as 100% Greenfield. The frontage of the site is Amend draft site assessment score to reflect the presence of former garage a former garage and was formerly used to house 5 in the southern portion of the site. buildings. The former forecourt is still present despite

being overgrown at present. It is considered that the land is at least 20% Brownfield. Accessibility by walking and cycling (7) is allocated a zero rating. The site is located within the middle of the Score re-checked and it is correct in accordance with the SAM. No action village and has a direct access to all the village's 7 required. services by foot and cycle. Score and assessment is considered inaccurate. Biodiversity and Geological Value (10) identifies birds and bats within 500m. It is accepted that an application 10 No action required. can be accompanied by the required ecological surveys and mitigation will be proposed if necessary. Question 1 of the draft assessment noted the site is within/adjacent to the The Built Character (13) is given 3 points and states that Development Limit. No action required. the site is within the main body of the development.

The frontage is in fact within the existing development Question 13 noted that the northern section of the site would extend out limit and it is proposed this could be revised to provide 13 into open land. Reason for rejection in Allocations Document clarifies that infill development between Wharram Field and Glebe it would be difficult to develop this section without harm to the amenity of Gardens. This would form a natural rounding off to the adjacent dwellings due to the shape and width of the site. The remaining settlement without the need to develop into the open developable area of the site would be under the size threshold for countryside. allocation. No action proposed. Contaminated Land (19) correctly identifies that the The draft assessment noted the potentially contaminated land is likely to be site contains a former garage. It is anticipated that the 19 remediated through appropriate planning conditions and/or suitable potential contamination of the land associated with the design/layout. No action required. garage will need to be investigated fully. SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question You have suggested that development of the site would result in the minor loss of the best and most versatile The land is classified as such on the constraints map. Previous use already agricultural land. This wrong - request that reference 16 amended in response to Q5. Comments noted and score amended to (0). to the best and most versatile agricultural land be removed.

The site is currently designated within the existing Local Plan as an open area to be retained. This should not be 22 Not specified in proposed local plan as being open space area. retained

Offer to provide new PROW is noted but there are already pedestrian There is also scope to create a pedestrian link through accesses from the Main Street through to the Church via Rectory Lane and 22 the site to link up with Church lane to the north. Wharam Field. The new link would not particularly add something new. No change proposed. Other, more suitable sites have been identified to meet the required Site should be allocated housing need. Barns and stack yard no longer required for agriculture. Central village location within the development line.

Very good location at centre of village, near to village amenities. N/A Comment noted. Site boundary has been amended accordingly. BEE9 Your map wrongly shows the Methodist Church within our site. The Church is the building to the right of our site before the Pump House.

No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated.

Beverley Fact Check Responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question BEV3 Disagree that Beechwood Lane is not suitable for access 25 Site assessment comment changed to reflect that access because it is privately owned and not with the potential is now suitable. Score changed from (---) to (0). site. Access is with the same ownership and improvements can be made. Beechwood Lane should be included in the potential site. BEV4 Site has been assessed as a employment site, not a The assessment has been amended to assess both uses residential site as requested The site is not considered to be a large extension to the 9 Disagree – score is correct town - the bid on its own is of suitable scale The site was removed from the council's local wildlife 10/11 Amend comments but score is still (--) due to species list in 2010 data.

Sole development of BEV4 would constitute a small 13 Disagree – score is correct extension to the built form - the site should score (0) at worst ERYC scoring is more applicable to a site more divorced 14 Disagree – score is correct from the settlement - believe it should be scored (+) at worst Site has been worked out - score should be (0) 20 Within safeguarding area so score correct Development would deliver significant green 22 May not deliver more than policy would normally infrastructure scoring at worst (+) require Review required 23 Amended Pro-forma response received - no constraints, 31-33 Site assessment updated deliverable in 5 -15 years BEV5 Pro-forma response received - no constraints, 31-33 Site assessment updated deliverable in 5 years BEV6 Barton Willmore Score (5) ERYC score (6) 6 No change proposed Score missing 7 Added BW propose a score of +++ The site is located in an 9 Disagree – score is correct SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question area considered to be of 'good quality' not 'high quality' and development would not be located on areas of the site that would impinge the views of the Minster. BW score should be (0) as any significant features can 10 Disagree – score is correct be mitigated (Translocation) Existing features can be retained, enhanced and new 11 Disagree – score is correct can be incorporated. (+++) There are no important features on the site that need 13 Disagree – score is correct to be retained site should be scored (0) The site is located in an area considered to be of 'good 14 Disagree – score is correct quality' not 'high quality' and development would not be located on areas of the site that would impinge the views of the Minster score should be (-) Planning appeal for Poplars Way in 1991, the close 18 Future quarrying activity is a consideration when proximity of the Quarry should not be a reason to choosing sites for the longer teem. refuse residential development - the inspector of the Beverley Local Plan echoed these sentiments. Score should be (0) PROW links would be improved score should be (+) 22 Disagree – score is correct BW argue that there is pupil capacity within schools in 23 Score and comments updated in accordance with Beverley as not all pupils will be going to the closest infrastructure delivery plan school. score should be (0) Score should be (+) and infrastructure would be 24 Score and comments updated in accordance with developer funded infrastructure delivery plan Site should be scored (0) 25 Site should be scored (+++) 30 BEV6/BEV7 Pro-forma response received - no constraints, 31 - 33 Site assessment updated deliverable in 5 -10 years BEV10 Pro-forma response received - no constraints, 31 - 33 Site assessment updated deliverable in 5 years Barton Willmore Score (5) ERYC score (6) 6 No change proposed SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question Barton Willmore Score (4) ERYC score (3) 7 No change proposed BW scored the site with a 3 8 No change proposed BW score should be (0) as any significant features can 10 Score produced in accordance with SAM and advice be mitigated (Translocation) from NEYEDC Existing features can be retained, enhanced and new 11 Disagree – score is correct can be incorporated. Score should be (+++) Site is not used as a valuable amenity space and is 13 Disagree – score is correct surrounded by strong defensible boundaries - score should be (+) The site is considered to be in n ordinary landscape and 14 Disagree – score is correct should be scored accordingly (+) BW believe the contaminated land is not located within 19 Score produced in consultation with Public Protection their clients land and any contamination is associated with the railway line - score should be (0) Development would create small opportunities to 22 Disagree – score is correct improve PROW links and provide areas of open space - score should be (+++) BW argue that there is pupil capacity within schools in 23 Score and comments updated in accordance with Beverley as not all pupils will be going to the closest infrastructure delivery plan school. score should be (0) Score should be (+) and infrastructure would be 24 Score and comments updated in accordance with developer funded infrastructure delivery plan Site should be scored (0) 25 BEV11 Pro-forma response received - no constraints, 31 - 33 Site assessment updated deliverable in 5 years BEV14 Property sold 31-33 Noted - Amend ownership data BEV17 Pro-forma response received - no insurmountable 31 - 33 Site assessment updated constraints, deliverable in 5 years BEV19 Pro-forma response received - no insurmountable 31 - 33 Site assessment updated constraints, deliverable in 5 years SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question BEV21 Additional bat surveys would be required and 10 Comment noted appropriate mitigation measures could be taken. The retention of the majority of trees can be retained 11 Comment noted as identified in planning Ref: 07/03841/STOUT Score should be amended (+)as identified in planning 22 May not deliver more than policy would normally Ref: 07/03841/STOUT - there is a minor opportunity to require create open space within the site Improvements should be brought through holistically 24/25 Comment noted through the appropriate levies Improvements can be made to Gallows Lane 25 Comment noted No insurmountable constraints - The development of 31/32/33 Comments noted the site will facilitate the relocation of East Riding College. Site can be developed with 0-5 years BEV22 Pro-forma response received - no insurmountable 31 - 33 Site assessment updated constraints, deliverable in 5 years BEV25 Pro-forma response received - no insurmountable 31 - 33 Site assessment updated constraints, deliverable in 5 years BEV27 Pro-forma response received - no insurmountable 31 - 33 Site assessment updated constraints, deliverable in 5 years BEV28 Pro-forma response received - no insurmountable 31 - 33 Site assessment updated constraints, deliverable in 5 years BEV29 Pro-forma response received - no insurmountable 31 - 33 Site assessment updated constraints, deliverable in 5 years BEV30 Pro-forma response received - no insurmountable 31 - 33 Site assessment updated constraints, deliverable in 5 years BEV31 Pro-forma response received - no insurmountable 31 - 33 Site assessment updated constraints, deliverable in 5 years BEV32 Pro-forma response received - no insurmountable 31 - 33 Site assessment updated Landbid ref: constraints, deliverable in 5 years 1141 1914 SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question BEV33 Pro-forma response received - no insurmountable 31 - 33 Site assessment updated Landbid constraints, deliverable in 5 years 1053 BEV34 Site is 95% Greenfield - score (1) 5 Amend (1) Barton Barton Willmore Score (4) ERYC score (5) 6 No change proposed Willmore Score missing 7 Score added BW score 3/4 - flood zone 3a is not within their site 8 Score calculated on whole site BW score should be (0) as any significant features can 10 Score produced in accordance with SAM and advice be mitigated (Translocation) from NEYEDC Existing features can be retained, enhanced and new 11 Current score acknowledges this can be incorporated. Site is not used as a valuable amenity space and would 13 Disagree – score is correct not result in the coalescence of settlements - score should be (0) BW believe the contaminated land is not located within 19 Score produced in consultation with Public Protection their clients land and any contamination is associated with the railway line - score should be (0) BW argue that there is pupil capacity within schools in 23 Score and comments updated in accordance with Beverley as not all pupils will be going to the closest infrastructure delivery plan school. score should be (0) Score should be (+) and infrastructure would be 24 Score and comments updated in accordance with developer funded infrastructure delivery plan Score should be (0) - transport links will be improved 25 Development cannot take access from the bypass with the Beverley bypass and Park & Ride. BEV34 Pro-forma response received - no insurmountable 31 - 33 Site assessment updated Landbid constraints, deliverable in 5 years 1912 BEV36 Pro-forma response received - no insurmountable 31 - 33 Site assessment updated constraints, deliverable in 5 years SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question BEV38 Pro-forma response received - no insurmountable 31 - 33 Site assessment updated constraints, deliverable in 5 years BEV39 Pro-forma response received - no insurmountable 31 - 33 Site assessment updated constraints, deliverable in 5 years BEV40 Pro-forma response received - no insurmountable 31 - 33 Site assessment updated constraints, deliverable in 5 years BEV41 Pro-forma response received - no insurmountable 31 - 33 Site assessment updated constraints, deliverable in 5 years

Bilton Fact Check Responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question No sites in Bilton have been considered suitable for allocation based Site is bordered on all edges by existing on current evidence regarding flood risk in the village. Site development General Assessment amended accordingly. BIL2 No sites in Bilton have been considered suitable for allocation based No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 on current evidence regarding flood risk in the village. Site Assessment amended accordingly. Site is well related to Hull and satisfactory No sites in Bilton have been considered suitable for allocation based access can be achieved from the highway General on current evidence regarding flood risk in the village. Site network. Assessment amended accordingly. No sites in Bilton have been considered suitable for allocation based Site is in a flood risk area but this can be BIL3 on current evidence regarding flood risk in the village. Site mitigated. 31 Assessment amended accordingly. No sites in Bilton have been considered suitable for allocation based No ownership/market constraints and on current evidence regarding flood risk in the village. Site deliverable in 5 years. 32-33 Assessment amended accordingly.

Brandesburton Fact Check Responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question General The order of the questions in the Site Noted. The questions answered at each stage of the Site comments Assessment Methodology should be changed. Assessment Methodology are not listed in order of priority or importance. No action required. Response only relates to part of the site. BDN3 31-33 No constraints and deliverable within 15 years. Site assessment to be updated. BDN6 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. BDN7 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. BDN13 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated.

Bridlington Fact Check Responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question BRID1 Agree with scoring in Draft Assessment. 6 Noted Site is within close walking/cycling distance at Bessingby Way Noted. Score has been calculated in accordance with the approach 7 and Hilderthorpe Primary School. set out in the adopted Site Assessment Methodology. The superficial geology comprising sand and gravels, making it highly permeable (Envirocheck geology maps submitted with Score produced in accordance with Site Assessment Methodology. land bid) and so not likely to be at significant risk of groundwater 8 Current score does not preclude selection of a site. No change flooding. Bessingby Beck is not identified as being at risk of proposed to current score. flooding by the EA or SFRA, and no surface water hazards are identified in the SFRA. Score should be 6. Ecological assessment has found the majority of site comprises habitats of relatively low ecological value. The presence of Score produced in accordance with Site Assessment Methodology. protected species and sites within the vicinity of the site is not The current score does not preclude selection of a site but suggests 10 considered to be a constraint to development. Mitigation/habitat that significant impacts mitigation can be mitigated. No change improvement measures could be incorporated into the site and proposed to current score. result in an improvement in biodiversity. Site score be at least 0. Agricultural land assessment submitted with fact check response. Developable area of site is less than 20ha and account taken of Confirms 86% site is grade 3a. Development of the site would not 16 agricultural land assessment submitted with fact check response. involve the loss of 20ha or more of best/most versatile land. Site Assessment score has been amended to (-). Impact of the waste water treatment works and railway line can The Draft Assessment acknowledges this in the score, and notes 18 be overcome/mitigated through appropriate design solutions. potential for mitigation in the reasoning. Noted that scoring applies to all potential sites in Bridlington. Funding to overcome capacity constraints should be resolved 23/24 Noted. holistically at the appropriate level. Negative score has been given due to the potential need fo Single negative score applied due to need for new junctions and highway improvements if BRID23 is also brought forward. BRID1 perhaps right turning lanes. Such impacts can, however, be is unconstrainted in regard to junction arrangements, and it is 25 overcome so this does not preclude selection of site. No change to not evident that the Authority consider the highway network has current score proposed. Comment regarding relationship with limited capacity to accommodate BRID1. Site should not have a BRID23 has been removed as this is not a preferred site. negative score. SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. BRID2 Site could be suitable for residential development, in conjunction with development to the west and BRID3. Could also form a Noted. natural extension to Bessingby Industrial Estate. Need to ensure a consistent approach across the ERYC where loss There is over the required amount of allotments in Bridlington of allotments is proposed. No proposals to relocate have been according to the ERYC Open Space Review 2010. Allotments 22 submitted for consideration and the removal of these in this could also be replaced on more outlying Council owned land if locality would still lead to a loss in this area. No change proposed to required. current score. No constraints to development. If residential would be 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. developed within 15 years, following BRID3. BRID3 A main sewer runs across the site. - Noted No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. BRID4 Site is very strongly connected to the two and its services and Site has been scored in accordance with the approach set out in the 6/7 facilities. adopted Site Assessment Methodology. Mature woodland to the north of the site would protect the high No change to current score. While this would partially shield the landscape quality. Other developments that have previously 14 views of development from the north, the site is still highly visible taken place in area of high landscape value. from road and would detract from open views/character. Development on this site would actively support the 29 Draft Assessment notes this through q.29. regeneration and sustainability of Bridlington. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. BRID7 Existing allocation and should be re-allocated. All sites are being assessed in accordance with the adopted Site - Assessment Methodology to determine their appropriateness for allocation in the new Local Plan. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years (confirmed by 7 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. landowners) BRID8 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. BRID9 Site could be amalgamated with BRID42 to make a more suitable - Noted extension to the settlement. South eastern corner has already been built on so further 14 Draft Assessment notes that eastern (undeveloped) portion of the SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question residential development would not impact on the landscape site intrudes into open countryside so would be likely to have a character. Tree belt planted to boundary of adjacent significant impact on landscape character. No change made to draft development will mitigate any potential impact on landscape assessment. character. Groundwater issues have been dealt with through use of double Advice from EA and YW is to avoid development within SPZ1. No lined sewers and this could be continued onto a new residential 17 change to current score proposed. site. Yorkshire Electricity has wayleaves running through the site and along the northern edge - though this is not insurmountable. Land was acquired for purpose of small holdsings under the small 31 Updated in Site Assessment. Holdings and Allotment Act 1905 so transfer an order of the registrar will be required - but adjacent land was affected by the same covenant which demonstrates this is not insurmountable. Site is under agreement on a year to year basis but can be terminated within 6 months notice. Likely to be attractive to the 32 Updated in Site Assessment market. Deliverable within 5 years 33 Updated in Site Assessment. BRID10 Consider site is suitable for residential development and any - Noted potential impacts could be mitigated. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. BRID11 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. BRID12 (Land bid 754) No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. (Land bid 784). The site will be vacated by 31/12/2012 and available for immediate redevelopment thereafter. Deliverable in 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. 5 years. BRID13 Land is classed as amenity land, but there is a surplus of amenity land in Bridlington. While it would not necessarily need to be re- provided, ERYC land to the north west of the town could be used 22 Not identified as amenity land. Site assessment is correct. to provide open space in conjunction with masterplanned development. ERYC land top half only - notes there is access issues with this 25/31 Noted. SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question land in isolation, but would be resolved if brought forward with other part of the site so not insurmountable. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years (confirmed by all 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. landowners) BRID14 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. BRID15 Noted - a Draft Assessment had not been completed because of Site has already been developed. - this. BRID16 Yorkshire Water has a Wayleave that runs along the southern 31 Noted in Site Assessment boundary but this is not an insurmountable constraint. Eastern half of the site is ERYC owner, leased to a farm business Was originally allocated for outdoor sports but this has been for 5 years and for 99 years to the Rugby League Footpath Sports 22/32 replaced in part by BRID6a draft allocation. club (TBC whether this lease has been terminated) Site is developable within 5 years 33 Updated in Site Assessment. BRID17 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. BRID18 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. BRID19 Very loose knit pattern of development in area. Development of Site is surrounded by development so highly suited to housing. 13/14 this site would dramatically change this character. Added notes to site assessment. No change to current score proposed. Owners of part of site (land bid 1529) confirm no constraints and 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. deliverable in 5 years. BRID21 The site does not undermine policy to prevent coalescence It is considered that the intensification of development in this between Bridlington and Sewerby as the majority of the site is 9 location would detract from the important open space between surrounded by existing well established development. Bridlington and Sewerby. No change to current score. Acknowledged that development must be sympathetic in design, 13/30 Noted. and should include an element of low cost housing. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question BRID23 Plan submitted showing a smaller site (fronting onto Belvedere Parade) which could be brought forward as the first phase of development. This could be developed without impacting on the operation of the golf course and is some distance from the New land bid would be required to be submitted in order for the scheduled monument. It is likely to be very attractive to the All revised proposals and implications to be fully considered. Land market as it provides sea views. This site is leased to the Golf bidder advised accordingly. Club until March2014, with provision in the lease to develop part of the land for housing provided 6 months notice is given, so could be delivered in 5 years. BRID24 Site has been scored in accordance with the adopted Site Site assessment suggests site is contaminated, but unsure what 19 Assessment Methodology, on the basis of advice provided by the evidence supports this. Council's Public Protection Team. There are a number of easements along the northern edge of the site, and may be restrictions governing the use of the site which 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. require further investigation. Depending on restrictions on the title, site could be delivered in 5 years. BRID25 There are a number of easements along the northern edge of the site, and may be restrictions governing the use of the site which 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. require further investigation. Depending on restrictions on the title, site could be delivered in 5 years. BRID26 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. BRID27 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. BRID28 Site was previously allocated and should be reallocated. All sites are being assessed in accordance with the adopted Site Assessment Methodology to determine their appropriateness for - allocation in the new Local Plan. Existing allocations will not necessarily be carried forward unless considered suitable. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. BRID29 (Land bid 364) No insurmountable constraints, though access would need to be taken through neighbouring land bids (in 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. different ownership) SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question ERYC Site - Size of the site could be reduced to reduce the impact Site assessment comments amended to reflect only partial on the open countryside and be more in-keeping with the shape 13/14 selection of site. of the settlement. Yorkshire Electricity Wayleave runs through the middle of the site. Land was acquired for purpose of small holdsings under the small Holdings and Allotment Act 1905 so transfer an order of 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. the registrar will be required - but adjacent land was affected by the same covenant which demonstrates this is not insurmountable. Deliverable in the longer term up to 15 years. 33 Updated in Site Assessment. BRID33 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. BRID34 Plan submitted showing just part of the site adjacent to the road which may be more appropriate for development, as it would not impact on the car park and limit impact on views of heritage coast. This would retain the existing trees on the boundary which New land bid would be required to be submitted in order for the provides a landscape buffer. Part of this site is under licence to All revised proposals and implications to be fully considered. Land Robert Brothers Circus and Bridlington lions, with a 5 year lease bidder advised accordingly. to Yorkshire Ambulance Service to Dec 2014 - but vacant possession of the site could be readily achieved when required and could be developed in 5 years. BRID35 Need to ensure a consistent approach across the ERYC where loss There is an oversupply of allotments in Bridlington - but if of allotments is proposed. No proposals to relocate have been required the Council would seek to re-provide the allotments in 22/27 submitted for consideration and the removal of these in this order to bring forward housing on the site. locality would still lead to a loss in this area. No change proposed to current score. Bridlington Water Company have rights to maintain/repair/lay down new water mains but this would not constrain development. Site is leased to Mill Lane Allotments Associated, 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. but it is likely that vacant possession could be obtained if required. BRID37 Acknowledged that development would need to be brought 9 Noted SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question forward with consideration of Bridlington AAP. A PROW also runs over the site 22 Updated Site Assessment to note this. There are several electricity and gas easements running across the northern edge of the site as well as one running straight through it, as well as a PROW, and McDonalds have a year to 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. year licence to a erect a pole sign on the land - but none of these are insurmountable constraints. Site could be brought forward in 5 years. BRID38 Development would be of a high quality and designed in a Site Assessment comments amended to reflect this. Score retained. 12 manner to be sensitive to the character of the conservation area. Council services in the buildings on the site will be relocated elsewhere in Bridlington, into more fit for purpose buildings, in 29 Comment in site assessment already notes this. the next 3 years. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. BRID39 Development would be of a high quality and designed in a 12 Site Assessment comments amended to reflect this. Score retained manner to be sensitive to the character of the conservation area. Learning disability service will be re-provided in the medium 27 Comment in site assessment already notes this. term, prior to the development of the site. No constraints, deliverable within 15 years. 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. BRID40 Site consists of garden land, and so is classified as Greenfield. No Land is brownfield 5 change to current score. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment.

Bubwith Fact Check Responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question BUB1 -Responses made by others to the site so do not want to None Noted duplicate. -North of the site is not a farm but a residential property that 19 Noted. Amendment to site assessment comments made. was a farm. A coal storage yard used to be on the site. BUB2 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated BUB3 -A pumping station owned by Yorkshire Water is located along 31 Site Assessment to be updated one edge of the site and there is a right of access to this . This only affects a small proportion of the site and is not an insurmountable constraint. -The site is leased out under an agricultural tenancy but this is 32 Site Assessment to be updated reviewed yearly. This constraint can easily be rectified and the site is attractive to the market -Site likely to be developable within 5 years 33 Site Assessment to be updated BUB4 -Surrounded on 2 sides by existing development (not 3). 13 Site Assessment to be updated BUB6 -Slightly revised plan of the site has been sent with an None Site area amended. increased plot are of 0.28ha -Point out that the land in question was formerly part of the 5 No change to site assessment required. NPPF definition of garden of Mulberry House, and thus should be classified as previously developed land makes clear that land in built-up areas "brownfield" rather than "greenfield" land. The small such as private residential gardens do not fall under this additional strip along the northern boundary is also presently definition. part of the garden. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. Foul water drainage 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated connections are already in place for 6. BUB7 Point 18 contradicts points 13 and 14 (numbers relate to 13, 14, & 18 No action. The three SAM questions deal with different aspects questions) and therefore do not contradict one another.

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question BUB8 Whilst the development would be into open countryside there General No action required. Even with only half of site developed there is a natural barrier of trees along the old railway line which comments would be negative consequences for the built environment which would screen any development from the surrounding would need to be mitigated farmland. There would be no visual impact when driving through the village as all development would be behind existing houses. Plot BUB8 is currently an arable field and as such we from time to time apply pesticides to crops. There are houses adjacent to the field as well as a public footpath along two sides. We are obviously as careful as possible when spraying crops but it would remove a potential risk of spray drift onto properties or walkers if the field were developed. - Agree with ERYC assessments for stage 1 1 - 4 No action required. - Agree with ERYC assessment 5 No action required. - Borderline score 1 or 2 regular buses to Howden, Goole, 6 Accession analysis checked and score of 1 is correct. Selby, and York - Agree with ERYC assessment 7 No action required. - Low flood risk . Site adjacent to IDB maintained watercourse 8 No action required- the score for this question is based on fluvial (Southwood Drain) and tidal flood zones and other sources of flooding regardless of which organisation maintains the adjacent watercourse. -Agree with ERYC assessment 9 No action required. - As I indicated in my previous correspondence our proposal Site would still be less suitable than others and not well related would involve developing only part of the site BUB8 (say to settlement pattern. Offer of additional nature between 1 and 2 Hectares) The remainder of the site we would reserve/woodland area does not overcome these issues. No propose to donate to the village of Bubwith to be used as a changes proposed. nature reserve or woodland area. We would propose to get the village involved to decide what they required. IN ADDITION we would also be prepared to donate Field No.9994 which is 0.13Ha for similar purposes. SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question -Qu10- (+++) New nature area of 2-3Ha to be created as part of 10 Scores calculated in accordance with SAM. No changes proposed. proposal. Near to the River Derwent SSSI so should compliment the SSSI. -Qu11- (+++) New Nature area near to an internationally 11 Provision of a significant new nature reserve/woodland area recognised site would provide significant wildlife benefits would justify a (+++) score. Site assessment amended. -Qu12- Agree with ERYC assessment 12 No action required. Qu22 (+++) Significant area of public space to be created. Also 22 The landowner is offering significant additional publicly an opportunity to upgrade the public footpath adjacent to accessible open space over and above any policy requirement Southwood drain which should result in a score of (+++) against question 22. Site assessment amended. Q25 (0) I have amended your plan to show our exact boundary. 25 Whilst the access issue may be possible to overcome, significant The access width is significantly wider than indicated on your alterations and/or improvements to the existing access would be plan and I would propose culverting a short section of required. Score of (-) is therefore justified. No change to score Southwood Drain to improve access further. Visibility when proposed. Additional comments added. entering Breighton Road is excellent as access is on the outside of a slight bend in Breighton Road. Pedestrian access is also excellent with public footpaths surrounding the site, a footbridge directly to the village sports ground and leisure centre and easy access to the doctors surgery, school, post office and shops. Excellent access to Breighton Road (see amended map and proposal to culvert a section of Southwood drain). Also not proposing to develop the whole site. -Qu13-(0) Incursion to open countryside mitigated by 13 Even with only half of site developed there would be negative screening by existing houses and trees along old railway line. consequences for the built environment which would need to be Also the fact that only proposing to develop part of the site. mitigated. No action required. Minimal impact anticipated. Fits in well with link to sports ground and footpath network

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question -Qu14-(+) Currently arable field- Low landscape value. More 14 No action required. Even with only half of site developed there than half the site plus an additional small area to be given over would be negative consequences for the landscape which could to nature reserve not be mitigated. -Qu15- Agree with ERYC assessment. Development would 15 Noted and no action required. however reduce the risk of spray drift to houses and footpaths Qu16- Agree with ERYC assessment 16 Noted and no action required. Qu17- Agree with ERYC assessment 17 Noted and no action required. Qu18- (0) Sewage works not relevant as many houses are 18 No action required. 400m buffer from the waste water treatment much closer and do not have any problems works has been used as standard across all site assessments to indicate potential areas of concern for potential housing sites. in addition this particular site is downstream of the prevailing wind from the treatment works. Qu19- Agree with ERYC assessment 19 Noted and no action required. Qu20- Agree with ERYC assessment 20 Noted and no action required. Qu21- Agree with ERYC assessment. May be an opportunity to 21 Noted and no action required. include some green energy scheme once a developer is brought fully on board. Qu23- Agree with ERYC assessment 23, 24, 26 Noted and no action required.

Qu27- (+++) Nature reserve proposed 27 Noted - No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated BUB9 - Agree with ERYC assessments for stage 1 1 - 4 No action required. -Qu5- Agree with ERYC assessment 5 Noted and no action required. -Qu6- Borderline score 1 or 2 regular buses to Howden, Goole, 6 Accession analysis checked and score of 1 is correct Selby & York. -Qu7- Agree with ERYC assessment 7 Noted and no action required. -Qu8- Low flood risk 8 No action required as low flood risks are recognised in the assessment. SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question -Qu9- Agree with ERYC assessment 9 Noted and no action required. Qu10- (0) No effect on SSSI. Gardens for new houses would 10 No action required. No evidence to suggest that housing and probably offer better wildlife habitats than existing arable gardens would be any better for biodiversity than an arable field. field. Qu11- (+) Mature Trees and hedgerow to East of site to be 11 No action required. Score already takes into account the retained. retention of vegetation. -Qu12- Agree with ERYC assessment 12 Noted and no action required. -Qu13- (0) Incursion to open countryside. However 13 No action required. Although development would fit the linear development would be a natural extension to existing linear pattern, it would still extend the village into the open development and would fit in well with existing village countryside. structure -Qu14- (0) Currently arable field- low landscape value. Houses 14 Existing use as arable field has already been taken account of. opposite. Qu15- Agree with ERYC assessment 15 Noted and no action required. -Qu16- Agree with ERYC assessment 16 Noted and no action required. -Qu17- Agree with ERYC assessment 17 Noted and no action required. Qu18- (0) Sewage works not relevant as many houses are 18 400m buffer from the waste water treatment works has been much closer and do not have any problems used as standard across all site assessments to indicate potential areas of concern for potential housing sites. -Qu19- Agree with ERYC assessment 19 Noted and no action required. -Qu20- Agree with ERYC assessment 20 Noted and no action required. -Qu21- Agree with ERYC assessment. May be an opportunity to 21 Noted and no action required. include some green energy scheme once a developer is brought fully on board. -Qu22- Agree with ERYC assessment 22 Noted and no action required. SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question -Qu23- Agree with ERYC assessment 23 No action required. 400m buffer from the waste water treatment works has been used as standard across all site assessments to indicate potential areas of concern for potential housing sites. Qu24-30 Agree with ERYC assessment 24 - 30 Noted and no action required. BUB10 The site represents a logical and modest expansion to the south General of the village. The site is flanked on either side by residential properties. The use of the site for residential development would represent a more compatible use with surrounding properties than the haulage yard which currently occupies the site. Score for accessibility by Public Transport should be 6 Score produced in accordance with the SAM and using accession increased to 4 software. No action required Would remove an existing "bad neighbour" use. On this basis 18 Assessment score amended to (+++) we feel that the site should score (+++) as opposed to (0). A reduction in traffic volumes would result in an improvement 25 Score of (0) is considered justified as whilst there would be a to the capacity of the highway network. Score should be (+). change in the nature of the traffic using the access, this is reflected in the positive score for Q18. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33

Carnaby (Employment Sites) Fact Check Responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question CAR2 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. CAR3 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. CAR5 Revised land bid submitted showing larger site which abuts 1/13 Additional site has been assessed. boundary of existing Carnaby Industrial Estate.

