Hambleton Local Plan Examination Hearing Statement

Our ref 50525/02/JG/AJk Date October 2020

Subject Matter 3 Hearing Statement on behalf of Taylor Wimpey - Spatial Strategy and Distribution of Growth

1.0 Introduction 1.1 This Hearing Statement has been prepared by Lichfields on behalf of Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land (“Taylor Wimpey”) and responds to the questions set by the Inspector in relation to Matter 3, Issue 1 (Settlement Hierachy), Issue 2 (Distribution of Growth) and Issue 3 (Windfall Housing Development).

1.2 This Hearing Statement should be read in conjunction with our representations submitted to the preceding rounds of consultation on the emerging Local Plan on behalf of Taylor Wimpey (Lichfields representor ID: 1229418, Taylor Wimpey consultee ID: 1229420).

1.3 Taylor Wimpey has control of the following sites: 1 North of The Stripe, Stokesley (STK 1) 2 Romanby Grange, Northallerton (ref: N/123/011) 3 Ainderby Road, Northallerton (ref: N/123/010) 4 Jasper House, Northallerton (ref: N/123/004) 5 Land South of Carlton Road, Carlton Miniott (ref: T/025/007, T/025/008, and T/139/014) 6 Land at Alne Road, Easingwold (ref: E/041/006 and E/041/012) 7 Land at Easby Lane, Great Ayton (ref: S/058/005a and S/058/006a) 8 Land at Aiskew Bank Farm, Bedale (ref: B/004/013) 1.4 Site 1 at The Stripe, Stokesley is proposed as a housing allocation in the submitted version of the Local Plan and this allocation is fully supported. Sites 2 – 8 are not currently being taken forward as housing allocations, nevertheless they are considered to be suitable, sustainable and deliverable sites which should be considered for allocation in the Local Plan given the need for additional allocations highlighted in our previous representations and Matter 2 Hearing Statement.

2.0 Issue 1 – Settlement Hierarchy

Question 3 - Is the settlement hierarchy consistent with paragraph 103 of the Framework, which states that significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes?

2.1 Paragraph 103 of the NPPF states that significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine

Pg 1/5 Lichfields.uk 18809758v3

choice of transport modes. This therefore implies that larger development allocations should be located where there are good existing sustainable transport links. Paragraph 103 does however also recognise that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and does therefore not preclude all development from locations where sustainable transport links may be more limited.

2.2 Overall, it is considered that the settlement hierarchy within the Plan is consistent with paragraph 103 of the Framework. Each of the defined ‘Market Towns’ are well connected by bus services, and Thirsk and Northallerton also offer rail connections. The Market Towns also offer a full range of services which mean that residents do not have to travel outside of the towns to meet their daily needs. It is therefore correct that each of the Market Towns site at the top of the settlement hierarchy and it is not considered necessary to distinguish between the Market Towns through the introduction of sub-levels within the hierarchy.

2.3 The Council’s response to the Inspector’s Initial Questions for Examination (document L001a) shows in the table on page 20 that Stokesley will receive the lowest overall percentage of housing development of each of the Market Towns (8.4%, including 531 homes from completions to date and commitments during plan period, and 105 homes proposed at site STK1). Stokesley has a population of approximately 5,000 and is the third largest centre by population in Hambleton and is also its third largest town centre in Hambleton (after Northallerton and Thirsk). It is therefore essential that the future growth and vitality of the town is supported in the emerging Local Plan through a significant housing allocation as is proposed at site STK1.

3.0 Issue 2 – Distribution of Growth

Question 3 - By focussing the majority of housing development in Northallerton and Thirsk, does the Plan direct sufficient growth to Bedale, Easingwold and Stokesley in order to reflect their role and function as Market Towns?

3.1 The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (“SHMA, 2016, document ref: SD18) states that population of Hambleton in 2014 is estimated to be 89,800. The population of each of the Market Towns according to the 2011 census is set out in Table 1 below. This shows that Northallerton has a population of approximately four times that of Bedale, Easingwold and Stokesley, and almost double that of Thirsk.

Table 1 Market Towns Population and Proposed Housing Development Share

Town Population Population Share (of Percentage of overall Hambleton District) housing development proposed in Local Plan

Northallerton 16,832 19% 24.8%

Thirsk (including Sowerby) 9,247 10% 22.5%

Bedale 4,601 5% 9.2%

Easingwold 4,627 5% 10.3%

Stokesley 4,757 5% 8.4%

Source: 2011 Census / Document L001a / Lichfields analysis

Pg 2/5 Lichfields.uk 18809758v3

3.2 The analysis in Table 1 shows that the Plan does direct sufficient proportionate growth towards the Market Towns of Bedale, Easingwold and Stokesley to provide an appropriate level of future growth in these towns. Indeed, reflecting our comments on the Settlement Hierarchy, it is appropriate and consistent with paragraph 13 of the Framework for these settlements to accommodate the majority of the District’s housing requirement and for this to be a higher amount than simply apportioning this growth on a population proportionate basis. It is noted that the approach put forward in the draft Local Plan was found to have the most significantly positive effects of each of the spatial development options considered (para 8.3.7, document CD10).

3.3 The above analysis does, however, also indicate that Stokesley is proposed to receive the lowest amount of new housing growth, and this is not reflective of the size and role of the town. It is therefore important that the proposed allocation at Stokesley (STK1) is included in the adopted Plan. Additionally, it should be noted that although the proportionate share of future development in Thirsk appears high compared to its 2011 population, the town has seen significant growth in recent years, and 90% of the ‘proposed’ housing development in Thirsk is to come from completions to date and commitments during the plan period.

