Leeds - Planning 9 Bond Court 1st Floor Planning Policy Leeds Council LS1 2JZ Civic Centre T: 0113 2425155 Stonecross

Brompton Northallerton DL6 2UU Your ref: Our ref: EW/J1076026

By e -mail: [email protected]

17 September 2019

Dear Sirs

HAMBLETON COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN PUBLICATION (REGULATION 19) DRAFT CONSULTATION

We write to submit representations to the Local Plan Publication Draft Consultation on behalf of our client, Taylor Wimpey UK Limited, in support of site ref S/058/005a and S/058/006a, land east and west of Easby Lane, .

The Council will be aware that representations to the emerging plan in respect of both sites were made to the the Issues and Options Consultation in January/February 2016, along with the Preferred Options Consultation of October – December 2016, and the Alternative Sites Consultation of April – June 2017.

In brief summary we consider that sites S/058/005a and S/058/006a are significantly more acceptable in planning terms than other housing allocation options for Great Ayton.

Our further comments and representations are set out below.

For reference these representations include the following information:

• Covering Letter from Carter Jonas dated 17 September 2019; • Appendix 1 Heritage Technical Note – BWB, dated 16 September 2019; • Appendix 2 Summary of sites assessed within Great Ayton as part of the Emerging Local Plan, dated 16 September 2019; • Call for Sites Consultation Representations – Carter Jonas, dated 4 September 2015; • Easby Lane East Masterplan - Pegasus, dated August 2015; • Easby Lane East Landscape Statement – Pegasus, dated August 2015; • Flood Risks and Drainage Constraints – iD Civils Design Ltd dated August 2015; • Easby Lane East Heritage Report – Cater Jonas dated December 2016; and • Croft Transport Solutions Report and Drawings dated August 2015.

Soundness

Paragraph 35 of the NPPF requires Plans submitted for examination to be prepared in accordance with legal and procedural requirements and meet the four tests of ‘soundness’ for Local Plans to be: • Positively prepared; • Justified; • Effective; and • Consistent with National Policy.

Policy S2 Strategic Development Needs

The 2018 HEDNA suggests that there is an Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) of 315 dwellings per annum (dpa) or 6,615 homes over the Plan period. This is the figure that the Council has chosen to use as the housing requirement within the Publication Draft and is over and above the figure identified within the Local Housing Need set out by the national Standard Methodology (Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 2a-004-20190220, Revision date: 20 02 2019). Despite this we note that, whilst the Standard Method identifies a minimum annual housing need figure, it does not produce a housing requirement figure and does not take into consideration economic growth.

The Hambleton Economic Strategy 2014-24 seeks to create 3000 jobs over the 10 year period. It is noted that the Economic Led Housing Need as set out in the HEDNA suggests that the Cambridge Econometrics (CE) August 2017 forecasts result in an employment growth of 165 jobs per annum over the period 2016-2035. This is below the level sought in the Economic Strategy, indicating that there may be potential for a further increase in the housing figure to support the Economic Strategy.

We therefore consider it prudent for the Council to increase the housing requirement to provide further flexibility for the future. Further commentary in relation to this matter is set out within the Representations on Housing Matters which is included within Appendix 1.

It is therefore considered that Policy S2 is not sound as it is not positively prepared or justified. A further increase in the housing requirement would enable this policy to be considered sound.

Given the above, sites such as our client’s land interest at site refs. S/058/005a and S/058/006a could assist with the provision of additional land residential development and should therefore be reconsidered.

Policy S3 Spatial Distribution

At the heart of the Local Plan is a settlement hierarchy essentially carried forward from the 2007 Core Strategy (CS). CS Policy CP4 sets out a hierarchy of development as the basis for distributing (housing) growth broadly proportionate to the size of population settlement (2001 Census) and therefore (simplistically) the distribution of housing need. In particular, we support the designation of Great Ayton as a Service Village.