Cherry Burton Fact Check Responses

Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question All sites Additional development in the village will increase run off to an 8 The requirement for drainage improvements to support already inadequate drainage system. The recently completed development has been considered through the Infrastructure Canada Drive flood avoidance scheme may have increase flow Delivery Plan in the Strategy Document. rates to the North Drain, increasing the future risk of flooding in Elm Drive when the limited capacity of the drain is reached - further development will only exacerbate this. There is also concern about the extra pressure that development would put on the sewage pumping station. Cherry Burton only has a limited bus service to/from Beverley. 6 Bus services to/from the village were taken into account when Busses to Market Weighton are only accessible from Bishop devising the Settlement Network in the Strategy Document. Burton (>1 mile on road with no footpath and dangerous bends). Cherry Burton is 4 miles from Beverley - walking is not a practical 7 Pedestrian and cycle connections to Beverley were taken into option and cycling is hazardous due to the high traffic flows on account when devising the Settlement Network in the Strategy the B1248. The cycle path is barely practical to use because of Document. punctures caused by the thorn hedge that runs parallel to it. Concern about any additional traffic that would be generated by 25 Noted. future development. Community facilities are limited, and would not support an 27 Noted. Additional development may increase the viability of increase in population. existing community facilities. Development should be focused on family homes, and due to The Strategy Document requires a mix of housing, including poor public transport provision the village is not compatible with affordable housing, when sites are developed. a high proportion of affordable housing. CHER1 Scale only in keeping with village is this is the only site selected. 1/9 Allocations Document will only allocate enough sites to meet the Strategy Document Housing requirement. Un-attenuated additional storm flow from this site would 2/8 Policy would require provision of adequate measures to deal with increase the risk of a repeat in the flooding seen in the village in surface water run-off from any site. 2007. Site is greenfield 5 Draft Assessment noted this. Site is a significant walk from any of the bus stops on Main Street 6 Draft Assessment based on Accession outputs Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question Site is a significant walk from Main Street facilities - involving 7 Draft Assessment based on Accession outputs. slopes that are not pedestrian/cycle friendly. Traffic around the sports field at weekends would threaten safety of pedestrians. Development would result in a loss of natural habitats, 10/11 Draft assessment notes trees and hedgerows on boundary could be particularly if trees are affected. retained. However, impact on trees may be increased in order to provide access. Comments updated to reflect this. Would detract from the open aspect views of dwellings on The 13/14 Views from individual properties are not a planning consideration. Meadows. Noise from users of adjacent sports field at evenings/weekends 18 Good tree belt between site and playing fields as well as changing may create nuisance (Parish Council) room building. No considered to be an issue. Add comments to site assessment. Development would be focused on family homes to help sustain 23 Strategy Document encourages a mix of dwellings on all sites. the village school Significant traffic/car parking pressure on neighbouring streets 25 Access arrangements not clear but Meadows would be capable of at weekends from users of sports field - access from the accommodating the additional traffic associated with a site of this Meadowns would threaten safety of pedestrians. 3 blind bends size. on the Meadows also restrict visibility. Access cannot be provided from The Meadows due to a 25/31 Comments added to assessment sheet restrictive covenant imposed by the original development of that housing development. Access could be obtained by the demolition of 125 The 25 Comments added to assessment sheet Meadows if necessary. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. CHER2 Development would be visually outside the village boundaries 1/9 No change required - Site is physically adjacent to the existing and not in keeping with the scale of development proposed for development limits (visual impact is noted in question 13). the village. Allocations Document will only allocate enough sites to meet the strategy document housing requirement. Site is greenfield 5 Draft Assessment noted this. Reasonable walking distance to Main Street bus stops but not 6/7 Draft Assessment based on Accession outputs existing footpaths on Etton Road The SW of this site is periodically 'flooded' by storm water flows 8 Southern part of this site only suggested for allocation. Strategy Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question from the rest of the village - and currently provides some Policy would require the run-off rate to be restricted. No changes attenuation as a grass field. Development would reduce the level proposed. of protection provided by the recent Canada Drive flood protection measures (Parish Council) Bulk of the site would be obviously outside the village 13/14 Draft Assessment notes that site would extend built form out on boundaries, and would detract from the perception of open rising land and this section is not is not well related. Views from countryside as you leave the village. Would detract from open existing properties are not a planning consideration. aspect views of dwellings on Canada Drive. Development would be focused on family homes to help sustain 23 Strategy Document encourages a mix of dwellings on all sites. the village school On the southern part of the site there is a small EA borehole 31-33 Noted in Site Assessment (shown on plan submitted with fact check response) which they have licence to access, but this access route could be varied. Otherwise no constraints and deliverable within 5 years CHER3 Scale only in keeping with scale of village if developed over a 1/9 Allocations Document will only allocate enough sites to meet the number of years. Site is outside the village boundaries. strategy document housing requirement. Site is adjacent to existing development limit. Site is greenfield 5 Draft Assessment noted this. Reasonable walking distances to Main Street bus stops 6/7 Draft Assessment based on Accession outputs Un-attenuated additional storm flow from this site would 2/8 Strategy Policy would require the run-off rate to be restricted. No increase the risk of a repeat in the flooding seen in the village in changes proposed. 2007. Would detract from open aspect of dwellings on Canada Drive. 13 Views from existing properties are not a planning consideration Development would be focused on family homes to help sustain 23 Strategy Document encourages a mix of dwellings on all sites. the village school Access from Canada Drive is of limited capacity and frequently 25 The local highway network has the capacity to accommodate congested with parked cars additional flows to serve this size of site. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years (owner) 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment.

Cottingham Fact Check Response

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question COT2 - No insurmountable constraints 31 - 33 Site assessment updated - Only western part of the site is owned by HCC - Deliverable in 5 -15 years Site should be scored (+++) 9 The site is located in the strategy open gap between - Not in Flood Zone Anlaby and Cottingham and development would - Would provide a variety of housing significantly encroach into this gap. - Opportunity to enhance green infrastructure Site should be scored (0) 13 The site is located in the strategy open gap between - adjacent to development limit Anlaby and Cottingham and development would - development would not result in coalescence significantly encroach into this gap. - no protected buildings on the site - the council will not achieve their housing requirement if the open gap is not developed. Site is defined as medium to high sensitivity: characteristics 14 The site is located in the strategy open gap between of landscape are vulnerable to change and development can Anlaby and Cottingham and development would be absorbed only in limited locations. significantly encroach into this gap. Site should be scored (0) - the councils scoring has not been 24 Comments noted justified and is therefore unsound. - No insurmountable constraints 31 - 33 Site assessment updated - Deliverable in 5 -15 years COT3 The playingfields are leased from Hull City Council 31 - 33 Site assessment updated - No insurmountable constraints 31 - 33 Site assessment updated - majority of the site is in single ownership by HCC - Deliverable in 5 -15 years COT4 No constraints, deliverable in 5 -15 years 31 - 33 Site assessment updated

COT5 The site requires access to Hull Road, Hull University are 31 - 33 Site assessment updated currently investigating methods to gain access

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question Deliverable subject to access being obtained COT6 No constraints, deliverable in 5 -15 years 31 - 33 Site assessment updated Development of the site would not result in 'complete 9 & 13 The site is located in the strategy open gap between coalescence' between Cottingham and Hull. Anlaby and Cottingham and development would significantly encroach into this gap. No constraints, deliverable in 5 -15 years 31 - 33 Site assessment updated COT7 No constraints, deliverable in 5 -15 years 31 - 33 Site assessment updated

Flood Risk assessment submitted - the site levels of would 8 Score relevant according to SAM. be raised to a height of a 1 in 1000 year flood. Site is within a Haltemprice settlement and would result in 9 The site is located in the strategy open gap between an appropriate extension to the development limit. Anlaby and Cottingham and development would significantly encroach into this gap. Agree with assessment 10/11/12 Comments noted Regeneration of an underused and largely run-down site. 13 The Endyke Tyre Mart forms a small part of the proposed site. The majority of the site is open and of rural nature and forms the strategy open gap between Hull and Cottingham. Development would encroach into this gap. Housing development on the site would not result in any 14 Development would result in the loss of the strategic significant change in character. open gap. Site is within SPZ III effects can be mitigated 17 Comments noted N o constraints, deliverable in 5 -15 years 31 - 33 Site assessment updated COT10 No constraints, deliverable in 5 -15 years 31 - 33 Site assessment updated No constraints, deliverable in 5 -15 years 31 - 33 Site assessment updated COT11 Persimmon Home (Yorkshire) do not have a legal interest in Comments noted the site COT12 No constraints, deliverable in 5 -15 years 31 - 33 Site assessment updated No constraints, deliverable in 5 -15 years 31 - 33 Site assessment updated COT14 Pro-forma response received - no constraints, deliverable in 31 - 33 Site assessment updated 5 -15 years SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question COT16 No constraints, deliverable in 5 -15 years 31 - 33 Site assessment updated

COT17 Site is not Agricultural use - therefore no loss of agricultural 16 Comments noted land The site to the west is residential 19 Comments noted The proposal identifies a replacement sports facility on 22 Comments noted - amend assessment accordingly another site No constraints, deliverable in 5 -15 years 31 - 33 Site assessment updated COT21 Renewable energy would be a major consideration in any 21 Comments noted development put forward for this site The developer proposes to erect no more than 3 dwellings 25 Comments noted on the site No constraints, deliverable in 5 -15 years 31 - 33 Site assessment updated COT24 - No insurmountable constraints 31 - 33 Site assessment updated - ERYC owned, subject to a farm business tenancy until 2013 - Deliverable in 5 -15 years COT25 - no constraints 31 - 33 Site assessment updated - deliverable in 5 -15 years

COT27 - no constraints 31 - 33 Site assessment updated - deliverable in 5 -15 years COT28 The site assessment mentions the need for several trees to 11 Comment noted be removed along the frontage of the site - It may be necessary to take out one tree near the gate but otherwise they could all remain. The site has suitable access - see attached plan 25 Comment noted COT31 No constraints, deliverable in 5 -15 years 31 - 33 Site assessment updated

COT32 No constraints, an assesment of the loss of the carpark 31 - 33 Site assessment updated needs to be considered, if this is not an issues then the site will be deliverable in 5 - 15 years SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question COT33 No constraints, deliverable in 5 -15 years 31 - 33 Site assessment updated

COT34 This site was not put forward for consideration Site assessment updated

COT37 Not clear who owns this land and it is remote from the 31 - 33 Site assessment updated settlement COT39 Site owned by Hull CC 31 - 33 Site assessment updated

COT39 No constraints, deliverable in 5 -15 years 31 - 33 Site assessment updated

COT40 The title prevents change of use for other uses than open 31 - 33 Site assessment updated space unless market value is paid to the original owner, therefore negotiation of release of the covenant would be required. If this can be overcome - deliverable in 5 -15 years COT41 - No insurmountable constraints 31 - 33 Site assessment updated - Deliverable in 5 -15 years COT42 - No insurmountable constraints 31 - 33 Site assessment updated - Deliverable in 5 -15 years COT45 - No insurmountable constraints 31 - 33 Site assessment updated - Deliverable in 5 -15 years COT49 - No insurmountable constraints 31 - 33 Site assessment updated - Deliverable in 5 -15 years COT50 - No insurmountable constraints 31 - 33 Site assessment updated - Deliverable in 5 -15 years COT51 Comments made regarding: 1-33 Comments noted - Site appraisal - School capacity - Accessibility COT52 - No known insurmountable constraints (there are SPZ 31 - 33 Site assessment updated constraints and south of site is being used for a flood SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question alleviation scheme). - Deliverable in 5 -15 years COT53 - No insurmountable constraints 31 - 33 Site assessment updated - Deliverable in 5 -15 years

Driffield Fact Check Responses

Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question General Facts for all sites are correct Comment noted comment DRF3 Could you please amend the proposed site N/A Noted. The boundaries of the site have already been updated and boundary so that it includes Beechwood Lane in its are indicated on the Policies Map. entirety from the bottom where it adjoins Riverhead/Anderson Street to the edge of the proposed site at the top. We would disagree with the comment that 25 Score against this question has already been revised from (----) to Beechwood Lane is not suitable for access in its (0). The comment against the question has been revised to make present form and appears to be privately owned reference to the fact that there is the potential for highway and is not shown to be within the proposed site improvements to be secured. therefore no way to secure improvements. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated DRF4 Disagreement regarding scoring. The site is within 7 Scores have been calculated using Accession software. Scores for both walking and cycling distance of the town employment sites at Kellythorpe are calculated differently to centre, leisure facilities, the nearest primary and residential uses. Those do score lower. secondary school. Score should not be the same as the Kellythorpe site which is much further way in addition to having a bypass to navigate. The site would not have a detrimental impact on 9 This question is concerned with the impact of potential the surroundings of the town as much as the site development on the vision and sub area policies for Driffield in cannot be seen from Wansford Road and on the the Strategy Document. Development of this site would not contrary would open up this area for the town to respect and enhance the landscape surrounding town. enjoy canal side facilities. Do not understand why development would not support and enhance the town vision. The trees on the site are not protected; there is no 11 It would be unlikely all the trees on site could be retained. A (0) reason why they can't be retained. The pond is score would only be appropriate where they was certainty there manmade and is not known to have any protected would be no effect on the existing trees. The presence of Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question species. protected species is covered by question 10 of the Site Assessment Methodology. The "Out Gang" is not currently enjoyed by anyone 12 The site would have an adverse impact on the setting of the and there is no access to it. Sensitive development Conservation Area resulting from the loss of the open pastoral between Out Gang and Wansford Road could open fields known as the 'Outgang'. The Conservation Area appraisal for up the Out Gang area for public use in conjunction Driffield South states that the Outgang is an important area of with the vision of the regeneration of Driffield open green space. Navigation. DRF4 The area is not used and can only be viewed from 14 Development of this site would not respect and enhance the Wansford Road. the Medium to High Sensitivity landscape surrounding town. The characteristics of the landscape scoring is believed to be inaccurate. are considered to be vulnerable to change. No action required. We were previously graded as "scrubland" or 16 Information from DEFRA indicates the site is best and most Grade 3, therefore we believe this question to be versatile agricultural land. The most recent scoring reflects this assessed incorrectly. information. Currently there is no publicly accessible open 22 All of site is open and forms an important entrance to the town. space but should this site be developed and To retain only part following some development would be a net planned sensitively then the "Out Gang" should be loss and would conflict with the Conservation Area appraisal. No retained as a open area by the canal, presenting a changes proposed. wonderful opportunities for the town and its visitors to enjoy this area of land on this side of the canal and could enhance the plans to develop the Driffield Navigation. Response suggestions mitigation measures for tree 25 A (0) score is not appropriate as the trees on the frontage provide on the frontage restricting the visibility, e.g. the an infrastructure/access constraint. The (-) score in the draft site building line could be set back from the road, a assessment reflects the fact that significant constraints can be mini roundabout could be provided at the overcome. entrance of the town, slowing down the traffic entering the town along Wansford Road. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. All 31-33 Site assessment updated. landowners are co-operative and will elect a spokesperson/agent to progress this process. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question DRF5 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. The site is agricultural quality grade 3. 16 Site assessment updated to reflect that the site is in fact grade 3. DRF8 Why do the fact checking sheets show such a high 5 Site assessment to be updated to reflect the site is in fact almost proportion of brownfield land? DRF8 encompasses 100% greenfield land. the farm buildings and farm house of the current land owner. DRF9 Why do the fact checking sheets show such a high 5 Site assessment to be updated to reflect the site is in fact almost proportion of brownfield land? There is a dwelling 100% greenfield land. "Yew Tree House" which totals less than 1% of the entire marked area. The site is 100% greenfield land and is also classed 5 Site assessment to be updated to reflect the site is in fact almost as 'good agricultural land. This is surely the very 100% greenfield land. essence of a small farming community which prides itself on being "The Capitol of the Wolds". Wildlife - pheasants, hares, rabbits and even hawks 10 The draft site assessment notes there are records of protected are all residents of the site. species on or within 500m of the site and scores the question (--) accordingly. Increased traffic along Bridlington Road where 25 Comments updated to clarify that the Draft Allocations Document there are a nursery, two schools and the main will specify that a new principal access to the A164 will be access for the Sports Centre located. required, incorporating a vehicular link to Bridlington Road. One hundred year-old chestnut tress which have a 11 The draft site assessment acknowledges that there protected TPO against them and the one hundred year-old trees. It is considered these trees could be retained as part of the wall formerly of the old hospital. development of the site. The plans show much larger brownfield areas N/A Comment noted which would benefit the town more from being developed and would have no affect on the lives of the residents as building on this site would certainly do.

DRF11 The site is bordered on two sides by existing N/A Comments noted development and on another side by the Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question recreation ground and, as you have recognised, forms a logical development of Driffield Town, and has many advantages, not least that it is readily available for development. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated DRF12 The site is bordered on two sides by existing N/A Comments noted development and on another side by the recreation ground and, as you have recognised, forms a logical development of Driffield Town, and has many advantages, not least that it is readily available for development. DRF13 The site offers good access by foot, train and bus N/A Comments noted to surrounding areas. It has easy level access for walking to shops. The education facilities both in the state and private sectors are excellent. Good access exists for work not only in Driffield but also York, Scarborough and Hull. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. I am not 31-33 Site assessment updated. involved in any joint bid. This site is within the by-pass and ideal for N/A Comments noted residential development. DRF14 Agreed with scoring. 2 Comments noted The site score 3 despite benefiting from pedestrian 7 access to the Town Centre by footpath. Cycle paths are generally limited in Driffield but safe access is available for cyclists. Score produced using Accession software.

Safe cycle parking facilities will be included in any Score reflects what the current situation is in terms of accessibility housing scheme. The public footpath can be by walking and cycling. designed in any layout to be maintained. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question DRF14 A significant number of sites in Driffield will be 10 Comments noted within 1km of the River Hull Headwaters statutory designations. The necessary biodiversity/protected species surveys can be included as part of the planning application. The land is not considered as an area with 10 The Site Assessment Methodology takes into account records of biodiversity value and is currently used as an area protection species. Data from the North and East Yorkshire by householders and alike as a dumping ground for Ecological Data Centre indicates there are records of protected waste. species on or within 500m of the site. No action required. The land is not currently used to promote or host 11 Comment noted and site assessment amended any 'green features' A sensitive housing scheme could incorporate green features in terms of layout and design features. The site does not and has not provided spacer for 13 Comments noted and score/assessment comments adjusted to recreation and is not utilised at present there is reflect this. consequently no loss. Inappropriate location for green space. A sympathetic and high quality design could respect and enhance the character of the area. The allotment gardens no longer exist. 22 Comment noted Agreed with scoring.

Regardless of this specific site the existing 23 provision of Primary School places will need to be Noted. The infrastructure delivery plan now clarifies where future increased. investment will be required for each settlement. No action required.

Proposed use from Angus Drive. This access is 25 The draft site assessment scores this question as (0) recognising considered safe and readily available. that no access constraints have been identified. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated Additional information submitted in relation to Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question bidders ability to use local trades people DRF15 No constraints. Deliverable in 15 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated

DRF16 Agreed with scoring. 2 Comment noted

Disagreement in relation to scoring - should be 7 Score produced using Accession software. It is correct using the more than one point. The site benefits from assumptions and data contained therein. pedestrian access to the town centre by public footpath which connects the site to Kings Mill Road. Cycle paths are generally limited in Driffield but safe access will be made available for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians.

Safe cycle parking facilities will be included in any Score reflects what the current situation is in terms of accessibility housing scheme. The public footpath can be by walking and cycling. designed in any layout to be maintained. The site would contribute to the housing needs of 9 This question is concerned with the impact of potential Driffield without comprising the surrounding development on the vision and sub area policies for Driffield in landscape. the Strategy Document. Development of this site would not respect and enhance the landscape surrounding town. As this site is not within an area of high flood risk it 8 The draft site assessment notes the site is 100% Zone 1 (low is important that this site is considered a priority probability flood risk). when compared to other sites. A significant number of sites in Driffield will be 10 Data from the North and East Yorkshire Ecological Data Centre within 1km of the River Hull Headwaters statutory indicates there are records of protected species on or within designations. There are no ponds or areas of 500m of the site. wetland that could be deemed suitable for certain types of protected species. The necessary biodiversity/protected species surveys can be included as part of the planning application. Future design and layout will maintain as many 11 Comment noted Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question trees as possible and include a suitable planting scheme to ensure the natural environment is retained as much as possible. Screening will form an essential part of the high 14 Comment noted. Not considered possible to mitigate impacts by quality housing scheme. Sensitive and sustainable screen planting.. design principles will allow the landscape character to be fully respected. The existing built form to the east provides the 13 Comment noted required access which avoids the need to open the site onto the A164 bypass. Access is directly available from Sylvan Lea, Sylvan 25 Revise score and comments to (0) to reflect that access is Falls and/or Sylvan Mead and control of these available. access points is retained within the same family ownership. Sufficient visibility is provided and access is available without the need to access via A614, avoiding access onto the A614. This is not relevant as the land is not currently in 16 Land is classified as Grade 3a but score reflects any loss being of agricultural production. only minor proportions. Agreement with scoring. 18 Comment noted Agreement with scoring. 22 Comment noted Regardless of this specific site the existing 23 provision of Primary School places will need to be Noted. The infrastructure delivery plan now clarifies where future increased. investment will be required for each settlement.

No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated Additional information submitted in relation to bidders ability to use local trades people. DRF17 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated We are cooperating with the neighbouring Alamein N/A Comment noted Barracks site to ensure a seamless and integrated development. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question DRF18 This site should be considered alongside DRF32 as N/A Comment noted the sites are fully integrated. No constraints and developable in 15 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. The flood mitigation measures/drainage options 8 Comments noted. Draft site assessment considers what the being pursued by the landowners will reduce flood current situation is in terms of flood risk. risk on the margins of the Alamein Barracks site and provide flood alleviation for downstream sites. Access can be obtained from the A164. 25 Highways have confirmed that a satisfactory access could be obtained to the site subject to some improvements being carried out – precise details to be determined later. DRF19 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated

DRF21 Not known. 31-33 Site assessment updated

DRF22 Representations relating to land at Auchinleck N/A Comments noted. Close, Kellythorpe, Driffield Site References DRF22. The site is close to the main employment centre 1 The site is remote from the main body of the settlement of for Driffield; would result in the completion of an Driffield. Only sites that are either within or adjacent to a existing housing site; and is opposite the proposed settlement have been assessed. No action required. urban extension at Alamein Barracks. The site would not conflict with the settlement network. The site is well served by public transport. 6 Reflected in draft site assessment. The Barracks and the site share the same links to 7 Score produced using Accession software. It is correct using the the town centre. The site is easily accessible on assumptions and data contained therein. Score is the same as for foot and bicycle to the Kelleythorpe Industrial the residential element of the Barracks site. Estate. We believe the site is accessible by public transport, on foot and by bike. DRF22 Agreement with scoring of this question but 8 Evidence of local flooding (2007) nearby. Comments amended questions relating to what the other sources of flooding area. The site is opposite the proposed urban extension 1 / 7 This site is not as accessible as the Barracks site in terms of Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question at Alamein Barracks and shares the same accessibility by walking and cycling. The vision for Driffield pedestrian and cycle links. The site would not prioritises sustainably located sites with good pedestrian and conflict with the settlement vision. cycling connections. The site forms part of an existing housing 13 This question considers how the site functions at present. The allocation and is opposite the Alamein Barracks draft site assessment notes that development on the site would site. Site is not isolated housing. extend existing isolated housing westward into open countryside.

The open area is considered important to soften the transition between the built up and rural area. Comments amended accordingly. The land has not been in use as agricultural land 16 Information from DEFRA / the Agricultural Land Classification for over 100 years and was previously developed indicates the site is best and most versatile agricultural land. with garages upon the land. Not grade 3a. Score reflects that there is only a minor loss. We are not aware of any protected species on site. 10 The Site Assessment Methodology takes into account records of protection species. Data from the North and East Yorkshire Ecological Data Centre indicates there are records of protected species on or within 500m of the site. No action required. Comprehensive renewal of roads and sewers was 24 Draft site assessment has been updated to take account of the undertaken by BPLE in 1992. This involved latest position with regards to infrastructure. installing two pumping stations. It is understood that the Peter Ward development improved infrastructure further. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated DRF23 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated

DRF32 This site should be considered alongside DRF18 as N/A Comment noted the sites are fully integrated. The flood mitigation measures/drainage options 8 Comments noted. Draft site assessment considers what the being pursued by the landowners will reduce flood current situation is in terms of flood risk. risk on the margins of the Alamein Barracks site and provide flood alleviation for downstream sites. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question No constraints and developable in 15 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated DRF34 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated

DRF35 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated

DRF36 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated

DRF37 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated

DRF38 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated

Easington Fact Check Responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question EAS1 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated EAS3 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated Suitable for infill development and has good General Not infill as site too deep and not predominantly built up frontage. highway access. Development already taken EAS4 place No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated

Eastrington Fact Check Responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question ETR1 State that a score of 0 is inaccurate for these sites 7 Accession software has produced this score fro all sites in ETR2 Eastrington in accordance with SAM. No changes proposed. ETR4 States that screening boundaries would mitigate the impact 13/14 Sites would either extend out into open land or be poorly related ETR7 the development of these sites has on the settlement and the to the existing built form. Screening would not alter this. Other, ETR8 landscape character. States that ETR8 can be restricted to be more suitable, sites have been possible to identify. No changes kept in line with existing housing along the High Street. proposed. Sites have no constraints and are deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated ETR3 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated ETR5 Suggest single track road used for the sewage pumping station 25 Would not be suitable to serve a residential development. can be used for access No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated ETR6 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated ETR8 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated

Elloughton-cum-Brough Fact Check Responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question Not clear what settlement network is being 1 Appears to be confusion on behalf of response in respect of the used – ECB is multi-centred. settlements (Elloughton cum Brough) and its centres (Brough and Elloughton). The settlement (Elloughton cum Brough) is the basis for this question irrespective of the number or location of its centres. Flood risk and coastal change question fails to 3 Surface water issues are considered in question 8 and drainage take into account surface water flows from issues through question 24 higher ground. Concern that Authority believes only minor 26 Comments noted improvements necessary – already major concern over traffic congestion. Only 2 main access points to the settlement. Enterprise Zone General status could generate significant traffic movements. Need to demand funding from developers for a link to the grade separated junction at Melton. There is no public car park provision in EcB and 25 Comments noted on-street parking is both limited and restricted – a wholly unacceptable situation for a Town now approaching 12,000 population. Access to popular rail station is through 26 Comments noted inadequate road network adding to congestion and parking problems. General supporting information and site details General Comments noted provided Land is covered in glasshouses and effectively 16 Glasshouses are not included in the definition of previously ECB1 constitutes previously developed land rather developed land. than agricultural land Existing hedgerows which are habitats for 10 Score produced in accordance with SAM and advice from NEYEDC. nesting birds could be retained SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question LCA describes landscape as ordinary and more 14 Glasshouses are a typical form of development that is often found in specifically around the site as low landscape the open countryside. Their replacement with a more urban built quality with low sensitivity. The glasshouses are form of residential development would alter the character of the described as detractors. area from rural to urban. Close to Roman Road and Roman Villa but the 12 Agreed impact on the setting of the SAM is considered to be minimal. Acknowledge that appropriate design mitigation may be required as well as archaeological investigations The potential for contamination is considered 19 This will be clarified by more detailed assessments. to be low Site is not within a groundwater SPZ 17 Correct Site is not within a minerals consultation zone 20 Site is within a consultation zone. Due to its separation from residential 18 Agreed development, there are no residential amenity concerns Site is accessible to neighbourhood services and 6/7 Scores produced using Site Assessment Methodology and accession higher order services as well as employment software. opportunities along the A63 corridor Well served by existing services infrastructure 24 Comments noted Phase 1 - No constraints and deliverable in 5 31-33 Site Assessment updated years; Phase 2 – deliverable in second half of plan period. Although the land is set out as a private 22 Reference made in site assessment sporting facility the field is surplus to the club’s requirement and it is considered inappropriate ECB2 to replace the area of land with a similar facility. ECB14 could be brought into public use for play or other agreed appropriate use Close walking distance to bus depot – extensive 6 Scores produced using Site Assessment Methodology and accession ECB3 services to Hull software. SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question Close walking distance to services and facilities 7 Scores produced using Site Assessment Methodology and accession software. Potential presence of protected wildlife species 10 Score produced in accordance with Site Assessment Methodology and sites should not be a constraint to and advice from NEYEDC. development – mitigation and improvement measures could be incorporated to improve biodiversity. Site should score (0) Reserve the right to provide supplementary 16 Comments noted information on the agricultural land quality to demonstrate that it does not present a significant constraint to development The methodology considers there may be 23/24 Comments noted school and utility infrastructure constraints affecting Elloughton cum Brough. Growth is necessary to deliver Core Strategy – funding to overcome capacity should be resolved holistically through the appropriate levels No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated ECB4 No comments received Residential use would not conform with the 1 Comments noted. Site is adjacent to settlement and so meets the Core Strategy basic requirements for this question. Agricultural buildings are quite compatible with 13/14 Agreed the agricultural setting (residential use would urbanise this part of the countryside) ECB5 Highway problems present and future – well 25 Impact on highways different for residential, employment and retail documented in Tesco application for this site development Residential use would prevent future 29 Employment potential would be affected by redevelopment. Amend business/agricultural use score to (-) No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated Residential use would not conform with the 1 Noted ECB6 Core Strategy SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question Residential use would be an intrusion into the 13/14 Agreed agricultural landscape where greenhouses are appropriate Use would result in a loss of amenity for 18 Noted residents Highway problems present and future – well 25 Impact on highways different for residential, employment and retail documented in Tesco application for the development adjoining site Residential use would prevent future 29 Employment potential would be affected by redevelopment. Amend business/agricultural use score to (-) No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated Assessment says proposed use is for General Scores mainly based on residential uses in accordance with the employment but is being considered for mixed application. uses through an application. Not clear what proposed use the assessment is based on. ECB7 section of the application is shown as General Comment noted residential rather than employment. Currently subject to an outline applications with General Comment noted ECB8 for mixed use development (should be referred to in assessment). Will deliver significant infrastructure and enhancement ECB7 measures. EIA confirms no constraints to development General Comment noted subject to appropriate mitigation Development of site wholly consistent with 9 Score amended vision as per Core Strategy – would support the delivery of the Core Strategy vision and sub area policies – and should be ranked accordingly Completion of Brough Relief Road would 13 Comment noted significantly improve accessibility to the site and SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question connectivity to the settlement Conditions attached to planning permission 21 This would only meet the expected standards as required in the require a 10% reduction in energy use through Strategy Document to reduce energy needs. A positive score can the adoption of renewable or low carbon only be given in the Site Assessment Methodology where proposals sources/energy efficiency measures. Given that can demonstrate that these levels will be exceeded. the requirement for energy use reduction will be encapsulated into any permission we would recommend that the site be given a positive ranking against this question. Access to site will be via ECB8. Ongoing 25 Comment noted negotiations with HA and ERYC Highway Officers expected to be resolved shortly. The proposed development would deliver a range of significant network infrastructure improvements (e.g. Relief Road, new roundabout at Welton Road/A63) as well as Travel Plans. Site is proposed for housing so recommend a 30 Score is already same as ECB8 positive ranking be given against this question and suggest a similar wording to that for ECB8 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated Concern over lack of public open space 22 Comment relates to planning application Apparent lack of provision for extra school 23 Comment relates to planning application places Exceptional highway problems anticipated 25 Comment noted Community facilities proposed are possibly 27 Comment relates to planning application ECB8 inadequate Currently subject to an outline applications with General Comment noted ECB7 for mixed use development (should be referred to in assessment). Will deliver significant infrastructure and enhancement SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question measures. EIA confirms no constraints to development General subject to appropriate mitigation The development limit in the Beverley Borough 1 Amend to state site is wholly within development limit Local Plan is a drafting error and therefore the assessment should clarify that the site is wholly within the limit ECB8 includes the extent of the former BAE 5 Score amended to 3 Systems airfield which should be classed as brownfield land. It has not reverted back to its natural state. This categorisation is confirmed in the recent planning committee report. The score should be revised to 3 (60% greenfield; 40% brownfield). Should note that suitable platform levels have 8 Comment noted been agreed with the EA in order to address flood risk issues. Sequential and exceptions test passed through application. Development of site wholly consistent with 9 Score amended vision as per Core Strategy – would support the delivery of the Core Strategy vision and sub area policies – and should be ranked accordingly Application site excludes the area of woodland 11 Amend text at Oakland Plantation and as such no adverse effects are anticipated Ongoing negotiations with HA and ERYC 25 Comment noted Highway Officers expected to be resolved shortly. The proposed development would deliver a range of significant network infrastructure improvements (e.g. Relief Road, SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question new roundabout at Welton Road/A63) as well as Travel Plans. Retail impact studies submitted with application 28 Score is already (0) demonstrate no adverse impacts and confirmed by Council’s advisors. Mix and scale of uses fixed via development brief and condition. Therefore, neutral ranking recommended. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated ECB9 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated ECB11 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated Confirm site should be specifically considered General Text has been amended to explain relationship for recreation use as part of a residential allocation on ECB2 ECB14 As part of ECB2, this allocation will be a positive General Comment noted addition to the facilities in the area No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated Intensifying residential use would lead to 18 Comment noted ECB16 conflict with agri/industrial use opposite No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated Forms part of the land subject to planning General Comment noted application for ECB7 and ECB8 (blue line ownership). Will accommodate drainage infrastructure works. Part of ECB17 falls into the red line plan of the General Site boundaries of ECB8 and ECB17 amended to reflect extent of red application and will provide areas required for line application and land outside application site ECB17 mitigation and enhancement in respect of the development of ECB7 and ECB8 (strip of land encompassing existing culvert which will be opened up) – comments repeated for completeness No substantive development proposed – EIA 2 Comment noted SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question confirms no significant adverse effect upon the RAMSAR site or other sites of biodiversity or geological value. Flood defence bunding will be managed as an ecological enhancement area Should note that suitable platform levels have 8 Comment noted been agreed with the EA in order to address flood risk issues. Sequential and exceptions test passed through application. Development of site wholly consistent with 9 Comment noted vision as per Core Strategy – would support the delivery of the Core Strategy vision and sub area policies – and should be ranked accordingly Application site excludes the area of woodland 11 Amend text at Oakland Plantation and as such no adverse effects are anticipated Conditions attached to planning permission 21 See comments above for ECB8 require a 10% reduction in energy use through the adoption of renewable or low carbon sources/energy efficiency measures. Given that the requirement for energy use reduction will be encapsulated into any permission we would recommend that the site be given a positive ranking against this question. Ongoing negotiations with HA and ERYC 25 Comment noted Highway Officers expected to be resolved shortly. The proposed development would deliver a range of significant network infrastructure improvements (e.g. Relief Road, new roundabout at Welton Road/A63) as well as Travel Plans. SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question Retail impact studies submitted with application 28 N/A demonstrate no adverse impacts and confirmed by Council’s advisors. Mix and scale of uses fixed via development brief and condition. Therefore, neutral ranking recommended. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated

Flamborough Fact Check Responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question FLA1 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. FLA2 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. FLA4 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. Pond to frontage to be contributed to Site assessment Q11 score should be changed to (0) to reflect the community along with provision of additional 11 FLA5 fact that the existing pond can be retained. public open space. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. The site is to be included in the revised The site is adjacent to the Conservation Area . The draft assessment FLA5 Conservation Area for Flamborough. This should 12 will be updated to reflect this. The site does not fall within the be reflected in the site assessment. current Conservation Area (boundary designated 1974). The site assessment notes the site is adjacent to the existing The site is to be included in the revised Conservation Area. The site does not fall within the current Conservation Area for Flamborough. This should 12 FLA6 Conservation Area (boundary designated 1974). Change to score be reflected in the site assessment. and comments as development of site could affect setting. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. Land now in separate ownerships. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. Site assessment acknowledges that the existing features can be Boundary hedgerows can be retained. 11 retained. No action required. Score should be amended to (+) given the Difficult to identify how the development would enhance the opportunity to complement and enhance the 12 Conservation Area to justify a (+) score as site is adjacent but not FLA7 adjoining Conservation Area. prominent. No change proposed. Score should be amended to (+) given the Conservation Area impact is taken into account into account in opportunity to complement and enhance the 13 Question 12 therefore no action required. No change adjoining Conservation Area. Land bid confirms long established access is 25 Site assessment updated to clarify that access has been identified. available from Flaen Close. FLA8 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. FLA9 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. Comments made with regard to SAM scoring for FLA11 All Site under threshold so not assessed. the site.

Gilberdyke/Newport Fact Check Responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question GIL1 -GIL1 is accessible via two routes, which are both owned by 25 Site Assessment to be updated ourselves. One being the access road to the Ings View Sport and Leisure Facilities, which is adjacent to GIL1. The other being via GIL2 onto Sandholme Road. - No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated

-GIL1 is accessible via two routes, which are both owned by 25 Site Assessment to be updated to reflect possible access to GIL1 ourselves. One being the access road to the Ings View Sport using the site. and Leisure Facilities, which is adjacent to GIL1. The other GIL2 being via GIL2 onto Sandholme Road. -No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated GIL3 -Access to the site would have to be considered/ worked on in 25 Site Assessment to be updated full and planned appropriately. Request that the whole of the Santoft site be included Noted and we will amend the site boundary accordingly (and as promised previously). Peter Ward Homes Ltd disputes the scoring of 3 given on the 5 Score of 2 is correct, especially as the buildings on site are former site's Greenfield and Brownfield ratio. The explanatory text agricultural buildings. and site schedules for Gilberdyke identifies that GIL3 is made up of Approximately 60% Greenfield 40% Brownfield, this would score the site as a 3 not a 2. My client highlights that the site is in walking distance to rail 7 Noted but no action required as public transport accessibility is services, providing access to services and facilities with Hull, considered in question 6. Goole, York and Selby within a 45 minute train journey away. SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question The site has scored a (--) Consider that the site assessment 10 Assessment of this site is in line with assessments carried out for scoring should be (-). other sites. Unless more detailed evidence is presented to us showing there are no legally protected species on site we cannot change the score. The site has received a (-) for compatibility with surrounding 18 The score against this question purely because there are other uses, based on the proximity of the site to the potato existing residential uses adjacent to the potential source of merchants. This scoring does not seem to take account of the noise/disturbance. existing residential use surrounding the potatoes merchant and the GIL3 site. My client therefore considers that the site assessment scoring should be revised to (0) for question 18. The site has received a (0) for providing accessible open space, 22 Unless firm evidence is presented to us showing how accessibility green infrastructure, recreation facilities or a public right of to or provision of public open space is to be improved as part of way. However, my client believes the site should be awarded a development we are unable to change the standard assessment (+) as development would create opportunities for public open against this question. space, therefore improving the access to public open space. -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. A planning 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated application is being prepared (Peter Ward Homes) GIL4 -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated GIL5 -If the field to the left or right is given planning we would like Noted although if either side was not given planning consent, our land to be included as we wouldn't want to live there and would this mean that the interest in developing the land would would be forced to move. be withdrawn? If access was up Skillbeck Lane past our house this is private 25 Noted. land through the ‘Ballasize Award’ (unclear handwriting) -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated GIL7 -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated GIL8 -Still interested in maintaining land bid 32, 33 Site Assessment to be updated GIL9 -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated GIL10 -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question GIL11 -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated GIL13 -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated GIL14 -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated GIL15 -Northern part of the site is owned by someone else and there 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated is doubt over whether he is aware of the proposal. -No constraints and would be deliverable in 5 years on remainder. GIL21 - An ideal 'infill' site. It is close to all facilities and amenities- 6 & 7 No action as we have taken these factors into account shops, school, village hall & playing field and is a short walk to the station and medical centre. The bus service is close to hand. -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated GIL22 The proposed development could either incorporate the Noted existing lake into the design or it could be fully or partially ‘back filled’ to increase the developable footprint. The area along the southern boundary of the site directly 11, 10, 13 Noted adjacent to the business units to the south could be used as access to the eastern end of the site. This boundary also has a substantial mature tree line that would be retained as it acts as a natural screen between the site and the business area. The design will seek to use modern energy saving options 18 Noted including underground heat sourcing, top water recovery for residential use where legislation allows and green energy such as solar. The frontage is more than 11 metres which is adequate for an 25 Noted access to the proposed site area. - No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question NEW1 The land has been granted planning permission for residential 31-33 Noted – site is shown as a commitment. development and request that this land continues to be included within the Allocations Document. - No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. Site Assessment to be updated NEW5 -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated NEW10 -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. Updated site 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated. Site area to be updated area. NEW11 -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated NEW13 -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated NEW14 -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated NEW15 -Site adjacent to significant distribution complex should 1 & 18 Settlement Network is defined by the Strategy Document, and mitigate non conformity with settlement network and allocations for employment uses are being made on the Key compatibility with neighbouring uses. Employment Sites or in settlements at Town level and above. Site -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Assessment to be updated

Goole Fact Check Responses

Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question GOO1 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years, 31-33 Site assessment updated. subject to an appropriate phasing scheme to develop GOO2 first or simultaneously alongside GOO1. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. We 31-33 Site assessment updated. are happy for the plot to be part of a more comprehensive development project. GOO2 No constraints and deliverable in 10 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. Whilst we recognise there are constraints in Comment noted. No action required. relation to flood risk these are not insurmountable. Access to the site is available from Rawcliffe 25 Comment noted. No action required. Road and Shaftsberry Avenue. The owner is willing to work with the adjoining 31-33 Comment noted. No action required. owners in promoting the whole of GOO2 for residential development. The site lies within the natural urban area of the 31-33 Comment noted. No action required. town bounded as it is to the south by Rawcliffe Road Industrial Estate. GOO2, and the eastern part in particular, are situated in an accessible, sustainable location close to the town centre. GOO2 and GOO1 appear to be at less risk from 31 Comment noted. No action required. flooding than the other sites around Goole. No ownership or market constraints. The 32 Comment noted. Council should be flexible in its approach to on- site and off-site contributions, recognising that market conditions will change over time. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question GOO3 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated.

GOO4 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated.

GOO5 Score should be 3 not 2. 7 Score produced in accordance with SAM and accession software. No change proposed.

There is a known flood risk for this site, but 8 The potential risk of flooding in Goole has been a very important Table 3 of the SAM indicates an exception test factor in determining the sites that are most suitable for is required for residential development - see development. The Draft Allocations Document allocates the part of previous correspondence which highlights the this site that is outside the area at greatest risk from flooding or a technical feasibility of providing an acceptable breach of the flood defences. The draft site assessment considers flood resilient design - this should be what the current situation is in terms of flood risk. Individual recognised. schemes can always submit more detailed assessments. No action required. This level of conflict is overstated in light of 9 See response above. No action required. comments at Q8 above. This should be scored as a (+++) given the 11 The draft site assessment has not identified any natural features potential for enhancing the natural important for wildlife or landscape character on this site that could environment. be enhanced as part of the development of the site. Individual schemes can always submit more detailed assessments. No action required. This impact can be mitigated by provision of a 13 Comment noted. The draft assessment score of (-) recognises that landscaped buffer zone on the northern any significant impact on existing built character can be mitigated. boundary of the site. No action required. See Q13 above. 14 The comment is premature and cannot be 21 Comment noted. Individual schemes can always submit more justified at this stage. information to demonstrate the development would exceed energy efficiency standards and/or meet an additional proportion of its energy requirements from decentralised and renewable or very low carbon technologies. No action required. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question The comment is too negative- there is 22 Comment noted. Individual schemes can always submit more significant opportunity to improve public open information to demonstrate the development would create space provision - the score should be (+) or opportunities for new open space. No action required. better. The commentary is premature in advance of 27 Comment noted. Individual schemes can always submit information detailed design. demonstrating a new viable or sustainable community facility would be provided through the development of the site. No action required. The commentary should reflect the indirect 29 Comment noted. Individual schemes can always submit information benefit to the local economy. demonstrating the development would contribute to achieving the aims of a recognised regeneration strategy / plan and would have an identifiable benefit for the area. No action required. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. Near to recent development so likely be attractive to the market. GOO6 Peter Ward Homes Ltd disputes the scoring of 7 Scores produced using Accession software. Score correct using the site's accessibility by walking and cycling. A agreed methodology. No action proposed. total score of 22 results in a points allocation of 2 not 1 as indicated in the fact checking.

'More vulnerable' residential use can be located 8 The draft site assessment considers what the current situation is in within the site subject to appropriate design terms of flood risk. Individual schemes can always submit more solutions. detailed assessments. No action required. The place statement does not state that all new 9 The potential risk of flooding in Goole has been a very important development will be sited in lower risk areas. As factor in determining the sites that are most suitable for such the development of GOO6 would not development. Part of the site is in an area at greatest risk from explicitly undermine the vision for Goole. My flooding or a breach of the flood defences. The Strategy Document client considers that the site assessment scoring looks to direct allocations to areas of relatively lower flood risk and should be revised to (0). avoid areas where there would be a significant risk if the flood defences were breached. No action required. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question The site is located adjacent to the settlement 13/14 Site split to reflect flood risk and landscape intrusion issues. Scores edge, enclosed on two sides by built form at for GOO6 improved. Carr Lane. It does not possess any particular quality or function in its own right and is not publicly accessible. The site is capable of accommodating a sensitively designed residential scheme without detracting from the existing built character of significantly changing the landscape character. My client therefore considers that the site assessment scoring should be revised to (-) for questions 13 and 14. The methodology considers that there may be 24/25 Comment noted. No action required. school or utility infrastructure constraints affecting Goole. Funding to overcome capacity constraints should be resolved holistically through the appropriate levies. My client reserves the right to provide evidence 25 Comment noted. to demonstrate that development on the site would not have an adverse impact on the highway network, particularly the A614. My client considers that aspirations, which are 29 Comment noted. Individual schemes can always submit information yet to be determined if they are feasible or demonstrating the development would contribute to achieving the deliverable, for the wider northern area of aims of a recognised regeneration strategy / plan and would have Goole as set out in the draft Renaissance Plan an identifiable benefit for the area. No action required. should not compromise the delivery of sustainable development through the Development Plan. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. GOO8 Score should be 3 not 2. 7 Scores produced using Accession software. Score correct using agreed methodology. No action proposed. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question There is a known flood risk for this site, but 8 The potential risk of flooding in Goole has been a very important Table 3 of the SAM indicates an exception test factor in determining the sites that are most suitable for is required for residential development - see development. The site is within an area of highest flood risk. If the previous correspondence which highlights the flood defences were breached the flood risk would either be technical feasibility of providing an acceptable significant or extreme. The draft site assessment considers what the flood resilient design - this should be current situation is in terms of flood risk. Individual schemes can recognised. always submit more detailed assessments. No action required. This level of conflict is overstated in light of 9 The potential risk of flooding in Goole has been a very important comments at Q8 above. factor in determining the sites that are most suitable for development. Part of the site is in an area at greatest risk from flooding or a breach of the flood defences. The Strategy Document looks to direct allocations to areas of relatively lower flood risk and avoid areas where there would be a significant risk if the flood defences were breached. No action required. This should be scored as a (+++) given the 11 The draft site assessment has not identified any natural features potential for enhancing the natural important for wildlife or landscape character on this site that could environment. be enhanced as part of the development of the site. Individual schemes can always submit more detailed assessments. No action required. This commentary is premature - an appropriate 13 Comment noted. The draft assessment score of (-) recognises that layout can avoid a negative impact - see any significant impact on existing built character can be mitigated. previous correspondence. No action required. With an appropriate layout to screen the 14 Area has high sensitivity to development – landscaping would not development and enhanced landscaping the mitigate such impact. No changes proposed. score should be (0). The comment is premature and cannot be 21 Comment noted. Individual schemes can always submit more justified at this stage. information to demonstrate the development would exceed energy efficiency standards and/or meet an additional proportion of its energy requirements from decentralised and renewable or very low carbon technologies. No action required. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question This comment is not accepted - with an 22 A negative weighting is applied where development of site would appropriate layout and design the score should result in the loss or an adverse affect on existing facilities (in this be (+). case, a Local Nature Reserve and Public Right of Way). Individual schemes can always submit more information to demonstrate the development could mitigate significant impacts on existing facilities. No action required. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. Near to recent development so likely be attractive to the market. GOO15 The development of the site would involve General Comment noted. consultation with adjoining land owners to gain access. Site identified for possible affordable housing in the Renaissance Plans. The plan states that the site will be included in the LDF but delivered with the design features set out by Goole Renaissance for better integration. No insurmountable constraints and deliverable 31-33 Site assessment updated. in 5 years if work with adjoining land owners occurs. GOO17 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. Planning application pending on the site. GOO20 This score is incorrect as the site is partly 5 Comment noted. The site assessment will be amended to accurately brownfield - see your comments at Q19 - the reflect the presence of previously developed land. score should be 2.

This score should be 3 not 2. 7 Scores produced using Accession software. Score correct using agreed methodology. No action proposed. There is known flood risk on this site, but Table 8 The potential risk of flooding in Goole has been a very important 3 of the SAM indicates an exception test is factor in determining the sites that are most suitable for required for residential development - see development. The site is located outside the area that is at greatest Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question previous correspondence which highlights the risk from flooding or a breach of flood defences. The draft site wider sustainability and regeneration benefits assessment considers what the current situation is in terms of flood of developing this site for housing, and the risk. Individual schemes can always submit more detailed technical feasibility of providing an acceptable assessments. No action required. flood resilient design - both these factors should be recognised. This level of conflict is overstated in light of 9 The potential risk of flooding in Goole has been a very important comments at Q8 above. factor in determining the sites that are most suitable for development. The Strategy Document looks to direct allocations to areas of relatively lower flood risk and avoid areas where there would be a significant risk if the flood defences were breached. No action required. The level of threat to biodiversity is overstated - 10 The Site Assessment Methodology takes into account records of recent planning applications in Old Goole have protection species. A (--) score is attributed when the biodiversity not established this threat. effects are concerned with protected species, regional or local sites. Data from the North and East Yorkshire Ecological Data Centre indicates there are records of protected species on or within 500m of the site. No action required. This should be scored as (+++) given the 11 The draft site assessment identifies that the existing trees on the site potential for enhancing the natural are important for wildlife and the natural environment and that is environment. unlikely they can be retained in their entirety. Individual schemes can always submit more detailed assessments to show there would be no effect on the trees or that they can be retained. No action required. This should be scored as (+++) through the 13 The draft site assessment acknowledges the potential to enhance regeneration benefits that residential built character through sensitive development of infill/vacant land. development can bring to the wider area. Individual schemes can always submit more detailed assessments to demonstrate such an enhancement would be 'significant' . The commentary should recognise that this site 18 The draft site assessment considers that any impact associated with is further from potential hazardous sites than the site's proximity to a hazardous installation could be mitigated. other developed sites in Old Goole, and the The Site Assessment Methodology considers whether the site is Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question Local Planning Authority has previously HSE within the a HSE Consultation Zone. The distance away from a concerns on several occasions. potentially hazardous installation is not incorporated in the methodology. No action required. The comment is premature and cannot be 21 Comment noted. Individual schemes can always submit more justified at this stage. information to demonstrate the development would exceed energy efficiency standards and/or meet an additional proportion of its energy requirements from decentralised and renewable or very low carbon technologies. No action required. The commentary is too negative - there is 22 Comment noted. Individual schemes can always submit more significant opportunity to improve public open information to demonstrate the development would create space provision- the score should be (+) better. opportunities for new open space. No action required. The commentary is premature in advance of a 27 Comment noted. Individual schemes can always submit information detailed design. demonstrating a new viable or sustainable community facility would be provided through the development of the site. No action required. The score should be (+++) - see previous 29 Comment noted. Individual schemes can always submit information correspondence the commentary fails to demonstrating the development would contribute to achieving the recognise the cumulative regeneration benefits aims of a recognised regeneration strategy / plan and would have arising from several sites in Old Goole being an identifiable benefit for the area. No action required. developed. No insurmountable constraints and deliverable 31-33 Site assessment updated. in 5 years. Market is likely to be attracted by regeneration of Old Goole. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question GOO21 Whilst it is acknowledged that the site is within 8 The potential risk of flooding in Goole has been a very important an area of flood risk, we would like to point out factor in determining the sites that are most suitable for that the area within which the site is located development. The site is located within an area of highest flood risk. does benefit from flood defences and according If the flood defences were breached the flood risk would be to our clients (some of whom have lived in the significant across most of the site. area for a consideration period of time) has not flooded in living memory. If the Council wishes The draft site assessment considers what the current situation is in to provide more housing in Goole, certain terms of flood risk. Roughly half the site is located in a "dangerous compromises will be necessary. for most" area. On this basis the site has scored 6.5 points.

Individual schemes can always submit more detailed assessments. We disagree with the assessment. This is on the basis that Figure N of the recently prepared No action required. Goole SFRA clearly illustrates that he site is located in part in "dangerous for some" and in part "dangerous for most" (both assumed to be Flood Zone 3a). By our assessment therefore the site should be scored -5 as opposed to -6.5.

It is considered that locating residential development would be viable subject to appropriate flood risk mitigation measures. We are of the opinion that the site is within an 14 The development of this site would impact on the highly sensitive area of medium to high sensitivity and as such landscape. LCA indicates high sensitivity to development with should be scored (-) as opposed to (---). opportunities for limited infill only. Because the vast majority of the site is bounded 18 The Site Assessment Methodology considers if proposed by compatible uses the score (-) is development sites are located close to an existing use(s) that would inappropriate. A score of (0) is more create a possible nuisance or amenity impact. The score of (-) appropriate. recognises the potential impact and the fact that any significant impacts can be mitigated. No action required. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question Goole Town Council's footpath through the site 22 Comment noted. Individual schemes can always submit more provides the main, if not only access to the information to demonstrate the development would create playground and playing fields at South Park. The significant new opportunities for new open space, green site is deserving of a (+++). The delivery of this infrastructure, recreation facilities or a public right of way is created site would facilitate a major improvement of and public accessibility improved. No action required. this route which at present is rather intimidating and is not overlooked by an residential property. It is our view that until the Council carriers out a 25 Comment noted. Information from the Council's Highway Control traffic survey of this route a score of (0) is more Team has informed the scoring of the question. appropriate. No insurmountable constraints and deliverable 31-33 Site assessment updated. in 5 years. It will be attractive to the market given its preferable location, immediately adjacent to the existing built area of Goole. GOO22 This site contains previously developed land and 5 The draft site assessment will be amended accordingly reflecting should score 2 points. that there is roughly 20% previously developed land.

This score should be 3, not 2. 7 Scores produced using Accession software. Score correct using agreed methodology. No action proposed. There is known flood risk on this site, but Table 8 The potential risk of flooding in Goole has been a very important 3 of the SAM indicates an exception test is factor in determining the sites that are most suitable for required for residential development - see development. Part of the site has been rejected as it is within an previous correspondence which highlights the area if highest flood risk. The draft site assessment considers what wider sustainability and regeneration benefits the current situation is in terms of flood risk. Individual schemes can of developing this site for housing, and the always submit more detailed assessments. No action required. technical feasibility of providing an acceptable flood resilient design - both these factors should be recognised. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question This level of conflict is overstated in light of 9 The potential risk of flooding in Goole has been a very important comments at Q8 above. factor in determining the sites that are most suitable for development. Part of the site is in an area at greatest risk from flooding or a breach of the flood defences. The Strategy Document looks to direct allocations to areas of relatively lower flood risk and avoid areas where there would be a significant risk if the flood defences were breached. No action required. The level of threat to biodiversity is overstated - 10 The Site Assessment Methodology takes into account records of recent planning applications on nearby sites protection species. A (--) score is attributed when the biodiversity have not established this threat. effects are concerned with protected species, regional or local sites. Data from the North and East Yorkshire Ecological Data Centre indicates there are records of protected species within 500m of the site. No action required. This should be scored as a (+++) given the 11 The draft site assessment identifies the trees on the site as natural potential for enhancing the natural features important for wildlife or landscape character but recognises environment. these could be retained. Individual schemes can always submit more detailed assessments to demonstrates existing features and species are likely to be enhanced. No action required. This should be scored as (+++) through the 13 The draft site assessment acknowledges the impact associated with regeneration benefits that residential extending the built edge of Old Goole could be mitigated. development can bring to the wider area. Individual schemes can always submit more detailed assessments to demonstrate significant positive enhancement to the built character would result from the development of the site. This comment is strongly contested - the wider 14 Comment noted. Question 29 recognises that area is already severely neglected and the employment/commercial uses could benefit this (deprived area). No commentary should reflect the residential action required. benefits that residential development can bring. The commentary should recognise that this site 18 The draft site assessment considers that any impact associated with is further from potential hazardous sites than the site's proximity to a hazardous installation could be mitigated. other developed sites in Old Goole, and the The Site Assessment Methodology considers whether the site is Local Planning Authority has previously rejected within the a HSE Consultation Zone. The distance away from a Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question HSE concerns. potentially hazardous installation is not incorporated in the methodology. No action required. The comment is premature and cannot be 21 Comment noted. Individual schemes can always submit more justified at this stage. information to demonstrate the development would exceed energy efficiency standards and/or meet an additional proportion of its energy requirements from decentralised and renewable or very low carbon technologies. No action required. The commentary is too negative - there is 22 Comment noted. Individual schemes can always submit more significant opportunity to improve public open information to demonstrate the development would create space provision- the score should be (+) better. opportunities for new open space. No action required. The commentary is premature in advance of 27 Comment noted. Individual schemes can always submit information detailed design. demonstrating a new viable or sustainable community facility would be provided through the development of the site. No action required. The score should be (+++)- see previous 29 Comment noted. Question 29 recognises that correspondence - the commentary fails to employment/commercial uses could benefit this (deprived area). recognise the cumulative regeneration benefits Individual schemes can always submit information demonstrating arising from several sites in Old Goole being the development would significantly contribute to achieving the developed for housing. aims of a recognised regeneration strategy / plan and would have a significant benefit for the area. No action required. Score should be (+) as per GOO20. 30 Site assessment updated. No insurmountable constraints and deliverable 31-33 Site assessment updated. in 5 years. Market is likely to be attracted by regeneration of Old Goole. GOO23 Changed proposed use to employment. N/A The draft site assessment already makes a note of this. No action required.

No insurmountable constraints and deliverable 31-33 Site assessment updated. in 5 years. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question GOO24 Changed proposed use to employment. N/A The draft site assessment already makes a note of this. No action required.

No insurmountable constraints and deliverable 31-33 Site assessment updated. in 5 years.

GOO25 No insurmountable constraints and deliverable 31-33 Site assessment updated. in 5 years.

GOO26 An access currently exists on the northern side 25 Comment noted. No action required. of Guardian Glass connecting the loop road with our client land. We are currently putting an application together to seek a relocation of this access to a more central location north of Guardian Glass which we consider will be of overall benefit to the existing Capital Park site and to the development of our clients land. There are two restrictive covenants that may be 31-33 Comment noted. Site assessment updated. pertinent to your consideration of our site for development. We do not however consider these to be a major factor in the consideration of development potential for this site. GOO27 Former Depot site supports the Core Strategy's 31 Comments noted. Site assessment updated. vision for the re-development of Goole. The deficit in primary school places affects all sites in Goole and will have to be addressed through the LDF process. This site has a lower flood risk than other sites being considered in the Allocations DPD.

