Flaxby New Settlement
Harrogate Borough Council Harrogate District Local Plan 2018
RESPONSE TO Sustainability Appraisal Addendum May 2019
Representations on behalf of Flaxby Park Ltd May 2019
www.jamconsult.com
Contents
ES Executive Summary i-v 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Legal Position 2 3.0 The SA Addendum 4 3.1 SA Framework and Methodology 4 3.2 Flaxby New Settlement (FX3) – Errors in SA 4 3.3 Broad Locations for Growth 5 3.4 Summary of SA Results 7 3.5 Selection and Rejection of Alternatives 12 3.6 Mitigation Measures 13 3.7 Cumulative Impacts 14 3.8 Viability and Deliverability of Infrastructure 15 4.0 Conclusions 19
Appendices 1 Comparison of HBC SA Addendum 2019 Broad Location and Flaxby (FX3) 2018 2 Comparison of Flaxby Broad Location 2019 and Flaxby (FX3) 2018 3 Comparison of New Settlements (Cattal, Green Hammerton and Flaxby) 2018 and Flaxby 2019 4 Green Hammerton/Cattal New Settlement: Broad Location Highway Infrastructure Costs 5 HBC’s Note of Meeting with Flaxby Park (17/05/19) and Flaxby Park’s Response (28/05/19) 6 Letters to HBC from Town Legal and HBC’s responses 7 Correspondence from Transdev and Network Rail and Amey
www.jamconsult.com
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
Executive Summary
ES.1 This document has been prepared by Jam Consult Ltd on behalf of Flaxby Park Ltd with regards to the proposed new settlement at Flaxby and relates to Harrogate Borough Council’s (HBC) Sustainability Appraisal Addendum (SAA), May 2019.
ES.2 The SAA report is an Addendum to the SA of the Harrogate District Local Plan, 2018. The preparation of the Addendum is in response to a request from the Inspector appointed to carry out the Examination of the Local Plan following the hearing sessions, which were held in January and February 2019 as part of the Examination in Public Process.
ES.3 The Inspector’s comments regarding the SA are set out in EXINS003a Post Hearing Letter to HBC (amended), 11 March 2019. “Having considered the submissions from Flaxby Park and Keep The Hammertons Green, along with the Council’s additional submission in relation to Matters 1 and 12, it seems to me that the issue of whether additional SA work in relation to broad locations for growth for a new settlement is needed is finely balanced. This being so, I consider that it would be sensible for the Council to undertake additional work in this regard. In short, for it to assess broad locations around each of the proposed potential sites. I may comment further on the matter of the proposed new settlement in due course, if I deem it necessary in light of the additional work.”
ES.4 Jam has reviewed the results of the SAA and met with the Council, alongside other members of the Flaxby Project Team, to discuss the provisional findings. A note of this meeting is appended to this report at Appendix 5, for information, along with responses to the Council’s comments from Flaxby Park Ltd.
Legal Position ES.5 Each stage of amendment to a sustainability appraisal must be genuinely capable of influencing the contents of the local plan. It remains FPL’s position that the additional SA work must be carried out at a stage where it can influence the content of the Local Plan. Although it is possible to cure defects to a sustainability appraisal, in this case the potential changes to the local plan as a result of the additional work would be particularly fundamental (namely the potential for a different BLG to be selected) and therefore the amendments to be made could be so extensive that they would amount to completely re-writing the plan. If HBC was approaching the additional sustainability appraisal work with an open mind, the potential permutations for consideration would range as far as withdrawal and resubmission of the plan.
190530/150/FLX_SA i jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
ES.6 The flaws identified in both the previous representations and Legal Opinions have not been addressed in the SA Addendum. The SA therefore still breaches Regulation 12(3) of the 2004 Regulations and is unlawful. As stated in the Legal Opinion: “the defects in the Council’s environmental report are so fundamental that they cannot simply be fixed by additional work alongside the examination process.” These representations are submitted without prejudice to the above.
SA Addendum ES.7 The review of the SAA has found that errors identified in previous representations (December 2016, August 2017 and March 2018) remain and result in inaccuracies and significant flaws in the assessment. The failure to take into account the previous flaws, prior to undertaking the SA of the additional Broad Locations for Growth (BLGs), perpetuates the errors that have already been confirmed through the Examination process and removes the opportunity to correct the SA and provide a robust and accurate assessment. The key failings of the SAA are detailed below.
ES.8 SA Framework and Methodology – the SA addendum has not amended the framework or methodology, it remains flawed. The methodology lacks the necessary sensitivity to assess the issues of concern for the Broad Location of Growth. The scoring criteria also result in skewed results that mask the benefits of the BLG at Flaxby, whilst overplaying the potential benefits of Green Hammerton.
ES.9 Assessment of Impacts - The scores are frequently inaccurate and are not supported by the evidence, as conceded by HBC (meeting on 17/05/19) against numerous objectives. The evidence to support several results has still not been made available and the results can therefore not be relied upon (see Appendices to this report). The significance of impacts has not been suitably identified in accordance with the regulations’ significance criteria (Schedule 1 and 2) e.g. short, medium and long-term effects, permanent and temporary effects, secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, and the inter-relationship between the issues. The SA Addendum repeats the errors made in the previous SAs.
190530/150/FLX_SA ii jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
ES.10 Green Hammerton/Cattal BLG – The SAA states (para 1.10) that the assessment of the Green Hammerton/Cattal BLG is ‘As previously assessed’. This statement is false. Changes have been made to the scoring; the SA commentary; and the land included within the BLG, to bolster the results for Green Hammerton. This was not the purpose of the exercise set by the Inspector and contradicts the statement given by HBC at the EiP regarding any changes to the results (EXOTH022, HBC Response to Legal Opinion page 15, para 50). The SAA fails to demonstrate the assessment has been carried out with an ‘open mind’.
ES.11 Flaxby Site (FX3) - The Flaxby site has not been reassessed in light of the errors identified at the Examination in Public regarding: the material errors of fact; significance of impacts; consultation; mitigation measures; and cumulative effects. Furthermore, it has now been acknowledged and accepted by HBC (meeting 17/05/19) that several errors were made in relation to the scoring of the impacts. These errors have not been addressed in the SAA.
ES.12 SA Amendments - The identified amendments to the SA in HBC’s further note on SA points [EXOTH022 para 63 and Appendix 3] have not been made. The suggested amendments should be considered in the decision-making process, rather than just added as references afterwards. Such amendments cannot ‘cure’ the identified defects.
ES.13 Consultation Responses - The ‘administrative errors’ identified by HBC with regard to the recording of the consultation responses have not been corrected. A response to our representations has still not been provided. The SA fails to show how the findings of the consultations have been considered or influenced the plan’s development and SA, contrary to Article 2(b) of the SEA Directive.
ES.14 Land Availability – There has been no ‘call for sites’ in relation to the new areas of land to be included within the Broad Locations for Growth. This has resulted in an inequitable approach to the selection of available land and may have resulted in available land not being included as landowners have not been contacted or made aware.
ES.15 Reasonable Alternatives - The assessment of reasonable alternatives for the New Settlement options should have been reassessed, using the correct information with an explanation of why sites have been selected or rejected, BEFORE assessing alternative Broad Locations for Growth (BLGs).
190530/150/FLX_SA iii jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
ES.16 Broad Locations for Growth (BLGs) - The assessment of the BLGs has failed to predict and evaluate effects in sufficient detail or with links to appropriate evidence. There is no reference to the evidence base that has been used, against which the proposals should be assessed e.g. Infrastructure, Transport, Landscape, Historic Environment, Deliverability, Viability etc.
ES.17 Selection and Rejection of Alternatives – There is an inadequate explanation of the selection and rejection of the alternatives, in particular the New Settlements and Broad Locations for Growth. The SA does not demonstrate that the selection of the Broad Location for Growth at Green Hammerton is the most appropriate strategy.
ES.18 Mitigation measures – The mitigation measures have not been suitably identified or considered within the SA. The SA framework has used a mixture of mitigation on and off, which has not been adequately explained or justified [Regs. Sch. 2(7)]
ES.19 Cumulative Impacts - There is no cumulative impact assessment of the different Broad Locations for Growth, contrary to the regulations [Regs. Sch. 1(2b) & 2(6)]
ES.20 AECOM Critique - The SAA (or any other supporting information) has still not addressed the issues raised in the AECOM critique (June 2018) of the SA process.
ES.21 Integration with Local Plan - The SAA fails to show how the results have been integrated into the development of the Plan. The SA would appear to provide skewed results in order to provide post rationalisation for pre-determined decisions made in 2017.
ES.22 New Settlement DPD – The Submission SA identified that several effects would need to be considered as part of the New Settlement DPD because the evidence was not available, including; landscape, heritage, transport, infrastructure, viability and deliverability. No new evidence has been made available; it is therefore not known how the Green Hammerton BLG can be determined to be the most suitable alternative.
ES.23 Deliverability - The SA Addendum states that ‘deliverability is a key test’ for the assessment, yet the SA Framework fails to include any objectives or criteria on deliverability and viability. The availability of land is the only factor which has been considered (confirmed by HBC at the meeting on 17/05/19) and has not been considered on equal basis. Evidence to support the availability of land has still not been provided for Green Hammerton/Cattal BLG. The significant transport and utilities infrastructure requirements have not been taken into account in the decision-making process.
190530/150/FLX_SA iv jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
ES.24 The review of the SAA has shown that HBC’s approach does not demonstrate that the Broad Location for Growth at Green Hammerton can be considered to be an appropriate strategy, given the reasonable alternatives. In particular, the review has found that the selection of the BLG is not substantiated by the SA report or evidence and has revealed a substantially flawed approach to the assessment, which is not compliant with the necessary regulations and guidance.
ES.25 Despite the recognised ‘finely balanced’ position between the options, the amended scores and additional information, which has become available have had no bearing on the conclusions of the SAA. The results of the SAA demonstrate that the Flaxby BLG has fewer constraints and that, where likely negative impacts have been identified, mitigation is possible. This is not the case for Green Hammerton BLG, where negative (RED) impacts have been identified for landscape, local distinctiveness and the historic environment, which cannot be mitigated.
ES.26 Furthermore, the assessment does not show that it has been undertaken objectively with a genuinely ‘open mind’. The evidence does not support the results and the SAA has failed to correct the errors identified through the Examination process. The failures identified can only lead to the conclusion that the SA is still not fit for purpose or legally compliant and that the Local Plan can therefore not be considered sound.