We consider this remains a valid starting point. Those centres which do or could provide the highest level of facilities and connectivity and accessibility by public transport should be the main focus of growth. Parts of the District are subject to various environmental, physical and policy constraints and designations. In ensuring a sustainable pattern of development it is important these considerations are taken into account. Nevertheless the hierarchy should be considered on a site by site basis, rather than as a mechanism to exclude development.

We suggest that in light of the comments above and the need for flexibility through an increased housing number that there should be a broader distribution in sustainable locations further down the settlement hierarchy, including the service villages.

Given the availability of shops, services and public transport links, it is appropriate for the service villages, including Great Ayton, to take additional housing sites to provide flexibility and thus for the Plan to adopt a more balanced approach to spatial distribution, whilst still recognising the position of the market towns at the top of the settlement hierarchy. This also help to maintain the position of the service villages also.

Sites such as S/058/005a (land east of Easby Lane) and S/058/006a (land west of Easby Lane) are available, suitable and deliverable and could provide the Council with further flexibility.

Further commentary in relation to this matter is set out within the Part 1 Taylor Wimpey Representations on Housing Matters prepared by Lichfields.

Policy HG1: Housing Delivery

The NPPF identifies in paragraph 73 that “strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of housing delivery over the Plan period, and all Plans should consider whether it is appropriate to set out the anticipated rate of development for specific sites.”

The recently released 2019 SHLAA includes delivery information for committed schemes over the next five years, however it is unclear if a trajectory has been prepared by the Council to illustrate the expected rates of delivery of proposed allocations across the Plan period.

It is therefore considered that the draft Local Plan is not consistent with national policy, as there is no clearly identifiable trajectory available to ascertain whether the Council has considered the rate of housing delivery across the Plan period and as a result, whether local housing needs will continue to be met.

Allocations: Area 14 Stokesley Area

We welcome the acknowledgement of the need for housing within Great Ayton via the identification of GTA1: Skottowe Crescent, Great Ayton, however we have concerns in relation to the location and characteristics of this site which are set out below.

We therefore question draft housing allocation GTA1 for the following reasons: • Heritage Impact • Landscape • Limited Community Support • Rationale for the selection of the site • Comparison with other options

Heritage Impact

We note that Historic (Mr Ian Smith (ID: 1025458)) objected to the site at the Alternative Sites Consultation due to the loss of this currently-open area and the potential harm to elements which contribute to the significance of the Great Ayton Conservation Area and the setting of a number of Listed Buildings to the south of the site. These include the Grade I Listed Church of All Saints and the Grade II* Listed Ayton Hall.

The Council’s Heritage Background Paper and Impact Assessment dated August 2018 (HBP) states that “development of the site has the potential to harm elements that contribute to the significance of the heritage assets by altering the rural setting of Grade II* Listed Ayton Hall and Grade I Listed Church of All Saints” .

The southeastern corner of the site abuts the Conservation Area boundary and has therefore been considered to be amber within the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal Site Assessment. The closest listed building is the Grade II farm buildings to the north of Ayton Hall, which are approximately 46m south east of the southern site boundary.

BWB have undertaken a review of the HBP in relation to the assessment of site GTA1 and a note containing their comments is appended to this representation. The review identifies that the HBP fundamentally underestimates the scope and degree of potential impacts that the development of the site would have upon the identified heritage assets, some of which are of the highest Grade and of exceptional architectural and historic interest in the national context. The contribution of sites to the significance, within setting, of these assets is not assessed in sufficient detail to understand potential impacts, including impacts upon the archaeological resource. The indication that development would not give rise to harm to the significance of these assets, subject to the adoption of is not considered correct and the requirement set out in the Plan that development should not cause harm will be unachievable. The review concludes that the allocation of the site would be unsound.

A brief summary is provided below of the heritage constraints relevant to the site and the potential scope and degree of development impacts which would arise should the allocation be brought forward.