Yorkshire Electricity owns a substation on the Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question eastern edge of the site and have a Right of Way to this. This is also an easement running across the site. Goole as a whole is a high risk flood area but this site is a relatively lower risk flood area. None of these constraints are insurmountable. Site is attractive to the market and close to 32/33 Comments noted. Site assessment updated. existing housing. Yes the site is developable within the 5 year term. GOO29 No contamination from any former use. 19 The site contains an area of potentially contaminated land as it is on the site of a bus depot. the positive score attributed to this question recognises that the potential development of the site would tackle an environmental pollution problem. No action required. No insurmountable constraints and deliverable 31-33 Site assessment updated. in 5 years.

Non site specific Fact Check Responses

Fact Check Response Officer comment The Town Council is happy to accept the document is Comment noted. No action required. factually correct and that any comments made as part of the Town consultation process should be reiterated. Goole Town Council Council had previously requested that any further developments in North Ward be avoided and suggested that sites nearer to the motorway would be preferable.

Hedon Haven Fact Check Responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question The economic gain would be far outweighed by the long term 9 The Strategy Document outlines that development at this site detrimental impact that heavy commercial industry could have should be for port related uses. for the surrounding area, light industrial uses would be preferred. HAV1 Concern about siting heavy industry in close proximity to Hedon 18 Draft assessment notes potential for possible conflict and need to and Paull due to possible increases in noise, traffic, and mitigate potential impacts on Paull and Hedon. Potential role of pollution. screening in limiting/mitigating the impact of development added to reasoning in q.13 and 18

There is a fresh water pond located in the site which, according 10/11 Draft assessment notes that protected species have been recorded to a survey by Yorkshire Water, is home to great crested newt within 500m of this site. and water voles. Development will impact on the adjacent Hedon Haven, an 3/12 Hedon Haven is not a designated Scheduled Monument. Site ancient monument. assessment takes account of potential impacts that development HAV2 could have on heritage assets. Concern about loss of open space between Hedon, Paull and Salt 14 Draft Assessment takes account of this. End Substantial screening must be provided to make site acceptable. 13 Draft Assessment updated to note potential role of screening in limiting/mitigating the impact of development.

Hessle Fact Check Responses

Site SAM Officer comment Fact Check Response Question HES1 Development will affect the character of North 13 Site assessment acknowledges that the site is in the open area Ferriby and Hessle if it included significant buildings between the settlements. or structures. Their character is derived from their separation and therefore the open area between them is important. The market is currently difficult. No constraints and 31-33 Site assessment updated. deliverable within 5 years, subject to market conditions. HES2 Proposed use should be B1. general Site assessment states employment, which includes B1. Development will affect the character of North 13 Site assessment acknowledges that the site is in the open area Ferriby and Hessle if it included significant buildings between the settlements or structures. Their character is derived from their separation and therefore the open area between them is important. Highways capacity on the adjacent junction at the 25 Highways officers have considered the possibility of access and have A63 and trunk road has not been addressed. This is not objected in principle. TA would be required with any dtailed particularly important if the site is developed for application for planning permission. business use, which would create a large increase in traffic. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. HES3 Site has development on all sides so it would not be 5 Comment noted. possible to extend development in the future. Site is Greenfield but a Greenfield site nearby recently gained planning permission. Not in flood zone 8 Comment noted. Assessment indicates this. Assume you are referring to the Humber Bridge 10 Comment noted. However, site assessment does not state that Country Park. Applicant also developed features cannot be retained. Score acknowledges that there may be Hesslewood Office Park. The economic benefits mitigation measures possible. outweigh the minimal environmental impact. Site SAM Officer comment Fact Check Response Question Development would not impact on wildlife, which could be enhanced by sensitive development and planting. There are currently no trees on the site and no protected species yet scoring states that features cannot be retained No significant features 11 Comment noted. Development on neighbouring Hesslewood Office 12 Comment noted. Park won an award for the sensitive development of the site. There have been a numbers of enquiries from businesses wanting to locate to the potential site. Report refers to secluded wooded setting however 14 The site assessment acknowledges that the setting is wooded but there are no trees on the site. that the site itself is an open grass field. Site assessment comments are incorrect. Applicant 24 Infrastructure comments have been recently updated. Comments in installed a substation with capacity to develop the relation to this site are however are noted and will be added to the site. Adjacent office park also has its own sewerage revised assessment and score updated. system and the site would be serviced from a water treatment plant thus not placing additional stress on the sewerage system in Hessle. Existing neighbouring office park was developed off 25 Based on the advice of highways officers, a site must have an access the private road. The private road has the potential to the adopted highway and the private access road is not currently to accommodate the additional traffic flow. There shown to be within the land bid site. have never been problems at the junction with the public highway. Traffic flow on site is reduced by facilities that are available on site. Applicant disagrees with site assessment. Council has not opposed office development 28 National planning policy identifies office development as a town outside the town centre in principle. Hessle town centre use and town centres should be considered before out of centre does not have capacity for additional office centre development. development. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. Site SAM Officer comment Fact Check Response Question HES4 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. HES7 The only public transport would be via the local 6 The methodology for assessing accessibility is set out in the Site Town Bus which runs infrequently. Therefore site is Assessment Methodology. some distance from an adequate service. Development would support the delivery of the 9 Allocation of the site will support the vision and sub area policy. vision and sub area policy, it should score +++. Score updated. Site is adjacent to the settlement, partly PDL, has had previous residential planning consent, has no significant constraints, provides an opportunity for a range of housing, the site is visually contained and can be sensibly developed to minimise landscape impacts, and the site is located away from flood risk in the settlement. Given score of (-). Barratt and David Wilson Homes 10 Site was scored (-) because it is less than 1 km from a Local Wildlife object as there does not appear to be any evidence site. Score updated in light of this more recent and site specific that protected species are present on the site or information. would be affected by development on the site. In determining the most recent planning application on the site the Council concluded that there would be no adverse impacts on wildlife. Therefore the score should be (0). Given score of (-). Barratt and David Wilson Homes 13 Score amended to (0) to reflect limited impact. object because: there is no justification for the score, development of the site would provide the opportunity to remove or convert derelict buildings, thereby improving the character, there are no statutorily protected buildings or monuments on the site and the site is not within a conservation area. Given score of (-). The score is based on the 14 The planning application was only on a small area of the site. The Landscape Character Assessment (2005). A more impact of developing the whole site would be different to only recent planning application (09/03139/STOUT) is developing part of it. Score of (-) allows for some mitigation. Site SAM Officer comment Fact Check Response Question more up to date. The application recognises that whilst the site is within and area of high landscape value it is discreet in its location and well screened by existing vegetation. Site should be scored (0) Given score of (0). All sites appear to score (0). 21 Sites have scored positively where the land bidder has committed to Assume sites will be reassessed once developments going beyond any standards set nationally or locally. schemes have been brought forward. Given score of (-). Council has not provided 24 Score and infrastructure comments updated recently. Still scores (-) evidence to substantiate claims made in the site to reflect need for some additional investment. assessment. Question should be scored (0). NPPF states that “development should only be 25 Comment noted. However, the 2009 application was for only a small prevented or refused on transport grounds where part of the proposed site. The impacts of developing the whole site the residual cumulative impacts of development are likely to be significantly different to developing the area of the are severe” Until further work is undertaken the planning application. site should be scored (0) as there is no evidence to suggest the development would result in severe Score of (-) acknowledges that some works may need to be residual cumulative highway impacts. The 2009 implemented to ensure the provision of a satisfactory access but planning application decision notice states that the that such minor constraints can be overcome. proposed development was acceptable in terms of its predicted traffic generation, this should add further weight to the justification for (0). Not aware of any insurmountable constraints and 31-33 Site assessment updated. deliverable within 15 years. Likely to be deliverable within 5 years as EIA has been submitted. HES8 Site is Greenfield. 5 Site assessment amended. The only public transport would be via the local 6 The methodology for assessing accessibility is set out in the Site Town Bus which runs infrequently. Therefore site is Assessment Methodology. some distance from an adequate service. Development would support the delivery of the 9 Allocation of the site will support the vision and sub area policy. vision and sub area policy, it should score +++. Score updated. Site is adjacent to the settlement, partly PDL, has had Site SAM Officer comment Fact Check Response Question previous residential planning consent, has no significant constraints, provides an opportunity for a range of housing, the site is visually contained and can be sensibly developed to minimise landscape impacts, and the site is located away from flood risk in the settlement. Given score of (-). Barratt and David Wilson Homes 10 Site was scored (-) because it is less than 1 km from a Local Wildlife object as there does not appear to be any evidence site. Score updated in light of this more recent and site specific that protected species are present on the site or information. would be effected by development on the site. In determining the most recent planning application on the site the Council concluded that there would be no adverse impacts on wildlife. Therefore the score should be (0). Given score of (-). Barratt and David Wilson Homes 13 Score amended to (0) to reflect limited impact. object because: there is no justification for the score, development of the site would provide the opportunity to remove or convert derelict buildings, thereby improving the character, there are no statutorily protected buildings or monuments on the site and the site is not within a conservation area. Given score of (-). The score is based on the 14 The planning application was only on a small area of the site. The Landscape Character Assessment (2005). A more impact of developing the whole site would be different to only recent planning application (09/03139/STOUT) is developing part of it. Score of (-) allows for some mitigation. more up to date. The application recognises that whilst the site is within and area of high landscape value it is discreet in its location and well screened by existing vegetation. Site should be scored (0) Given score of (0). All sites appear to score (0). 21 Sites have scored positively where the land bidder has committed to Assume sites will be reassessed once developments going beyond any standards set nationally or locally. schemes have been brought forward. Site SAM Officer comment Fact Check Response Question Given score of (-). Council has not provided 24 Score and infrastructure comments updated recently. Still scores (-) evidence to substantiate claims made in the site to reflect need for some additional investment. assessment. Question should be scored (0). NPPF states that “development should only be 25 Comment noted. However, the 2009 application was for only a small prevented or refused on transport grounds where part of the proposed site. The impacts of developing the whole site the residual cumulative impacts of development are likely to be significantly different to developing the area of the are severe” Until further work is undertaken the planning application. site should be scored (0) as there is no evidence to suggest the development would result in severe Score of (-) acknowledges that some works may need to be residual cumulative highway impacts. The 2009 implemented to ensure the provision of a satisfactory access but planning application decision notice states that the that such minor constraints can be overcome. proposed development was acceptable in terms of its predicted traffic generation; this should add further weight to the justification for (0). Not aware of any insurmountable constraints and 31-33 Site assessment updated. deliverable within 15 years. Likely to be deliverable within 5 years as EIA has been submitted. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. Multiple owners noted – hence need for overall development brief Bridgehead owns small area fronting roundabout. to ensure compatibility of development. Site assessment updated. The rest is submitted by Barratt. Barratt have an option on the site but agreement has not been reached with the land owner. Owner of part of the 31-33 site suggests that their land should be allocated and development allowed even if it is a separate development to that undertaken by Barratt. HES9 Proposed use is Residential or D1/D2. Use Site assessment updated. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. HES10 Please remove ERYC land bid. Site is restricted by Site assessment updated. Site ref 10r created to cover this part. 1906 Open Spaces Act, building in the land is protected by a covenant that protects the land. 31-33 Only part of the site is owned by ERYC. Not Site SAM Officer comment Fact Check Response Question deliverable due to restrictions on the land. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. HES13 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. HES15 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. HES16 Client only owns part of site. Site assessment would Need to assess whole of potential site. be improved if land in their ownership is assessed general on its own. Agree with assessment. 1-4 and Comment noted 6-8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 19, 22, 23, 26. (Only referring to part of site) The site is PDL, with Site Assessment Methodology identifies that sites such as this, which remnants of buildings, and is of low sensitivity it is are not within or will not affect the natural landscape, should be able to be developed without significant change to 14 scored (0). the character. The score should be (+++) not (0). (Only referring to part of site) Site previously used Development is not within a Groundwater Source Protection Zone as a boat building yard. Development of the site and there is no evidence that the existing or previous use is would remove any potential contamination impacting on the quality of the water supply. associated with the previous use. As such 17 development will not affect abstraction of groundwater and would remove any existing sources of pollution. Site should score (+++) not (0). (Only referring to part of site) Development would The site assessment acknowledges that the site development would be compatible with neighbouring uses and the be compatible with neighbouring uses. However, the site is not support is has from neighbours should be seen as a currently conceded a nuisance. Such uses are set out in the Site positive. A door to door petition was signed by 22 18 Assessment Methodology. The score of (0) is appropriate. neighbouring residents and 3 individual letters of support were submitted with our representation in Dec 2010. Should score (+++) not (0). (Only referring to part of site) There is no reason 21 More detail would need to be submitted on how the site could score Site SAM Officer comment Fact Check Response Question the site could not exceed energy efficiency (+) before the score could be awarded. requirements. Site should score (+). (Only referring to part of site) A foul Sewerage and Score and infrastructure comments updated recently. Still scores (-) Utilities Assessment was submitted with the appeal for the settlement to reflect need for some additional investment. which confirmed there are no constraints. There 24 were no objections from statutory undertakers to the proposed development. Site should score (+++). (Only referring to part of site) The traffic statement Site assessment score identifies that there is sufficient capacity and submitted with the appeal confirmed there are no no infrastructure or access constraints identified. Positive score capacity constraints and there were no objections 25 would be inappropriate as site will not result in significant from the Council’s highways department. Site improvement to the capacity of the highway network or an existing should score (+++). Agreed access set out on plan. access. (Only referring to part of site) Response did not Site assessment updated. comment on Q31-33 but did clarify that only part of the site is in their ownership, they have previously submitted a planning application (and appeal) and 31-33 are considering a resubmission of the planning application. (Only referring to part of site) Other comments Noted were made to site assessment but were resolved and reissued through emails and meetings. Comments above only refer to outstanding comments. Map enclosed for ownership part of the site (Only referring to part of site) Potential amenity Comment noted. All land bids have been split into sites. Sites will be area or housing in conjunction with Bid 637 for split if part of a site would be suitable for allocation and part would associated home owners. Access from Boothferry not. Road. Constraints - physical and environment 31-33 manageable - access from ‘north’, Legal constraint due to muti-ownership. Not attractive to market due to link with bid 1033(multi owners). Attractive Site SAM Officer comment Fact Check Response Question when linked to bid 637. Not deliverable under 15 years. Deliverable within 5 years due to fewer legals compared to existing 1033 multiples. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. HES17 Site is in Anlaby. general Comment noted however the assessments do not use Parish boundaries. The site is better related to Hessle than Anlaby and has therefore been identified as a Hessle site. Access should be from First Lane Anlaby not Anlaby 25 Site assessment amended. Park Road North. No contribution to the coalescence of AWK as 13/14 Comments in assessment updated. there will be no change in the boundary. Area could be enhanced by a park walk area between the existing houses or new development. There is a lack of housing for elderly people, Not considered to outweigh the other main factors (i.e. flood risk) including acknowledging their need to that have led to the site being rejected. downsize and need for care in the community. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. Site assessment updated. Ownership details submitted. 31-33 HES 18 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. HES19 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. HES21 Site has outline planning consent. Current use is 31-33 Site Assessment update. industrial storage, offices and motor use as residential use will not be viable until economy improves. No insurmountable constraints but some groundwork remediation and floodwall works required before construction can commence. Deliverable subject to market conditions.

Holme on Spalding Moor Fact Check Responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question HSM2 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years (owner) 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment.

HSM3 Site would not be detrimental character of Sands Lane. This part 13/14 Comments amended but score retained of the settlement has a suburban (rather than a semi-rural) character. It would result in some change to landscape and visual character, but would form a natural and generally linear

infill development and that any harm to rural character could be mitigated through layout, design and landscaping. Concerns about impact on semi-rural character were not raised when determining the adjacent planning application.

No constraints and deliverable in 5 years (owner) 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment.

HSM4 Flood risk and drainage assessment has been undertaken which 8 Questioned has been scored in accordance with the approach set concludes that there would be no increase in flood risk provided out in the adopted Site Assessment Methodology. SUDs are provided. Suggests amendment from 3 to 6.

Habitat survey has been undertaken which has shown that 10/11 Questioned has been scored in accordance with the approach set development would have minimal ecological impact. Suggests out in the adopted Site Assessment Methodology. amending score to 0.

ERYC has other land in HOSM that could be used to re-provided 22 Not part of proposed bid. the allotments if required.

Confirmed that northern part of site can be delivered 22 Draft Assessment notes that the development of the northern part independently of allotment site. Development could result in of the site would not have an impact on open space. improved access to the allotments.

There is potential for localised upgrading of the adjacent 24 Comments updated recently for whole settlement. Detailed pumping station through the development at this site, which SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question could lead to improvements to utilities and infrastructure. solutions may come forward on individual sites

Access is available into the site from Chapel Garth 25 Noted in Draft Assessment.

No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment.

HSM5 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment.

HSM6 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment.

HSM7 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment.

HSM8 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment.

HSM9 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment.

HSM10 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment.

HSM11 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment.

HSM13 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment.

HSM17 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment.

Hornsea Fact Check Responses

Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question HOR1 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated HOR2 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated HOR3 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated HOR4 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. Application likely 31-33 Site Assessment updated in early 2013 HOR5 Land adjacent has been purchased and is being promoted General Site Assessment updated as part of the site Land will require some remediation but is not 19 Noted insurmountable Two separate ownerships but both willing to bring the site 32 Site Assessment updated forward Total capacity can be increased to reflect new site 33 Site Assessment updated ownership extent HOR6 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years (western half) 31-33 Site Assessment updated (Eastern half) Access to land only available via lane to the 31 Noted north with a current licence and permission from the adjoining land owner. There is also a private right of way to the east of the land, which may now be disused. Negotiations required with adjoining land owners to deliver site but these are far from insurmountable (Eastern half owned by ERYC) Leased out on a farm 32 Noted business tenancy. Attractive to market Site is deliverable in the medium term, within 6-10 years 33 Site Assessment updated HOR7 Site identified in Seafront Investment Development Plan. 27 Noted Car park is not well used and there is scope for additional on street parking on the Esplanade and more spaces to be created on the Floral Hall car parking area. The plan recognises the need to retain existing car parking capacity and the development of detailed plans would be predicated Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question on this. The site assessment states a loss of open space but the 22 Noted Review identifies that Hornsea has an oversupply of amenity greenspace Legal covenant states owner should not allow various 31 Site Assessment updated nuisances on site. Proposed use does not fall into this category. Site is leased out until 22/12/2015. Attractive to the market 32 Site Assessment updated Site is developable within 5 years 33 Site Assessment updated HOR9 Intention is to use car park hard standing for residential and 29 Noted retain grassed area for car parking. Development would assist in the regeneration of the promenade area in line with the Seafront Investment Development Plan. The site assessment states a loss of open space but the 22 Noted Review identifies that Hornsea has an oversupply of amenity greenspace No buildings can be developed further forward than the 31 Noted existing building line and only housing can be built upon the site. There cannot be any noise some or offensive trades of business carried out on the land. These constraints however are far from insurmountable Owner of eastern part of site not known but site could be 32 Noted reduced if necessary Site is developable within 5 years 33 Site Assessment updated HOR10 Site identified in Seafront Investment Development Plan. Noted Police station would have to be relocated and social services building declared surplus to requirements – discussions ongoing with service providers in respect of a Multi Purpose Facility on the site of the existing library. Existing car park would be realigned and space more 27 Noted effectively used to create more spaces (including on street Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question car parking potentially). This could mitigate against losses from HOR12 Residential development would increase legibility of the 29 Noted area, complement the new apartment building and contribute to the regeneration of the sea front area Covenants state any buildings erected shall not be used as a 31 Site Assessment updated garage – not an insurmountable constraint Two owners – attractive to market 32 Noted Site is developable within 5 years 33 Site Assessment updated HOR11 Site identified in Seafront Investment Development Plan. 29 Noted Redundant amusement building now demolished and for sale. Scale of new apartments unusual for area and sensitive development around it could provide legibility and positively impact the area. Historic covenants which reflect the former use of the site 31 Site Assessment updated in conjunction with the railway which are no longer relevant. Site under licence for Chamber of Trade but 3 months 32 Site Assessment updated notice can be given at any time. Former amusement arcade land is not ERYC but is being marketed. Likely to be attractive as a whole Site is developable within 5 years 33 Site Assessment updated HOR12 [Comments in relation to HOR12/13/27] Important site for General Noted supporting the visitor economy. Hotel unlikely within 5 years but self catering accommodation possible. [Comments in relation to HOR12/13/27] Site identified in 27 Noted Seafront Investment Development Plan. Could retain a good proportion of the car parking spaces and potential to increase on street parking resulting in no net loss. [Comments in relation to HOR12/13/27] No change in use 29 Noted to majority of land but improvement to open space, Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question expansion of boat compound and car park areas contributing to the regeneration of the seafront in line with the Seafront Plan. [Comments in relation to HOR12/13/27] Pumping station 31 Noted owned by YW who also have right of way and several easements running across the land. There are also several Public Rights of Way and easements for Yorkshire Electricity. Not insurmountable [Comments in relation to HOR12/13/27] Amusement 32 Noted building not owned by ERYC - site could be reduced if necessary. Site under licence for Hornsea Inshore Rescue but 3 months notice can be given at any time. Attractive to the market. [Comments in relation to HOR12/13/27] Some areas will be 33 Noted developed within 5 years but site as a whole will be developable in the medium term 6-10 years. There is a demand for more space in the boat compound and some funding has been identified for this. HOR13 [Comments in relation to HOR12/13/27] Important site for General Noted supporting the visitor economy. Hotel unlikely within 5 years but self catering accommodation possible. [Comments in relation to HOR12/13/27] Site identified in 27 Noted Seafront Investment Development Plan. Could retain a good proportion of the car parking spaces and potential to increase on street parking resulting in no net loss. [Comments in relation to HOR12/13/27] No change in use 29 Noted to majority of land but improvement to open space, expansion of boat compound and car park areas contributing to the regeneration of the seafront in line with the Seafront Plan. [Comments in relation to HOR12/13/27] Pumping station 31 Noted Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question owned by YW who also have right of way and several easements running across the land. There are also several Public Rights of Way and easements for Yorkshire Electricity. Not insurmountable [Comments in relation to HOR12/13/27] Amusement 32 Noted building not owned by ERYC - site could be reduced if necessary. Site under licence for Hornsea Inshore Rescue but 3 months notice can be given at any time. Attractive to the market. [Comments in relation to HOR12/13/27] Some areas will be 33 Noted developed within 5 years but site as a whole will be developable in the medium term 6-10 years. There is a demand for more space in the boat compound and some funding has been identified for this. HOR14 Pedestrian access available. Bus stop within 50m of site 7 Noted Adjacent to Hornsea Mere but not in a flood zone and did 8 Noted not flood in 2007 Site comprises almost entirely lawn and hard paving – the 10 Noted but scores produced in accordance with the SAM and boundary adjacent to the mere has a brick wall its full with advice form NEYEDC. length so there is very limited potential for adjacent wildlife to enter the site Level site with existing highway access 25 Noted Site is developable within 5 years 33 Site Assessment updated HOR15 No comments received HOR16 No comments received HOR17 No comments received HOR18 No comments received HOR19 Site is proposed for ‘park home’ type development not log General Site Assessment updated cabins The assessment is flawed in its consideration of the value of 9/13/14 Scores considered correct and appropriate – no changes the site to the visual amenities of the area – especially proposed. Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question given the extent of development which has taken place to the south.

Development on the front would represent infill development within an otherwise built up frontage. With suitable landscaping will not be regarded as Frontage gap would be too large for consideration as limited development into open countryside being on the east side infill and it is not well related to the main body of the of the highway with development to the north, south and settlement. west with the coast to the east Overall development would not result in any significant loss 16 Noted of agricultural land Very well related to the town and close to all the facilities 7 On periphery of settlement. to so there would be no reliance on the private car Access can be achieved from the public highway and can be 25 Agreed adequately serviced It is not in a flood risk zone and is sufficiently far away from 8 Agreed areas of coastal erosion Development of the site would not affect any site of 10 Noted but scores produced in accordance with the SAM and biodiversity or heritage interest with advice form NEYEDC. Site is developable within 5 years 33 Site Assessment updated HOR20 Hornsea Golf Club no longer wish to pursue their listing in General Site Assessment updated this round of the Local Plan HOR21 No comments received HOR22 Site is developable within 5 years 33 Site Assessment updated HOR23 Do not agree with settlement vision score. Other sites with 9 Site now split and relative scores amended to acknowledge a similar degree of open space score (+++). different characteristics.

If score cannot be revised, would agree to a revised, reduced area to cover the existing buildings and the open area to the east of the same Site is developable within 5 years 33 Site Assessment updated Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question Site would deliver assisted living units and a nursing home General Site now split and relative scores amended to acknowledge (with specialist dementia care) different characteristics. HOR24 Agent confirms no longer acting for land owner General Noted HOR25 Land extends to approximately 65 acres of Grade 3 arable 16 Noted land. The land has good road frontage on the eastern boundary 13 Noted to Atwick Road and on the western boundary to Bewholme Lane Site is developable within 5 years 33 Site Assessment updated HOR26 The land is adjacent to the existing established tourism and General leisure business. The residential allocation of this site would not affect the adjacent use as the land submitted can be separated and does not play a role within the existing business Site is not remote from the settlement and is located 1 Site is separated from the main part of the town and from directly adjacent to the built up form. Would be a modest the existing development limit. extension within walking and cycling distance of the town’s facilities Located outside of areas of biological and geographical 2 Agreed interest The site is not at risk from flooding or coastal erosion 3 Agreed The site is a former military firing range and is therefore a 5 Site now occupied by tourism chalets so SAM score previously used land amended to reflect this. Accessibility is a key benefit of the site. An improved 6/7 Scores produced using SAM methodology and accession footpath link to Hornsea has recently been provided. The software. site is within the recommended walking and cycling distances of the town Well related to the town and provides a natural rounding 9 Not well related to town, very much on the periphery and off point from residential development on Rolston Road. not part of the main built up area. Contained north and south by residential development and an approved business use. Provides infill opportunity Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question suitable for family housing (as per north of the site). A high quality design and scheme would ensure that the approach to Hornsea is no different (as the housing immediately adjacent) would only be extended. Existing pattern of development could be mirrored by maintaining similar density and layout to surrounding areas. Effective landscaping could also improve the approach to the settlement and would form a key component of the design process. Built character would arguably not be extended “well into 13 Disagree – see above open countryside”. Site is contained to north and south by existing development and follows the road frontage. Landscape character could be improved to ensure the site 14 Disgaree is well screened and designed into a scheme Not in agricultural production so no agricultural land use 16 Assessment already notes this will be lost Proposed use is compatible with adjoining land 18 Agreed The land has been subject to development (adjacent) as 19 Noted part of the tourism and leisure development and the necessary contaminated reports were submitted and approved. The details of the sire in relation to potential contamination have been addressed. A modest extension is therefore not anticipated to cause a problem. A suitable design and layout, in line with the requirements of a specialist report is required. Schools will be required to accommodate the additional 23 Noted school places generated as a result of any housing development in the town Sufficient capacity exists for utilities infrastructure. The 24 Comments now updated in line with the Infrastructure adjoining tourism and leisure use will ensure that the site is Delivery Plan capable of accommodating connections to all utilities Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question An affordable housing component can be designed into any 30 Noted scheme HOR27 [Comments in relation to HOR12/13/27] Important site for General Noted supporting the visitor economy. Hotel unlikely within 5 years but self catering accommodation possible. [Comments in relation to HOR12/13/27] Site identified in 27 Noted Seafront Investment Development Plan. Could retain a good proportion of the car parking spaces and potential to increase on street parking resulting in no net loss. [Comments in relation to HOR12/13/27] No change in use 29 Noted to majority of land but improvement to open space, expansion of boat compound and car park areas contributing to the regeneration of the seafront in line with the Seafront Plan. [Comments in relation to HOR12/13/27] Pumping station 31 Noted owned by YW who also have right of way and several easements running across the land. There are also several Public Rights of Way and easements for Yorkshire Electricity. Not insurmountable [Comments in relation to HOR12/13/27] Amusement 32 Noted building not owned by ERYC - site could be reduced if necessary. Site under licence for Hornsea Inshore Rescue but 3 months notice can be given at any time. Attractive to the market. [Comments in relation to HOR12/13/27] Some areas will be 33 Noted developed within 5 years but site as a whole will be developable in the medium term 6-10 years. There is a demand for more space in the boat compound and some funding has been identified for this. HOR28 Floral Hall has been offered to the community subject to a 22/27 Noted sound business plan. The proposal in the sea front Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question investment development plan is to make better use of the car park area to accommodate a max number of cars and maintain a large part of the area as open space, so there would be a minimal loss of open space in the settlement – the Open Space Review 2010 identifies an oversupply of green amenity space within Hornsea No insurmountable constraints 31 Noted Deliverable in 15 years, uncertainty in 5 years 33 Noted HOR29 Extent of site incorporates two parcels of land General Site Assessment and plans updated Site is 260m by road to existing settlement limit or 150m 1 Noted through HOR8. It’s closer by foot and cycle to the town centre than other sites north and south of the town. Although physically detached it is well related to the built up area and opportunities exist with adjacent sites to deliver a sustainable extension to the town Opportunities exist at the site to integrate residential uses 13 Noted with the surrounding countryside by utilising hedgerows and trees which already enclose the site. The built development to the east illustrates how this can be achieved. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated

Howden Fact Check responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question HOW1 No response received (03/12/12) HOW2 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated HOW3 No response received (03/12/12) HOW4 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated HOW5 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated HOW6 No response received (03/12/12) HOW7 No response received (03/12/12) HOW8 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated HOW9 Scores higher (27+), states all services are within 15 minute 6 journey Scores lower (16-21) 1 7 Site could have its open space located in the functional flood 8 Agree, Site Assessment updated plain area. (+++) scores higher, existing features conserved plus 10 Score has been produced in accordance with Sam and advice improvements from NEYEDC (+++) scores higher, opportunity to enhance habitats 11 Score of (0) considered reasonable at this stage given lack of detail. (+) scores higher, states a low to medium sensitivity for the 14 Detailed landscape assessment for Howden states that this landscape area has some capacity to accommodate development. Score of (0) considered appropriate (+) scores higher, states that on site renewables will be used 21 May not exceed policy requirements (+) scores higher, states that POS would be included 22 May not provide in excess of normal poli cy requirments (0) scores higher, states that school capacity is sufficient 23 Our assessment of capacity shows a deficit (0) scores higher, states that existing capacity is sufficient 24 Our assessment of capacity shows a deficit (0) scores higher, states that existing capacity is sufficient 25 Some off site junction improvements will be required (+) scores higher, states that a rail service is available 26 This applies to non housing uses (+) scores higher, states that proposals will assist the town 28 This applies to non housing uses centre Agent agrees with the councils scoring 1- 5,9,12,13,15- 20, 27,29,30 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated HOW10 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated HOW11 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated HOW12 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated HOW13 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated HOW14 No response received (03/12/12) HOW15 States that SFRA (2010) shows that sites are in floodzone 3a and 3/8 They are correct, site assessments should be changed to 3a HOW16 not in 3b HOW17 Promoter thinks the development of these sites would have a 9 Employment development at this scale would not support the positive impact on the settlement vision based on employment settlement vision and would undermine the sub area policy to growth support the regeneration of Goole. States the presence of a SSSI does not magnify the negative 14 Score has been produced in accordance with Sam and advice impact on the landscape and therefore the score should be (-) from NEYEDC States that the use of the M62 and the creation of a link road 26 These improvements would only be carried out to serve the from the M62 to the Howdendyke port would warrant a (+++) proposed sites. score States that due to job creation for Howden and Goole, the 29 We have other more appropriately placed sites that can scoring for these sites should be (+) deliver this job growth. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated HOW18 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated HOW19 No response received (03/12/12) HOW20 States that there is no known effect and should score (0) 10 Site is located in close proximity to protected habitat areas and protected species and therefore has a negative impact. States that development is not located within the natural 14 Site is located in the landscape and the landscape assessment landscape and should score (0) for Howden states that development in this area would have a negative impact on the landscape. Land not in agricultural use. 16 The majority of the site has the potential for agricultural use. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated HOW21 No response received (03/12/12) HOW22 No response received (03/12/12)

Hutton Cranswick Fact Check Responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question CRA1 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated CRA2 No response received (03/12/12) CRA3 Score considered inaccurate 7 Scores produced using SAM and accession software Land not currently in agricultural use so there would be no loss 16 Site has the potential for agricultural use No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated CRA4 No response received (03/12/12) CRA5 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-32 Site Assessment updated Site relies on CRA4 (which does not adjoin the site) or CRA6 for 33 access CRA6 Site no longer available as owners have opted out 31-33 Site Assessment needs to be updated accordingly CRA7 No response received (03/12/12) CRA8 No response received (03/12/12) CRA9 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-32 Site Assessment updated CRA10 No response received (03/12/12) CRA11 No response received (03/12/12) CRA12 Questions why CRA1, CRA10, CRA34 have been scored higher 7 These sites are closer to the employment sites Questions why scores are different for sites in the same village 30 Level of affordable housing need was calculated per lower super output area. The two LSOA's in Hutton Cranswick had different levels of need. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-32 Site Assessment updated CRA13 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-32 Site Assessment updated CRA14 No response received (03/12/12) CRA15 Effects of development can be mitigated and the scoring 10 Score produced using SAM and advice from NEYEDC should be (0) Agree that the scoring for the effect on the built character 13 Noted should be positive. Argue that as the land is brownfield and is also contaminated 16 Amend score to (0) it loss would not have a detrimental effect on the supply of agricultural land No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-32 Site Assessment updated CRA16 No response received (03/12/12) CRA17 States that the site borders properties on Station Road and is 1 The site is separated from the current development limit which therefore not disconnected from the main settlement. defines the main body of the settlement. In accordance with the SAM it is therefore detached form the settlement. Effects of development can be mitigated and the scoring 10 The score allows for mitigation. should be (0) Peripheral trees could be retained so the site should not be 11 In the eastern section of the site to which the agent refers this scored negatively. could be the case. Agent claims that the eastern section of the site which they 13/14 Score relates to whole site and in any event is considered correct. are representing is self contained due to the screening from the existing landscape. Access taken from Meggison's Turnpike and access to Driffield 25 No highways issues are indicated can be obtained without travelling through the centre of Cranswick No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated CRA18 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated CRA19 No response received (03/12/12) CRA20 Effects of development can be mitigated and the scoring 10 The score allows for mitiagtion should be (0) As the site is used for non agricultural uses its loss would not 16 Most of the site has the potential for agricultural use be detrimental to the supply of agricultural land Access taken from Meggison's Turnpike and access to Driffield 25 No highways issues are indicated can be obtained without travelling through the centre of Cranswick No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated CRA21 No response received (03/12/12) CRA22 Western two thirds of the site of the site was a former quarry 19 which has been filled with aggregate. Eastern third not affected by contamination. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated CRA23 No response received (03/12/12) CRA24 No response received (03/12/12) CRA25 No response received (03/12/12) CRA26 No response received (03/12/12) CRA27 No response received (03/12/12) CRA28 Site can make use of rail network 26 This question applies to non residential uses only. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated CRA29 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated CRA30 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated CRA31 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated CRA32 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated CRA33 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated CRA34 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated CRA35 No response received (03/12/12) CRA36 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated CRA37 No response received (03/12/12) CRA38 No response received (03/12/12)

Keyingham Fact Check Responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question KEY3 Agent submitted revised bid and revised site area. Arguing for All Settlement hierarchy issue dealt with in Strategy Document. re-designation of settlement to higher category and therefore Assessments carried out on sites as originally submitted and larger allocation figure. This would allow viable redevelopment referenced. Site assessed in light of proposed requirement and relocation of existing businesses to other sites in locality in figures. order to retain employment and grow businesses. KEY6 Owner willing to consider release of part of site for playing 22 If this is in excess of the normal outdoor play space – score could field extension be amended to (+) Already served by an A2 access to the A1033 constructed to 25 No highway issues anticipated. Highway Authority Adoption Standards. As well as the development site, could provide access to playing fields and school beyond Site is relatively small and could provide for a steady release of 33 Site not required to meet housing requirements as more suitable housing in the short term. It could also unlock the remainder site identified. of land to the rear of the houses that front Ottringham Road No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated KEY12 The allocation was previously, and still is included in the General Allocated site re-assessed in light of current processes and Development Plan for the locality circumstances. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated KEY14 Need to show all of original submitted site (0.5 Ha) Site Assessment and plans updated No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated

Kilham Fact Check Responses

Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question ALL Mains gas is available in Kilham 24 Amended for all sites. SITES KIL1 No response received (01/10/12) KIL2 No response received (01/10/12) KIL3 Concern over narrow width of Dark Lane 25 Site can be accessed from Middle Street. Noted No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated KIL4 Concern over limited access from Chapel Lane 25 Site can also be accessed from Side Close. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated KIL5 Concerns over the sites proximity to the school and it adding to 25 Highways did not raise this as an issue. the traffic generated by it. KIL6 Trees within the site would not have to be lost and there is 11 If the site is developed alongside KIL13 then the trees would scope to plant more on the site. probably be lost. Additional trees could be planted to replace these. Score of (-) recognises this mitigation. No action needed. Disagree that the development would have a detrimental 12 Development here would obscure views of the church to the impact on the listed church as it could be developed north, therefore having a potentially negative effect on its sensitively. character. No changes proposed. Public footpath runs across the whole site 22 Correct, amend assessment comments accordingly. Limited capacity of the WWTW supports smaller sites like KIL6 24 Capacity of the WWTW is considered against the housing need for Kilham as a whole. Concerns over access from Middle Street being only single 25 Vehicular access could be from North Back Lane with footpath vehicle width /cycle link to Middle Street. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated KIL7 Site does not constitute infill, only if it were to be a small 13 Site has now been split into two smaller parts and re-scored ribbon development on Driffield Road could it constitute infill. accordingly. Only part is proposed as a preferred site. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated This site should be considered for joint development alongside KIL8 KIL8 Flooding also affects the eastern part of the site 8 Amend site assessment text to mention this. Development of this site would not constitute a rounding off of 13 Agree, amend text accordingly the built form. Concern over the access from Bakehouse Lane 25 No issues from highways This site should be considered for joint development alongside No action required. KIL7 KIL9 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated KIL10 Site should score 6 as a GP is within 5km of Nafferton 7 Assessment data used shows that the site is not within 5km of a GP. A score of 6 would not, in any event, alter the overall score for this question which would still be 0. No change proposed. Site should be scored as (+) given the potential for enhancing 10 Sam score reflects the possible impact of development on the habitat protected species or habitat. It may be that a fully detailed scheme could show that habitat may be enhanced but at this stage a precautionary approach has been taken. No changes proposed. Trees not on this land bid - score should be (+++) 11 There are trees on the potential site (which includes several land bids). Score reflects the loss and recognises that significant effects could be mitigated. No change proposed. Development would not adversely affect the conservation area 12 Wording of SAM comments clarified. Site should be scored (+) 13 Effect judged to be neutral so (0) score is correct. A small well designed residential development here would not 14 Single negative score recognises the sensitivity of the area but harm the landscape character allows for the possibility of some limited development. No change proposed. Score should be (+) 22 Score correctly stated. Refers to previous correspondence. 30 No previous correspondence can be found. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated KIL11 No response received (01/10/12) KIL12 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated KIL13 PROW which leads from the Church Land along the side of 22 Amended text accordingly KIL13 and over a stile into KIL6. Concerns over North Back Lane access being too narrow 25 No issues from highways raised. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated KIL14 Site is partly on a playing field. 22/27 Amend text and scores accordingly No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated KIL15 No response received (01/10/12) KIL16 Site area should read 1ha Basic As plotted, the site measures 1.16ha. information Majority of the hedgerow in the north of the site can be 11 SAM score amended to (0) retained and therefore the score should be (0)

Leconfield Fact Check responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question LEC1 Access to the area should be either from Main Street or 25 Noted – comments on site assessment amended. Harthill Avenue, there should not be a through road which could be used as a shortcut (PC) SHLAA identifies site as partly brownfield. Score should be 5 Noted – assessment score and comments amended amended to reflect brownfield nature of the eastern part of the site Should achieve maximum scores for public transport 6 Scoring based on site assessment methodology and accession accessibility – Daily 121 bus serves village taking 11 minutes to software in order to be consistent across settlements. No centre of Beverley (Major Centre) changes proposed. Site within walking distance of nearest bus stop on opposite 7 Scoring based on site assessment methodology and accession side of road. Then access to services and facilities in Beverley software in order to be consistent across settlements. No by public transport changes proposed. If development brought forward, will provide growth to deliver 9 Noted but no change proposed in order to reflect need for the vision set out in the Core Strategy for Hinterland Villages consistent approach across settlements. It is noted that the site is not one of high biodiversity or 10/11 Noted geological value and are non known protected species. Development of site provides opportunity to enhance biodiversity through landscaping and this will have a positive effect. ALC maps are only accurate to 80ha to give general indication 16 Noted of land quality – reserve right to provide site specific evidence in regard to agricultural land quality Through granting of planning permission, there’s an 21 Noted opportunity to incorporate renewable energy features and high sustainability measures into any future development proposals Through granting of planning permission, there’s an 22 Noted opportunity to incorporate areas of open space within the proposals that would create an attractive environment Methodology states deficit of 5 primary school places for 23 Score and comments amended as result of updated approach Leconfield if sites allocated. Growth is required as part of Core and revised assessment of need. Strategy vision. Funding to overcome capacity constraints should be resolved holistically through the appropriate levies Planning application incorporating affordable housing and 33 Noted public open space being prepared and expected to be submitted in Nov/Dec 2012 demonstrating commitment to delivery. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated LEC2 Some flood risk from run-off from the farm land behind (PC) 3 The footpath between LEC1 and LEC2 should be kept clear (PC) 13/22 Noted – comments amended to reflect this on LEC1 & 2. Access to the area should be either from Main Street or 25 Noted – comments on site assessment amended. Harthill Avenue, there should not be a through road which could be used as a shortcut (PC) No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated LEC3 Site would be ideal for affordable housing (PC) 30 Noted – no change needed. Would create an appropriate infill site within the development 13 Noted limit of the settlement Historic access issues but now access secured as council has 31 Agreed adopted highway. Potential encroachment issue but no insurmountable constraints. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated

Leven Fact Check Responses

Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question LEV1 Against. Within Conservation Area. Already has existing farm Noted buildings on it. No constraints and developable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. Justification for not allocating. This site is located on the periphery of Agreed. Question 12 of the draft site assessment notes that the settlement and measures 0.31 hectares in area. LEVI is unlikely to the existing buildings are of some value to the street scene. be of sufficient size to meet the residential housing needs of Leven No action required. throughout the plan period. Aside from this, it is noted that the site is located within the Conservation Area and new development in such a location is likely to be harmful to the overall setting and streetscene and furthermore, its overall size makes it unsuitable LEV2 Against. Ridge and furrow field. Land of historical interest. Part of 12 Noted. the conservation area. No constraints and developable within 5 years. There are 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. electricity cables running through part of the land. Private right of way from road to the existing farm. Both are on the edge of the site and would not create a problem if there was any development on this site. Leased out but notice can be given. Site likely to be attractive to the market. LEV3 Against. Too small a site. Draft site assessment notes the site is under the threshold for allocation. No action required. No constraints and developable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. As there has been no farming activity since 1987 any 19 Noted but this will need verifying by survey. contamination should have long disappeared. Justification for not allocating. The southern section of this site has Noted already been redeveloped for housing purposes and therefore it is only the northern section which has the potential for future development. The development of the remainder of LEV3 will create ribbon development northward along North Street and place future pressure on extending Leven further northwards along this road. As Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question things currently stand, the settlement in this location follows a logical pattern and extending northwards into LEV3 would give the overall settlement a contrived and unnecessary form. The site is also noted as containing a number of mature trees which may be compromised by development. LEV4 Against. Safeguarding for sand and gravel. 20 Question 20 of the draft site assessment notes that a small part to the north of the site is within a Safeguarding Area for Sand and Gravel. No action required. No constraints and developable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. Justification for not allocating. Similar to the reasons listed for LEV3, 12/13 Noted. Questions 12 and 13 of the draft site assessment note development on LEV4 would uncharacteristically extend the the importance of retaining the open and rural character of settlement northwards and add to the future pressure for the area. No action required. development along North Street. LEV5 Against. Too small an area. Very limited access to the site. Noted. The site is over the threshold for allocation and has been assessed through the Site Assessment Methodology. The site is poorly related to and detached from the main body of the settlement. No action required. LEV6 Against. Within Conservation Area. No suitable access, Traffic over Noted – assessment comments amended Causeway Bridge. No constraints and developable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. There is evidence of way leaves to one corner of this site but it is not likely to cause a significant issue regarding the developing the site. Site is leased out but notice can be served as per agreements in the lease. Likely to be attractive the market. LEV7 No constraints and developable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated.

LEV8 Against. Leven allotments. Required as a village amenity. Agreed No constraints and developable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. Leased out to Leven Parish Council but either part can give 12 months notice. Attractive to the market. LEV9 For. Adjacent to residential area already occupied. 18 Noted. The draft site assessment notes that the development Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question of the site would be compatible with existing residential uses. No action required. No constraints and developable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. Justification for not allocating. This site currently provides a transition General Noted – comments re trees amended in assessment. from the built form of Leven into the adjacent, The existing large trees along the eastern boundary which are the subject of TPOs form an important buffer between the village and the countryside and residential development on this site is likely to create future pressure for these to be removed. From a technical perspective, the location of this sites frontage onto High Stile in close proximity with the junction with East Street is unlikely to allow for a satisfactory highway arrangement to be created, and, therefore, the allocation of this site for residential purposes would neither be logical or appropriate to the settlement. LEV10 Against. It would spoil the entrance to the village. 13/14 Noted. The draft site assessment recognises that the loss of open green space/ built intrusion into the open countryside can be mitigated by the presence of the built frontage opposite and dwelling/outbuildings on frontage to east. No action required. Justification for not allocating. This land sits beyond the existing built General Would be a logical site to allocate together with LEV9. form of the existing settlement and is understood to have recently been the subject of an application for affordable housing which was refused. The reason for this refusal related to the fact that the site remains isolated from the existing settlement and therefore would not be consolidated with the existing built form. It is also noted that the eastern fringe of this site lies within Flood Zone 3.

LEV11 Against. Too small a site. Noted. Single house only proposed on each of the three main land bids (i.e. three dwellings in total) therefore below threshold for allocation. Residential use for dwelling house. No constraints and developable 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question within 5 years. LEV12 Against. Too large a site for area required. No direct access. 25 Noted. The draft site assessment makes reference to the fact there is no direct access to the public highway other than via LEV13. No action required. No constraints and developable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. LEV13 For. Already in existing building plan and needs to remain in it. Noted. No action required. No constraints and developable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. LEV14 For. Adjacent to residential area already occupied. 18 Noted. The draft site assessment notes that the development of the site would be compatible with existing residential uses. No action required. Good land with no history of flooding. 3/8 Site assessment to be updated. It is noted that the representation site has been identified as General Site boundary amended as requested although small parts of "LEV14". It is requested that the boundaries of LEVI4 are site within flood zone 3a retained in order to maximise reconfigured to be consistent with the plan developable area and accommodate OPS.

The site is not in multiple ownership and is deliverable. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. The reduced site as shown on the attached plans is less than 75% Noted greenfield as stated in the table. The entirety of the site as shown on the attached plans is within Flood Parts of site within flood zone 3a retained in order to Zone 1. maximise developable area and accommodate OPS. By way of elimination, a number of these sites are inconsistent with 3/8 Site boundary amended as requested although small parts of advice contained within PPS25, Development and Flood Risk, in that site within flood zone 3a retained in order to maximise they are located in Flood Zone 2/3 yet sequentially preferable sites developable area and accommodate OPS. have been identified and appear to be available within Flood Zone 1. Noted. Flood risk is addressed by questions 3 and 8 of the Site As such, it is considered that sites LEV2, LEV5, LEV6, LEV7, LEV8, LEV11, Assessment Methodology. This recognises that draft LEV12, LEV13, LEV15, LEV16, LEV17, LEV18, LEV19, LEV20 and LEV21 allocations will be directed to locations lying outside areas can all be discounted on the basis that they are not located within the identified at high risk of flooding. lowest available Flood Zone. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question Noted. LEV14 is the most appropriate location for future development as it presents none of the constraints identified for the other sites and is achievable, deliverable and suitable for residential development.

No constraints and developable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated.

LEV15 Against. Flood plain area. Flooded badly in 2007. 8 Draft site assessment notes the presence of flood zone 3a and evidence of local flooding (2007). No action required.

No constraints and developable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. Within 5 years as roadway leading into it already there? 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. LEV16 Against. No access. Within zone 3 and flooding in 2007. 8/25 Draft site assessment acknowledges these issues. No action required. No constraints and developable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. My client stresses that their land bid does not include the dwelling N/A Comment noted. at Rectory Farm, Leven House or the land south of Leven House as indicated on ERYC Land Bids Sites (Feb2012). The site is within 125m of the current settlement limits to the 1 Site is not well related to settlement due to Bowlams Dyke north. My client considers that the site is sufficiently well related preventing direct access to settlement. to the urban boundary of Leven, particularly in the context of the linear development along South Street, to be considered as a possible extension. Leven House (a Grade II listed building) and its curtilage is located 4 /12 Noted – assessment already acknowledges this to the south of the proposed site separated by dense mature treebelt. It is not considered that development on the site would cause substantial harm to Leven House or its setting to the extent that the site should be dismissed from the assessment. The site assessment scoring should be revised accordingly. Unlike other parts of the settlement the southern extent of Leven 13/ 14 Noted but disagree with this assessment of character/impact does not have a strongly defined settlement edge. Linear Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question development runs along South Street and subsequently Beverley Road. There are large scale buildings at Southfield Farm to the north west of the site. A high quality residential development could be achieved on the site integrating the significant boundary landscape screening which is now well established. It is anticipated that there would be sufficient capacity on the 25 There is no direct access to a public highway within the highway network as a result of developing the site. No access identified site. constraints are identified. LEV17 Against. Way outside of village line. 1 Noted. This site is remote from the main body of the settlement. No action required. LEV18 Against. Way outside of village line. Too large a site. 1 Noted. This site is remote from the main body of the settlement. No action required. LEV19 Against. Under threshold for allocation. Noted. The site assessment already recognises that the site size is under the threshold for allocation. New site limit. Application supplied. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. Existing site boundaries have No constraints and developable within 5 years. been amended accordingly. LEV20 Against. Too large a site for area required. Building over 8 Noted. Catchwater drain. No constraints and developable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. LEV21 Against. Outside the village limit. In the conservation area. It is acknowledged that the site is not adjacent to the existing 1 Disagree – no changes proposed. development limits of Leven. It is however, immediately adjacent to the built form (Leadgate Farm, West Street) which provides a distinct edge to the settlement. My client considered that the site can be considered in conformity with the Settlement Network. W.0 Watts Estate acknowledges the information provided and 8 Noted – no changes proposed reserves the right to provide site specific evidence to demonstrate that flood risk would not present a significant constraint to development. Moreover, built development on the site (or part thereof) is capable of being contained within the extent of the Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question lowest flood risk (Zone 1). The site has scored a (--) for the impact on the biodiversity and 10 Score produced in accordance with the SAM. geological value as the site is within l km of the SSSI designated Leven Canal and water voles, otters and bats have previously been recorded within 500m of the site. My client does not regard the potential of the presence of protected wildlife species and sites within the vicinity of the site to be a constraint to development, indeed the mitigation and habitat improvement measures that could be incorporated on this previously developed site could result in improved biodiversity in the wider environment. The site has received a (---) as it has been identified that the 12/13/14 Disagree – any development here would adversely impact on development of the site adjacent to the Conservation Area would the character and setting of the Conservation Area. impact on the retention of the open and rural character specifically referred to in the Conservation Area Appraisal. The Conservation Area Appraisal identifies that the area in which the site lies (Little Leven) is of special interest due to its reflection on the historical uses of Leven `agricultural, small scale, tranquil, with narrow road, broad verges, and with views between properties to the countryside beyond.'

My client believes that the site assessment scoring should be revised to (-) for question 12, as impacts on the Conservation Area could be mitigated through careful and considered design.

Similarly question 13 and 14 is scored at (---). The site is capable of accommodating a sensitive designed residential scheme without significantly detracting from the existing built character or significantly changing the landscape character. My client therefore considers that the site assessment scoring should be revised to (-) for question (13) and (14). It is acknowledged by DEFRA that published ALC maps are accurate 16 Noted Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question only to 80ha and give a general indication of land quality rather than a site specific level of detail. My client therefore reserves the right to provide site specific evidence in regard to agricultural land quality. My client reserves the right to provide site specific evidence in 20 Site assessment comments and score amended to allow for regard to the presence or other wise of sand and gravel deposits. pre-extraction. It is noted that the methodology considers that there may be 24/25 Score and comments amended to reflect updated assessment school and utility infrastructure constraints affecting Leven and of capacity. that the negative scoring applies to all potential residential sites at Leven. Sufficient growth will be necessary at Leven to deliver the vision set out in the Core Strategy for Rural Service Centres. Funding to overcome capacity constraints should be resolved holistically through the appropriate levies. No constraints and developable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. LEV22 No constraints and developable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. Area of land recently excluded from Minerals Area of Search 20 Site assessment comments and score amended to allow for (originally within Minerals Search/Safeguarding Zone). pre-extraction. Natural extension to Leven. Leven is popular. N/A Comments noted. No action required. Against. Adjacent to the conservation area. Safeguarding for sand 12/20 Noted. No action required as comments already reflected in and gravel. draft site assessment. Justification for not allocating. The site is not well related to the form Noted. No action required as comments already reflected in of the existing settlement and is located adjacent to a Conservation draft site assessment. Area on the gateway with the village. The site is, therefore, unsuitable for development. It is acknowledged that the site is not adjacent to the existing 1 Disagree – no change proposed development limits of Leven. It is however, immediately adjacent to the built edge of Leven as formed by 87 West Street. My client considered that the site can be considered in conformity with the Settlement Network. Almost the entirety of the site falls within Flood Zone 1 as 8 Noted defined by the EA's online mapping. Built development on Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question the site (or part thereof) is capable of being contained within the extent of the lowest flood risk. W.0 Watts Estate reserves the right to provide site specific evidence to demonstrate that flood risk would not present a significant constraint to development. The site has scored a (--) for the impact on the biodiversity 10 Score produced in accordance with the SAM. and geological value as the southern extent of the site is adjacent to the SSSI designated Leven Canal and water voles, otters and bats have previously been recorded within 500m of the site. My client does not regard the potential of the presence of protected wildlife species and sites within the vicinity of the site to be a constraint to development, indeed the mitigation and habitat improvement measures that could be incorporated on this previously developed site could result in improved biodiversity in the wider environment. The site has received a (---) as it has been identified that the 12/13/14 Disagree – any development here would adversely impact on development of the site adjacent to the Conservation Area the character and setting of the Conservation Area. would impact on the retention of the open and rural character specifically referred to in the Conservation Area Appraisal. The Conservation Area Appraisal identifies that the area in which the site lies (Little Leven) is of special interest due to its reflection on the historical uses of Leven `agricultural, small scale, tranquil, with narrow road, broad verges, and with views between properties to the countryside beyond.' My client believes that the site assessment scoring should be revised to (-) for question 12, as impacts on the Conservation Area could be mitigated through careful and considered design. Similarly question 13 and 14 is scored at (---).The site is capable of accommodating a sensitive designed residential scheme without significantly detracting from the existing Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question built character or significantly changing the landscape character. My client therefore considers that the site assessment scoring should be revised to (-) for question (13) and (14). It is acknowledged by DEFRA that published ALC maps are accurate 16 Noted only to 80ha and give a general indication of land quality , rather than a site specific level of detail. My client reserves the right to provide site specific evidence in 20 Site assessment comments and score amended to allow for regard to the presence or other wise of sand and gravel deposits. pre-extraction. It is noted that the methodology considers that there may be 24/25 Score and comments amended to reflect updated assessment school and utility infrastructure constraints affecting Leven and of capacity. that the negative scoring applies to all potential residential sites at Leven. Sufficient growth will be necessary at Leven to deliver the vision set out in the Core Strategy for Rural Service Centres. LEV23 No constraints. 31-32 Site assessment to be updated. Do not know. 33 Site assessment to be updated.

Non site specific Fact Check Responses

SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question All these sites have been given careful consideration by the Parish Council and the ones we have suggested to be included are site that we feel can be developable. What we Parish don't want to see are sites that create unsightly urban Comments noted. Council sprawl. What we also do not want is a burden to be out on the existing village resources e.g. the village school. the doctors surgery and the sewage pumps.

Market Weighton Fact Check Responses

Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question MW2 For residential uses the site should score 4 not 7 Accession scores checked – they are correct. 1. Sensitive development that includes remedial 9 Any built development on this open and prominent site would works along York Road could enhance the inevitably affect views of the Wolds beyond. Other, more suitable, approach to the town. Views of the Wolds are sites in the settlement have been identified. only partly visible and could be protected by a suitable layout. Development could contribute to the LDF vision. The LWS is 1000 metres away not 300 to 500 10 Northgate Farm Ballast Pit (Candidate LWS) is approximately 33m to metres. the southwest of the site Site is not at the entrance of the town, 13 As north side of York Road is predominantly open, the built form of development already extends beyond the the settlement does not start until the beginning of the housing western limit. development in Farm Court. The site is therefore correctly identified as being at the entrance to the settlement. Will amend site assessment to clarify this. Site is not at the entrance of the town, 14 As north side of York Road is predominantly open, the built form of development already extends beyond the the settlement does not start until the beginning of the housing western limit. development in Farm Court. The site is therefore correctly identified as being at the entrance to the settlement. Will amend site assessment to clarify this. Development would result in the loss of existing 18 Will add comment on amended assessment that redevelopment pig unit and associated odours. would remove an existing pig unit an amend score to (+++). Could be addressed at a later stage of the 21 Comment noted planning process. Access could be further improved if the site is 25 Add comment to amended assessment regarding linked access to allocated alongside MW3. adjacent site if allocated. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated MW3 Relates well to the form of the settlement. 13 Part of site - yes (MW3) other part - no (MW3r). Site assessments amended to reflect this difference. Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question Access can be provided from Londsborough 25 Assessment sheet amended accordingly and score adjusted to (0) for Road and Thornton Close (via Dawson Rd). MW3. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated MW4 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated MW7 Adequate landscaping would alleviate intrusion 13/14 Landscaping would not alleviate intrusion into sensitive gap or into gap with Goodmanham. overcome coalescence issues. School parking is inadequate leading to 27 Additional school parking (which is proposed on other site (MW21) if potential dangers with vehicular and pedestrian this one was allocated) is not is not considered of sufficient merit to use. override identified concerns. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated MW8 Land has minimal impact and currently unused. General Comment noted – not changes proposed to assessment No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated MW9 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated MW12 Site has already been developed General Site Assessment updated MW13 Screening to the bypass, additional school General Comment noted. places, infrastructure improvements would be dealt with as part of the planning application process. Relates well to settlement form. 13 Draft Assessment noted that site is well related to the settlement form Could be addressed at a later stage of the 21 Comment noted planning process. Can be accessed via Wicstun Way with existing 25 Assessment amended to include possibility of partial access to small options for access to Southgate along Hawking phase from Wicstun Way. Road and Princess Road. Council will have to hold and manage 25 Draft Assessment noted that significant off site highway contributions to fund contributions to the works/traffic management arrangements may be needed Holme Road junction. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated MW14 Screening to the bypass, additional school General Comment noted. Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question places, infrastructure improvements would be dealt with as part of the planning application process. Score should be increase to reflect that large 8 Site assessment score amended to reflect change to flood zone areas of the site now fall in flood zone 1. maps. Ecological appraisal of the site concluded that 10 Add comments regarding potential barriers to dispersal. Great Crested Newts are unlikely to be found on the site. Records relate to habitats relate to gardens on Sanfield Close (roads and houses are a significant barrier to dispersal). Presence of bats would be mitigated by retention of trees and hedgerows. Shape of site and need for screening to by-pass 14 Draft site assessment noted the need for additional screening to the unlikely to achieve significant residential bypass development. Council will have to hold and manage 25 Amend comments on site assessment to reflect need for junction contributions to fund contributions to the improvements. Holme Road junction. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated MW15 Great crested newts are present in significant 10 Draft site assessment noted the presence of Great Crested Newts numbers in a water body within MW15 and within 500m of the site gardens of Sandfield Close to the south. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated MW16 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated MW17 MW1 has been granted planning permission for 1 Site assessment and score changed to reflect potential allocation of industrial use. Therefore, the site is not remote adjacent site. from the settlement. Site is used by an agricultural contractor 5 Agriculture is Greenfield use. Depot for contractor is not. Site assessment changed to reflect this. Need/demand for smaller premises for small or 9 Additional employment land is not required in excess of that already start-up businesses, which are in short supply. identified. Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question Becklands is full and Brookfields Business Park only has one unit suitable for office work. MW18 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated

Notes: Scoring was the wrong way round for Q30 (house price ratio) on some sites. Scores now corrected on revised site assessments.