190530/150/FLX_SA v jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
1.0 Introduction
1.1 This document has been prepared by Jam Consult Ltd on behalf of Flaxby Park Ltd with regards to the proposed new settlement at Flaxby and relates to Harrogate Borough Council’s (HBC) Sustainability Appraisal Addendum (SAA), May 2019.
1.2 The SAA report is an Addendum to the SA of the Harrogate District Local Plan, 2018. The preparation of the Addendum is in response to a request from the Inspector appointed to carry out the Examination of the Local Plan, following the hearing sessions, which were held in January and February 2019 as part of the Examination in Public Process.
1.3 The Inspector’s comments regarding the SA are set out in EXINS003a Post Hearing Letter to HBC (amended), 11 March 2019. “Having considered the submissions from Flaxby Park and Keep The Hammertons Green, along with the Council’s additional submission in relation to Matters 1 and 12, it seems to me that the issue of whether additional SA work in relation to broad locations for growth for a new settlement is needed is finely balanced. This being so, I consider that it would be sensible for the Council to undertake additional work in this regard. In short, for it to assess broad locations around each of the proposed potential sites. I may comment further on the matter of the proposed new settlement in due course, if I deem it necessary in light of the additional work.”
1.4 Jam has reviewed the results of the SAA and met with the Council, alongside other members of the Flaxby Project Team, to discuss the provisional findings. A note of this meeting from HBC including Flaxby Park’s responses is appended to this report at Appendix 5, for information.
1.5 The review of the SAA has found that errors identified in previous representations (December 2016, August 2017 and March 2018) remain and result in inaccuracies and significant flaws in the assessment, which are dealt with in detail in the sections below.
190530/150/FLX_SAA 1 jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
2.0 Legal Position
2.1 Each stage of amendment to a sustainability appraisal must be genuinely capable of influencing the contents of the local plan. According to para 165 of the 2012 NPPF, the SA should be “an integral part of the plan preparation process”. Para 32 of the 2019 NPPF goes further “local plans … should be informed throughout their preparation by a sustainability appraisal that meets the relevant legal requirements”.)
2.2 In this case, the potential changes to the local plan as a result of the additional work (namely the potential for a different BLG to be selected) would include particularly fundamental changes to the draft plan, for example removal of the Green Hammerton broad location allocation in favour of Flaxby or a broad location based on Flaxby. HBC’s responses to the letters from Town Legal of 19 March 2019 and 8 April 2019 do not suggest that HBC is approaching the additional work with the possibility of fundamental changes to the draft plan in mind (see Appendix 6 to this report)
2.3 HBC’s letter states that the additional SA work will be consulted on alongside the main modifications. It has always been FPL’s view, (which has been reinforced in light of the errors identified with HBC during this period of informal consultation), that the existing flaws in the SA are so significant that it is not appropriate to leave consultation on the amended SA to such a late stage. With the plan submitted to Examination and, once the main modifications have been drawn up and consulted on, it will be difficult for HBC to consider the results of the additional SA work with an open mind and consider which of the alternative BLG’s should be taken forward in the plan. At the Hearing on 29 January, on behalf of the Council the point was made that there was no significant difference in a broad location that would require the Council to go back and redo the assessment. This clearly suggests that HBC is not able to approach this process with an open mind. The Council has treated the additional work required by the Inspector as an exercise in validating its earlier selection of the Green Hammerton broad location, rather than as a necessary and integral part of genuinely considering which BLG ought to be selected.
190530/150/FLX_SAA 2 jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
2.4 In terms of the case law referred to at the Examination, in “No Adastral New Town”1, the relevant council had carried out, and consulted on, the additional SA work prior to submitting the plan for examination and the court found that: “when the council made the decision to proceed with the Development Plan it was fully informed about the environmental implications on all alternative sites’ and the results of the public consultation on the effect of 2000 houses on all 5 of the original option sites” [para 44 and 45]. 2.5 In ‘Cogent Land’2, the relevant council had suggested to the Inspector that the Examination report be delayed and noted that: “additional work on the SA will necessitate a delay in the examination process to allow for the additional work to be drafted, consulted upon, and the results fed into the plan-making process as appropriate. Furthermore, we are mindful that the Inspector may wish to hold further hearing sessions to consider the results of the additional SA work.”
2.6 The relevant council had also suggested two timetables in order to account for both the scenario where the plan would and the scenario where it would not need to be changed as a result of the additional SA work [para 132 to 134]. This is in contrast to the HBC’s approach in this case which underlines FPL’s concerns that the Council is not approaching the location of the BLG with an open mind in light of the assessment of alternatives.
2.7 Without prejudice to the above, the flaws identified in both the previous representations and Legal Opinions have not been addressed in the SA Addendum. The SA therefore still breaches Regulation 12(3) of the 2004 Regulations and is unlawful. As stated in the Legal Opinion: 2 “the defects in the Council’s environmental report are so fundamental that they cannot simply be fixed by additional work alongside the examination process.”
1 No Adastral New Town Ltd v Suffolk Coastal District Council [2015] EWCA Civ 88; [2015] 2 Cogent Land LLP v Rochford District Council [2012] EWHC 2542 (Admin)
190530/150/FLX_SAA 3 jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
3.0 The SA Addendum
3.1 SA Framework and Methodology
3.1.1 The SA Addendum (SAA) has not amended the SA framework or methodology used in the Local Plan despite the issues raised at the Examination in Public, it therefore remains flawed. The methodology lacks the necessary sensitivity to assess the strategic issues of concern for the Broad Location of Growth. The flaws in the framework become obvious when reviewing the detailed results, as agreed by HBC in several respects at our meeting on 17/05/19 (see Appendix 5). It is also not clear when mitigation measures are considered on or off, which is critical to the assessment.
3.2 Flaxby New Settlement (FX3) – Errors in SA
3.2.1 The SAA does not include a review of the assessments for the New Settlements that were previously considered in the SA reports submitted in support of the Local Plan. The Flaxby site (FX3) has therefore not been reassessed in light of the errors identified at the Examination in Public regarding: the material errors of fact; significance of impacts; consultation; mitigation measures; and cumulative effects. Furthermore, it has now been acknowledged and accepted by HBC (meeting 17/05/19) that several errors were made in relation to the scoring of the impacts for Flaxby (FX3). These errors have not been addressed in the SAA.
3.2.2 The identified amendments to the SA in HBC’s further note on SA points [EXOTH022 - para 63 and Appendix 3] or the issues raised in AECOM’s advice note (June 2018) on the SA have also not been included. The AECOM report identified the need to identify mitigation measures, which HBC confirmed had ‘not been actioned’. Instructions were given to HBC from the Inspector to provide a written response to the actions raised in the AECOM report at the Examination Hearing (Matter 12 – 29/01/19). A response to this request has still not been issued. The SAA offers a confused approach to mitigation, with mitigation on for some objectives and off for others. HBC were asked to explain this approach at the meeting of 17/05/19 but did not provide a response.
3.2.3 The suggested amendments should be considered in the decision-making process, rather than just added as references afterwards. The simple addition of such amendments at a later date cannot ‘cure’ the identified defects.
190530/150/FLX_SAA 4 jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
3.2.4 The ‘administrative errors’ identified by HBC with regard to the recording of the consultation responses have also not been corrected. A response to Flaxby Park’s representations submitted in March 2018 has still not been provided. The SA therefore fails to show how the findings of the consultations have been considered or influenced the plan’s development and SA, contrary to Article 2(b) of the SEA Directive.
3.2.5 The failure to take into account the above information, prior to undertaking the SA of the additional Broad Locations for Growth (BLGs), perpetuates the errors that have already been confirmed through the Examination process and removes the opportunity to correct the SA and provide a robust and accurate assessment.
3.2.6 The assessment of reasonable alternatives for the New Settlement options should have been reassessed, using the correct information, with an explanation of why sites have been selected or rejected, BEFORE assessing alternative Broad Locations for Growth (BLGs).
3.2.7 In addition, when the scores for Flaxby FX3 are amended to take account of the errors, the results show that Flaxby performs significantly better than the Green Hammerton/ Cattal Sites and the BLG (see Appendix 3). Given the ‘finely balanced’ nature of the results (SAA para 4.2), the more positive results for Flaxby as a result of the corrections of the errors should have been reflected in the scores, commentary and conclusions. In contrast to the results for Flaxby, the positive effects at Green Hammerton have been over played and are not supported by the necessary evidence. It is therefore apparent that the results cannot be considered credible or relied upon as a form of assessment.
3.3 Broad Locations for Growth 3.3.1 The SAA states (para 1.10) that the assessment of the Green Hammerton/Cattal BLG is ‘As previously assessed’. This statement is false. Changes have been made to the following: the scoring; the SA commentary; and the land available within the Green Hammerton/Cattal BLG. As the Green Hammerton/Cattal BLG information has been updated, so too should the information for Flaxby, in relation to the issues outlined in Section 3.2 above.
190530/150/FLX_SAA 5 jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
3.3.2 There has been no ‘call for sites’ for the new areas of land to be included within the alternative Broad Locations for Growth. This has resulted in an inequitable approach to the selection of available land and may have resulted in available land not being included, as all landowners have not been contacted. This is particularly relevant to the excluded land west of Flaxby, which would form a logical part of a BLG and would address the placemaking concerns, which appear to have weighed heavily against FBLP in the Council’s conclusion (para 4.2). HBC confirmed (meeting 17/05/19) that the landowner for this area of land was not contacted as part of the Broad Location for Growth exercise.
3.3.3 The land within the alternative BLG areas has, therefore, not been considered in an equitable or comparative basis to the Green Hammerton/Cattal BLG. Uncertainty also remains regarding the availability of land at the Green Hammerton BLG and the evidence to support its inclusion, which has not been provided. There is no evidence available that all the land in the Green Hammerton BLG is available and in response to an FOI request, HBC has confirmed that it does not hold any information as to any contractual arrangements which the promoters of Green Hammerton/Cattal have in place with landowners. By contrast, all of FX3, which is the focus of the Flaxby BLG, is owned and controlled by FPL.
3.3.4 The assessment of the alternative BLGs has failed to predict and evaluate effects in sufficient detail or with links to appropriate evidence. There is no reference to the evidence base that has been used, against which the proposals should be assessed e.g. Infrastructure, Transport, Landscape, Historic Environment, Deliverability, Viability etc.