As noted in the HBP the site historically comprised a three linear strip field, part of a wider field pattern extending to the west and indicative of a medieval foundation as part of the agricultural setting to the historic settlement. The historic core of settlement falls to the south of the site and the 1856 Ordnance Survey plan (surveyed 1853) shows Ayton Hall and associated parsonage and All Saints Church with extensive grounds extending to the west and south. Footpath links and tracks confirm the functional relationship between the settlement and fields extending to the north. In particular a footpath (10.57/9/1) running along the western boundary of the site connects the historic core and Conservation Area with the open landscape to the north- west.

The site has remained undeveloped although was enclosed to the east by residential estate development during the 1960s along Skottowe Crescent and Church Drive. Further post-WW2 development to the north, east and south of the historic core, which now falls within the Great Ayton Conservation Area, has effectively enclosed the earlier settlement and visually detaching it from its historic landscape setting.

The exception is the open landscape within which the proposed allocation would be situated. The site facilitates significant views onto the extended landscape available from the Conservation Area and in particular from the churchyard of the Grade I Listed All Saints Church and from the curtilage of the Grade II* Listed 17th century Ayton Hall, the likely site of the capital messuage of the Manor (a Hall is mentioned in the 13th century). Mapping suggests a functional inter-relationship between the hall and the fields to the north and north-east which includes the site and the footpath running to the western boundary of the site as shown on historic mapping.

The footpath allows for highly significant dynamic views into the Conservation Area in the approach from the north. These views take in the Ayton Hall building group, All Saints Church, the Tower of Christ Church and the related parsonage within an attractive wooded setting.

The site remains a significant element within the setting of the Conservation Area and the identified designated heritage assets falling to the south. It holds evidential value in illustrating the historic agrarian foundation of settlement within Ayton and connects these assets with the wider landscape extending to the north. It also facilitates and is a component of significant views towards and from the historic settlement core.

Development within the proposed allocation site will, on an in-principle basis, give rise to harm to the significance of these heritage assets. It will bring built form in closer proximity to them and, particularly in terms of All Saints Church and Christ Church, will lead to the complete urban enclosure to building setting. The nature and experience of views will be harmed including those available from the footpath immediately to the west of the site. Given the high grading of listed buildings affected, the inter-related nature of the settings to these buildings and the Conservation Area, the cumulative impact will potentially lead to substantial harm to significance.

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

Historic England, in Advice Note 3, The Historic Environment and Site Allocations in Local Plans, states that “any proposals that would result in harm to heritage assets need to be fully justified and evidenced to ensure that they are appropriate, including mitigation or compensation measures.” The Council have not produced evidence which justifies the allocation of the site which would outweigh the extent of harm identified.

The allocation of the site is also unsustainable, when alternative sites have been identified and are available where no significant harm to the historic environment would arise. Historic England make clear that, in seeking to avoid harm, consideration should be given to reasonable alternative sites and the HBP falls short of this

step. In determining whether a site allocation is appropriate in terms of the National Planning Policy Frameworks test of soundness the Historic England Advice Notes states that it should be:

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

On this basis we would consider that the proposed allocation, GTA1, is unsound and should be deleted.

Landscape

Criteria 8 of the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal Site Assessment identifies that there is the potential adverse impact as the site is within the buffer zone as identified by Natural England.

We note the comments from Natural England during the Alternative Site Consultation (ID: 1025772) which disagree with the site assessment and identify that the “sites lie between 600m and 1.4km from the North York Moors National Park. We advise that the Council consults the North York Moors National Park National Park Authority regarding impacts on the special qualities and setting of the National Park and whether Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) is necessary in order to rule out such impact”.

Statutory Consultees

The comments available from the Alternative Sites Consultation show that there are two objections from statutory consultees – Historic England and Natural England, which we have commented on above.

We also note that John Fletcher on behalf of Great Ayton Parish Council has supported the allocation of the site, however we have concerns as to whether this truly represents the local community as set out below.

