HAMBLETON LOCAL PLAN

INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION: INSPECTORS’ MATTERS, ISSUES AND QUESTION FOR EXAMINATION.

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATION GTA 1: SKOTTOWE CRESCENT, GREAT AYTON

COMMENTS IN RESPECT OF BUILT HERITAGE, LANDSCAPE & ECOLOGY

Introduction

1. These comments are made in respect of the Independent Examination of the Hambleton Local Plan (HLP), Inspectors’ Matters, Issues and Questions for Examination (Sept. 2020). Specifically, they provide a response to Matter 4, Issue 1, Question 6 and Matter 4, Issue 7 – GTA Skottowe Crescent, Questions 9-12.

2. The comments supplement those previously made (BWB Consulting dated 16 th September 2019) in respect of the HLP Publication Draft 2019 (LP01) and the proposed residential allocation of land at Skottowe Crescent, Great Ayton (GTA1). In short summary, the previous comments noted that:

° The site is in close proximity to a number of designated heritage assets including the Grade I listed Church of All Saints (List Entry Number 1150650), the Grade II* listed Ayton Hall and associated Grade II listed Farm Building (1150629) and the Grade II listed Christ Church (1150639). The site is also in close proximity to the boundary to the Great Ayton Conservation Area.

° The site contributes positively to the setting of these assets and is significant in illustrating historic agricultural landscape setting and in facilitating significant views towards and from these designated assets.

° As such, the development of the site will have a significant adverse impact upon the inter-related setting of these assets. Having regard to the number of assets affected and the higher Grading of the Church of All Saints and Great Ayton Hall, the cumulative impact of the development could potentially amount to substantial harm.

° The Council’s evidence base, including Heritage Background Papers (SD24), have failed to properly consider the extent of impact likely to arise from the development or provide justification, in accordance with current Historic England best practice guidance, sufficient to outweigh the potential harm to the identified heritage assets.

° On this basis it is considered that the allocation of the site would be unsound.

3. Notwithstanding these comments, no modifications, in respect of heritage matters, have been proposed by the Council in respect of the GTA1 site.

4. In advance of the Examination the Council has provide a response to the Initial Questions for Examination set out by the Inspector. In respect of the GTA1 proposed allocation the Inspector posed the following question (para. 28):

“At Great Ayton, Historic England have indicated that site GTA1 (Skottowe Crescent) lies with the setting of a Grade I Listed Building and other designated heritage assets.

Does the evidence in support of the Plan justify the allocation? Is the Plan consistent with paragraph 185 of the Framework in this regard, which, amongst other things, requires plans to take account of the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness?”

5. In response, the Council relies upon the evidence base provided by the heritage background papers (SD24) for the proposed allocation sites and states that:

“The evidence base was used as a mechanism to assist the Council in allocating the site whilst seeking to omit substantial harm of the heritage assets.” [sic]

6. This indicates that the approach taken by the Council in allocating the site is simply to avoid potential substantial harm (this is confirmed within the concluding paragraph to the Council’s response). It also states that “the evidence base is considered to justify the allocation notwithstanding the recognised impact on the historic environment” (our emphasis). We would question where, within the evidence base, this ‘recognised impact’ has been articulated and evaluated in order to allow the Council to properly consider the extent and nature of development impact upon the inter-related heritage assets. This statement is also clearly incompatible with the proposed site requirement that a heritage statement will be required to “identify how the development will not cause harm to the elements that contribute to the significance of these assets.”

7. The Council further state that the development would maintain open space and glimpses of the countryside from the conservation area and from the listed buildings and that the design and layout “ must acknowledge and respond to the indivisibility between the site and the conservation area.” This is however apparently contradicted by the indication that additional landscaping should be provided to the southern boundary in order to “separate the heritage asset from site ”. These two approaches do not appear compatible and landscaping, in itself, will not remove or reduce the extent of harm identified.

8. Overall, it is considered that the position remains that the Council has not undertaken a sufficiently detailed assessment of the potential impact of the allocation proportionate to the significance of the assets affected. The NPPF is clear, reflecting statutory guidance, that “great weight” should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets and that, the more important the asset, the greater the weight should. This is irrespective of whether this harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss of less than substantial harm to its significance.

9. We provide comments in respect of the Inspectors’ questions below.

Matter 4 – Site Allocations (Part 2 Allocations) Issue 1 – Site Allocations Methodology Q6. How were site constraints, such as transport, flooding, landscape character, heritage and mineral safeguarding taken into account as part of the site allocation process.