3.3.5 The significance of impacts has not been suitably identified in accordance with the regulations significance criteria (Schedule 1 and 2) e.g. short, medium and long-term effects, permanent and temporary effects, secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, and the inter-relationship between the issues. The SA Addendum has repeated the errors made in the previous SAs.
190530/150/FLX_SAA 6 jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
3.4 Summary of SA Results
3.4.1 A detailed review of the SAA results is set out in the Appendices to this report. The following discrepancies and errors in the results are provided below to illustrate the type of flaws in the assessment that have been identified.
SO4 Vibrant Communities and SO7 Education and Training 3.4.2 HBC has confirmed that the above Objectives are testing different issues, however, the same criterion has been applied to each objective i.e. capacity of local schools. The result is that the SA is in effect double counting regarding the capacity of the schools. In addition, the results for Green Hammerton BLG have been altered from an adverse impact RED to a major positive impact DARK GREEN for both objectives.
3.4.3 At the time of writing, the evidence from NYCC on the schools capacity has not been provided by HBC (meeting 17/05/19). However, even if there is some capacity at present this will not be sufficient to meet ‘the extra need’ from the proposed development. HBC has confirmed that mitigation is not included for this objective, the results for Green Hammerton should therefore be the same as Flaxby i.e. no consideration given to the proposed new primary schools.
SO5 Culture, leisure and recreation activities available to all 3.4.4 HBC has confirmed that a RED score has been added for the Flaxby BLG (which was not included in the assessment of FX3) to account for the loss of the former golf course, despite its closure in 2014, private ownership and the fact that it would not be a viable option to reopen the facility. This is not “leisure” or “recreation” land which is “available to all” for the purpose of the assessment; it is vacant and disused land and has been for over 5 years. It is therefore wrong and misleading for HBC to apply a red score. HBC also agreed the score for GHBLG should change to RED.
SO6 Local needs met locally 3.4.5 The scores for 6a public transport access by bus have been changed from YELLOW to RED, the same as GHBL, owing to a change in the frequency of the service. HBC to provide evidence to support the results. The locational advantages of Flaxby or the proposed mitigation measures have not been considered in the results. 3.4.5 All the results have been amended for 6d – access to secondary school by bus from RED to LIGHT GREEN.
190530/150/FLX_SAA 7 jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
SO8 Biodiversity and Natural Environment 3.4.6 8a Biodiversity has been corrected to ORANGE from RED to reflect comments from Ecology Officer. By the same token, the RED score for FX3 should also now be changed to ORANGE as FPL has long argued. HBC also confirmed that the scores for 8f and 8g should both be ORANGE, not YELLOW and RED as shown in the SAA.
SO9 Pollution/Land Use 3.4.7 9e land use has changed for Flaxby BLG from RED to ORANGE to reflect the amount of previously developed land, which was not discussed at the Examination. 9f has also changed from ORANGE to N/A for FX3 to reflect the correct amount of prime agricultural land.
SO10a Road/Rail Congestion 3.4.8 The Flaxby BLG and Green Hammerton/Cattal are both scored ORANGE against this objective, substantial mitigation measures required. However, the mitigation measures needed are not discussed, despite the considerable mitigation that will be required at Green Hammerton BLG, at a substantial cost. In particular, the additional highway infrastructure to deliver the Green Hammerton BLG (confirmed by the land’s promoters) which includes, as a minimum: • the diversion of the A59 • improvements to J47 • two road bridges over the rail line • major enhancements to the A59 between the BLG and the A1(M).
3.4.9 Little consideration has also been given to the impact of the proposals on the road network to the east, towards York. The A59 is a strategic route and is sub-standard at present, it also connects with York Outer Ring Road, which is one of the most congested routes in the County. Whilst not addressed in any of HBC’s submissions, some level of highway mitigation, requiring substantial public funding will be required along this corridor, which would result in a RED score for GHBLG.
3.4.10 Conversely, given the location of the Flaxby Park proposals, adjacent to the A1(M) and north of the A59, none of the above works would be required (other than improvements to J47), and no public investment would be needed. Indeed, the main site access roundabout has already been completed.
190530/150/FLX_SAA 8 jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
3.4.11 However, although the mitigation measures are considerably less for Flaxby, the Green Hammerton BLG is scored the same. Consideration of the remoteness of the Green Hammerton from the main settlements is also not discussed. The results do not present an accurate picture of the transport infrastructure requirements that will be needed or any potential impacts upon viability or deliverability. [See Appendix 4 of this report]
SO10b Public Transport 3.4.12 The sustainability criteria question asks – ‘Will it increase provision of public transport where needed?’ However, all the BLGs have been scored a question mark against this objective – ‘Increased public transport provision and extension of services cannot be predicted at this stage.’
3.4.13 Information on the existing public transport provision is available and should be used as the baseline information from which to assess the sustainability of impacts. The transport evidence that supports the Local Plan should enable an assessment to be made on whether public transport provision can be improved in the BLG areas. For example: the frequency of services that could be viable; the distances to main settlements by different public transport modes; and the time taken to undertake these journeys. The use of a question mark shows a failure to even consider the likely significant effects of the Plan using the evidence available.
3.4.14 Furthermore, Flaxby Park has written confirmation from the Transport operators that bus (Transdev) and rail provision (Network Rail is possible for the future development, although it is acknowledged that further discussions will be necessary regarding the detail. This information has been made available to the Council and is included in Appendix 7. In contrast, the Council has confirmed that there is no written confirmation from the transport operators in relation to Green Hammerton (see Appendix 5).
SO10f Opportunity for a new Rail Station 3.4.15 HBC has also now accepted this objective should be scored DARK GREEN rather than RED for Flaxby. FPL has also submitted further evidence from Network Rail in which they offer support for a strategic new railway station and park and ride at Flaxby to serve growth in the area (which includes Flaxby Green Park) and accept that a station is achievable. This has not, as yet, been responded to by the Council. In addition, NYCC’s position, as Local Highways Authority, is that the public transport requirements of Flaxby can be met by a bus-based park and ride facility in this location. This is important given that “maximising public transport” is the stated objective of the Council – not a preference for an existing railway station which seems to be the Council’s deciding factor in favour of GHBL.
190530/150/FLX_SAA 9 jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
3.4.16 Given the strategic location of Flaxby (close to Knaresborough, Harrogate and opposite FGP), alongside the evidence we have provided from Network Rail, Transdev, Northern, NYCC and the Chamber of Commerce, it cannot be seen how the Council can credibly maintain that the isolated GHBL and its constrained existing stations offers a superior location for maximising public transport, which would support the same level of economic growth for the district.
3.4.17 The conclusions of the SAA (para 4.3) place great emphasis on the advantage of the operational stations at Green Hammerton/Cattal and that the locational advantages at Flaxby are not the same. FPL has demonstrated through its evidence that the locational advantages of Flaxby are in fact better than Green Hammerton. HBC has also now acknowledged that Flaxby scores the same as GHBL for transport (see Appendices to this report). The assertion in the conclusions that the operational rail stations at Green Hammerton/Cattal provide a significant advantage in order to maximise public transport access is not supported by the evidence. Based on HBC’s scoring criteria, the score should also be LIGHT GREEN not DARK GREEN for GHBLG.
SO11 Climate Change 3.4.18 HBC has confirmed that consideration of renewable energy has not been considered in the SA. The potential for Flaxby to use the ‘waste heat’ from the Allerton Waste Recycling Park, as set out in Appendix 1 of FPL’s Matter 12 Hearing Statement, is not considered.
SO13 Historic Environment and SO14 Built Environment & Land Use Patterns 3.4.19 The Flaxby FBL has been scored RED – no mitigation possible against SO13a Historic Environment and SO14f Local Distinctiveness, however, the evidence used to provide the score has not been provided despite requests being made to the Council. The reason for these scores is therefore unknown.
SO15/16 Economic Growth 3.4.20 Although the Flaxby FBL scores DARK GREEN or a major positive impact against this objective, this is the same score as Green Hammerton FBL. The scoring does not reflect the fact that Flaxby has over 500 existing jobs adjacent to the site and c.3,000 are proposed as part of the development at Flaxby Green Park, which has consent for development and is identified by HBC as the largest strategic employment allocation in the Local Plan.
190530/150/FLX_SAA 10 jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
3.4.21 The assessment fails to reflect the substantial economic benefits of locating the development at Flaxby and the opportunity to create a truly sustainable development. Set against the weight which the Council has placed on the (very limited) existing facilities in Green Hammerton in justifying its selection, comprising a Post Office, it is a serious concern that the SA scoring does not allow the reporting of the significant positive impact of the existing employment opportunities, within walking distance of Flaxby.
3.4.22 Councillor Burnett also stated in her opening statement at the Examination: “This local plan does two things. It will create the right employment opportunities close to where people want to live, and provide housing they can afford.”
3.4.23 Overall the results fail to reflect the specific benefits that development at Flaxby would bring, because of the lack of sensitivity in the scoring criteria and explanation of the assessment through a commentary. For example, the benefits of developing a substantial area of vacant and disused land (113 hectares) compared to the development of prime agricultural land in productive use at Green Hammerton, is not reflected in the scores. Similarly, the significant benefits of the existing and proposed employment provision at Flaxby are not taken into account. The SA does not provide an accurate assessment of the current circumstances and the likely significant impacts as a consequence of development.
190530/150/FLX_SAA 11 jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
3.5 Selection and Rejection of Alternatives
3.5.1 There is an inadequate explanation of the selection and rejection of the alternatives, in particular the New Settlements and Broad Locations for Growth. The SA (including the Addendum) does not demonstrate that the selection of the Broad Location for Growth at Green Hammerton is the most appropriate strategy. “The sustainability appraisal should outline the reasons the alternatives were selected, the reasons the rejected options were not taken forward and the reasons for selecting the preferred approach in light of the alternatives. It should provide conclusions on the overall sustainability of the different alternatives, including those selected as the preferred approach in the Local Plan. Any assumptions used in assessing the significance of effects of the Local Plan should be documented.” NPPG 018 3.5.2 The assessment of reasonable alternatives for the New Settlement options should have been reassessed, using the correct information with an explanation of why sites have been selected or rejected, BEFORE assessing alternative Broad Locations for Growth (BLGs).
3.5.3 A comparison of the results for Flaxby (FX3), Cattal (CL5) and Green Hammerton (GH11) with the revised scores that have been agreed in consultation with HBC is provided at Appendix 3. The results show that Flaxby is clearly the best performer of the three sites, which is not reflected in the assessment of the BLGs.