Community Support

It is clear from the Council’s Consultation Statement and the individual responses that the majority of those who submitted comments are not supportive of the allocation of this site. A review of the comments from the alternative sites consultation indicate there are 62 objections (including statutory consultees) and only 6 comments of support. The majority of objections relate to heritage/conservation and traffic impacts and surface water flooding issues. The comments received also suggest a more strategic plan to the longer term development of the village through the selection of sites S/058/005a and S/058/006a.

Whilst the Parish Council is supportive of this site we are concerned that this support is not representative of the local community given the number of objections and therefore the selection of this site is not in the spirit of the Localism Act.

This is highlighted by the letter of support from Mr Ernest Collingwood (ID: 1062462), in relation to land at Skottowe Crescent, which identifies that “Great Ayton Parish Council did not appear to have sought opinion or local knowledge from the residents of Skottowe estate or adjacent properties”.

Paragraph 16 of the NPPF states that Plans should:

“be shaped by early, proportionate and effective engagement between planmakers and communities, local organisations, businesses, infrastructure providers and operators and statutory consultee”.

We are therefore concerned that the consultation undertaken to date is not effective.

Rationale for the selection of the site

The Hambleton Local Plan Review Sustainability Appraisal: June 2019 identifies that site GTA1 was selected as it “is considered to be a logical extension to the settlement and does not have any major constraints. There are a range of alternatives that perform very similarly, of which some are less well related in terms of access to services, and others contain areas at risk of flooding”.

We are concerned that the constraints of this site (identified above) have not been adequately assessed especially in comparison to the range of alternatives mentioned. In particular sites S/058/005a and S/058/006a which are well related to the settlement in terms of access to services, have no major constraints and have the potential for a range of community benefits along with support from the local community.

Conclusion in relation to GTA1

Overall we consider that draft site allocation GTA1 is unsound as it is ‘unjustified’ and is considered to be an inappropriate option when considered against the reasonable alternatives in Great Ayton, as demonstrated below. It is also unsound as it is not consistent with national policy within the NPPF which seeks development that takes the opportunity to improve the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

Most Suitable Location of Residential Development in Great Ayton

With regards to the most suitable location housing development within Great Ayton, we understand that the sites set out in the table within Appendix 1 have been assessed since the Call for Sites in 2015 and have all been considered as part of the Site Sustainability Assessment.

It is therefore clear from the table that a large number of the sites within Great Ayton are unsuitable for development due to flood risk, landscape, conservation/heritage impacts and distance to services.

It also highlights that there are inconsistencies with the Sustainability Appraisal Site Assessment and the way in which sites were assessed and discounted/preferred.

It is clear from a review of the sites assessed within the Site Sustainability Assessment and our additional comments below that the originally preferred sites at Easby Lane Ref S/058/005a and S/058/006a are the most suitable for residential development, in particular site S/058/005a as set out within the assessment below.

This reinforces the concerns that we have in relation to the Council’s Site Selection Methodology which at the late stages of the Plan have been used to select site GTA1 over site S/0058/005a. We therefore consider that the selection of site GTA1 is unsound and not justified.

Preferred Options – Easby Lane sites (Ref S/058/005a and S/058/006a)

We are concerned that the merits of these sites, in particular site S/058/005a and also the local support for these sites has not been considered in significant detail, resulting in their dismissal in favour of alternative site GTA1, which we consider has more constraints to development and is not the most suitable site for development within the village.

Site S/058/005a

Heritage and Conservation

Site S/058/005a is located on the southern edge of the village, some 250m beyond the southernmost limb of the Great Ayton Conservation Area. There are no listed buildings within close proximity to the site with the nearest being Grade II Listed Orchard House, approximately 365m to the north east. The site is located well to the south of the historic core of the village, with properties built on Wainstones Drive/Byemoor Avenue comprising modern bungalows, detached and semi-detached dwellings dating from the 1970’s, arranged in a medium density suburban layout located adjacent to the northern boundary. The development of this site would therefore not result in any heritage and conservation impacts in comparison to site GT1 which would have a detrimental on the Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings.