10. As discussed above, in response to the Inspectors’ Initial Questions, the Council relies upon the evidence base provided by the heritage background papers (SD24) in supporting the allocation of sites potential affected by heritage constraints. As previously submitted we considered that, in the case of site allocation GTA1, the relevant background paper does not provide a sufficiently robust assessment, proportionate to the number and significance of designated heritage assets potentially affected, to allow the Council to properly consider and understand the impact of the allocation. In simply seeking to “omit substantial harm” to heritage assets the Council has failed to demonstrate that “great weight” has been given to the need to conserve designated heritage assets.

11. In response to the Inspectors’ Initial Questions, the Council have acknowledged that the development of GTA1 will impact upon the historic environment. We would submit that the evidence base relied upon by the Council in support of the allocation is insufficient to provide justification for the allocation in accordance with Historic England guidance (Advise Note 3, The Historic Environment and Site Allocations in Local Plans). This guidance indicates that, in determining whether a site allocation is appropriate in terms of the NPPF test of soundness, the allocation should be:

“Justified in terms of any impacts on heritage assets, when considered against the reasonable alternative sites and based on proportionate evidence.”

12. On this basis we remain of the view that the proposed allocation, GTA1, is unsound and should be deleted.

13. This conclusion agrees with the consultation response to the Publication Draft submitted by Historic England. They indicate that the development would impact upon the setting of a number of listed buildings in its vicinity including the Grade I Listed Church of All Saints and the Grade II* Listed Ayton Hall. With respect to the conclusion reached by the Heritage Background Paper (SD24) that development would provide opportunity for enhancement, Historic England states that:

“We disagree with that conclusion and consider that the Heritage Background Paper has underplayed the important role that the allocated site makes to the setting and appreciation of the highly graded listed buildings and the conservation area.”

14. Historic England conclude that the proposed allocation is unsound and, in respect of heritage harm, state that; “we do not agree that the harm is capable of effective mitigation and recommend the site is deleted.”

Matter 4 – Site Allocations (Part 2 Allocations) Issue 7 – Stokesley Area Sites: GTA1 – Skottowe Crescent, Great Ayton

Q9. How have the effects of development on the Great Ayton Conservation Area and the setting of neighbouring listed buildings been considered as part of the site allocation process, have particular regard to the setting of, and views towards, the Grade I listed Church of All Saints and the Grade II* listed Ayton Hall. Is the allocation justified.

15. As set out in previous submission in response to the consultation on the HLP Publication Draft, we consider that the relevant heritage background paper (SD24), whilst provides a high-level overview, does not provide sufficient assessment of potential impacts to allow the Council to properly consider the nature and extent of heritage harm arising from the allocation. The background paper does not sufficiently analyse the significance, including significance within setting, of the assemblage of designated heritage assets to the south of the proposed allocation site. Whilst acknowledging that development will have potential to harm elements which contribute to the significance of the heritage assets it does not articulate or assess these elements or evaluate the extent of harm to significance.

16. It is not considered that the heritage background paper provides a sufficiently detailed assessment of the potential impacts of development proportionate to the number of heritage assets potentially affected and acknowledging the higher grading of the Church of All Saints and Ayton Hall. These concerns are reflected in the consultation response from Historic England in respect of the proposed allocation which note that the background paper (SD24)

underplays the significance of the site to the significance of the heritage assets to the south. Whilst acknowledging harm will arise the evidence base relied upon by the Council fails to justify this harm or indicate that reasonable alternative sites that have been considered. As such, in accordance with Historic England guidance, we would submit that the allocation is unsound.

Q10. What effect will the allocation have on the rural setting and character of Great Ayton. How has this been considered as part of the preparation of the Local Plan?

17. The proposed allocation site historically comprised part of a wider agricultural/rural setting to the historic settlement and has remained undeveloped since the medieval period. Whilst residential estate development has enclosed the site to the east, it remains a significant element illustrating this historic setting and provides visual connection with the historic core of Great Ayton to the south. The Council’s Settlement Character Study identifies the site as contributing to the historic landscape character setting of the conservation area.

18. Development within the proposed allocation site will, on an in-principle basis, give rise to harm to the significance and character of the rural setting to Great Ayton and the setting to the assemblage of listed buildings and the conservation area to the south. It will bring built form in closer proximity to them and, particularly in terms of All Saints Church and Christ Church, will lead to the complete urban enclosure to building setting. As noted by Historic England in consultation response to the HBP “the loss of the site of this proposed allocation, would effectively sever these buildings from their rural setting harming their setting and appreciation.” The nature and experience of views will be harmed including those available from the footpath immediately to the west of the site. Given the high grading of listed buildings affected, the inter-related nature of the settings to these buildings and the Conservation Area, the cumulative impact will potentially lead to substantial harm to significance.