3.5.4 The assessment of the BLGs has also failed to predict and evaluate effects in sufficient detail or with links to appropriate evidence. There is no reference to the evidence base that has been used, against which the proposals should be assessed e.g. Infrastructure, Transport, Landscape, Historic Environment, Deliverability, Viability etc.
3.5.5 The reasons for the selection of the Green Hammerton BLG and rejection of the alternative BLGs at para 4.2-4.3 of the SAA is both inadequate and inaccurate. The SAA does not demonstrate how the ‘finely balanced’ issues have been considered in the assessment of the BLGs or how the changes to the scores have been taken into account in reaching the decision on the preferred option. The SAA does not demonstrate that it has been carried out with an ‘open mind’.
3.5.6 Great weight has been placed on the inclusion of two operational rail stations within the GHBLG, however, no consideration has been given to the other transport mitigation measures that will be necessary owing to its isolated location or the likely impacts of such mitigation upon viability and deliverability.
190530/150/FLX_SAA 12 jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
3.5.7 The expansion of Flaxby BLG is regarded by HBC as limited in a westerly direction by the fact that Knaresborough lies only a short distance from the area (approx. 3 miles). However, there is no discussion of the likely coalescence of the GHBLG with the neighbouring historic villages of Green Hammerton, Kirk Hammerton and Whixley, which are all significantly closer to the BLG and include conservation areas.
3.5.8 The results also fail to consider the fact that the GHBLG scores RED, mitigation not possible, for landscape, local distinctiveness and historic environment. Given the errors in the results and the failure to support the conclusions with the necessary evidence, the findings cannot be relied upon as a robust or credible assessment of the options available.
3.6 Mitigation Measures
3.6.1 The mitigation measures have not been suitably identified or considered within the SA. The SA framework has used a mixture of mitigation on and off, which has not been adequately explained or justified. This issue was raised at the meeting with the Council on 17/5/19 but not resolved in the discussions.
3.6.2 Schedule 2 (7) of the regulations (Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes 2004) sets out the information, which should be included within the SA report, including the requirements for mitigation measures. “The measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and as fully as possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment of implementing the plan or programme.”
3.6.3 The NPPG makes it clear that Stage B of the SA process - Developing and Refining Alternatives and Assessing Effects, should include the consideration of mitigation measures: “Stage B: Developing and Refining Alternatives & Assessing Effects 1. Test the Local Plan Objectives against the Sustainability Appraisal Framework 2. Develop the Local Plan Options including Reasonable Alternatives 3. Evaluate the likely effects of the Local Plan and Alternatives 4. Consider ways of mitigating adverse effects and maximising beneficial effects 5. Propose measures to monitor the significant effects of implementing the Local Plan” [NPPG 013 – emphasis added] “Stage B should also involve considering ways of mitigating any adverse effects, maximising beneficial effects and ways of monitoring likely significant effects.” [NPPG 017]
190530/150/FLX_SAA 13 jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
3.6.4 In addition, the RTPI Practice Guidance 2018 on SA/SEA provides further information on mitigation measures, including the assessment of mitigation off vs. mitigation on. “Generally site assessment deals with the merits of the existing site (e.g. Figure 7), rather than with specific proposals for the site or with different uses of the site. However shortcomings of a site, e.g. a substantial distance from a health centre, may be able to be mitigated through, say, the provision of a new health facility. ‘Mitigation off’ v. ‘mitigation on’ assessment could deal with the problem of larger sites looking more problematic than smaller sites because many services will be further away from them. The ‘mitigation off’ assessment would consider a development’s potential effects based on location alone, and the ‘mitigation on’ assessment would also consider the mitigation offered by other plan policies or site planning conditions. Where planners reference developer proposals in coming to conclusions on the sustainability of a certain site, they should be very clear where such information has been used and any uncertainties associated with it.” Page 15
3.6.5 Mitigation of significant negative effects of the plan and enhancement of positive effects are a key purpose of SA. The guidance also states that mitigation should be considered in a hierarchy, with avoidance better than reduction, which in turn is better than offsetting. 3.6.6 Given the above hierarchy, Flaxby can avoid and then reduce/minimise several effects, which Green Hammerton cannot - e.g. landscape, local distinctiveness, historic environment, transport, infrastructure etc. The failure to consider mitigation measures consistently and comprehensively for all the BLGs, provides inaccurate and misleading results.
3.7 Cumulative Impacts
3.7.1 There is no cumulative impact assessment of the different Broad Locations for Growth, contrary to the regulations [Regs. Sch. 1(2b) & 2(6)]. A comparative assessment of the cumulative effects of the Broad Locations for Growth can therefore not be carried out. There is absolutely no comparative assessment of the relative deliverability and viability positions between the various broad locations. This is a fundamental and inescapable flaw.
3.7.2 The Submission SA also identified that several effects would need to be considered as part of the New Settlement DPD because the evidence was not available, including: landscape, heritage, transport, infrastructure, viability and deliverability. No new evidence has been made available; it is therefore not known how the Green Hammerton BLG can be determined to be the most suitable alternative.
190530/150/FLX_SAA 14 jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
3.8 Viability and Deliverability of Infrastructure
3.8.1 The SA Addendum (para 1.9) states that ‘deliverability is a key test’ for the assessment, yet the SA Framework fails to include any objectives or criteria on deliverability and viability. The availability of land is the only factor which has been considered, as confirmed by HBC at the meeting on 17/05/19. The significant transport and utilities infrastructure requirements have not been taken into account in the decision-making process.
3.8.2 The complete omission of viability in the SA (accepted by the Council on 17/05/19) is glaring. Viability is a fundamental consideration, even more so for new settlement scale development given the significant costs involved in getting development underway. FPL is not aware that either promoter in the GHBL has submitted a viability appraisal, if so nothing has been made available to scrutiny on the public record. By contrast, FPL has submitted full and detailed viability evidence to the Council. The Council confirmed on 17/05/19 that the viability position of Flaxby is not contested by the Council.
3.8.3 The Council’s own evidence contained in the New Settlement Report clearly confirms Flaxby is the most deliverable new settlement location and the sites within GHBL as the least deliverable given that they are made up of multiple private landownerships, which are not all within the control of the promoters. Moreover, as presented at the EIP, each landowner controls land within the others site – indeed Oakgate control land which CEG require to divert the A59 (a fundamental requirement of the CEG scheme).
Utilities 3.8.2 The Stage 3 Infrastructure Capacity Report, October 2016, identified that the proposed development at Flaxby was the preferred option with regards to the provision of both gas and electricity, stating with regard to gas:
“the very major costs and long lead in times involved would mean there would be there would be significant uncertainty on how gas infrastructure required to serve Green Hammerton would be funded and delivered” and for electricity “Scenario 3 [Flaxby] would appear to have benefits over scenario 2 [Green Hammerton] as the site at Flaxby is located in fairly close proximity (between 1.5km and 3km) to the existing substation at Coneythorpe. By comparison the Green Hammerton site would be around 12km from the York Outer Ring Road / Upper Poppleton, which may be on the limit of what could be considered practically and financially viable”.
190530/150/FLX_SAA 15 jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
3.8.3 The update to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, August 2018, confirms the previous analysis but adds: “2.8 The DPD will be supported by a separate Infrastructure Delivery Plan to help determine future infrastructure requirements in more detail with input from key stakeholders.” “4.14 More detailed assessment of the infrastructure requirements and costs will be undertaken as part of the development of the New Settlement DPD.”
3.8.4 It is apparent from the statements above, the evidence does not currently exist to determine whether the provision of new infrastructure is a viable or deliverable proposition at Green Hammerton, unlike Flaxby. The viability and deliverability of options or the infrastructure capacity have not been assessed within the SA.
3.8.5 Although both options would require new infrastructure for water and sewerage, Green Hammerton would need a new water main, whereas Flaxby would only need reinforcement to the existing provision.
Green Hammerton/Cattal Broad Location for Growth “4.13 Whilst villages in the vicinity of the site are served by utilities (electricity, water and waste water) these do not have the capacity to serve the scale of development that could ultimately be delivered by a new settlement and, as outlined in the Stage 3 report, significant reinforcement of these utility networks will be required. There is currently no gas supply in the area. If provision for gas is to be made, this would require the installation of new infrastructure with practical and logistical issues to be overcome. Whilst these are not insurmountable, there would be major costs and long lead in times in providing this connection. 4.14 More detailed assessment of the infrastructure requirements and costs will be undertaken as part of the development of the New Settlement DPD.” Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2018, p10
190530/150/FLX_SAA 16 jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
Transport 3.8.6 Network Rail has stated considerable improvements to the stations at Green Hammerton and Cattal will be necessary as well as a need to understand: what additional capacity will be required; the effect on level crossings; and cost of upgrading station facilities and level crossing in the vicinity of each new settlement. It is not known whether the suggested improvements at Green Hammerton are either viable or deliverable as the information has not been provided.
3.8.7 As the infrastructure capacity plan for the Broad Location for Growth will not be carried out until the preparation of the New Settlement DPD it is not known whether the constraints can be overcome prior to designation of the BLG in the Local Plan or whether the proposals are viable or deliverable. The approach taken is unsound and illustrates the flaws in HBC’s two-stage strategy.
3.8.8 Attention is drawn to the findings of the Inspector, Roger Clews, for the North Essex Authorities’ Strategic Plan (8/6/18), which identifies similar failings in the production of the Plan and SA and resulted in the withdrawal of substantial parts of the plan. The Inspector raises issues regarding the deliverability of the proposed transport infrastructure, viability of the plan, the assessments of alternatives within the SA and the need to support the findings with suitable evidence. “if adopted, [the Local Plan] would establish both the in-principle acceptability of, and many of the specific requirements for, the proposed GC developments. Follow-on plans are intended to set out the principles of design, development and phasing for each GC, but it is this examination which must determine whether or not the GC proposals are properly justified and realistically developable. This is of more than usual importance given the large scale and long-term nature of the GC proposals”. para 30 and “Without more evidence to show that the necessary transport infrastructure for the GCs could be provided viably and in a timely fashion, the strong positive scores for the chosen strategy in respect of sustainable travel behaviour and accessibility are unwarranted.” [para 99]
3.8.9 The re-routing of the A59 and other highway improvements are also not discussed at all in the SA or supporting commentary, a significant omission (as discussed in section 3.4 of this report)
190530/150/FLX_SAA 17 jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
3.8.10 The Infrastructure Schedule for the Local Plan (p21-22) sets out the requirements for Green Hammerton/Cattal as follows: • Station improvements – unknown costs and funding sources at this stage. • Potential new bus service to serve new settlement – no costs or funding sources identified. Without the above information it cannot be determined if the proposals are either viable or deliverable.