3.4 Within both our Publication Draft representations and within our Matter 2 Hearing Statement we have demonstrated that, in order to adequately align with the employment land target, the annual housing requirement is at least 493 dwellings per annum (dpa) and potentially as much as 509 dpa. Should it be determined that additional housing land is required to meet this need, this should be provided at Northallerton as a priority in reflection of the size and role of the town within the district, and then shared amongst the Market Towns of Bedale, Easingwold and Stokesley, with some development in the service villages. It is not considered necessary to provide any additional housing land in Thirsk given the amount of development already planned relative to the size of the settlement and the level of growth which has already occurred at the town in recent years.

3.5 Taylor Wimpey has promoted three sustainable and deliverable sites in Northallerton throughout the plan-making process (Romanby Grange, Ainderby Road and Jasper House). These are all located in sustainable and accessible locations to the south of Northallerton and, if allocated, would act as a counter balance to previous and current allocations to the north of the town. In addition, Taylor Wimpey is currently pursuing a planning application for 80 homes in Easingwold (ref: 20/01424/OUT). Each of these sites could form suitable allocations in the Local Plan to make up for any shortfalls in capacity resulting from an increased requirement or a lack of evidence of deliverability at other sites. Indeed, it is Taylor Wimpey’s position that the grant of planning permission on the Easingwold site is justified notwithstanding the need for additional housing sites in the Local Plan.

Question 6 - Is the spatial strategy justified? Does the submitted Plan represent an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives available?

3.6 Overall, it is considered that the spatial strategy as set out in Policy S3 is justified and represents an appropriate strategy for the future growth of the district.

3.7 In terms of the location of housing sites (rather than housing and employment), the approach generally follows ‘Option 4’ from the Issues and Options stage of the Plan. We have advocated this general approach since our Preferred Options submission as it recognises Northallerton’s principal role with the district, but also allows for housing development to be shared between the remaining Market Towns and Villages commensurate with their size and function. This

Pg 3/5 Lichfields.uk 18809758v3

approach (with employment land directed towards central transport corridors) was found by the Sustainability Appraisal was found to have significant positive effects for housing, economy and health and wellbeing (para 8.3.7, document CD10).

4.0 Issue 4 - Windfall Housing Development 4.1 As set out in our Publication Draft representations, in principle Taylor Wimpey welcomes draft Policy HG 5’s support for windfall housing development. However, there are two component parts of the draft policy that are considered to be ‘unsound’. These are discussed in our responses to questions 1 and 4 below.

Question 1 - Policy HG5 provides further detail on windfall housing sites and permits housing development within the ‘main built form’ of settlements. The supporting text to Policy S5 includes a table which defines what the ‘built form’ will include. Is the text sufficiently clear to decision-makers, developers and local communities? Is the policy effective?

4.2 The table within the supporting text to Policy S5 seeks to define ‘built form’ for the purposes of enforcing Policy S5 and Policy HG5. The table includes five different ‘principles’ or types of built form, each with an accompanying paragraph of supporting text. The content of the table is very lengthy, yet, rather than providing clarity, the result is a vague and confusing definition which will not provide developers, decision-makers or the local community with a clear understanding of when a development proposal may be acceptable under Policy HG5.

4.3 A simpler approach could be to define each settlement on the Policies Maps with a settlement boundary, and then refer in the policy to proposals which either fall within or outside of the settlement boundaries.

Question 4 - What is the justification for only permitting ‘minor scale development’ adjacent to villages under Policy HG5? How would a decision-maker react to a development proposal for 10 dwellings or more which met the requirements of the policy and was commensurate to the size, role and function of the village?

4.4 The limitation of windfall development to only ‘minor scale housing development’ (adjacent to the built form) is considered to be too simplistic an approach that could otherwise prevent otherwise acceptable larger schemes achieving a more sustainable form of development. As Question 4 implies, there are likely to be locations where a development proposal for 10 or more dwellings could represent incremental and organic growth of the adjoining settlement and which would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the settlement, surrounding area or countryside. This would certainly be the case in some of the larger defined villages.

4.5 Additionally, by restricting windfall development to schemes of 9 dwellings or less, the Local Plan would arbitrarily limit the extent to which any affordable housing, community infrastructure, facilities and services could be delivered as part of windfall development.

4.6 To meet the test of soundness and in particular to be considered justified and positively prepared, draft Policy HG5 should be simplified as to apply to all scales of residential development that relate well – in terms of proximity and function – to the existing settlement which they adjoin.

Pg 4/5 Lichfields.uk 18809758v3

Summary

4.7 In order for the Local Plan to be considered sound, the following modifications are required:

• Replace definition of ‘built form’ for assessing proposals under Policy HG5 with a simpler reference to settlement boundaries, to be shown on the Policies Maps; and,

• Remove 10 dwelling threshold from Policy HG5 so that the policy applies to all scales of residential development that relate well – in terms of proximity and function – to the existing settlement which they adjoin. 4.8 Additionally, should it be determined that additional housing sites are required to meet the higher housing requirement advocated in our Matter 2 Hearing Statement, it is recommended that these should be provided at Northallerton as a priority in reflection of the size and role of the town within the district, and then shared amongst the Market Towns of Bedale, Easingwold and Stokesley, with some development in the service villages.

Pg 5/5 Lichfields.uk 18809758v3