Under criterion 10 of the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal Site Assessment the site is identified as amber, however it is located approximately 250m to the south of the Conservation Area boundary and has no visual relationship with it. We therefore consider that there are errors with the assessment as this element of the Sustainability Appraisal should be graded green and not amber.

In relation to archaeology a search of North HER has identified that there are no recorded archaeological assets within site S/058/005a. The nearest is the Parish Record for Great Ayton 2058, NY SMR Number: MNY32450 on land to the west of the site, which is for all the generic parish finds. The rest of the listed finds have been within the core of the village/conservation area. Unlike other housing allocation options there would be no significant harm to any heritage asset.

The August 2015 Landscape and Visual Statements submitted to earlier representations on behalf of Taylor Wimpey UK Limited show the Zone of Actual Visibility in respect of the proposed residential development of the land includes only the fields themselves and their immediate surroundings, plus a number of more distant viewpoints on higher ground, beyond the railway line to the east of Great Ayton.

As a result of the above, it is reasonable to conclude the proposed allocation of the land for housing and subsequent development will have no impact on the Conservation Area from built form.

In summary, the allocation of the land for housing will have no impact on the character or significance of Great Ayton Conservation Area or upon its setting. There will be no direct or indirect effects on any listed building, whether statutorily or locally designated or upon the setting of any listed building.

This view is supported by the Council’s Heritage Background Paper and Impact Assessment (August 2018) which states “there is no indirect effect upon designated heritage assets as a result of site allocation” .

Landscape

A Landscape and Visual Statement has been undertaken by the Pegasus Group (copy attached to these representations for reference) and was submitted as part of the Call for Sites consultation. The Statement concludes that the visual envelope of the site is relatively limited and the number of visual receptors is quite small due to local landforms and existing vegetation. The underlying character of the site is ‘urban fringe farmland’. As a result, the southern edge of the settlement has a relatively low sensitivity to change. It also concludes that the landscape value of the site is relatively low because it does not have any specific designations, nor does it have any perceived cultural or historic value to the community.

The majority of potential views from the north of the site would be restricted by the existing built form of Great Ayton. Therefore clear views of the site from the north would be restricted to a few residential properties in close proximity to the northern boundary. The development would not be visible from the core of the settlement or anywhere within the Conservation Area.

Mature vegetation surrounding the playing fields would largely restrict views from these recreational areas.

To the east views are greatly restricted by the existing tall hedgerow which defines this boundary. As mentioned above, the elevated locations along the ridge line between Roseberry Topping and Captain Cook’s Monument will afford glimpses of the site when walking along this section of the Cleveland Way long distance recreational route.

Views from the south-west are principally restricted to Easby Lane and the agricultural fields on the opposite side of the lane. There may be distant glimpses from Public Footpath 10.57/4/1 and Green Lane.

Views from the south are similarly limited by the layering effect of hedgerows and scattered trees. There may be some glimpsed views from Cross Lane and the footpath which runs towards the site from Little Ayton.

It recognises that the replacement of arable fields with residential development would alter the character of the site and impact on existing views of Roseberry Topping from the approach to the village. It also identifies that the site will be visible from Roseberry Topping and Captain Cook’s Monument. However the resulting development would reinforce the existing pattern of development and would not be at odds with the surrounding townscape. Equally such impact on the views from Roseberry Topping and Captain Cook’s Monument could be mitigated by sensitive landscaping and retaining key views through the site. The Statement

concludes that the character of the neighbouring sports pitches would be retained and enhanced by the creation of the extensive area of open space within the eastern portion of the site.