3.8.11 The Updated Local Plan Viability Report, provides some additional information on viability, however, the highway infrastructure costs are not provided which total around £11m for both Green Hammerton and Flaxby but with an additional £51m for Green Hammerton/Cattal alone, as identified in the Transport Assessments submitted to support the planning applications (see Appendix 4 of this report).
3.8.12 The SAA has failed to consider the necessary infrastructure requirements, including the likely costs and impact upon deliverability, for all of the BLG options and is contrary to the NPPF.
“173. Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in plan-making and decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.” NPPF
3.8.13 A detailed Viability and Deliverability report has been prepared for Flaxby and submitted to the Council. The report demonstrates that a policy compliant new settlement can be delivered, unlike Green Hammerton. HBC confirmed at the meeting of 17/05/19 that the viability and deliverability assessment for Flaxby is acceptable and it is in agreement that Flaxby is considered viable.
190530/150/FLX_SAA 18 jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
4.0 Conclusions
4.1 The flaws identified in both the previous representations and Legal Opinions have not been addressed in the SA Addendum. The SA therefore still breaches Regulation 12(3) of the 2004 Regulations and is unlawful. This report is provided without prejudice to FPL’s legal position.
4.2 The Council has already confirmed that the position between the options is ‘finely balanced’. Despite this, the agreement now reached with HBC on the errors in the scoring and the amended information which has become available, have had no bearing on the conclusion reached.
4.3 The results of the SAA demonstrate that the Flaxby BLG has fewer constraints and that, where likely negative impacts have been identified, mitigation is possible. This is not the case for Green Hammerton BLG, where negative (RED) impacts have been identified for landscape, local distinctiveness and the historic environment, which cannot be mitigated. In the SA, the Council has stated that sites which scored RED in these key categories were generally not taken forward as allocations, yet the Council considers it appropriate to identify a broad location for 3,000 houses where this applies across all these key categories. Flaxby scores no REDS in these key categories. The contrast is stark and compelling.
4.4 The Council’s reasons for the selection of the Broad Location at Green Hammerton centre around existing railway stations and land to enable future expansion in the future. However, the remoteness of the Green Hammerton from the main settlements is not discussed. The results do not present an accurate picture of the transport infrastructure requirements that will be needed or any potential impacts upon viability or deliverability. The availability of land has not been addressed in a fair or equitable manner, however that aside, there is still land available for growth at Flaxby.
4.5 The Council has now accepted that Flaxby BLG now scores equal to Green Hammerton BLG on rail service. New evidence from Network Rail has been provided which supports this revised score. Furthermore, the objective is “maximising public transport”. In addition to rail, NYCC as Local Highways Authority, has confirmed that the public transport requirements of Flaxby can be met by bus and park and ride at this location given proximity to Knaresborough and Harrogate main towns.
190530/150/FLX_SAA 19 jam consult ltd
Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, May 2019
4.6 The Council has also accepted that Flaxby BLG provides room for expansion, noting that a stated purpose of expansion is already served through the Flaxby Green Park employment allocation and subsequent planning permission which will create c.3,000 jobs. It is clear, therefore, that neither of these factors now favour Green Hammerton BLG. That being so, given that Flaxby BLG clearly scores better than Green Hammerton on key considerations (see 4.3 above), there is clear justification for Flaxby BLG being selected as the most appropriate location for the new settlement. This is before the other benefits of Flaxby, which include a substantial area of vacant and unused land (113 hectares) and access to over 500 existing jobs by foot.
4.7 The review of the SAA has shown that HBC’s approach does not demonstrate that the Broad Location for Growth at Green Hammerton can be considered to be the most appropriate strategy, given the reasonable alternatives. In particular, the review has found that the selection of the BLG is not substantiated by the SA report or evidence and has revealed a substantially flawed approach to the assessment, which is not compliant with the necessary regulations and guidance.
4.8 The Council’s decision to continue to support the selection of Green Hammerton as the preferred Broad Location for Growth is illogical and does not reflect the results of the SAA. Furthermore, the assessment does not show that it has been undertaken objectively with a genuinely ‘open mind’. The evidence does not support the results and the SAA has failed to correct the errors identified through the Examination process. The failures identified can only lead to the conclusion that the SA is still not fit for purpose or legally compliant and that the Local Plan can therefore not be considered sound.
190530/150/FLX_SAA 20 jam consult ltd
Jam Consult Ltd Jane Mulcahey
www.jamconsult.com
APPENDICES Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Response to SA Addendum
on behalf of Flaxby Park Ltd May 2019
www.jamconsult.com Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal of Site and Broad Location, 2019
Contents
1 Comparison of HBC SA Addendum 2019 Broad Locations and Flaxby (FX3) SA 2018 2 Comparison of Flaxby Broad Location 2019 and Flaxby (FX3) 2018 3 Comparison of New Settlements (Cattal, Green Hammerton and Flaxby) 2018 and Flaxby 2019 4 Green Hammerton/Cattal New Settlement: Broad Location Highway Infrastructure Costs 5 HBC’s Note of Meeting with Flaxby Park (17/05/19) and Flaxby Park’s Response (28/05/19) 6 Letters to HBC from Town Legal and HBC’s responses 7 Correspondence from Transdev and Network Rail and Amey
190530/150/SA Addendum Results 1 jam consult ltd Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal of Site and Broad Location, 2019
1 Comparison of HBC SA Addendum 2019 Broad Locations and Flaxby SA 2018
Results as shown in SA Addendum, prior to meeting on 17/05/19 HBC 2019 HBC 2019 HBC 2018 SUSTAINABILITY Green Hammerton Flaxby Flaxby OBJECTIVES Broad Location Broad Location FX3 SUB-OBJECTIVES A B C D E F G A B C D E F G A B C D E F G 1 HOUSING
2 HEALTH
3 SAFETY AND ? ? ? SECURITY 4 VIBRANT + COMMUNITIES 5 CULTURE, LEISURE - & RECREATION 6 LOCAL NEEDS MET - - LOCALLY 7 EDUCATION AND + TRAINING 8 BIODIVERSITY & ? + - ? - ? NATURAL ENVIRON. 9 POLLUTION ? ? + ?
10 TRANSPORT ? ? + - ?
190530/150/SA Addendum Results 2 jam consult ltd Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal of Site and Broad Location, 2019
1 Comparison of HBC SA Addendum 2019 Broad Locations and Flaxby SA 2018
HBC 2019 HBC 2019 HBC 2018 SUSTAINABILITY Green Hammerton Flaxby Flaxby OBJECTIVES Broad Location Broad Location FX3 SUB-OBJECTIVES A B C D E F G A B C D E F G A B C D E F G 11 CLIMATE CHANGE N/ N/ N/ A A A 12 NATURAL RESOURCES
13 HISTORIC - ENVIRONMENT 14 LAND USE N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ - N/ N/ N/ A A A A A A A A A 15 EMPLOYMENT ? ? ?
16 ECONOMIC GROWTH
Recommendation Selected Rejected Rejected
+ = a positive change in result - = a negative change in result Green Hammerton has 2 positive changes and 1 negative change Flaxby has 3 positive changes and 7 negative changes, although some of the changes will be as a result of the wider area of land.
190530/150/SA Addendum Results 3 jam consult ltd Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal of Site and Broad Location, 2019
2 Comparison of Flaxby Broad Location 2019 and Flaxby (FX3) 2018
HBC 2019 2018 JAM SUSTAINABILITY Flaxby Flaxby Changes from EiP and OBJECTIVES BROAD LOCATION FX3 incorporating HBC comments from 17/05/19 SUB-OBJECTIVES A B C D E F G A B C D E F G 1 HOUSING No change
2 HEALTH No change
3 SAFETY AND ? ? No change SECURITY 4 VIBRANT No change. 4c relates to capacity of schools but in terms of COMMUNITIES ‘vibrant communities’. 5 CULTURE, LEISURE 5b changed to RED because of loss of golf course (closed in & RECREATION 2014) HBC confirmed previous score incorrect 6 LOCAL NEEDS MET 6a now RED from YELLOW because of frequency of bus LOCALLY service. 6d - HBC has confirmed it includes secondary school served by bus, all sites should be LIGHT GREEN 7 EDUCATION AND HBC do not consider 7a is double counting with 4c – assessing TRAINING different things but using same criterion HBC agreed 7b training and apprenticeships should be changed from no score to LIGHT GREEN 8 BIODIVERSITY & ? ? 8a Biodiversity – corrected to ORANGE to take on board NATURAL Ecology officer’s comments ENVIRON. 8f and 8g – HBC confirmed both should be ORANGE
190530/150/SA Addendum Results 4 jam consult ltd Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal of Site and Broad Location, 2019
2 Comparison of Flaxby Broad Location 2019 and Flaxby (FX3) 2018
HBC 2019 2018 JAM SUSTAINABILITY Flaxby Flaxby Changes from EiP and OBJECTIVES BROAD LOCATION FX3 incorporating HBC comments from 17/05/19 SUB-OBJECTIVES A B C D E F G A B C D E F G 9 POLLUTION ? ? 9e land is approximately 1-24% previously developed land, changed from RED to ORANGE for the FBL and FX3 9f Greater proportion of the site does not fall within any agricultural land classification, FX3 to change from ORANGE to N/A 10 TRANSPORT ? ? 10a – based on information from NYCC. Evidence to be checked when provided. 10b - Question of bus network 10c – Site well served by existing routes/will provide new route, changed to DARK GREEN 10d – HBC reconsidered provision of footpaths and feel score should remain ORANGE. FPL consider it should be DARK GREEN 10e – no change, severance can be overcome 10f – opportunity for new rail station, HBC agreed should be DARK GREEN not RED 11 CLIMATE CHANGE N/ N/ 11a – site is not within 400m of a bus stop HBC to confirm A A 11b – HBC to review inclusion of renewable energy for all sites 11c – Flood risk Z1 – no change 12 NATURAL 12b – Greenfield land but not grade 1, 2 and 3a. FPL consider RESOURCES score should change from RED to ORANGE for FX3 13 HISTORIC 13a – harm to historic assets not capable of mitigation. HBC to ENVIRONMENT provide evidence on why score has changed to RED
190530/150/SA Addendum Results 5 jam consult ltd Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal of Site and Broad Location, 2019
2 Comparison of Flaxby Broad Location 2019 and Flaxby (FX3) 2018
HBC 2019 2018 JAM SUSTAINABILITY Flaxby Flaxby Changes from EiP and OBJECTIVES BROAD LOCATION FX3 incorporating HBC comments from 17/05/19 SUB-OBJECTIVES A B C D E F G A B C D E F G 14 LAND USE N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ 14e – RED score seems high for level of demolition on the site A A A A A A 14f - HBC to provide evidence on why score has changed to RED 15 EMPLOYMENT ? ? 15b site lies within 800m of a bus stop where frequency of service enables commuting by bus for work. FPL consider the score should be DARK GREEN not a ? 16 ECONOMIC No change GROWTH
190530/150/SA Addendum Results 6 jam consult ltd Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal of Site and Broad Location, 2019
3 Comparison of Green Hammerton, Cattal 2018 and Flaxby 2018/2019
Publication Draft Local Plan SA, 2018 HBC HBC HBC 2019 SUSTAINABILITY CA5 (CA4) GH11 FX3 FX3 OBJECTIVES Maltkiln Green Hammerton Flaxby Flaxby SUB-OBJECTIVES A B C D E F G A B C D E F G A B C D E F G A B C D E F G 1 HOUSING
2 HEALTH
3 SAFETY AND ? ? ? ? SECURITY 4 VIBRANT COMMUNITIES 5 CULTURE, LEISURE & RECREATION 6 LOCAL NEEDS MET ? LOCALLY 7 EDUCATION AND TRAINING 8 BIODIVERSITY & ? ? ? ? NATURAL ENVIRON. 9 POLLUTION ? ? ? ? N/ A 10 TRANSPORT ? ? ? ?