Melbourne Fact Check responses

Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question MBN1 This site is considered as a secondary site by the Parish Council to General Noted meet future housing: Positive aspects: In keeping with the Village Design Statement, maintaining a linear development.; reasonable highway access; it is adjacent to mains sewerage; it will generate the least public objection due to smaller numbers of immediate neighbours. Adverse aspects: This site is beyond the current Village boundary and, as such, should be considered only if absolutely necessary. -This site is not contained by any physical features and as such the 13, 14 Noted and taken into account. development of this site would extend the settlement in a linear fashion into the open countryside. -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated MBN2 This site is preferred by the Parish Council. Its positive aspects General Noted include: in keeping with village design statement, maintaining linear development; reasonable highway access; they are adjacent to mains sewerage; will generate the least public objection due to smaller numbers of immediate neighbours. This site lies beyond the settlement limits and whilst the site 13, 14 Noted and taken into account. adjoins the settlement to the east there is open countryside to the south and west. There are no boundaries to the south and west and therefore development would appear to extend the settlement beyond any natural or logical confines. There are better sites in Melbourne to accommodate the required level of growth.

-No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated MBN3 This site is rejected by the Parish Council. General Noted Does not maintain 'linear development and is adverse to the Village Design Statement.; access is on to a country lane, Kidd Lane; which is a narrow country road; it has a high impact on existing neighbourhood. -A large site which lies behind linear development that fronts onto 13, 14 Noted and taken into account. Main Street to the north. The site could provide in the order of 69 new dwellings at 30 dwellings per hectare and if Policy SS2 is applied it would take 14 years to build out the site at 5 dwellings per annum. The site is plainly too large in the context of Melbourne which is a secondary rural service centre. Kidd Lane provides the eastern boundary to the site which is also currently open and indeed it is noted that the MBN3 site extends well beyond the limits of the MBN4 site on the eastern side of Kidd Lane. Development here would significantly extend the settlement into the open countryside beyond any logical or natural limits. This is considered to be a poor site. -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated MBN4 This site is preferred by the Parish Council. Its positive aspects 13 Noted include: in keeping with village design statement, maintaining linear development; reasonable highway access; they are adjacent to mains sewerage; will generate the least public objection due to smaller numbers of immediate neighbours. The site is located at the corner of Main Street and Kidd Lane 13, 14 Noted and taken into account. which, respectively, form the northern and eastern boundaries. Although the form of development would echo the existing pattern of development to the south side of Main Street, the site is reasonably open and located in a prominent position and there are other sites, within the settlement which would deliver a similar number of dwellings but with less visual impact on the village. MBN5 This site is rejected by the Parish Council. 2, 10, 13 Noted. Site assessment amended to reflect this. It is too close to close to SSSI designated area which the Parish Council is determined to protect; does not maintain linear development and is adverse to the Village Design Statement; and this is a wetland area and any impact from building drainage systems may well have consequences for the SSSI.

MBN5 would form a logical and appropriate extension to 13, 14 Even limited site area would extend the built form outwards Melbourne. The site is bounded to the west by the local primary beyond the mainly linear pattern of the settlement. Site school, to the south by development which fronts onto Main Street assessment amended to reflect this. and to the east by a mature hedgerow. There is an existing access to the site from Main Street. Whilst this site is shown to be relatively large in the Allocations DPD it is the intention of the developer to only construct a limited number of houses thereby squaring up the urban form in line with the rear curtilage of the primary school as suggested in the Council's Site Assessment at points 13 and 14 of Stage 3. -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated MBN6 This site is rejected by the Parish Council. 13, 15 Noted, however the Council does not hold any evidence of air Does not maintain linear development and is adverse to the Village quality problems in this area. Design Statement; it has a very high neighbourhood impact and will attract considerable opposition; environmentally this area suffers from intermittent air quality problems; and we are convinced that this area is not ideal Site extends beyond a logical rounding off of the urban form. 5, 13, 14 Several land bids have been amalgamated together with other The site is bound to the north and west by residential properties bids to produce the potential site as shown in the May 2010 which front onto Main Street and Campey Lane respectively. To consultation. the east by the large garden of a residential property beyond which lies the local playing fields. The southern boundary of the However, even a reduced site would not relate well to the site cuts through the field so that it lines up with the southern edge existing settlement pattern and would result in a backland form of the settlement. Site is isolated from the open countryside. of development that would not be in keeping with the linear There are two access points available which both lead from Main form of the settlement. Street into the site. Does not intrude into the open countryside. Other, more suitable, sites have been identified in order to meet Development of this site would therefore round off the settlement. the housing requirement for the village. It is considered that this a good site in visual and physical terms. Part of the site constitutes previously developed land. -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Noted and assessment updated.

Wishes the component sites of MBN6 to be shown separately, so This would not alter the assessment of the overall site or its that development parcels are of a 'village scale'. constituent parts and their relative suitability for selection. MBN7 This site is preferred by the Parish Council. Its positive aspects 13 Noted include: in keeping with village design statement, maintaining linear development; reasonable highway access; they are adjacent to mains sewerage; will generate the least public objection due to smaller numbers of immediate neighbours.

The site is bounded to the west by residential development, to the 13, 14 Noted, and taken account of in the site assessment. south by Main Street beyond which there is further residential development and to the east by a mature hedgerow. There is no boundary to the north. Whilst the development of this site would extend the settlement there is a logical and natural boundary demarcating the eastern end of the settlement. There would therefore be limited views of this site from the east and importantly the development would not affect the character of the settlement as you entered it. It is considered that this is a site suitable for development

-No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated

MBN8 This site is rejected by the Parish Council. 2, 10, 13 Noted It is too close to close to SSSI designated area which the Parish Council is determined to protect; does not maintain linear development and is adverse to the Village Design Statement; and this is a wetland area and any impact from building drainage systems may well have consequences for the SSSI. -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated

MBN9 This site is rejected by the Parish Council. 2, 10, 13 Noted It is too close to close to SSI designated area which the Parish Council is determined to protect; does not maintain linear development and is adverse to the Village Design Statement; and this is a wetland area and any impact from building drainage systems may well have consequences for the SSI. -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated MBN10 This site is rejected by the Parish Council. 13, 19 Noted Access is on to Kidd Lane which is a narrow country road; no immediate mains sewerage; does not maintain linear development and is adverse to the Village Design Statement; environmentally unacceptable as the site includes a closed landfill which may or may not have been adopted by ERYC at closure in accordance with the relevant Environmental Protection Acts; it is doubted that it complies with modern landfill management techniques and risk of land subsidence may be high; and the land itself will be designated as 'contaminated' and any building would raise significant issues to ensure building regulation compliance.

Melton Fact Check responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question MELT2 Site has now been developed Draft assessment noted this. MELT3 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. MELT4 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. MELT5 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. MELT6 Site forms part of a larger area identified as a land bid. - Noted No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. MELT7 Site forms part of a larger area identified as a land bid. - Noted No constraints and deliverable in 5 years (subject to investment) 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. MELT8 Site forms part of a larger area identified as a land bid. - Noted No constraints and deliverable in 5 years (subject to investment) 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. MELT9 Site forms part of a larger area identified as a land bid. - Noted No constraints and deliverable within 5 years (subject to 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. investment) MELT13 As site is being promoted for mixed use, no uses should be 1 This does not accord with the approach set out in the adopted Site discounted at stage 1. Assessment Methodology. Correspondence with Natural England is stated to demonstrate 2 Site Assessment amended accordingly. that development on the site is not likely to have an adverse effect on the features for which the SSSI has been designated - and so score should be amended to (No) Agree with score/commentary 3, 4, 6, 7, Noted. 8 Extended Phase 1 Habitats Survey and ERYC Screening Opinion 10 Score for this question based on based on NEYEDC screening data confirms that development would not have an adverse impact - and standardised methodology. Maintain (--) score. suggests amending score to (+) Could provide additional landscaping which would enhance 11 Provision of additional landscaping unlikely to have significant features for wildlife - suggests amending score to (+++) positive benefit for wildlife and natural environment if site is developed, maintain (0) score. Site cannot be seen from the road so does not contribute to 13 Hedgerows and planting along site frontage provide a break in the visual separation of Melton and Welton, and Melton and Welton built up area which contributes to the visual separation of Melton are already joined so would not contribute to coalescence. and Welton. Acknowledge that existing development to south of Should receive a neutral or positive score. road has joined the settlements in part, but policy approach is to prevent and future exacerbation of this. Maintain (---) score. A more recent landscape assessment has been carried out by 14 Site assessment amended accordingly. landowner since the LCA was completed. Shows that the site is well screened by existing landform, and woodland plantations and only visible from a small number of locations. Mitigation measures would ensure that development would generally be minor adverse or negligible. Site historically formed part of the quarry but was not 20 Site in chalk safeguarding area and extraction may become viable in considered to offer a viable mineral resource and so sold over 10 the future. Score maintained. years ago. Amend score to (0). Indicative masterplan shows that site could deliver significant 22 Though indicative masterplan shows significant open space, this is public open space. Amend score to (+++) as part of a residential scheme and residential uses do not pass stage 1 of the Site Assessment Methodology. Should be scored for school capacity. 23 Residential use does not pass stage 1 of the adopted SAM, and school capacity is not a consideration that have proceeded to stages 2/3. A mixed use scheme involving residential and community uses is 27 Residential uses do not pass stage 1 of the adopted SAM. proposed, so score should be (+++). Proposed mixed use scheme would result in economic benefits. 29 Draft assessment has scored the site in accordance with the adopted SAM. Should be scored for Affordable Housing 30 Residential uses do not pass stage 1 of the adopted SAM. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. MELT14 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Site does not pass Stage 1. MELT15 Site is not 100% greenfield as includes barn. 5 Site assessment amended accordingly. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. MELT17 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Site does not pass Stage 1. MELT18 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Site does not pass Stage 1. MELT20 Site forms part of a larger area identified as a land bid. - Noted No constraints and deliverable in 5 years (subject to investment) 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment.

Middleton on the Wolds Fact Check Responses

Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question MID1 Along the western and southern boundaries are 13/14 Draft Assessment noted that it is a large site on the edge of the considered to be very sensitive to development. village and would extend built form into open countryside Site is in a prominent position at the gateway to the settlement. In close proximity to the sewerage works. 18 Draft Assessment noted the proximity to the sewerage works No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated MID2 Development could harm the character and 12 Draft Assessment noted the potential impact on the Conservation appearance of the Conservation Area. Area Former quarry and questionable whether it is 31-32 Comment added to revised site assessment. viable/deliverable. MID3 Development could harm the character and 12 Draft appraisal refers to potential harm to Conservation Area. appearance of the Conservation Area. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated MID4 At least 25% of the site is occupied as former 5 Revise score in amended Site Assessment to reflect this. MoD buildings (not agricultural buildings) and should be classed as previously developed land. Station Road would provide suitable vehicular 25 Draft Assessment noted that there were no significant highways access and pedestrian access onto Church Hill issues. Road. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated MID5 Development would result in the loss of 29 Amend score and add comment to updated Site Assessment. potential employment in the settlement. Right of way to Millfield Works identified as an 31 Site Assessment updated insurmountable constraint. Site would not be attractive to the market 32 Site Assessment updated MID6 Development could harm setting of Parklands 12 Draft Assessment noted the potential impact on Parklands Hall Hall and character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Not well related to the built form of the 13/14 Draft Assessment noted that it would extend built form into open Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question settlement and in a visual prominent position at countryside and is in a prominent position at the entrance to the gateway to the settlement. village No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated

Nafferton Fact Check responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question NAF1 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated NAF8 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated NAF10 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated NAF11 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated

North Cave Fact Check Responses

Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question NCA1 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. Only 31-33 Site assessment updated. part owner, Identified other owners on map. NCA4/ Potential for associated economic development if general Site assessment updated. 5/6/7/ appropriate. 9/16 Convenient and accessible to all village facilities. 6/7 Comment noted. Safeguarding setting of heritage assets. 12 Comment noted. Adjoins development limit. Conservation area defines 13 Comment noted. Development of the whole site would not be northern and western boundaries. Village edge and well related to the settlement but development of part of the site. general character and ambiance of the village will be Site assessments assess each site separately as they are different safeguarded. Integration with village form. in nature. Safeguarding setting of heritage assess I important. Predominantly level ground, as such site is not unduly 14 Comment noted. Site assessments assess each site separately as prominent in the landscape. Site sits at the edge of they are different in nature. the village and is predominantly open in character. Safeguarding the settlement edge and recognising the sensitivity of the landscape are key objectives of the development. Landscape will inform the potential form of development. Acknowledged desire to enhance/expand existing Noted sports and leisure facilities. Masterplan shows opportunities for open space. Reduced area for potential development submitted Comment noted. Revised area will be assessed. (see appendix 1 of submission). No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment amended. NCA3 Site well located, within walking and cycling distance 6/7 Site assessment methodology sets out how scores are arrived at. of all village services and facilities. Site would be reconfigured to exclude southern 8 Comment noted. Site assessment updated to reflect comment. portion of the site which adjoins the beck. This will However this would not change the decision to reject the site as mean the site is entirely within flood zone 1. les suitable than others for other reasons. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question Suitable rounding off of the village. 13 Comment noted. Site assessment considers development to extend built form into undeveloped area. Numerous land owners responded. One stated the 31-33 Site assessment updated. multiple owners are supportive of development. All stated no constraints and deliverable within 5 years. Land owner of south western part considering their options – including selling if land not likely to be allocated. Bowls centre likely to close within 5 years. NCA4 See comment to NCA4/5/6/7/9/16

NCA5 See comment to NCA4/5/6/7/9/16 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. NCA6 See comment to NCA4/5/6/7/9/16 NCA7 See comment to NCA4/5/6/7/9/16

Site is within easy walking and cycling distance of 7 Site assessment methodology sets out how scores are arrived at. local services and facilities. There are no structures or buildings on the sites 10 Site assessment methodology sets out how scores are arrived at. which could provide a habitat for any protected species. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. NCA8 Site could be reconfigured to include the entire field general As the additional land is part on another potential site (NCA15) it (part of which is currently within NCA15).This would will be assessed irrespective of the site number. No change extend the site area to 1.82 ha. Map attached. proposed.

Site is within easy walking and cycling distance of 7 Site assessment methodology sets out how scores are arrived at. local services and facilities. There are no structures or buildings on the sites 10 Site assessment methodology sets out how scores are arrived at. which could provide a habitat for any protected species. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question NCA9 See comment to NCA4/5/6/7/9/16 NCA12 Site is not at risk of flooding. 8 Comment noted. Site is outside conservation area. 12 Comment noted. Do not agree that site is unduly detached from the 13 Comment noted. existing development limit or poorly related to existing pattern of development. In fact the northern part of the site abuts the existing built form of the village. Site is better placed than others in the village, which are on the periphery of the village or completely separate from the village. Site is well screened. 14 Comment noted. Public right of way would be retained 22 Comment noted. Council could allocate all or part of the site. If part, General/ Comment noted. the northern section would be logical, this would 22 allow the southern part to be used for open space and/or biodiversity gains. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. NCA13 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. Part of 31-33 Site assessment updated. the site has mines and minerals expressly excluded from the title. NCA16 See comment to NCA4/5/6/7/9/16 Site is available for development. 31-33 Site assessment updated.

North Ferriby Fact Check Responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question Site area is 0.42ha not 0.39. general Site measures 0.39ha as plotted. Site included existing vehicular access track to several 5 Potentially developable part of site is 100% Greenfield. FER1 properties and therefore is not 100% Greenfield, Track would need to remain to serve the existing dwellings although it is less than 25% PDL. and has not therefore been considered as being part of site. There are existing trees to the north and eastern 11 Assessment was that the protected trees would be likely to boundaries, including those covered by a TPO. However, be significantly affected by any development on the site the centre of the site can be developed without that would be above the threshold level for allocation. impacting on the protected trees. Should be scored 0 Score is considered correct. given existing features can be retained and would not preclude development on the site. Such a comment was provided by the council in relation to built character. As all sites score 0 assume Council intends to reassess 21 Noted. schemes once development has been brought forward. Discussion with Council officers (officers details 23 Score informed by the Infrastructure Study. identified) there is a small level of capacity at South Hunlsley. Score should be 0. No known constraints and deliverable within 5 years. Site assessment updated. Currently preparing to submit planning application. 31-33 It is likely that the existing Home will have to be general Site assessment updated to reflect potential for assisted relocated to new premises or could be redeveloped to living units. FER2 provide assisted living units in conjunction with open market housing. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. FER3 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. FER4 Available for development, ownership details unknown. 31-33 Site assessment updated. The site is immediately adjoining the current settlement 13 Comment noted. limit. The site assessment indentifies it as being very well FER5 screened by mature tree belts to the open boundaries to the north and east. There is also some existing SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question development on part of the northern boundary which itself lies outside the current development limit. The site is also adjacent to the sports ground to the south which although being outside the development limit on paper is perceived on the ground as being part of the village.

The site has excellent highway access (it is understood 25 Comment noted. there is no ‘ransom’ strip at the end of the existing Close) and the traffic generation from a new residential development will have no significant implications for highway safety as an addition to the traffic currently generated by the small residential estate which has an appropriate junction with Church Road.

No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. Site has a natural boundary. Most of the gardens of general Comment noted. However, site is below size threshold for Brickyard cottages have been developed and therefore it allocation. FER7 will not set a precedent. Development of the site would visually improve the area. Site is only for a single plot. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. FER8 Revised site area submitted, including access road. general Noted – no changes to assessment required. Propose employment or/and housing general Site assessment updated to reflect potential use. FER9 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years or 5-10 Site assessment updated. years. 31-33

Patrington Fact Check responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question General Only PAT1, PAT2 & PAT3 should be considered as potential General Noted sites General Should have been informed on PAT6 as a new site since 2010 General Noted – Fact Checking exercise has informed PC of site. consultation PAT1 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated PAT2 Site was in previous plan and is surrounded by houses, near 6/7 Noted the market place for shops and on the main bus route Some older buildings could be converted 13 Noted No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated PAT3 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated PAT4 Not suitable for building. Highway network capacity issues 25 Noted because the roads around this area (with PAT5) would not be able to take a significant increase in traffic which either or both of these sites would cause. (PC) No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated PAT5 Not suitable for building. Highway network capacity issues 25 Noted because the roads around this area (with PAT4) would not be able to take a significant increase in traffic which either or both of these sites would cause. (PC) No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated PAT6 Will have a greater risk of contamination than stated in report 19 Site assessment refers to the issue of potential contamination due to current and previous use of the land and scores the site accordingly. Industrial site close to residential property and General Noted and score for Q1 corrected to Yes but comments added to recreation/leisure facilities; Demand for this site (as industrial refer to the fact that the site is not considered to be well related use?) in Patrington is negligible; Planning gain from to the man body of the settlement. development of site for residential purposes in preference to any greenfield sites Previously developed land ready for residential development 5 Noted – assessment score reflects this Sustainable and within walking distance of all facilities in 7 Assessment score produced in accordance with SAM and Patrington accession software Will not extend into the open countryside or use greenfield 13 Assessment score amended and comments changed to explain land; No potential impact on the visual amenities of the area that whilst redevelopment may improve appearance of site, it is or in extending the current built development area of not particularly prominent in the general landscape. Patrington into open countryside Potential contamination can be readily cleared as current 19 Score reflects this. occupiers of site are specialists in clearing such sites Accessible from public highway and close to the public 6/25 Acknowledged in score. transport network Compatible with development on adjoining land 18 Agreed Not in flood risk area 3/8 Agreed No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated

Pocklington Fact Check Responses

Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question POC1 Discussions are ongoing with gliding specialists regarding the 31 - 33 Comment Noted risk posed by positioning development at the end of an operational runway - further information will be provided. The site is deliverable in 5 -15 years POC2 Pro-forma response received - no constraints, deliverable in 5 - 31 - 33 Site assessment updated 10 years POC3 Pro-forma response received - no constraints, deliverable in 5 - 31 - 33 Site assessment updated 10 years POC4 Response received - no constraints, deliverable in 5 -15 years 31-33 Site assessment updated POC5 Pro-forma response received - no constraints, deliverable in 6- 31-33 Site assessment updated 10 years POC7/POC8 Agents for land bidder propose a score of (+++); 9 Development would not respect and enhance the distinctive - Well related to the town character of the town due to the open and sensitive location - Would provide an improved sports facility of the site. Part of site is within a high landscape value area. - The site will provide a mix of housing Development of majority of site for residential would therefore undermine the settlement vision and sub-area policies. Score should be (0) as any significant features can be 10 Review conserved/retained Score should be (-) as the site is in an area of medium to high 14 Open sensitive site at entrance to town, highly visible from sensitivity and development can only be absorbed by the Kilnwick Road approach from east. Within an important landscape in limited locations. landscape area to the north east of town. High sensitivity in comparison to the rest of Pocklington - Site is in a prominent location in sight of the Yorkshire Wolds. Development of the majority of site for residential would be harmful. Southern part of site to south of Springfield Road may be less sensitive to appropriate development. S should be (+++) 21 No information submitted to demonstrate use of renewable, very low carbon energy or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions Response received - no constraints, deliverable in 5-15 years 31 - 33 Site assessment updated POC9 Pro-forma response received - Cricket Club would require 31 - 33 Site assessment updated relocation, deliverable in 5-15 years POC10 Pro-forma response received - no constraints, deliverable in 5- 31 - 33 Site assessment updated 15 years POC11 Pro-forma response received PLEASE REMOVE LAND BID 31 - 33 Noted POC12 Site should not include the playing field and the comments 5 should accord with this. Site should not include Evergreen Wood and any development 10 Score produced in accordance with the SAM and advice would have no effect on existing features from NEYEDC ERYC comments are contradictory - Development of the site 13 Review score and comments would only result in a minor effect on the built environment and should therefore be scored as a (0) Given the ERYC LCA identifying the site as being within an 14 Review score and comments ordinary landscape, the site should at worst score (-) The land quality is considered to be AGL 3b and the score 16 Natural England's evidence shows the site to be located on should reflect this (0) Grade 2 agricultural land. The site does not include any existing playing fields and the 22 Amend site score accordingly – site split to avoid playing score should reflect this fields Development would provide a new link between Burnby Lane 25 No significant highways issues/improvements anticipated and the Balk - score should be (+++) No loss of playing fields/community facilities (0) 27 Amend accordingly (0) All sites within Pocklington should be ranked with the same 30 Not all parts of Pocklington are covered by the same census score of either (+) or (+++) data Received - no constraints, deliverable in 5-15 years 31 - 33 Site assessment updated POC13 Development of the site would only result in a minor effect on 13 Score correct but comments amended. the built environment and should therefore be scored at worst (-) The land quality is considered to be AGL 3b and the score 16 Natural England's evidence shows the site to be located on should reflect this (0) Grade 2 agricultural land. Proposal includes significant areas for green space and 22 No evidence that this would produce such green space over development of the site has potential to improve one of the and above what would be required by policy. Towns main recreational areas. Development would provide a new link between West Green 25 Amended score to (+) and the Balk - score should be (+) All sites within Pocklington should be ranked with the same 30 Not all parts of Pocklington are covered by the same census score of either (+) or (+++) data Received - no constraints, deliverable in 5-15 years 31 - 33 Site assessment updated POC14 The proposed layout of development indicates that 8 Amend score to 4 due to parts of the identified site being in development would not be located within floodzone 2 flood zone 2 Development would have no effect on the built character - the 13 Review score and comments site is well screened, score should be (0) Also the site contains farm buildings and development would replace the unsightly existing structures on the site - score should be (+++) The land quality is considered to be AGL 3b and the score 16 Natural England's evidence shows the site to be located on should reflect this (0) Grade 2 agricultural land. Odour of the WWTW is restricted and control + the prevailing 18 Part of the site is within the 400m buffer of a WWTW amend winds ensure development would not be effected by odours. comments to clarify not an issue Score should be (0) Submitted BREEAM report which demonstrates that the 21 Keep score at (0) until more details known. development of the site can achieve energy efficiencies above and beyond existing policy requirements. score should be (+) Proposal includes significant areas for green space and 22 No evidence that this would produce such green space over development of the site has potential to improve one of the and above what would be required by policy. Towns main recreational areas. Former Mill and Farm site which used a considerable amount of 24 Utilities comments amended and deal with the whole electricity. There is a sub station on the site which would be settlement improved by developer contributions and all other facilities are available and not over capacity. score should be (+) Development would provide a new link between West Green 25 No significant highways issues/improvements anticipated and the Balk - score should be (+) The current planning application on the site proposes to 27 Amend the score to (+++) with the proviso that the new GP provide a new GP surgery. The siting of the surgery has been surgery is provided. identified as being the most suitable location for a new surgery within the Town. The score should be amended to (+++)

POC18 Pro-forma response received - no constraints, deliverable in 5- 31 - 33 Site assessment updated 15 years

Preston Fact Check Responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question Insurmountable and market/ownership Comments added to amended site assessment Q8 constraints identified - garden land has been 31-32 subject to flooding. PRES3 Insurmountable and market/ownership Comments added to amended site assessment Q11 constraints identified - site is of immense 31-32 wildlife value with over 100 trees. PRES5 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated PRES6 No constraints and deliverable in 15 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated Site provides a natural extension to the Comments added to amended site assessment Q13/14 settlement and can be reduced to make it more PRES7 13/14 appropriate to the size of the settlement. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated

Roos Fact Check Responses

Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question ROO1 Lies adjacent to development limit 1 Noted No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated Within walking and cycling distances of services 7 Noted Site did not flood in 2007. Will also not use Roos 8 Records shows that adjacent properties on access road flooded. Site Beck for drainage which did overload in 2007. assessment comments will be amended accordingly however score remains the same. Not adjacent to a disused farmstead, but 19 Adjacent buildings were once a farmstead so contamination may still behind Eastfield House be an issue. Score is however (0) to reflect low likelihood. ROO2 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated ROO3 LAND BID WITHDRAWN 31-33 Site removed from consideration ROO4 No comments received ROO5 Land currently used for piggeries but available General Comments added to site assessment. for development – will get rid of pigs in village No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated ROO6 No comments received ROO7 Site will be developed for more than one General Site has been assessed on the basis of its net developable site area dwelling (4 on application 12/03382/PLF) and the likely number of dwellings will be less than the threshold for allocations. Comments on site assessment amended. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated ROO8 Site is not in conformity with settlement 1 Adjacent to development limits so meets proximity criterion. network (PC) However, very large site and so not compatible with scale of development expected for this type of settlement. Site assessment comments amended to reflect this. Attractive landscaped site ideal for residential 14 Not suitable for residential development for the reasons outlined in development assessment sheet. No change proposed. ROO9 May not be compatible with neighbourhood 18 Site assessment comments amended to refer to this and score users (e.g. the playing fields) (PC) changed to (-). No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question Lies adjacent to development limit 1 Noted – site assessment comments already acknowledge this. Within walking and cycling distances of services 7 Accession scores relate to proximity to larger centres and services. Landscaping is a priority and should be included 14 Noted as part of the design of the scheme Loss of land for agricultural purpose would be 16 Noted – score reflects this minimal Unlikely to be contaminated. Potentially 19 Noted – comments already state this. contaminated land is separate and could be mitigated through a condition Renewable and low carbon energy principles 21 No clear evidence provided that scheme would exceed normal can be included requirements. Access is available via ROO1 – same ownership 25 Noted that access could be available through ROO1 ROO10 Roos is a linear settlement. Expansion east or General Site is detached from main settlement and does not fit the approach west on agricultural land would be as asset out in the Site Assessment Methodology which requires inappropriate. More logical to go north with sites to be either within or adjacent to the existing settlement. frontage development along Main Street and around the school. Site is close enough to amenities (which are towards the north of the settlement) so that people wouldn’t jump in their car unlike other sites A gap between the site and the village is not 13 Noted but this approach is not reflected in the above methodology. necessarily a poor form of development – precedent elsewhere. Should be seen as a positive. There’s a footpath link to village services 7 Noted - but this does not alter the SAM score. Not agricultural land 16 Comments added to clarify that land is not currently in agricultural use but it is still within the area defined as Grade 2 land. Score amended to (0). Development adjacent to development limit 1 Noted but this does not alter the assessment of this site. will always spoil someone’s view

Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question Positive reaction within the parish to recently General This does not impact on SAM scores withdrawn application for site. Would use local tradesmen

ROO11 Joint owner of site not interested in 31-33 Site removed from consideration. Comments amended development 31 – Yes 32 – Yes 33 - No

Skirlaugh Fact Check Responses

Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question General SK1 - Area susceptible to flooding and site provides an General Comments noted important open vista Skirlaugh PC SK2 - The northern end of site is susceptible to flooding. SKG3 - Development of the site may impact on the sewerage network. Impact on traffic on Cawood Lane. SKG 4&5 - Flooding does not raise concerns, additional traffic would be created on Cawood Lane SKG 6 - Development would require the removal of the playing field. Some benifits in relation to access but the narrowness of Hillfield Drive would need to be taken into consideration. SKG1 Standard response received - No insurmountable or 31-33 Site assessment updated. market constraints. Site is likely to be developable within a 15 year period.