Flood Risk

We note the comments raised from local residents in relation to surface water flood risk on Easby Lane. A Flood Risk and Drainage Constraints Report, prepared by iD Civils Design Ltd dated 27.07.15, was submitted as part of earlier representations which demonstrates that any risks of surface water flooding could be managed by Sustainable Drainage Measures (SuDs).

Sustainability

Representations submitted to the ‘Call for Sites’ Consultation (August 2015) in relation to this site set out the sustainability merits of the site (copy attached to these representations for reference). Whilst it was demonstrated that the site is conveniently located to a number of local facilities and amenities these were based on routes along the public highway and are accessible to those with impaired mobility or parents with push chairs.

It was however noted within these representations that there are a number of public footpaths adjacent to the site. For example, the public footpath which runs along the eastern boundary and across the playing fields provides a direct convenient and attractive route to the centre of Great Ayton and the facilities it offers, taking approximately five minutes to walk from the centre of the site. Taylor Wimpey UK Limited have a right of way along an existing track along the northern boundary of the site which provides access to the existing sports pitches beyond and also the public footpath, This track could be enhanced as part of a proposal for the development of this site to enhance links to the Cricket and Football Clubs, the existing footpath and also the centre of Great Ayton.

It is evident from the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal Site Assessment (criteria 9) that the distance from site S/0058/005a to services has been assessed based on routes along the public highway. Whilst it is acknowledged in criteria 3 of the Assessment that “there are limited links to either footpaths, cycle routes and/or the public transport network, with the potential to connect to an network” there is no recognition of this potential within criteria 9. This highlights a fundamental flaw with the assessment.

This potential should be considered as the creation of a new footpath link will significantly improve the sustainability of the site and enable the centre of the village to be accessed on foot within 5 – 10 minutes, reducing the need to travel by car and reducing pressure on parking in the village. It would also be a significant benefit to the local community.

If a link is created to the public footpath the village hall would be approximately 600m to the north of the site, not 1127.69m stated within the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal Site Assessments, making this criteria green not red. Also via a footpath link Waterfall Park is approximately 400m to the north.

Land to the east of this site is within the ownership of the Southall Family who are supportive of the creation of a footpath link, area of open space including a play area/recreation area to improve sustainability and also enhance the community benefits of the development of the site S/0058/005a. An indicative masterplan was included within previous representations showing how the site could be developed along with open space to the east.

We also note that the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal Site Assessments for Easby Lane east identifies that the site is actually closer to a convenience store (276.53m Green) than site GTA1: Skottowe Crescent which is 1139.41m (Red) away.

Given that the sustainability of land to the east of Easby Lane (S/0058/005a) can be improved as part of the development and the fact that the site is closer to a convenience store makes this site a significantly more sustainable preference over land at Skottowe Crescent (GTA1).

Statutory Consultees

We note that there were no objections from any statutory consultees in relation to this site S/058/005a.

Community Support

The Council’s Consultation Statement states that “the majority of respondents supported the conclusion of the initial site assessment which identified part of the site as suitable for development”. There is also a significant level of support which is evident from a large proportion of the preferred options comments.

We note the objection from Great Ayton Parish Council however we question the validity of this given the following comments from local residents:

Mrs Denise Dale (ID: 1049537) to the Preferred Options Consultation –

“I discovered quite by chance that during the scheduled Parish Council meeting on 6th December 2016 that Councillors planned to ratify a decision regarding their preferred option as a future housing site. This item did not appear on the Agenda for that meeting.

It appeared that on a previous occasion, Councillors had rejected HDC’s preferred housing site in Great Ayton (References S/058/005 and S/058/006). The Council’s preferred housing site is land off Skottowe Crescent (Site Reference S/058/013). These discussions have, to my knowledge, never been communicated to the people of Great Ayton.

Additionally, it was announced at the meeting on 6th December that a developer for the Site Ref. S/058/013 had been identified and plans were produced which allowed for the construction of 49 dwellings. As we were still within the consultation period, I found this information most disturbing. I have no way of knowing whether or not all the above is usual practice, but it seems to me profoundly underhand and undemocratic.”