190530/150/SA Addendum Results 7 jam consult ltd Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal of Site and Broad Location, 2019
3 Comparison of Green Hammerton, Cattal 2018 and FX3 2018/2019 Publication Version Local Plan SA, 2018 HBC 2018 HBC 2018 HBC 2018 2019 SUSTAINABILITY CA5 GH11 FX3 FX3 OBJECTIVES Maltkiln Green Hammerton Flaxby Flaxby SUB-OBJECTIVES A B C D E F G A B C D E F G A B C D E F G A B C D E F G 11 CLIMATE CHANGE N/ N/ N/ ? ? A A A 12 NATURAL RESOURCES
13 HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT 14 LAND USE N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ ? A A A A A A A A A A A A
15 EMPLOYMENT ? ? ? ?
16 ECONOMIC GROWTH
Summary of 2019 Results Flaxby confirmed by HBC at meeting 17/05/19 and subsequent correspondence Scores red for local needs met locally. The new settlement will provide new services and facilities as part of the development will therefore be mitigated. Scores better for biodiversity and landscape. Impact at Maltkiln and Green Hammerton cannot be mitigated. Scores better for pollution and transport. Site significantly closer to main settlements. Transport mitigation required significantly less, although not discussed Scores better for natural resources – less BMV agricultural land Scores better for Historic Environment, impacts can be mitigated unlike Maltkiln/Green Hammerton Scores better for Land use – vacant land/golf course Scores better for employment- should be significantly better but SAF not sufficiently sensitive to reflect difference in provision. Mitigation not properly considered Viability and deliverability not included Infrastructure provision, in particular transport and utilities not considered. Situation at Flaxby considerably more favourable. (? = results to be confirmed by HBC)
190530/150/SA Addendum Results 8 jam consult ltd Flaxby New Settlement Harrogate Borough Council Sustainability Appraisal of Site and Broad Location, 2019
4 Green Hammerton/Cattal New Settlement: Broad Location Highway Infrastructure Costs
Ref Infrastructure Description Cost Estimate (£) Comments
Costs ONLY required for Hammerton/Cattal • 2.5kms of new single carriageway 1 A59 Diversion £10.0m • 2 No. terminal roundabouts • 2 No. road bridges over rail line, at Kirk 2 Road Bridges £12.5m Hammerton and Cattal • Upgrading 4kms of A59 to dual 3 A59 Widening £28.5m carriageway standard Improvements to 4 A59/York Our Ring • Unknown - Road Total £51.0m
Costs Common to both Green Hammerton/Cattal and Flaxby Park • Mitigation required over and above the LEP 5 Junction 47 (A1 (M)) £10.0m Developer contribution plus scheme Junctions West of the • Measures identified by HBC to deliver the £1.0m 6 Developer contribution A1 (M) Local Plan allocations (estimate) Total £11.0m
Notes: 1. Items 1 -3 are not included in HBC’s Submission Infrastructure Delivery Plan, 2018. 2. Items 1 -3 are identified in the Transport Assessments submitted to support the planning applications in the Hammerton/Cattal Broad Location, though not costed. 3. Item 4: The Hammerton Transport Assessment (Table 8.9) states that 40 – 48% of residential traffic proposed (400 – 600 vehicles in the AM and PM) would head towards York but no mitigation is identified or costed.
190530/150/SA Addendum Results 9 jam consult ltd
APPENDIX 5
HBC’s Note of meeting with Flaxby Park (17/05/19) and Flaxby Park’s response (28/05/19) FLAXBY MEETING NOTE 17/05/2019
Attendees:
Neil Morton, Savills Paul Cornfoot, Fore Consulting Matt Johnson, Wynyard Park Trevor Watson, HBC Jane Mulcahey, JAM Consulting Linda Marfitt, HBC Chris Musgrave, Flaxby Park Ltd Gill Ritchie, HBC Joe Musgrave, Flaxby Park Ltd Tracey Rathmell, HBC
Objective 1: Quality housing available to everyone - no comments
Objective 2: Conditions and services to engender good health – no comments
Objective 3: Safety and security for people and property – no comments
Objective 4: Vibrant communities that participate in decision making
HBC to check the information provided by NYCC education respect of the red score removed from GH/Cattal. Response: Information from NYCC Education indicates that there is spare capacity at both green Hammerton and Kirk Hammerton Primary schools, sufficient for it to score Dark Green under objective 7 and not to get a red score under objective 4. We will give further consideration to any concluding commentary on education provision for all of the broad locations.
FPL COMMENT:
The evidence from NYCC has not been provided as per the agreed action – please can this be provided urgently.
Red Score under Local Plan Assessment Rationale for Site 2015 (LPAR 2015) PG. 392 - objective 4 states; ‘This option should only be selected if NYCC have indicated that the local school does not have the capacity to accommodate the extra children’.
Red score under Local Plan Assessment Rationale for site 2016 (LPAR 2016) PG. 392 - objective 4 states; ‘Adverse impact on local schools’
Evidence has not been provided by NYCC that the local schools have the capacity to accommodate the extra children.
It was made clear in our meeting on 17.5.19 and your subsequent minutes of the meeting that ‘Appendix 4 of the SA includes two SA frameworks, the one from 2015 (pg390) that includes a more detailed explanation of the scoring and one from 2016 where this more detailed explanation was not included’.
It was made clear by HBC that you were working within the strict parameters of the Assessment Rationale texts for the scoring criteria contained therefore to evidence this scoring for GHBL please can you supply correspondence from NYCC confirming the GHBL local schools have the capacity to accommodate the extra children (created as a result of the new settlement). For Objective 4 FXBL also meet the criteria for Dark Green, however the scoring must be assessed on a fair, comparable and transparent basis in relation to the parameters of the assessment criteria.
Objective 5: Culture, leisure and recreation activities available to all
FP questioned why a red score was given to Flaxby and a neutral for GH/Cattal in respect of loss of recreational facilities? HBC clarified that in respect of the loss of recreational facility (Golf Course) the scoring of FX3 was incorrect HBC to check the impact on any recreational facilities within the broad area within the Green Hammerton/Cattal broad area Response: Within the broad location of OC12 there is the Green Hammerton village hall and associated cricket pitch. Whilst this is a small area on the periphery of the broad location, relatively new and would in all likelihood be retained, in order to accurately reflect the scoring rationale OC12 should have a red score.
Objective 6: Local needs met locally
FP referred to Flaxby FX3 assessment which scored yellow in terms of access to the key bus network - why does the broad area have a red score? HBC clarified that more recent information shows that the service that was operating no longer runs at the frequency to meet the definition. HBC to check and to send FP a copy of the definition. Response: The definition of a top tier bus service (the type of service used for the measurement) is attached. Route 21 (Knaresborough to Boroughbridge) does not meet the frequency of service that is required for a top tier service, that is that it does not offer a broadly hourly service throughout the day. At the time that we assessed FX3 it did. Furthermore the size of the broad location means that the centroid of the site is at a greater distance from a bus stop.
FPL COMMENT:
FPL note that the definition of a top tier bus service was changed during the course of the EiP and, as such, the revised criteria is not met for either Flaxby (OC12) or Green Hammerton/Cattal (OC12) – for the existing level of service. This assumes mitigation off.
HBC state that, at the time FX3 was assessed, the level of service did offer a broadly hourly service. Can HBC provide evidence to confirm that the level of service has changed, as suggested in the response, as the attached timetable demonstrates that a 2 hourly service has been in operation since at least the 29 May 2016.
The transport evidence that supports the Local Plan should enable an assessment to be made on whether public transport provision can be improved. For example: the frequency of services that could be viable; the distances to main settlements by different public transport modes; and the time taken to undertake these journeys.
Flaxby Park has undertaken detailed discussions with the local bus operator, Transdev, who proposed in their letter dated 20 November 2018 (ref. appendix to FPL Matter 12 Statement), an extension of an existing service (Service 1A) which currently serves Harrogate, Starbeck, Knaresborough and St James Retail Park. Transdev stated that “the proposed number of houses at Flaxby Park, and its proximity to Knaresborough and Harrogate, should generate sufficient demand to support an attractive bus service’.
Under Objective 6, some recognition should be made of the locational benefits of Flaxby over Green Hammerton/Cattal, in terms of the opportunities for bus services. As a minimum, this should be brought out in the commentary.
FP sought clarification on red score in respect of secondary schools HBC response that this is based on walking distance. All broad areas score red. FP highlighted that the 2016 version of the methodology refers to secondary schools being served by bus. HBC to check and, if necessary, review all options on that basis. Response: School buses are available to serve all broad locations, therefore all scores amended to light green.