SKG3 No insurmountable or market constraints. Site is likely to 31-33 Site assessment updated. be developable within a 15 year period. SKG5 Standard response received - No insurmountable or 31-33 Site assessment updated. market constraints. Site is likely to be developable within a 15 year period.

SKG6 Standard response received - No insurmountable or 31-33 Site assessment updated. market constraints. Site is likely to be developable within a 15 year period.

Snaith Fact Check responses

Site SAM Fact Check Response Officer comment Question SNA1 -Welcome change of use from employment/residential (2010) to 3 Site Assessment updated to refer to the correct flood zone. employment only. Should be noted that the site lies within a functional floodplain and not as indicated in the site assessment. It plays a strategic part in the Environment Agency's flood defences for both Snaith and Gowdall. SNA2 - We believe that this potential development plot would not be 25, 32 Site Assessment to be updated viable as it is in the multiple ownership of residents on the north side of George Street. It lies within a high risk flood area. Access would be limited by the narrow George Street and would be very obtrusive to local residents. SNA3 See this area as having the most development potential alongside Noted but comment not related to how the site has been SNA4. Recommend 50m green corridor between these two sites assessed. and the existing housing estate. SNA3- has the underground reservoir for all the surface water for Noted the Cavendish Park Development. Land current use- agriculture. -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated SNA4 See this area as having the most development potential alongside Noted but comment not related to how the site has been SNA3. Recommend 50m green corridor between these two sites assessed. and the existing housing estate. Current use of land- Agricultural- growing crops Noted -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated SNA5 We assume that this proposed area is part of a long term Noted development strategy for Snaith and Have no specific comment at this stage. -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated SNA6 We welcome the proposal that this area is designated as mixed Noted residential/business. If business units could be shown to be viable we would like to see them brought forward in the development proposals. SNA7 This proposed site is completely unacceptable, it accounts for 13, 14 Noted, this has been factored into the site assessment. approx 72% of the proposed total area and is approx double the land currently occupied by the town of Snaith. If developed Snaith would completely lose its character and become a soulless dormitory town of Leeds, Hull, York and Doncaster. Only part of SNA7 as hatched on plan belong to I.A.S:Wood & 32 Noted, we will update our records accordingly. H.E.Wood Current use of land- agricultural- growing crops Noted -No constraints and may be deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment to be updated SNA8 We would not like to see any development in SNA8 as we wish to 13 This has been factored into the site assessment. maintain the separate identities and of the separate communities of Snaith and West Cowick. This has been part of development strategy for many years and we believe it should continue. General Flooding- Most of the proposed development areas lie within 3, 8 The Environment Agency's policy as set out in the 'Aire either a functional flood plain or are an area of high risk of Catchment Flood Management Plan' is 'Areas of low to moderate flooding (ref: ERYC web site 2010). It is currently the Environment flood risk where we will take action with others to store water or Agency’s policy not to ensure that steps are taken to reduce the manage run-off in locations that provide overall flood risk level of flood risk to Snaith but to maintain the flood defences at reduction or environmental benefits.' We have been using the their present level. Site Assessment Methodology to take into account flood risk factors for each site. General Education- Should all the proposed residential sites be developed 23 Our latest assessments show there is sufficient existing capacity the number of primary aged pupils in Snaith would more than within both primary and secondary schools serving Snaith to double, creating the need for a new school, it is unlikely that the accommodate the proposed housing growth. site of the present school could absorb this level of growth. There would also be a comparative increase .in the number of pupils of secondary school age requiring a substantial (approx 70% ) expansion of Snaith School. General Yorkshire Water In August 2010 Yorkshire Water indicated 24 Noted. We are working with Yorkshire Water to ensure that that the development of sites 1-4 would require an upsizing of investment is made in infrastructure to serve new development their sewage treatment and pumping facilities. Water pressure is including any additional pumping capacity required. Latest already low in parts of Snaith indicating that an upgrading would assessments how that no additional investment in sewage be required early in any new developments. treatment capacity is required to facilitate the proposed level of growth. General Medical Centre- the Snaith Medical Centre is currently being 27 We have completed an outline assessment of the need for health upgraded to meet the needs of the present catchment area. Any facilities into the future working with the NHS. The likely general further developments could necessitate a further review of its need for further facilities into the future is recognised and we will facilities. continue to work with the NHS on additional provision where necessary. General Transport Services currently the local Selby/Goole bus service via 6 Noted. An assessment of how well the sites are served by existing Snaith cannot be extended to include Cavendish Park ( Ben Bailey public transport services has been completed. Consideration of ) estate and the western part of Snaith for Health and Safety new public transport facilities and linking into the current public reasons, ie no provision to turn round a bus. Any development of transport network are requirements of draft Strategy Document sites 3,4,5,& 6 must take this into account and provide a circular Policies S8 and EC5. route through the estates. The present rail services from Snaith do lend themselves to use by commuters to and from West Yorkshire, many travelling by road to Knottingly or Castleford to access services. Should any of these developments take place we would look to the ERYC to lobby the service providers and work with them to provide a better level of service.

South Cave Fact Check Responses

Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question General/ South Cave is not a RSC 1 Comment noted. This is not an opportunity to comment on the all sites Don’t agree with the methodology (Q2) methodology. All sites School is at capacity 23 Information is based on the Council’s Infrastructure Study. All sites TRICS rating of Poor. Question doesn’t address frequency or 6 The site assessment methodology sets out how the question ability to achieve more frequency. South Cave does not should be answered. The same methodology has been used to have the density to support sustainable transport. assess sites throughout the East riding. SCA1 Site well related to built area with housing development on 1 Comment noted. Site assessment reflects site is adjacent to 2 sides. Directly about settlement boundary. development limit. Site is used for arable production – biodiversity value is 2/10 Score reflects the fact that any significant impacts can be low, except possibly field margins. Margins can be mitigated. protected and enhanced in any development. Not at risk according to EA mapping. 3/8 This is reflected in the site assessment. No impact on heritage assets. Outside conservation area 4/12 This is reflected in the site assessment. and not near listed buildings. Consider is more accessible than score suggests. Suggests 6 The Site Assessment Methodology sets out how the score will be revised scoring. awarded. The same methodology is used across the East Riding for consistency. More weight should be given to accessibility to shops in 7 The Site Assessment Methodology sets out how the score will be Market Place and other facilities in S Cave. Suggests revised awarded. The same methodology is used across the East Riding scores. for consistency. Trees and hedges can be retained. 11 Score reflects the ability to retain existing features. Development can be designed to accord with built 13/14 Development would extend settlement into the countryside. character of the locality with low density homes in large landscaped plots on the road frontage. Will provide attractive entrance to S. Cave. Would only lead to minor loss of agricultural land. 16 This is reflected in the site assessment. Would not cause harm to ground water. 17 This is reflected in the site assessment. Residential development would be compatible with 18 This is reflected in the site assessment. surrounding residential development. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question Potential of contamination is low. And if found would be 19 This is reflected in the site assessment. easily remediated. Many of the homes could have south facing aspects and so 21 Positive weighting will only be given to this question where it is use solar power. It would also be possible to use air source clear that the provision will go beyond national/local heat pumps. Given the size and orientation of the site requirements. provision of renewable will not be difficult. Wolds way can be protected during development. 22 Score reflects that there will be no adverse impact. There is capacity at schools. 23 Score and commentary for school amended but there is still a need for improvements to the secondary school. Enquired to Yorkshire Water who state site can be 24 The assessment considers the capacity to accommodate the level satisfactorily drained. All utilities are available. Capacity of development required in South Cave. It does not consider issues not expected for a site of this size. each site independently. Traffic can easily be accommodated on Beverley Road. 25 This is reflected in the site assessment. Though comments from Highways are being sort. Development can provide affordable housing. 30 This is reflected in the site assessment. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. Should score 3 due to >1:100 slope. Development will 8 Score amended aggravate development downstream. Cannot be mitigated. Highly visible site on edge of village. 13 Score of (---) was given. Should be (---). Outside development not inside. Area is designated as high 14 Score of (---) was given. landscape value and in and in a prominent position therefore there is high sensitivity to development. Would be a significant change in character. Should be (---). Detrimentally impacts o the Wolds Way path 22 Site could be developed without impacting on the Wolds Way. The PROW could be incorporated into the development. SCA2 Should score 3 due to >1:100 slope. Development will 8 Score amended aggravate development downstream. Need sequential test as will impact on zone 3 dwellings. Outside development limit. 13 Development limits will be redrawn to include new allocations. Site assessment reflects that development of the site would Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question extend the settlement into the open countryside. Detrimentally impacts on the Wolds Way path. 22 Site would not impact on PROW. SCA3 Should score 3 due to >1:100 slope. Development will 8 Score amended aggravate development downstream. Need sequential test as will impact on zone 3 dwellings. Outside development limit 13 Development limits will be revised to include allocated sites. Well related to built area, housing development on 2 sides. 1 Comment noted. Abuts settlement limit. Site is used for arable production – biodiversity value is 2/10 Site assessment reflects that any features could be conserved or low, except possibly field margins. Margins can be maintained. protected and enhanced in any development. Not at risk according to EA mapping. 3/8 Site assessment reflects low risk of flooding. No impact on heritage assets. Outside conservation area 4/12 This is reflected in the site assessment. and not near listed buildings. Site is greenfield 5 This is reflected in the site assessment. Consider is more accessible than score suggests. Suggests 6 The Site Assessment Methodology sets out how the score will be revised scoring. awarded. The same methodology is used across the East Riding for consistency. More weight should be given to accessibility to shops in 7 The Site Assessment Methodology sets out how the score will be Market Place and other facilities in S Cave. Suggests revised awarded. The same methodology is used across the East Riding scores. for consistency. Trees and hedges can be retained. 11 The Site Assessment Methodology sets out how the score will be awarded. The same methodology is used across the East Riding for consistency. Development can be designed to accord with the built 14/15 Development would impact on built and landscape character. character of low density homes appropriate to the settlement edge. Would only lead to minor loss of agricultural land. 16 This is reflected in the site assessment. Would not cause harm to ground water. 17 This is reflected in the site assessment. Residential development would be compatible with 18 This is reflected in the site assessment. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question surrounding residential development. Potential of contamination is low. And if found would be 19 This is reflected in the site assessment. easily remediated. Many of the homes could have south facing aspects and so 21 Positive weighting will only be given to this question where it is use solar power. It would also be possible to use air source clear that the provision will go beyond national/local heat pumps. Given the size and orientation of the site requirements. provision of renewable will not be difficult. No PROW effected 22 This is reflected in the site assessment. There is capacity at schools. 23 Score and commentary for school amended but there is still a need for improvements to the secondary school. Enquired to Yorkshire Water who state site can be 24 The assessment considers the capacity to accommodate the level satisfactorily drained. All utilities are available. Capacity of development required in South Cave. It does not consider issues not expected for a site of this size. each site independently. Traffic can easily be accommodated on Beverley Road. 25 This is reflected in the site assessment. Though comments from Highways are being sort. Questions not relevant. 26-29 Comment noted. Development can provide affordable housing. 30 Comment noted. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. SCA4 Well related to built up area. Abuts the development limit. 1 Comment noted. Opportunity to provide opportunity for small low-density housing close to facilities. Biodiversity survey undertaken that shows development 2/10 This is reflected in the site assessment. will not harm biodiversity. Not at risk according to EA mapping. 3/8 Site assessment reflects low risk of flooding. No impact on heritage assets. Outside conservation area, 4/12 This is reflected in the site assessment. not close to listed buildings. Site is greenfield but this is a simplistic assessment. Weight 5 All of the considerations mentioned are considered by other should be given to setting, because site is surrounded by questions in the site assessment. development on 3 sides, very urban in character and central locations it is well located for housing development. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question Consider site is more accessible than score suggests. 6 The Site Assessment Methodology sets out how the score will be Suggests revised scoring. awarded. The same methodology is used across the East Riding for consistency. More weight should be given to accessibility to shops in 7 The Site Assessment Methodology sets out how the score will be Market Place and other facilities in S Cave. Suggests revised awarded. The same methodology is used across the East Riding scores. for consistency. Trees and hedges can be retained accept for those required 11 This is reflected in the site assessment. for access. Development can be designed to accord with built 13/14 Site assessment reflects limited impact. character respecting low density, appropriate to the edge of the settlement. Not ideal for arable farming 16 Comment noted though not a planning consideration. No harm to groundwater 17 This is reflected in the site assessment. Compatible with surrounding residential uses. 18 This is reflected in the site assessment. Assessment undertaken. Risk is low. Any contamination can 19 This is reflected in the site assessment. easily be remediated. Many of the homes could have south facing aspects and so 21 Positive weighting will only be given to this question where it is use solar power. It would also be possible to use air source clear that the provision will go beyond national/local heat pumps. Given the size and orientation of the site requirements. provision of renewable will not be difficult. Agree will not affect PROW 22 This is reflected in the site assessment. There is capacity at schools. 23 Score and commentary for school amended but there is still a need for improvements to the secondary school. Enquired to Yorkshire Water who state site can be 24 The assessment considers the capacity to accommodate the level satisfactorily drained. All utilities are available. Capacity of development required in South Cave. It does not consider issues not expected for a site of this size. each site independently. Alternative access could be from Station Road, through an 25 Comments updated existing property. Development can provide affordable housing. 30 Comment noted Should score 3 due to >1:100 slope. Development will 8 Assessment updated Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question aggravate development downstream. Need sequential test as will impact on zone 3 dwellings. Divorcing conservation area from rural habitat is 12 The development of the site would not have a harmful impact on detrimental. the conservation area. Outside development limit 13 Development limits will be amended to include allocated sites. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. SCA5 Well related to built area, housing development on 2 sides. 1 Comment noted. Abuts settlement limit. Site is used for arable production – biodiversity value is 2/10 This is reflected in the site assessment. low, except possibly field margins. Margins can be protected and enhanced in any development. Not at risk according to EA mapping. 3/8 This is reflected in the site assessment. No impact on heritage assets. Outside conservation area 4/12 This is reflected in the site assessment. and not near listed buildings. Site is greenfield 5 This is reflected in the site assessment. Consider is more accessible than score suggests. Suggests 6 The Site Assessment Methodology sets out how the score will be revised scoring. awarded. The same methodology is used across the East Riding for consistency. More weight should be given to accessibility to shops in 7 The Site Assessment Methodology sets out how the score will be Market Place and other facilities in S Cave. Suggests revised awarded. The same methodology is used across the East Riding scores. for consistency. Trees and hedges can be retained. 11 This is reflected in the site assessment. Development can be designed to accord with the built 13/14 Development would impact on built and landscape character by character of low density homes appropriate to the intruding into the countryside. settlement edge. Would only lead to minor loss of agricultural land. 16 This is reflected in the site assessment. Would not cause harm to ground water. 17 This is reflected in the site assessment. Residential development would be compatible with 18 This is reflected in the site assessment. surrounding residential development. Potential of contamination is low. And if found would be 19 This is reflected in the site assessment. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question easily remediated. Many of the homes could have south facing aspects and so 21 Positive weighting will only be given to this question where it is use solar power. It would also be possible to use air source clear that the provision will go beyond national/local heat pumps. Given the size and orientation of the site requirements. provision of renewable will not be difficult. No PROW effected 22 This is reflected in the site assessment. There is capacity at schools. 23 Score and commentary for school amended but there is still a need for improvements to the secondary school. Enquired to Yorkshire Water who state site can be 24 The assessment considers the capacity to accommodate the level satisfactorily drained. All utilities are available. Capacity of development required in South Cave. It does not consider issues not expected for a site of this size. each site independently. Traffic can easily be accommodated on Beverley Road. 25 Comment noted however awaiting comments from Highways team on potential access. Questions not relevant. 26-29 Comment noted. Development can provide affordable housing. 30 Comment noted. Should score 3 due to >1:100 slope. Development will 8 Score amended aggravate development downstream. Need sequential test as will impact on zone 3 dwellings. Divorcing conservation area from rural habitat is 12 Development of the site would not impact on the significance of detrimental. the conservation area. Outside development limit. Detrimental to the conservation 13 Development limits will be amended to include any allocated area. sites. See comment above with regard to conservation area. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. SCA6 Site is centrally located within South Cave. 1 Comment noted. Survey has been undertaken that shows development will 2/10 Score produced in accordance with SAM and advice from NEYEDC not harm biodiversity. Not at risk according to EA mapping. 3/8 Site assessment reflects low risk of flooding. Development on Stackyard lane will extend into the 4/12 Comments amended to refer to Market Place frontage Conservation Area but redevelopment will enhance conservation area with the removal of large modern farm Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question buildings and renovation of 68 Market Place. Largely Greenfield but small area of PDL in the Stackyard. 5 All of the considerations mentioned are considered by other Assessment of GF/PDL is too simplistic and weigh should be questions in the site assessment. Amend score to 2 give to other factors such as location. Consider is more accessible than score suggests. Suggests 6 The Site Assessment Methodology sets out how the score will be revised scoring. awarded. The same methodology is used across the East Riding for consistency. More weight should be given to accessibility to shops in 7 The Site Assessment Methodology sets out how the score will be Market Place and other facilities in S Cave. Suggests revised awarded. The same methodology is used across the East Riding scores. Pedestrian and cycle access proposed to Little Wold for consistency. Lane. Trees and hedges can be retained and enhanced apart for 11 This is reflected in the site assessment. one section of hedge there are no landscape features (have submitted planning application to this effect). Development can be designed to accord with the built 13/14 This is reflected in the site assessment. character of the conservation area and modern low density. Site is surrounded by housing so will not impact on character. Site is not valuble agriculture land or suitable for livestock. 16 Comment noted however this is not a planning consideration. EA has not objected to planning application on 17 Site assessment does not anticipate groundwater to be an issue. groundwater. Residential development would be compatible with 18 This is reflected in the site assessment. surrounding residential development. Potential of contamination is low. And if found would be 19 Public protection suggest there is potential for contamination. dealt with in construction process. However, this could be addressed. Many of the homes could have south facing aspects and so 21 Positive weighting will only be given to this question where it is use solar power. It would also be possible to use air source clear that the provision will go beyond national/local heat pumps. Given the size and orientation of the site requirements. provision of renewable will not be difficult. No PROW or publically accessible space affected 22 This is reflected in the site assessment. There is capacity at schools. 23 Score and commentary for school amended but there is still a Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question need for improvements to the secondary school. Yorkshire Water’s consultation response on the current 24 The assessment considers the capacity to accommodate the level planning application is supportive and it does not state that of development required in South Cave. It does not consider sewerage capacity will constrain development. each site independently. The best access is from the Stackyard onto Market Place, 25 Wording added to assessment comments this creates a link to the centre of South Cave and the main road. Transport Assessment supports this and confirms that traffic flows and sight lines are acceptable. Development can provide affordable housing. 30 Comment noted. Should score 3 due to >1:100 slope. Development will 8 Score amended aggravate development downstream. Need sequential test as will impact on zone 3 dwellings. Divorcing conservation area from rural habitat is 12 Comment noted. detrimental. Outside development limit 13 Development Limits will be amended to include allocated sites. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. Planning 31-33 Site assessment updated. application submitted. SCA7 Should score 3 due to >1:100 slope. Development will 8 Score updated aggravate development downstream. Need sequential test as will impact on zone 3 dwellings. Outside development limit 13 Development Limits will be amended to include allocated sites. Site is centrally located within South Cave. Development of 1 Comment noted. SCA6 (including access to Market Place) will improve sustainability of SCA7. Survey has been undertaken that shows development will 2/10 Score produced in accordance with SAM and advice from NEYEDC not harm biodiversity. Not at risk according to EA mapping. 3/8 Site assessment reflects low risk of flooding. Development will have no impact on heritage assets. 4/12 This is reflected in the site assessment. Site is greenfield but assessment of GF/PDL is too simplistic 5 All of the considerations mentioned are considered by other and weight should be give to other factors such as location. questions in the site assessment. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question Consider is more accessible than score suggests. Suggests 6 The Site Assessment Methodology sets out how the score will be revised scoring. awarded. The same methodology is used across the East Riding for consistency. More weight should be given to accessibility to shops in 7 The Site Assessment Methodology sets out how the score will be Market Place and other facilities in S Cave. Suggests revised awarded. The same methodology is used across the East Riding scores. for consistency. Trees and hedges can be retained and enhanced except for 11 This is reflected in the site assessment. small length required for access. Development can be designed to accord with the built 13/14 Site assessment reflects that is is unlikely that there will be an character respecting low density development. Site is impact or the impact will be very minor. surrounded by housing so will not impact on character. Site is not valuable agriculture land or suitable for livestock. 16 Comment noted however this is not a planning consideration. EA has not objected to planning application on SCA6 on 17 Site assessment does not anticipate groundwater to be an issue. groundwater grounds. Residential development would be compatible with 18 This is reflected in the site assessment. surrounding residential development. Potential of contamination is low. And if found would be 19 Public protection suggest there is potential for contamination. dealt with in construction process. However, this could be addressed. Many of the homes could have south facing aspects and so 21 Positive weighting will only be given to this question where it is use solar power. It would also be possible to use air source clear that the provision will go beyond national/local heat pumps. Given the size and orientation of the site requirements. provision of renewable will not be difficult. No PROW or publicly accessible space affected. 22 This is reflected in the site assessment. Development will meet policy. There is capacity at schools. 23 Score and commentary for school amended but there is still a need for improvements to the secondary school. Yorkshire Water’s consultation response on the planning 24 The assessment considers the capacity to accommodate the level application for SCA6 is supportive and it does not state that of development required in South Cave. It does not consider sewerage capacity will constrain development. each site independently. The best option is from the Stackyard onto Market Place, 25 Comments amended to refer to Market Place frontage this creates link to the centre of South Cave and the main Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question road. Transport Assessment (for the planniffing application on SCA6) supports this and confirms that trac flows and sight lines are acceptable. Development can provide affordable housing. 30 Comment noted. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. Planning 31-33 Site assessment updated. application submitted on SCA6/adjoining site SCA8 Outside development limit 13 Development Limits will be updated to include allocated sites. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. SCA9 Should score 3 due to >1:100 slope. Development will 8 Score updated aggravate development downstream. Need sequential test as will impact on zone 3 dwellings. Outside development limit 13 Development Limits will be updated to include allocated sites. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. SCA10 Should score 3 due to >1:100 slope. Development will 8 Score updated aggravate development downstream. Need sequential test as will impact on zone 3 dwellings. Outside development limit 13 Development Limits will be updated to include allocated sites. Transport Statement submitted with response following 25 Assessment is based on only two additional dwellings being insufficient information on highways being used as a reason provided. This is under the threshold size for allocating sites. for refusal on planning application. Comments added to assessment. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. SCA11 Should score 3 due to >1:100 slope. Development will 8 aggravate development downstream. Need sequential test as will impact on zone 3 dwellings. Outside development limit 13 Development Limits will be updated to include allocated sites. SCA12 Development will aggravate flooding down stream. Needs 8 Score already -2.5 sequential test. Under review as a flood alleviation area by ERYC. Conservation area is still under review and proposed to be 12 The Council can only consider the current boundary of the included within draft appraisal. conservation area. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question Outside development limit. 13 Development Limits will be updated to include allocated sites. SCA13 Should score 2 due to drains and groundwater flood zone 2 8 Score amended to 3 and development will aggravate flooding down stream. Needs sequential test as will impact on zone 3 dwellings. Divorcing conservation area from rural habitat is 12 Noted detrimental. Outside development limit 13 Development Limits will be updated to include allocated sites. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. SCA14 Should score 3 due to drains and ground water. 8 Score amended Development will aggravate flooding of downstream properties. Needs sequential test as affects zone 3 dwellings. Outside development limit 13 Development Limits will be updated to include allocated sites. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. SCA15 Should score 3 due to drains and ground water. 8 Score already -2 Development will aggravate flooding of downstream properties. Needs sequential test as affects zone 3 dwellings. Outside development limit 13 Development Limits will be updated to include allocated sites. Greenfield site 5 Comment noted. Road frontage adjacent to settlement boundary. 13/14 Comment noted however site would intrude into the countryside. Site is uncontaminated. 19 Site assessment reflects that the site is not likely to be contaminated. No known constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. SCA16 Floodzone 3 a score should be -2 or -2.5 due to the drain on 8 Only very small part within zone 3a – score amended to 3 due to southern and western sides. Development will aggravate presence of drains nearby flooding of downstream properties. Needs sequential test as affects zone 3 dwellings. Outside development limit 13 Development Limits will be updated to include allocated sites. SCA17 Development will aggravate flooding of downstream 8 Score already -2 Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question properties. Needs sequential test as affects zone 3 dwellings. Outside development limit 13 Development Limits will be updated to include allocated sites. SCA18 Effects zone 3 areas with sewage and discharge of water. 3 Site is not in functional floodplain Should score3 due to >1:100 slope. Development will 8 Score amended to 3 aggravate flooding of downstream properties. Needs sequential test as effects zone 3. Outside development limit 13 Development Limits will be updated to include allocated sites. Site should not be scored negatively. Backland 13 Backland development is not in keeping with the existing development is in keeping with the built form of Beverley character and rising land would make development more Road. Site is well screened and topography hides the site. prominent. Designated area of high landscape value and in prominent 14 Site would extend development into the open countryside. Site position therefore high sensitivity. Development would Assessment amended. provide significant change in character. Development would improve the wider landscape. Well 14 Site would extend development into the open countryside. Site screened with hedges and small trees. Development would Assessment amended. aim to increase screening. There are already buildings nearby/visible. Urban edge would be softened with additional planting and landscaping. Question does not address value of open space. 22 Site is adjacent to PROW but will not impact on it. Reference to Detrimentally impact on the Wolds Way. PROW added to site assessment and score changed to (-). System needs improving prior to development to address 24 Site assessment reflects need to increase capacity in South Cave. zone 3 flooding issues. Should not score negatively. Small site in comparison to 24 The assessment considers the capacity to accommodate the level others, impact would be minimal. Infrastructure on Beverly of development required in South Cave. It does not consider road has been improved recently. Easy access to the main each site independently. sewer and drains on Beverley Road. There is capacity for fowl and surface water in the local sewer. Sewage network capacity would be impacted by any development and is a reactive to demand. Therefore should not be scored more negatively than other sites in S Cave. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question Road has a bend and incline and is unsuitable for access. 25 Comment noted. Comments are being sort from the Council’s 40mph limit. Highways team. Access is suitable and safe. Can be accessed from Steep Hill 25 Comment noted. Comments are being sort from the Council’s (map enclosed). Site access onto Beverly road is 30mph. Highways team. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. SCA19 Suggest mixed use (residential and amenity space, leisure, general Noted - but overall proposed use is still predominantly residential education, health, services, affordable (with potential for and so assessment remains focused on that. some to be retirement or supported housing/extra care or dementia housing). Included map showing potential subdivision of the site. Willing to consider other uses. Accessed from Baucchus lane but in future could be linked 25 No detailed proposals submitted. Concepts only. Score reflects to the leisure and amenity facilities access to the east of the need to carry out improvements. site. Owner is willing for improvements to Bacchus Lane to take place on his land. A road could be constructed between Bacchus Lane and the leisure facilities access. This will improve congestion on Church Street and improve safety on Bacchus Lane. This could be a one way system? Should score 3 due to >1:100slope. Development will 8 Score amended aggravate flooding of downstream properties. Needs sequential test as affect zone 3 dwellings. Outside development limit 13 Development Limits will be updated to include allocated sites. Willing to provide affordable housing 30 Comment noted. SCA20 Development will aggravate flooding of downstream 8 The Site Assessment Methodology sets out how flood risk will be properties. Needs sequential test as affect zone 3 dwellings. assessed. Outside development limit 13 Development Limits will be updated to include allocated sites. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. SCA21 Development will aggravate flooding of downstream 8 The Site Assessment Methodology sets out how flood risk will be properties. Needs sequential test as affect zone 3 dwellings. assessed. Outside development limit 13 Development Limits will be updated to include allocated sites. SCA22 Should score 3 due to drains and ground water. 8 Score amended Development will aggravate flooding of downstream Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question properties. Needs sequential test as affect zone 3 dwellings. Outside development limit 13 Development Limits will be updated to include allocated sites. PROW to eastern boundary will be affected. 22 PROW is discreet from the boundary of the site and would not be impacted by the development of the site. System needs improving prior to development to address 24 Site assessment reflects need to increase capacity in South Cave. zone 3 flooding issues. No direct access to the highway is in ownership of the land 25 Noted – comments amended owner. SCA23 Development will aggravate flooding of downstream 8 The Site Assessment Methodology sets out how flood risk will be properties. Needs sequential test as affect zone 3 dwellings. assessed. Outside development limit 13 Development Limits will be updated to include allocated sites. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. SCA24 Development will aggravate flooding of downstream 8 The Site Assessment Methodology sets out how flood risk will be properties. Needs sequential test as affect zone 3 dwellings. assessed. Splitting woodland conservation area from remaining rural 12 Comments noted habitat is detrimental. Outside development limit 13 Development Limits will be updated to include allocated sites. SCA25 Score should be 3 due to >1:100 slope 8 Score updated Outside development limit 13 Development Limits will be updated to include allocated sites. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. SCA26 Development will aggravate flooding of downstream 8 The Site Assessment Methodology sets out how flood risk will be properties. Needs sequential test as affect zone 3 dwellings. assessed. Outside development limit 13 Development Limits will be updated to include allocated sites. SCA27 Development will aggravate flooding of downstream 8 The Site Assessment Methodology sets out how flood risk will be properties. Needs sequential test as affect zone 3 dwellings. assessed. Outside development limit. Area of high landscape value 13 Development Limits will be updated to include allocated sites. and in prominent position therefore high sensitivity to New site and therefore not assessed prior to fact check. development. Development would result in significant change to character.