Mr E Collingwood (ID: 1056482) to the Preferred Options Consultation –

“At the Parish Council meeting 06.12.16 the Councillors’ preferred site was Skottowe Crescent 058/013 instead of Hambleton’s preferred sites at Easby Lane. The reasons given were that the Easby Lane sites flood, there is traffic congestion at Bridge Street/Easby Lane and they are a long distance from the village services. It is accepted that occasionally, during severe weather, part of the site floods to the south of Byemoor and Angrove. This issue needs to be resolved regardless of any further development. However, if these sites were developed it would provide an opportunity for HDC to include resolution of this problem as a condition of planning approval. This would benefit existing residents currently affected. In our view flooding of this nature is not an issue to prevent these sites being developed.

Residents of Easby Lane have the option of using Bridge Street, West Terrace, Mill Terrace and Little Ayton. The bottleneck on Bridge Street, due to resident parking, is already creating a serious risk to traffic using Easby Lane which is unacceptable. The grouped parking on the bend should not be permitted as it restricts the visibility cones. This issue should be taken up as a matter of urgency with Highways.

Construction traffic restrictions could be put in place to route all traffic via the Easby to Stokesley Road. This would have minimum impact on the village and Easby Lane residents.

The sites in question are only marginally further from the village centre to those of Byemoor and Angrove. If as a condition of the planning approval for the developments, it was to include the upgrading of the existing footpath leading to the centre of the village to a hard surface, this would be of great community benefit to residents of Easby Lane and Great Ayton Cricket and Football Club.”

It is clear that the local communities views are not being represented by Great Ayton Parish Council and should be disregarded.

There is also support for the development of this site from Members of Great Ayton Cricket & Football Club which is highlighted below in relation to community benefits.

We note that objections raised by locals relate predominately to access and surface water flooding. These technical issues have been addressed within the information provided above.

Overall we consider that there is a significant level of community support for the residential development of site S/0058/005a.

Community Benefits

The development of site S/0058/005a has the potential to provide a range of community benefits. There is an opportunity to explore the possibility of enhancing the community access to the Great Ayton Cricket and Football and the sports facilities to the east as Taylor Wimpey UK Limited have an interest in the land to the east. Taylor Wimpey UK Limited are willing to discuss this possibility further with the Council.

The Sports Clubs are supportive of the site coming forward for development (see comments from Mr Keith Wilcox (ID: 1050566) on behalf of Members of Great Ayton Cricket & Football Club to the preferred options consultation) which state:

“The site will offer the least disruption to the village and realise significant opportunities for the residents of the village in enhancement of the sports facilities at Leven Park and walk ways to and from the sports fields. Housing development at Easby Lane can bring some advantages, if the project plan to build included discussions with the developers to support the project with an improved walkway from the metal bridge at Suggetts up to the sports field and across to the housing development. Local residents may then use this route to walk down into the village, rather than use cars. Discussions with the developers about improved vehicle access into the sports fields, when they are laying the service road to the housing site could also be negotiated. Under the banner of disturbance while the housing development takes place, negotiations could also be considered to assist with developments and improvement to the sports ground, which would bring significant benefits to many residents of the village and for generations to come.

Members from the Club feel that the Easby Lane site for housing has significantly more appeal and benefits than the other proposals in the village for new housing”.

As mentioned above there is a public footpath (10.57/4/1) which passes to the east of the site and links to Great Ayton Cricket Club and Football Club and the centre of the village beyond. Taylor Wimpey UK Limited have a right of way along an existing track along the northern boundary of the site which provides access to the existing sports pitches beyond and also the public footpath, This track could be enhanced as part of a proposal for the development of this site to enhance links to the Cricket and Football Clubs and also the centre of Great Ayton.