FP questioned the red score for employment and estimated that there are approximately 500 jobs within a 800 metre radius of the site. HBC clarified that the assessment has been undertaken on the basis of access to town centre and other key sites. HBC to look at adding an explanation into the criteria to make clearer the definition of major employment across all sites. Response: Appendix 4 of the SA includes two SA frameworks, the one from 2015 (pg390) that includes a more detailed explanation of the scoring and one from 2016 where this more detailed explanation was not included. It would provide greater clarity if this was added back in to the 2016 framework. This explains how we have identified relevant employment areas.
FPL COMMENT:
FPL remain strongly of the view that the proximity of the FXBL to over 500 existing jobs (in addition to the circa 3,000 jobs at consented at Flaxby Green Park) which are accessible by non- car modes is a significant benefit of the location which is not properly reflected in the scoring comparison between the options. This highly material consideration should have a significant influence on the overall site selection conclusion. Please factor this into the narrative and consider in the overall balance to inform the conclusion as discussed.
FP questioned why proposed employment at Flaxby Green Park is not referred to as a key benefit. Response: As explained at the meeting Flaxby Green Park has the benefit of permission but it has not yet been built and whilst we expect it to be there is a chance that it is not. In the concluding remarks in respect of OC16 we make reference to the fact that it includes land (FX4) that is an approved scheme for a business park.
Objective 7: Education and training opportunities which build on the skills and capacity of the population
FP questioned why the red score for Green Hammerton/Cattal is now green and why Flaxby scores red. HBC clarified that this is the same issue as discussed earlier in relation to education. FP questioned whether there is a double counting issue because capacity has already been assessed elsewhere. HBC clarified that this is different as one is about education provision and the other is about supporting communities. HBC agreed to check double check and the rationale wording. Response: HBC remain of the view that this is not double counting for the reasons stated above and at the meeting
FPL COMMENT:
Please can you supply NYCC correspondence/evidence?
In response to your comments on double counting you note one is about ‘education provision and the other is about supporting communities’.
This criteria Assessment rationale for scoring on objective 7 is directly related to ‘Current Primary School Capacity’
The criteria Assessment rationale for scoring red on objective 4 is directly related to ‘local school does not have the capacity to accommodate the extra children’.
The same criteria has been applied to each objective i.e. capacity of local schools. The result is that the SA is in effect double counting regarding the capacity of the schools. In addition, the results for Green Hammerton BLG have been altered from an adverse impact (red) to a major positive impact (dark green) for both objectives – as they are assessing the same criteria.
HBC agreed that in relation to training and apprentices the score should be light green for Flaxby. Post meeting note: Having considered this further it should be light green for all the broad locations.
Objective 8: Biodiversity and importance of the natural environment
HBC clarified that for landscape, Flaxby scores should both be orange instead of one yellow and one red.
Objective 9: Minimal pollution levels
FP feel that the loss of most versatile agricultural land should be a larger factor in the assessment of the broad locations. FP feel that in the summary the benefits of the Green Hammerton GH/Cattal broad area have been identified but that they haven’t for Flaxby. FP referred back to the ‘finely balanced’ decision about the broad area and whether any amendments made now would have changed that position. HBC referred to FP’s Barrister’s evidence to the Inspector at the hearing sessions and his agreement that it would be appropriate to undertake this SA work. In respect of noise FP feel that there is already significant mitigation in place. HBC referred to clarification that had already been sought on this issue through the hearing sessions.
FPL COMMENT:
For clarity during the EIP HBC, accepted the FX3 score in relation to loss of agricultural land (SO9f) was incorrect (being scored Orange) and should have scored better.
No reference or clarification was given to the inspector on the subsequent adjustment to the red score in relation to Greenfield land (SO9e) – which is now confirmed as orange (and confirmed should have been orange for FX3).
HBC response to the legal addendum only addressed (SO9f) Agriculture.
Please clarify where this was dealt with.
In relation to noise (SO9g) it was agreed HBC would factor the existing mitigation in situ into the narrative and consider in the overall balance to inform the conclusion as discussed.
Objective 10: A transport network which maximises access whilst maintaining detrimental impacts
FP questioned the orange score for 10a. HBC clarified that this is based on information from NYCC and will provide to FP. FP questioned why Green Hammerton/Cattal score is orange because more mitigation required. HBC highlighted the need to consider broad locations rather than planning applications. Response: Having considered this point further HBC remain of the view that substantial mitigation would be required in both instances and therefore the orange score awarded is appropriate
FPL COMMENT:
We still await the information provided from NYCC, which is crucial to allow FPL to comment on the SAA.
The developers in the GHBL have clearly stated Government funding bids will be submitted for transport mitigation works.
(SO10a) Red scoring Assessment Rationale clearly references Government funding bids. GHBL therefore should be scored Red.
HBC also agreed to factor in the disparity of mitigation between the 2 locations (FBL & GHBL) in the narrative and consider in the overall balance to inform the conclusion as discussed.
In relation to provision of public transport, HBC clarified that all should be able to improve bus provision (apart from Dishforth). HBC to check whether Transdev could secure a commercial service to Green Hammerton /Cattal broad location Response: HBC remain of the view that the scale of development would be sufficient to support improvement to bus services to serve the area. Whilst the Council has had informal discussions with Transdev we have not had any written confirmation. FPL COMMENT:
As part of FPL reps - comprehensive information and written confirmation from Transdev has been provided about the provision and opportunity to provide an enhanced (Key) bus service to serve Flaxby.
Flaxby Green Park also has planning conditions to provide a bus service.
The score ‘?’ refers to ‘provision and extension of services cannot be predicted at this time’.
This assessment Rationale is not correct in the case of Flaxby as it has been predicted, fully detailed and provided to HBC, including by evidence from the operator.
FP suggested that more commentary would be helpful rather than a question mark. Response: We have consistently used the as the score for the new settlement options and feel it appropriate to continue to use it. In the Summary Box at the end of the SA assessment for OC16 we note that ‘whilst public transport provision is uncertain, the scale of development proposed is likely to enable improvement of bus services’ It is considered that this is a fair reflection.
FP stated that in relation to footpaths Flaxby scores orange, however, connections between the broad area and other urban areas can be provided e.g. Knaresborough. FP think this should be dark green. HBC agreed to revisit. Response: There is not a path from Flaxby to Knaresborough adjacent to the A59. There is a public right of way that goes through the Westernmost part of the new part of the broader location but from the other parts of it there is not a direct route on PROW or footpath through to Knaresborough. Whilst not doubting that they could be provided, on this basis HBC is satisfied that the orange score remains appropriate.
FPL COMMENT:
Agreement has been reached with the Local Highway Authority (reference SoCG between FPL and NYCC) to work with NYCC and HBC to implement a dedicated and suitable pedestrian / cycle link between the site and existing facilities in Knaresborough, for which the developer will make a financial contribution.
Paragraph 7.18 and Figure 9 of the Transport Background Paper clearly show the aspiration to provide a segregated cycle connection between Knaresborough and Flaxby along the A59 – connecting to the consented employment site at Flaxby Green Park.
Under this Objective, some recognition should be made of the locational benefits of Flaxby over Green Hammerton/Cattal, in terms of the opportunities for cycle and pedestrian linkages. As a minimum, this should be brought out in the commentary
FP questioned the neutral score given to Flaxby in relation to the rail service. HBC agreed to change the score to green.
Objective 11: Minimise greenhouse gas emissions and a managed response to climate change FP questioned the assessment that the site is not within 400m of a bus stop HBC clarified that this is related to whether the service is on the key bus network. HBC to check Response: See response under Objective 6
FPL COMMENT:
Response to objective 6 refers to a key bus network definition it also notes the centroid of the site.
HBC Assessment Rationale states this does not relate to a ‘key bus network’.
There are several bus stops located around Flaxby – please confirm where you regard the centroid of the site and the evidence to support this.
Furthermore the score for FX3 in the initial SA assessment was Orange. This was incorrect based on the Assessment Rationale.
FP sought clarification on whether the potential for generating renewable energy (e.g. waste heat) has been factored into the SA. HBC to revisit for all broad locations.
FPL COMMENT:
We await your further comments on this.
Objective 12: Prudent and efficient use of energy and natural resources with minimal production of waste
FP questioned the red score in respect of agricultural land. HBC clarified that this is due to the loss of grade 2 agricultural land. FP referred to incorrect scoring in relation to FX3. HBC clarified that this was dealt with through examination.
FPL COMMENT:
(SO12b) was not dealt with through the examination. HBC response to legal opinion (PG16, para 53) deals specifically with Agricultural land score (SO9f) and makes no reference to objective 12 score.
Please clarify where this was dealt with.
Objective 13: protect and enhance the historic environment
FP questioned the basis of the red score that concludes that the broad area is not capable of mitigation. Previous assessments of individual sites in the area scored orange. HBC stated that this is based on an assessment undertaken by the Council’s conservation officer. HBC to provide copy.
FPL COMMENT:
We still await this information.
Objective 14: A quality built environment and efficient land use patterns
HBC to provide justification for red by providing commentary from conservation officer.
FPL COMMENT:
We still await this information.
Objective 15: Good quality employment opportunities available to all
FP disagree with the question mark because it is possible to walk from site to existing jobs. Response: The question relates to public transport provision and is not about walking. The score is appropriate for the reasons set out in the response on public transport under objective 10 above.
FPL COMMENT:
FPL disagree as the HBC Assessment Rationale states for Dark Green ‘Site lies within 800m of a bus stop where frequency of service enables commuting by bus for work’. The 2016 Assessment Rationale adds ‘or frequent commuter service’ to the guidance.
The existing employment on site at Flaxby is currently served by a frequent commuter service, including peak period services.
Objective 16: Conditions for business success, economic growth and investment - agreed
Other Matters Raised
Assessment of broad location:
FP disagree with approach to identifying available land. HBC feel approach is consistent with how the Green Hammerton/Cattal broad area has been assessed. HBC to check any revisions to the scores for the Green Hammerton/Cattal broad area and the reason for them. Response: Scores have been revised in respect of objectives 4 and 7 (education) and this is to reflect information provided by NYCC. An amendment was made to 6b as a result of re-checking measurements.
FPL COMMENT:
HBC do not have confirmation from all land owners that their land is available or confirmation option agreements are in place for the land in the GHBL. FPL confirmed this via a FOI request. HBC requested written confirmation from all land owners that their land was available or copies of option agreements in order for it to be considered in a broad location at Flaxby.
This is not a consistent approach.