Stamford Bridge Fact Check responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question SMB1 Score should be 3 6 Used central point data to calculate distances. Accession data is more accurate and uses actual routes. No change proposed. Score should be (+++). Site supports the core strategy because 9 Does not support sub-area policy due to impact on landscape it requires this scale of development in the settlement setting of village. Amend SAM comments and score to (---). Score should be (+++). Does not consider site has any 10 Score calculated in accordance with advice from NEYEDC. No biodiversity or geological value and as any species found could change proposed. be conserved/retained and enhanced it should score Score should be (+++). Existing trees and planting to west can 11 (0) Score recognises that existing features could be retained. be retained and will be enhanced and there will be Every site could claim enhancement possible – need specific and opportunities for additional landscaping significant evidence of extent and value of such in order to qualify for a positive score. No change proposed. Suggests a (0) score for whole site as the site is not near a 12 Setting of conservation area and its entrance would be affected heritage asset and will not therefore have any effect by development of whole site. Amend SAM comments and retain score. Suggests a (0) score. Discussion refers to nearby conservation 13 (-) score reflects the impact of the development of the whole site area and also to the modern 'sprawling' housing on setting of the village and the open and rural entrance. Amend developments. It seems to suggest that no harm would be SAM comments and retain score. caused to the built character so long as no heritage assets are affected. Suggests a (+) score. Acknowledges that there will be an 14 (-) score reflects the impact of the development of the whole site impact but suggests that this can be mitigated by extensive on setting of the village and the open and rural entrance. Amend landscaping and low densities of two stories maximum. SAM comments and retain score. Development would incorporate highest standards in accord 21 Development would need to exceed any 'normal' standards and with BREEM requirements and would maximise use of solar those required by the Core Strategy policy in order to score gain and recycling schemes. positive. No change proposed. Open space would be incorporated into the development and 22 Development would need to exceed any open space standards therefore should score positive. required by the Core Strategy policy or to provide an identifiable benefit/access in order to score positive. Argue that residential development will bring short term jobs 29 Residential development per se is not considered to bring during construction and longer term benefits to the local significant benefits economy No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 30-33 Assessment updated. SMB2 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated SMB3 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated SMB4 Score should be 3 6 Used central point data to calculate distances. Accession data is more accurate and uses actual routes. No change proposed. Score should be (+++). Site supports the core strategy because 9 Northern part of site would be a logical rounding off of it requires this scale of development in the settlement settlement and so would support sub-area policy. Amend Sam comments and score to (+++). Southern part does not support sub-area policy due to impact on landscape setting of village. Amend SAM comments and score to (---). Score should be (+++). Does not consider site has any 10 Score calculated in accordance with advice from NEYEDC. No biodiversity or geological value and as any species found could change proposed. be conserved/retained and enhanced it should score Score should be (+++). Existing trees and planting to west can 11 (0) Score recognises that existing features could be retained. be retained and will be enhanced and there will be Every site could claim enhancement possible – need specific and opportunities for additional landscaping significant evidence of extent and value of such in order to qualify for a positive score. No change proposed. Suggests a (0) score 13 Northern part of site would be logical rounding off and helps facilitate SMB5 so score amended to (0). (-) score reflects the impact of the development of the southern part of the site on setting of the village and the open and rural entrance. Amend SAM comments and scores accordingly. Suggests a (+) score. Acknowledges that there will be an 14 Northern part less prominent and so score amended to (0). (-) impact but suggests that this can be mitigated by extensive score reflects the impact of the development of the southern landscaping and low densities of two stories maximum. part of the site on setting of the village and the open and rural entrance. Amend SAM comments and scores accordingly. Development would incorporate highest standards in accord 21 Development would need to exceed any 'normal' standards and with BREEM requirements and would maximise use of solar those required by the Core Strategy policy in order to score gain and recycling schemes. positive. No change proposed. Open space would be incorporated into the development and 22 Development would need to exceed any open space standards therefore should score positive. required by the Core Strategy policy or to provide an identifiable benefit/access in order to score positive. Argue that residential development will bring short term jobs 29 Residential development per se is not considered to bring during construction and longer term benefits to the local significant benefits economy No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 30-33 Assessment updated. SMB5 Score should be 3 6 Used central point data to calculate distances. Accession data is more accurate and uses actual routes. No change proposed. Score should be (+++). Does not consider site has any 10 Score calculated in accordance with advice from NEYEDC. No biodiversity or geological value and as any species found could change proposed. be conserved/retained and enhanced it should score Score should be (+++). Existing trees and planting to west can 11 (0) Score recognises that existing features could be retained. be retained and will be enhanced and there will be Every site could claim enhancement possible – need specific and opportunities for additional landscaping significant evidence of extent and value of such in order to qualify for a positive score. No change proposed. Development would incorporate highest standards in accord 21 Development would need to exceed any 'normal' standards and with BREEM requirements and would maximise use of solar those required by the Core Strategy policy in order to score gain and recycling schemes. positive. No change proposed. Open space would be incorporated into the development and 22 Development would need to exceed any open space standards therefore should score positive. required by the Core Strategy policy or to provide an identifiable benefit/access in order to score positive. Argue that residential development will bring short term jobs 29 Residential development per se is not considered to bring during construction and longer term benefits to the local significant benefits economy No constraints and deliverable in 5 years, for a small northern 31-33 The deliverability of only a small section of the site should mean portion of the site. no change for questions 31-33 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated Suggests site is 50m away from the special features of the 2 Sites are assessed on their impact on the actual designation, not SAC/SSSI designations purely on features within them. No response received (03/12/12) States that the northwestern section of the site could be 4 This should be reflected in the site assessment developed as it is outside of the historic battlefield designation No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated No constraints and deliverable in 5 years, for a small northern 31-33 The deliverability of only a small section of the site should mean SMB6 portion of the site. no change for questions 31-33 SMB7 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated SMB9 States that Flood Risk and Cordon Sanitaire are not 3/8/18 Part of site within floodzone 3b - insurmountable constraint. insurmountable constraints. Score produced in accordance with SAM advice. No changes proposed. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated SMB10 States that the assessed developable part of the site should be 3/8 Upon inspection this does not change the score for either the southern half, therefore scores for questions 3 & 8 should question be changed. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated SMB12 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated SMB13 Suggests site is 50m away from the special features of the 2 Sites are assessed on their impact on the actual designation, not SAC/SSSI designations purely on features within them. SMB14 States that the north western section of the site could be 4 Discussion with EH have suggested that even sites adjacent to developed as it is outside of the historic battlefield designation battlefield would have an adverse effect and would raise objection. No changes proposed. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated SMB15 State that as the site is in the historic battlefield it is not being 31-33 Reflect in site assessment promoted for development. SMB16 State that as the site is in the historic battlefield it is not being 31-33 Reflect in site assessment promoted for development. SMB17 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated

Swanland Fact Check Responses

Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question SWA1 Agree that only the area bounded by playing fields and 13/14 Comment noted. woodland should be considered. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. SWA3 Christ Church is in the north west corner of the site not 4 Assessment updated to reflect location of Christ Church. north east. Support development leaving open space to protect the setting of the church and pond. Only site with good access to services in the village, e.g. 7 Assessment is bases on a methodology, as Set out in the Site doctors, public house, library, store and post office. Assessment Methodology. The same methodology and scoring mechanism is used for each site. TPO trees would automatically be protected if the area to 11 TPO covers the majority of the site. Impact can be mitigated by the north of the site is left as open space. reducing the density of development/developable area. Deed of Surrender currently being prepared. Once 31-33 Site assessment updated. completed site will be available for residential development. SWA4 Site would extend village boundary into the countryside. 13/14 Encroachment into the Countryside acknowledged in site Opposed to any development that expands village beyond assessment. However presence of existing built development existing visual limits. on two sides is a factor. SWA5 Presence of trees with TPOs should be given greater 11 The impact on TPOs and on the change to the character of the weighting to protect the overall appearance of the village area are considered through the assessment. due to tree cover. Site would extend village boundary into the countryside. 13/14 Encroachment into the Countryside acknowledged in site Opposed to any development that expands village beyond assessment. existing visual limits. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. SWA 6 Not on the same bus route as SWA8. Should be given lower 6 Assessment is based on a methodology, set out in the Site score to reflect walking time to bus stop. Assessment Methodology. The same methodology and scoring mechanism are used for each site. Presence of trees with TPOs should be given greater 11 The impact on TPOs and on the change to the character of the weighting to protect the overall appearance of the village area are considered through the assessment. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question due to tree cover. The depth of the site makes it impossible to develop without affecting large trees that are significant to the streetscene. Site would extend village boundary into the countryside. 13/14 Encroachment into the Countryside acknowledged in site Opposed to any development that expands village beyond assessment. existing visual limits. Development would be behind existing tree belt and 13 Site assessment considers existing character and potential therefore would not impact visually on residents. impact on trees. Development would improve character as fly tipping currently occurs on the site. Development would be in character with surrounding area. Tree report completed which confirms that the trees would 11 Score allows for mitigation/further information to be not be effected by the proposed development (Tree report submitted. not attached) No constraints and deliverable within 5 years . 31-33 Site assessment updated. SWA7 Site is on the same bus route as SWA8 and should be given 6 Assessment is based on a methodology, set out in the Site the same score. Assessment Methodology. The same methodology and scoring mechanism are used for each site. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years . 31-33 Site assessment updated. SWA8 Site is currently a garden centre (retail) and therefore 100% 5 Most of the site is PDL, However there are greenfield elements PDL. to the north and south of the site. Site can provide significant boundary landscaping to ensure 13 Comment noted. it is incorporated into the village envelope. Neighbouring areas are in residential use. Therefore 18 Site assessment acknowledges that residential use would be residential use would not conflict with neighbouring uses compatible with neighbouring uses. and may result in improvement to amenity. Site has excellent highway access and highway implications 25 Comment noted. Highway implications will be considered in the will not be significant given the current use of the site. final assessment. Development would lead to loss of an important facility 27 Assessment updated to reflect that the Parish Council considers (Swanland nurseries and café), which is also a local the loss of the nurseries as the loss of a community facility. employer. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question No constraints and deliverable within 5 years . 31-33 Site assessment updated. Continuation of site as a garden centre is not secured as owners are nearing retirement. SWA9 No comment received (5/12/2012) SWA10 Presence of trees with TPOs should be given greater 11 The impact on TPOs and on the change to the character of the weighting to protect the overall appearance of the village area are considered through the assessment. Trees on Beech due to tree cover. Any development would have an adverse Hill Road could be retained. impact on trees on Beech Hill Road due to their proximity. The tree line is to Beech Hill Road not Greenstiles Lane. 13 Site assessment updated. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years . 31-33 Site assessment updated. SWA11 Site should have been rejected due to detachment from the 1 Site assessment now acknowledges that the site is detached settlement limit and the road which separates the site from from the development limit. other housing. Site should be graded at 5 (same as SWA10) 6 Site is 100% greenfield land. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years . 31-33 Site assessment updated. SWA12 Site would extend village boundary into the countryside. 13/14 Encroachment into the Countryside acknowledged in site Opposed to any development that expands village beyond assessment. existing visual limits. The reduction in site area by planting between Occupational Lane and Dale Road should be rejected if there is an attempt to develop the southern part of the site. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years . 31-33 Site assessment updated. SWA13 Site should have been rejected. Significantly detached from 1 Site assessment now acknowledges that the site is detached the development limit. from the development limit. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years . 31-33 Site assessment updated. SWA14 Presence of trees with TPOs should be given greater 11 The impact on TPOs and on the change to the character of the weighting to protect the overall appearance of the village area are considered through the assessment. Site assessment due to tree cover. It is impossible to develop the site acknowledged that the TPO’s trees could seriously affect the without affecting trees. potential access to the site. Site would extend village boundary into the countryside. 13/14 Encroachment into the Countryside acknowledged in site Opposed to any development that expands village beyond assessment. Impacts could be mitigated and therefore score of Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question existing visual limits. Score should be amended to (---) due (-) is appropriate. to impact on the most significant view of the Humber Estuary in the District.

Walkington Fact Check responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question All Previously defined development limits should be maintained to The Draft Assessments have considered the impact the sites protected the character of the settlement and the approach to development would have on built and landscape character. Beverley through the countryside. The housing requirement for Beverley (based on 10% current dwellings) should not include dwellings at Broadgate. A Noted. The Strategy Document identifies the housing requirement mathematical approach is too simplistic, and account must be for Walkington; development at Broadgates was not taken into taken of environmental and social issues. There are also likely to account when the requirement was calculated. be windfall applications. Concern that a large scale population increase would overwhelm The impact of population growth on schools has been considered 23 the village school. through the Infrastructure Delivery Plan in the strategy document. WAL1 There are substantial mature trees around the site which could 10/13 Draft assessment notes presence of trees in q.10 and 13, and the help to screen new dwellings - though the presence of these need for them to be retained. trees would be threatened by the development. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. WAL2 There are substantial mature trees around the site which could 10/13 Draft assessment notes presence of trees in q.10 and 13, and the help to screen new dwellings - though the presence of these need for them to be retained. trees would be threatened by the development. This site, along with Townend Pit, are important features that 13/14 Draft Assessment notes open site to south (Walkington House) will give a leafy atmosphere that would be adversely changed if help to protected impact on entrance to village. development was to take place. Saunders Lane is relatively narrow, with poor horizontal visibility 25 Public highways with two way traffic capability are available and and no footpaths. directly adjoin site. No highways issues are anticipated. Site has been sold by the client of Dee Atkinson and Harrison 31-33 Noted WAL3 Site is overgrown and provides a rare wildlife habitat. Not a registered wildlife site but valuable habitat noted in Q11 comments and score changed to (-) Together with Townend Pit site provides a green entrance to the 13 Draft assessment notes that site forms an important entrance to village. the village. Access close to an important road junction and traffic calming 25 Score amended to (---) and comments added to flag up issue. chicane at the entrance to the village. Site has been sold by the client of Dee Atkinson and Harrison 31-33 Noted WAL4 Capacity of site exceeds scale of development proposed for the 1/9 Noted - the Allocations Document will only allocate sufficient land village. to meet the target set in the Strategy Document. Development would be visually obtrusive from a far distance. 13 Draft Assessment notes this is a large prominent site on rising land. Extend domestic traffic out of the core of the village and onto 25 Adjacent roads would be capable of accommodating additional peripheral road network. flows WAL5 Land to rear of 24 Little Weighton Rd (bid. 1226) has been sold 31-33 Noted Remainder of site has no constraints and deliverable in 5 years 31-33 Updated in Site Assessment. Site is within the built up area of the village. 5/13 Draft Assessment notes in q.13 that site is surrounded by existing development. WAL6 A house and bungalow has already been developed on this site Noted Undeveloped part of the site is fronted by a footpath - would be 25 Would not preclude an access across this in principle. inappropriate to permit vehicular access on this. Small part of site (to west of 'Parklands') confirmed to have no 31-33 Noted constraints and deliverable in 5 years WAL7 Site is previously developed land, having been part of the former 5 Site Assessment has been amended to reflect this partial PDL primary school. status. A suitable development could be provided which would preserve 12 Draft Assessment noted that development would not be likely to and enhance the conservation area. harm the Conservation Area. Site is within the perceived envelope of the village, and could be 13/14 Draft Assessment notes that site would have limited impact on built developed without detracting from built or landscape character. and landscape character. A previous application for residential development has been ? Not relevant to site assessment. Other, more suitable sites may be submitted demonstrating owners intent. Whilst this was refused, proposed to meet the future requirements. and upheld at appeal, significant reasons demonstrating its appropriateness for development were put forward - and the appeal was only dismissed as there was 5 year supply and so no need to develop outside development limits. Given that development limits are to be amended, this site may be considered appropriate. A substantial vehicular access onto Northgate would be 25 Comments updated and score changed to (---) to reflect difficulties impossible to provide due to the lack of width and sightlines, and access from the main would introduce turning traffic at a constricted part of the main street - this would significantly limit the amount of development that could take place on this site. WAL8 This site is very small and it is difficult to know if it would be 33 Site is over the minimum size threshold for allocation. deliverable. WAL9 Permission has already been granted for the erection of a limited - Noted but not relevant as site is remote from village. number of dwellings on the former mill/works/storage area. Very exposed frontage on a minor road, well beyond the 13/14 Draft Assessment noted that site would lead to isolated development limits in the open countryside. development in open countryside, that is poorly related to the existing pattern of development. WAL10 This land is an important open area. 13/14 Draft Assessment noted this is a valuable open area. Parking area on the west road frontage is important to the safety 25 Comments and score amended and amenity of the existing housing. Small scale (4 dwellings) proposed - this would ensure that there 13/14 This scale of development would be under threshold for allocation is still amenity space at the junction and would relate well to existing housing. Legal constraint may restrict development to 4 dwelling. 31 Note that restrictive covenant may exist in deliverability section.

Wawne Fact Check Responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question WAW3 Standard response received - No insurmountable or market constraints. Site is likely to be developable 31-33 Site assessment updated.

within a 15 year period. WAW4 No insurmountable or market constraints. Site is 31-33 Site assessment updated. likely to be developable within a 15 year period. The site should be considered in the context of the 9 Comment noted - This matter relates to the spatial strategy regional City of Hull and not Wawne. Site does not lie in SPZ 1 or 2. Site should be scored 17 Comments noted - Amend accordingly (0) not (-) A contaminated land report has been submitted - site 19 Comments noted - Amend accordingly should be scored (0) WAW5 The land owner is willing to provide on-site renewable energy such as biomass combined Heat & 21 Comments noted Power. There is surplus capacity in schools within Hull's Comments noted - this point relates to all sites within Wawne and 23 administrative boundary will be considered accordingly The developer would provide visitor viewing and 27 Comments noted educational facilities for the proposed biomass CHP Standard response received - No insurmountable or market constraints. Site is likely to be developable 31-33 Site assessment updated. within a 15 year period.

WAW6 Standard response received - No insurmountable or market constraints. Site is likely to be developable 31-33 Site assessment updated.

within a 15 year period.

Wetwang Fact Check Responses

SAM Site Fact Check Response Officer comment Question WET1 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated Impact on landscape views could be addressed This site is so prominent that any development would have significant and detrimental impact on open character and views of Wolds. This by incorporating enhanced community facilities 14 WET2 could not be mitigated by the provision of community facilities. No (deficit in amenity areas). changes proposed. No ownership constraints and attractive to the market. 32 Site Assessment updated WET3 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated WET5 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated WET6 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated WET7 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated Re-development of redundant agricultural Buildings are not prominent and are relatively well screened. Would buildings would improve the village 13 extend development outwards on other side of road from main body WET8 appearance. of village. No changes proposed. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site Assessment updated

Wilberfoss Fact Check Responses

Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question WIL1 Wilberfoss suffered from flooding in 2007 areas were partly 3/8 Draft assessment noted that part of the site is within flood inaccessible (from southern approach). zone 3b and that areas adjacent to the site were affected by flooding in 2007. No action required. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. WIL2 Wilberfoss suffered from flooding in 2007 and areas were 3/8 Draft assessment noted that part of the site is within flood inaccessible. zone 3b and that areas adjacent to the site were affected by flooding in 2007. No action required. The hedgerows around Birker Lane and the end of the public 11 Existing hedgerows could be retained as part of footpath nearest Fieldhead support a surprising amount of development in recognition of the fact that natural birdlife, which would be subjected to predation and loss of features can provide natural habitats and routes for the habitat by any developments. migration of species. No action required. WIL3 Wilberfoss suffered from flooding in 2007 and areas were 3/8 Draft assessment noted that part of the site is within flood inaccessible. zone 3b and that areas adjacent to the site were affected by flooding in 2007. No action required. The hedgerows around Birker Lane and the end of the public 11 Existing hedgerows could be retained as part of footpath nearest Fieldhead support a surprising amount of development in recognition of the fact that natural birdlife, which would be subjected to predation and loss of features can provide natural habitats and routes for the habitat by any developments. migration of species. No action required. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. WIL4 Includes a portion of land occupied by a residential property. Noted. This property is no longer shown as part of the site This should be corrected as it is causing worry to the residents on the Policies Map. No action required. concerned (46 Willow Park Road). No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. The current boundary does not reflect the extent of the N/A Noted. The boundaries of the site have been updated and landholdings of the joint owners. are indicated on the Policies Map. No action required. Part of the site has full planning permission for conversion of Noted but does not alter scores for site. outbuildings. Score of (-) should apply 10 Score produced in accordance with advice from NEYEDC. Individual schemes can always submit more detailed assessments. Barratt Homes and David Wilson Homes strongly objects 11 Score amended to (-) and comments changed to reflect to original scoring. submissions. It is considered that the site could be scored (+) "Development 13 Assessment comments changed to reflect possibility of could result in an enhancement (e.g. through the sensitive whole site not being developed but poor relationship to development of an infill site or vacant building)" and at the very the village and edge location still produces a single least should be scored (0) "Development unlikely to have an negative score. effect/effect very minor" Disagree with this assessment on the basis that it is considered 18 Score cannot assume that the use of the adjacent site that the site should be scored (0) for this category which is would change. It has now been proposed as a preferred defined as "Development would be compatible with existing or site but this may not result in it being redeveloped. Score proposed neighbouring uses "for reasons set out below. needs to reflect what the current situation is.

Any potential conflicts between the two uses could be dealt The INTURF use is judged to be less potentially harmful to with via suitable noise mitigation and/or landscaping screening. residential amenity than the agricultural machinery works. The agricultural machinery works site is proposed for housing (ref WIL5). It is also noted that site WIL5 has been given a score of (0) All sites score (0) so it can only be presumed that the Council 21 Noted intends to reassess site scores in the future once development schemes have been, brought forward for consideration. It is considered that the site should be scored (+++). 30 Noted - score amended to (+++) WIL7 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. WIL8 No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. The site should be considered as it has several suitable qualities Comments noted. No further action required. required for its housing development. Firstly there is the footing left in place from the previous Barratts site which would be a continuation - this gives access. It is near the school, children could walk having a footpath through its playing fields less cars on Stalking Lane. The correct end of the village for cost cutters, post office and Butchers and bus stop. Also the layout blends into the contours of the surrounding countryside. WIL9 Wilberfoss suffered from flooding in 2007 areas were partly 3/8 Draft assessment noted that part of the site is within flood inaccessible (from southern approach). zone 3b. No constraints and deliverable in 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment to be updated. WIL10 Wilberfoss suffered from flooding in 2007 areas were partly 3/8 Draft assessment noted that part of the site is within flood inaccessible (from southern approach). zone 3b and that areas adjacent to the site were affected by flooding in 2007. No action required. WIL11 Very poor access by public transport necessitating crossing 25 The Strategy Document supports highway improvements dangerous A1079. Fatality here in last 2 years. to the A1079. Comments updated to reflect poor junction with A1079.

Non site specific Fact Check Responses

SAM Officer comment Fact Check Response Question General The information held by ERYC and enclosed in the Site Noted. Comments Assessments appears to be factually correct with notable exceptions. Wilberfoss Primary School was recently awarded an 23 Infrastructure study does not indicate any need to increase outstanding Ofsted report in all areas and was the best capacity of the Primary School. school in ERYC for Maths SAT Level 4. It is oversubscribed and any development must include sensible investment in this and other village facilities whilst maintaining the outstanding teaching standards that the staff have worked so hard to achieve. The A1079 is congested and average commute distances The Strategy Document supports highway improvements to for village residents are 14.9 miles (versus 8.9 miles the A1079. average nationally), suggesting the A1079 needs strategic action prior to any further large scale development along its corridor.

Withernsea Fact Check Responses

Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question General Town Council general comments received on Comments noted, no changes required at this stage. several sites WITH1 Additional comments relating several Comments noted, no changes required questions in the methodology. No insurmountable or market constraints. Site 31-33 Site assessment updated. is likely to be developable within a 15 year period. WITH2 Standard response received - No 31-33 Site assessment updated. insurmountable or market constraints. Site is likely to be developable within a 15 year period. WITH3 Standard response received - No 31-33 Site assessment updated. insurmountable or market constraints. Site is likely to be developable within a 15 year period. WITH4 Standard response received - No 31-33 Site assessment updated. insurmountable or market constraints. Site is likely to be developable within a 15 year period. WITH5 Standard response received - The site is under 31-33 Site assessment updated. agricultural tenancy but this is not an insurmountable constraint. Site is likely to be developable within a 15 year period. WITH6 Public rights of way run north east and west of 31-33 Site assessment updated. the land. The land is restricted to the sole use as a car park. Standard response received - possible insurmountable / market constraints. The site is leased to the Town Council until 2015. South Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question eastern corner of the site is not in ERYC ownership. WITH8 Additional comments relating several Comments noted, no changes required questions in the methodology. No insurmountable or market constraints. Site 31-33 Site assessment updated. is likely to be developable within a 15 year period. WITH9 Additional comments relating several Comments noted, no changes required questions in the methodology. No insurmountable or market constraints. Site 31-33 Site assessment updated. is likely to be developable within a 15 year period. WITH10 Additional comments relating several Comments noted, no changes required questions in the methodology. No insurmountable or market constraints. Site 31-33 Site assessment updated. is likely to be developable within a 15 year period. WITH11 Additional comments relating several Comments noted, no changes required questions in the methodology. No insurmountable or market constraints. Site 31-33 Site assessment updated. is likely to be developable within a 15 year period.

Woodmansey Fact Check Responses

Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question General A1174 Beverley to Hull Road is already under This comment does not relate to a particular site. pressure in terms of traffic and would welcome the Council’s views as to how the situation wil be addressed, especially as the road is currently in need of repair. WOOD1 Development on this and the adjacent site would be 13 Site assessment identified that development would alter the character of in keeping with the existing character of the the area and lead to increased coalescence of Woodmansey and settlement. The existing frontage development could Dunswell. be maintained to retain character. Site could provide much needed affordable housing. 30 All sites will be required to provide affordable housing in line with the Strategy Document (Draft Policy H2). No insurmountable or market constraints. Site is 31-33 Site assessment updated. likely to be developable within a 15 year period. Due to a lifetime tenancy it is unclear whether the site will be developable within 5 years. WOOD2 Land bidder no longer owns the site and therefore 31-33 Site assessment updated. does not wish to pursue. WOOD3 Site could be developed to enhance the appearance 13 Site assessment identified that development would alter the character of of this part of Dunswell. Scale could be amended to the area and lead to increased coalescence of Woodmansey and reflect character of the area. Dunswell. Site could provide much needed affordable housing. 30 All sites will be required to provide affordable housing in line with the Strategy Document (Draft Policy H2). No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. WOOD4 Site would be brought forward with WOOD3. Scale of 13 Bringing sites forward together does not alleviate concerns. development can alleviate concerns over coalescence. Site could provide much needed affordable housing. 30 All sites will be required to provide affordable housing in line with the Strategy Document (Draft Policy H2). No insurmountable or market constraints. Site is 31-33 Site assessment updated. Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question subject to a lifetime tenancy which could be vacated in the short to medium term. Site is possibly developable within 5 years, subject to the tenancy on the site. WOOD6 Development could be re-scaled or designed in a 13 Site assessment identified that development would alter the character of way that maintains the character of the settlement. the area and lead to increased coalescence of Woodmansey and Dunswell. No change to assessment required. Site could provide much needed affordable housing. 30 All sites will be required to provide affordable housing in line with the Strategy Document (Draft Policy H2). No insurmountable or market constraints. Overhead 31-33 Site assessment updated. power line over part of site but new development can be designed to mitigate this. Land is subject to a lifetime tenancy, it is likely to be some years before vacant possession can be obtained. However, site could be developable within 5 years if tenant is willing to surrender tenancy. WOOD10 Another access may be available 25 No information on the other access, therefore unable to consider. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. WOOD12 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. WOOD13 Land owner has sold the land, name of new owner 31-33 Site assessment updated. attached. WOOD14 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. WOOD16/ Site is close to Development Limits and existing 1 Site is not adjacent to development limits WOOD17 property. Good access to public transport and there is a cycle 5-7 The scoring methodology is set out in the Site Assessment path along the perimeter of the site. Can walk to Methodology. Scores are based on the time and distance to particular Beverley in a short time. locations such as education, shopping and jobs. No change to assessment required. Flood risk is no higher than anywhere else in the area 8 Many sites in Woodmansey score poorly on flood risk. Sympathetic development would blend into the 13 Site is large and would have a significant impact. Existing screening existing area. There is already natural screening. would not overcome this impact Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question Connection to the public sewer is available. 24 Noted Part of the site has been sold. Site should be 31-33 Site assessment updated. amended to reflect new boundary (map enclosed). No constraints identified and deliverable within 5 years. Within easy reach of existing shops, public open 14 Site assessment suggests --- is based on encroachment into the space and public transport. Would improve the countryside. appearance of the built form with significant landscape buffering to the east and creates opportunities to link public footpaths in the area. Extension of the built form would be to the east and therefore would not create coalescence of Beverley and Hull. Landscape character assessment does not suggest area is of high value. Therefore disagree with --- score fore Question 14. No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. WOOD18 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. WOOD19 Additional information on potential accesses (map 25 Assessment updated to reflect new information. attached). No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. WOOD21 No constraints and deliverable within 5 years. 31-33 Site assessment updated. WOOD24 The site has a large footprint. Residential Comment noted. development could take up a smaller footprint and include an increase in green space. Site is adjacent to development limits and in close 13 Site is not an appropriate scale to be an extension and would have proximity to housing. Small extension to the significant impact on the character of the existing linear development. settlement it’s appropriate. The site has a current leasehold however the site 31-33 Site assessment amended. could be vacated and become available in 6-10 years. Proposal is mixed use (uses listed) Proposed Site assessment updated. Use Site Fact Check Response SAM Officer comment Question Site did not experience surface water flooding in 8 Council records of the flood event show that small parts of the site June 2007. flooded in June 2007. Due to the small proportion of the site that was flooded the assessment will be amended. There are existing industrial and commercial 13 Granted part of the site has an industrial character. However, much of developments on the western side of hull road and the site is open and rural in character. Site assessment amended to therefore development would not alter the reflect the range of character on the site. character. Information has been submitted that states an 21 Site assessment amended. anaerobic digestion plant would be incorporated into the development. Attached Masterplan demonstrates public open 22 No Masterplan attached to the letter. Public open space will be space will be included within the proposal. required by development in line with the Strategy Document. It is not clear whether open space above the requirement will be provided. The development of 200 homes on the site would 23 The assessment considers the school capacity based on the housing create 24 primary school pupils, not 6. requirement for Woodmansey, as set in the Strategy Document. The site could theoretically provide more homes but this would not be appropriate. The attached Masterplan indicates development 27 No Masterplan attached. Assessment amended to reflect new village would result in the creation of new facilities, such as hall. a Parish Hall, crèche and potentially other local amenities. Site would create a local centre. 28 The assessment asks about the impact on existing centres. WOOD26 Wish to proceed. 31-33 Site assessment updated.