19. Whilst, as suggested within the HBP (LP01) and the site requirements for the allocation, harm can be reduced it clearly is incapable of being removed. As such the site requirement to “not cause harm” would be incapable of being satisfied should a planning application be forthcoming. As such the allocation would give rise to harm to the built historic environment. The suggested enhancement derived from the “reinstatement” of historic field divisions is minimal and impractical given the need to also accommodate residential development.

20. Overall, we consider that the development of the allocation site will harm the retained rural setting of Great Ayton and further disconnect the historic core of the settlement from its historic agricultural landscape. The extent of nature of this impact has not be properly assessed or considered as part of the preparation of the Local Plan and no justification for the acknowledged harm has been set out with the evidence base.

Q11. What effect will the allocation have on the landscape character of the area, having particular regard to the setting of the North York Moors National Park?

21. The Hambleton Landscape Character Assessment and Sensitivity Study, 2016, (SD27) places the site within the Stokesley Vale Character Area (Area 5) with key characteristics including intensively farmed lowland areas surrounding the market towns of Stokesley and Great Ayton, medium scale field patterns and with the Cleveland Hills a distinctive landmark in views to the east and south. It notes that the character area has an overall rural character and borders the North York Moors National Park to the east with Roseberry Topping a distinctive feature.

22. The Council’s Sustainability Appraisal Site Assessments for the Stokesley Area (2020) (LP04.4) provides little narrative assessment of the impact of the proposed development

upon the setting of the North York Moors National Park (NYMNP). It does however provide an Amber rating in respect to sustainability assessment objective 8, to maintain and enhance the quality and character of the landscape and protect the special qualities of the AONB’s and National Park. The site assessment does however arrive at Red rating in respect of Objective 5 in response to the questions whether the site is prominent in any significant views towards a settlement (5b) and the impact of development on the form and character of a settlement (5c). In commentary it states, in respect of GTA1, “this site is in a highly sensitive location, where harm caused by development cannot be mitigated.”

23. The proposed allocation site contributes positively to the rural character of the setting to the western fringe of the NYMNP and to the rural character of Great Ayton. The site facilitates significant views into the Park and towards Roseberry Topping particularly from the public right of way to the west of the site. Development will close down and diminish the quality of these views and have a clear urbanising effect upon the character of the settlement and diminish landscape quality within the setting to the Park.

24. We would submit that the Council’s evidence base fails to properly consider and assess impacts upon the setting to the NYMNP as part of the sustainability appraisal for the Plan. Development would give rise to harm to the landscape setting to Great Ayton and sensitive views into and from the Park.

Q12. Is the allocation justified and effective with regard to potential impacts on the three SSSIs in the vicinity of the site?

25. There are four SSSI’s located within 5km of the site include Langbaurgh Ridge SSSI (located approximately 0.94km north), Cliff Ridge SSSI (located approximately 1.7km north-east), Roseberry Topping SSSI (located approximately 2.6km north-east) and North York Moors SSSI (located approximately 3.5km east). The site falls into the SSSI impact risk zones for the North Yorkshire Moors SSSI only and at this location the development type does not fall into any of the risk categories which require further consultation with Natural England (MAGIC, 2020). The only consideration are for the following development types:

• Infrastructure: Airports, helipads and other aviation proposals • Air pollution: Any industrial/agricultural development that could cause air pollution. • Combustion: general combustion processes including waste incineration, landfill gas generation, pyrolysis/gasification, anaerobic digestion, sewage treatment works and other incineration/combustion.

26. All of the SSSI’s are located over 0.5km from the site and therefore is considered to be a sufficient distance for direct impacts not to effect the site. These direct impacts are usually from the construction phase and include increased dust, noise, light and other forms of environmental pollution such as water runoff.

27. Indirect impacts usually occur post-development and usually include increased pressures from the increase of visitors (due to the increase of population within the local area) and can include increase of litter/dog waste due to the increase of footfall at the SSSI’s. These should be fully assessed and mitigated for during any detailed planning application.

28. The development does therefore not require any further consultation with Natural England or consideration of further direct impacts to the SSSI’s within 5km of the site.

Summary

29. Overall, we would reiterate previous comments in response to the HLP Publication Draft. The proposed allocation, GTA1, is unsound and should be deleted.