Additional land included within the western part of the Green Hammerton/Cattal area. HBC to check when this land was included.
Response: Through early stages work on the New Settlement DPD the site promoter confirmed that land was available
FPL COMMENT:
Please can we see the evidence that this land has been confirmed as available.
Availability and deliverability
FP sought clarification on how the availability and deliverability of broad areas been assessed. Assessment states that delivery is key to decision making but it does not feature in the criteria. HBC clarified that the SA has factored in land availability. The plan is accompanied by a Whole Plan Viability Assessment and Infrastructure Capacity Study. The Inspector appeared satisfied though the hearing sessions. The Inspector asked us to undertake further work – he did not request that the methodology be changed. FP agreed to make their points in writing in response to the consultation. HBC to seek advice on how deliverability should be considered in the context of the SA.
FPL COMMENT:
FPL would welcome the opportunity to review the advice HBC receive, at the earliest opportunity.
Cumulative Impact
FP questioned why cumulative impact assessment is not set out e.g. in relation to infrastructure. HBC agreed to take advice on this.
FPL COMMENT:
FPL would welcome the opportunity to review the advice HBC receive, at the earliest opportunity.
Methodology
FP commented that the methodology needs to be clear to the lay person. Deficiency on cumulative impact – also seek advice.
Next steps
HBC to respond to FP early week commencing 20th May.
FPL COMMENT:
Several matters still remain outstanding. FPL is concerned that some evidence which was promised has not been provided against the deadline for responses of 30th May. We look forward to receiving the further information.
HBC to provide a note setting out the procedure for the SA work to FP Response: Following the informal consultation HBC will consider whether further amendments are required to the SA work. This along with the comments received from the informal consultation will be sent to the Inspector. Thereafter the additional SA work will be consulted on alongside the Proposed Modifications, further SA work to address points made during the hearing sessions and to assess Proposed Modifications where necessary. This will be for a period of 6 weeks. The date is yet to be finalised and is dependent on getting agreement with the Inspector on modifications.
FPL COMMENT:
Please can you confirm when the revised draft addendum SA will be re-issued factoring in all of the above comments, prior to submission to the inspector.
APPENDIX 6
Letters to HBC from Town Legal and HBC’s responses
Simon Ricketts Our ref: Town Legal LLP Your ref: FLA001/0001/sr 10 Throgmorton avenue Date: 25 March 2019 London EC2N 2DL
Dear Mr Ricketts
HARROGATE LOCAL PLAN DPD EXAMINATION
I refer to your letter dated 19 March 2019.
I note that you do not accept that it would be lawful for the Council to undertake the work requested by the Inspector at this stage in the process, when in your view ‘the outcome of the additional SA work cannot as a matter of fact influence the content of the Local Plan which has already been submitted to the Secretary of State’. This is essentially the argument that you have previously made in your legal opinion [EXMIQ148 Appendix 1] and its Addendum [EXOTH011].
The Council has already set out its position on this matter, both in its oral submissions in the course of the Examination and in its further information to the Inspector [EXOTH022] (see in particular paras 10-14). I do not intend to repeat those points here, other than to note that the content of your letter contradicts the submissions made on behalf of Flaxby Park Ltd at the hearing session on Matter 12, where Mr Moules accepted that if the Council were to carry out work of the sort now requested by the Inspector, then - dependent on the quality of that work - it would meet the points being made on behalf of your client.
The Council intends to undertake the additional work and will approach it with an open mind and will respond to the outcome of the work should it indicate a different approach. To say more at this stage would be in danger of pre-judging the outcome.
In terms of consultation the Council intends to undertake a short, targeted consultation with key interested parties to inform the work. This will clearly include Flaxby Park Ltd. There will be a further opportunity to comment on the Sustainability Appraisal when it is published alongside the Main Modifications.
I would only add that it is plainly wrong to assert (as your letter does) that neither this additional work nor any representations your client may make upon it can influence the content of the Plan. The case law makes it clear that the examination process is itself an important part of Sustainability Appraisal and SEA. Leaving aside the fact that the Council itself will approach this with an open mind and respond accordingly, the Inspector’s letter expressly states that he may “comment further on the matter of the proposed new settlement in due course”
Place-Making & Economic Growth | Harrogate Borough Council | PO Box 787 | Harrogate | HG1 9RW 01423 500600 www.harrogate.gov.uk
if he deems it necessary in light of the additional work. At that point, he will have available to him the full range of powers normally available to a Local Plan Inspector to recommend changes to the Plan if he sees fit.
Yours sincerely
Tracey Rathmell Executive Officer – Policy and Place
If you are replying to this communication by post, please ensure that you use the address at the bottom of the letter
Simon Ricketts Our ref: Town Legal LLP Your ref: FLA001/0001/sr 10 Throgmorton avenue Date: 9 April 2019 London EC2N 2DL
Dear Mr Ricketts
HARROGATE LOCAL PLAN DPD EXAMINATION
I refer to your letter dated 8 March 2019. I have provided a response to each of your questions below.
1. Yes, we will prepare a further environmental report that we will consult on alongside the modifications.
2. The scope and level of detail will be in line with the way that we have assessed the broad location around Green Hammerton/Cattal. Given that we are intending to replicate the process that we did for Green Hammerton/Cattal for the other new settlements options I am not intending to carry out additional consultation on the scope of the work with either the consultation bodies or your clients. We are intending, however, to consult with your client and other interested parties ahead of submitting the information to the Inspector. Your client will then have the opportunity to comment on the outcome of the assessment alongside the scope.
3. (a) Yes. The extent will be based on known available land, and we have ascertained that there is new land that was not previously available for us to add in to the assessment.
(b) The intention is to provide commentary as to how the broad location around Flaxby performs and to conclude as to whether this is a better location than the broad location around Green Hammerton/Cattal and reasons why it either is or is not. If we conclude the broad location should be centred on Flaxby, the question of the extent of the preferred boundary will be a matter for the New Settlement DPD and is not something the Local Plan needs to go into at this stage.
(c) We will correct scores where we are satisfied that this is appropriate.
4. The council is currently not intending to use consultants. The SA work is not about whether Members agree or disagree rather it is a process which requires professional judgement; it is not for Members to correct or amend it. At its meeting of 18 November Cabinet agreed to delegate authority to the Executive Officer Policy & Place for the duration of the Examination, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning to: a. provide formal responses to questions from the Inspector alongside other supporting statements and documentation as requested by the Inspector; AND
Place-Making & Economic Growth | Harrogate Borough Council | PO Box 787 | Harrogate | HG1 9RW 01423 500600 www.harrogate.gov.uk
b. to agree to modifications to the plan through the examination period in order to make the plan sound.
5. As noted under response to Q2, the intention is to consult informally with your client. Notwithstanding this we are happy to arrange a meeting with your client. We need to make timely progress with this work so we are suggesting the following dates ahead of the Easter break:
Tuesday 16 April (pm) Wednesday 17 April (pm) Thursday 18 April (am)
If you or your clients contact me to confirm whether the dates are acceptable either by email or on
Yours sincerely
Tracey Rathmell Executive Officer – Policy and Place
If you are replying to this communication by post, please ensure that you use the address at the bottom of the letter
APPENDIX 7
Correspondence from Transdev, Network Rail and Amey
Paul Cornfoot Richard Allan Fore Consulting People & Strategy Director 6th floor Northern House 6-9 Rougier Street 10 December 2018 York YO1 6HZ
Dear Paul
Arriva Rail North response to proposals for a railway Station at Flaxby
Northern welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposals for a new railway station at Flaxby that is being promoted by Flaxby Park Ltd as part their proposals for a residential-led, mixed use development on land to the east of Flaxby village.
We understand that it is the intention the rail station will be fully funded by Flaxby Park Ltd as part of the wider development of the site and would be located within the vicinity of the old Goldsborough station that closed in 1965. In principle, a station in this location would seem sensible from a strategic viewpoint and in line with a strategy that seeks to utilise the railway as a driver for new economic growth.
A station in this location would serve a number of markets in addition to the homes being proposed and offers the potential for park and ride into Knaresborough, Harrogate, York and Leeds for commuters; park and ride for tourism and large scale events, particularly in relation to York and Harrogate, and daily education trips. These combined markets provide the potential for strong rail demand, recognising that a small number of these might be currently using other local stations. A new station could also offer passengers an improvement in facilities and onward travel opportunities.
We note that further detailed technical work will need to be undertaken to determine the specific impacts of introducing a new station in this location in terms of timetabling and services patterns, resourcing and revenue impacts to ensure the optimum operational arrangements for the line now and in the future, noting the exciting plans to double track the line. Northern needs to reserve its position until such work is concluded because new stations on other routes on our network have required additional resources, impacted on revenue etc and we would require any net additional costs to be funded by developers/promoters.
Any additional technical work would also need to consider the opportunities offered by further investment in the line, including double tracking between Knaresborough and York, that continue to be contemplated by Network Rail, North Yorkshire County Council and other interested parties. We look forward to continuing to work with you on your proposals.
Yours sincerely
Richard Allan
ARRIVA RAIL NORTH LIMITED 1 ADMIRAL WAY, DOXFORD INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PARK, SUNDERLAND, TYNE AND WEAR, SR3 3XP Company No. 04337712
Matt Johnson AmeyCespa (AWRP) SPV Ltd Flaxby Park Ltd The Sherard Building Wynyard Park House, Edmund Halley Road Wynyard Avenue, Oxford Wynyard, England, OX4 4DQ TS22 5TB Wednesday, 14 November 2018 Our reference: ACAWRPSPV-434182-DMB-2 Your reference:
AWRP Heat Off-take Development
Dear Mr Johnson
Following receipt of your report of the 30th August 2018 and the meeting held at AWRP on 8th November, we confirm that AmeyCespa (AWRP) SPV Ltd supports your proposal to explore further with us the technical feasibility and financial viability of potential heat and electricity off-take solutions from our facility at Allerton Waste Recovery Park to your proposed new settlement development at Flaxby Park and potentially to Flaxby Green Park. In principle, it merits further investigation and we look forward to working with you further to progress the proposal.
Please note that such support does not extend to and shall not involve us incurring additional expenditure.
We look forward to receiving your proposal.
Yours sincerely,
David MacBrayne For and on behalf of AmeyCespa (AWRP) SPV Ltd
1 of 1 AmeyCespa (AWRP) SPV Limited | company number 08717850 | Registered in England & Wales | registered address: The Sherard Building, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford, OX4 4DQ