In addition to the creation of an enhanced link to the existing footpath, as identified above, there is also the opportunity to create an area of open space including a play area within the land to the immediate east of the site S/0058/005a, as this is within the Southall family’s control and they are keen for the development of the site to enhance community facilities. Within the area of open space there will be the potential for biodiversity enhancements to offset any potential impacts that the development of the site would create.

It is therefore clear a range of community benefits associated with the development of site S/0058/005a which follows the promotion of health and safe communities advocated within chapter 8 of NPPF.

Conclusions on S/0058/005a

In light of the above it is considered that the site S/0058/005a is a significantly better option especially given the community benefits that can potentially be delivered from the development of this site in comparison to site GTA1. It is clear from the above assessment that the benefits of site S/0058/005a have not been thoroughly

considered resulting in the selection of site GTA1, which is less sustainable and will impact on the conservation area and nearby listed buildings.

The above highlights and reinforces the concerns that we have in relation to the Council’s Site Selection Methodology which at the late stages of the Plan have been used to select site GTA1 over site S/0058/005a. We therefore consider that the selection of site GTA1 is unsound and not justified.

S/058/006a - Long Term Potential

From a strategic point of view there is also the potential in the future to bring forward land to the west of Easby Lane (S/058/006a) should additional land be required to meet housing need as this site is also available for development and has been promoted through the preparation of the Local Plan. This site has no constraints to development, which has been demonstrated within the technical information submitted to earlier rounds of consultation. Development of this site will not have any impact on the Conservation Area or any designated heritage assets due to its location to the south of Great Ayton.

The Landscape Visual Impact Statement submitted in support of the site also demonstrates that the site would not be readily visible from the National Park because of the intervening landscaping and landforms. It is recognised that the site would be partially visible from the top of Roseberry Topping and Captain Cook’s Monument, but the site would be seen within the context of the existing settlement and therefore would not appear unduly prominent or incongruous.

Therefore it is considered that the development of the site would have a minimal impact on the setting of the North York Moors National Park.

The site benefits from being within walking distance of a number of services and facilities such as schools, shops, leisure and recreation, which can contribute to the well-being and health of the community. Indeed the site is located within close proximity to Great Ayton Football and Cricket Club, one of the most successful and active sports clubs within the region for all age groups and levels. Equally, the site enjoys good transport linkages to the major centre of Middlesbrough with its wide range of employment opportunities as well as Stokesley for a secondary and higher education facilities. We note however that the site has scored poorly in relation to this aspect of the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal Site Assessment, however we consider that the site identified for allocation (GTA1) is only marginally closer to some facilities.

There is also further scope in the future for an extension to site S058/006a to the west, as Taylor Wimpey UK Limited have an interest in land between Easy Lane and the A173 Stokesley Road (see site Ref S/058/006 for details). Such an extension could provide the opportunity to meet in part the future market, affordable and specialist housing needs of Great Ayton and the wider District and also enable a direct access onto the A173 Stokesley Road, limiting traffic along Easby Lane and within the village centre. Land to the west of Easby Lane is fully deliverable and represents a sustainable location for development. Furthermore, the extension of site S058/006a to the west would not have any significant detrimental impact on the wider landscape, heritage assets, or any other notable interests.

Conclusions

We therefore consider that draft allocation GTA1 does not represent the best option in planning terms and is consequently unsound. Site S/0058/005a should be reconsidered as it provides a deliverable option which will not have an effect on heritage assets or the Conservation Area, whilst also providing a range of community benefits. Site S/0058/006a and S/0058/006 provide a strategic opportunity for further development of the village in future should the Council require additional housing land.

We trust that the detail contained within these representations will be taken into account moving forward. Given the level of information presented we would like to arrange a meeting with Officers as soon as possible to discuss the Easby Lane sites in more detail, including the potential for community benefits.

We look forward to hearing from you in relation to possible meeting dates.

Yours sincerely

Emma Winter MRTPI Associate

E: [email protected] T: 0113 2031073 M: 07973 505576