General Comments

Name/ID Type/ID Representation The Theatres Trust Observations As this DPD is not directly relevant to the Trust's work, we have no particular comment to make. 315 336 East RIGS Observations We had to conclude that the Smaller Settlements Document was hardly within our remit and any Group 595 comment would be purely personal; we therefore wish to offer no views on the settlements 397 document. Huggate Parish Council Observations Although the Parish Council have no observations to make on the plan we would like to invite you to 865 960 discuss it at a meeting once the plan has been published. North Yorkshire County Observations Officers at North Yorkshire County Council would like to thank Council for Council 597 consulting North Yorkshire County Council on the Smaller Settlements Document - Preferred 1446 Options. We do not have any strategic comments with regards to the East Riding Smaller Settlements Document on condition that its development continues to be in accordance to the Yorkshire and Regional Spatial Strategy. Sutton upon Derwent Support As a general comment we welcome this report which has a rigorous and objective approach to the Parish Council 1043 issues. We believe that implementation of its proposals will be in the best interests of our village and 1420 the wider East Riding Community. Yorkshire and Humber Observations At this stage, the Assembly’s response to the consultation document is a set of officer comments. The Assembly 981 aim is to highlight where issues related to general conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy may 483 arise. When the Smaller Settlements Document is submitted to the Secretary of State a formal Assembly view on its general conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy will need to be given. The following officer comments are made in relation to the existing Regional Spatial Strategy for the Yorkshire & the Humber (based on a selective review of RPG12 issued in December 2004) and the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy – the Yorkshire and Humber Plan (submitted to the Secretary of State in December 2005). The comments place emphasis on the draft Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), which reinforces and develops the general thrust of existing RSS; furthermore it is more up to date and has significant ‘weight’ in its own right. Prior to adoption (expected late 2007), the weight attached to the draft RSS Name/ID Type/ID Representation will increase once the Panel’s Report is received (expected early 2007) and also when proposed changes are published (expected Summer 2007). Yorkshire and Humber Observations The document clearly sets out that ‘Market Villages’ will be expected to accommodate only limited Assembly 986 growth. This is further highlighted through the proposed development limits, which are set out as a 483 tool in restricting development outside the limits. It is critical to the RSS approach that this growth is very limited and focussed on meeting local needs, particularly for affordable housing as market villages represent an additional tier of settlements below the ‘towns’ identified in the Joint Structure Plan and the Local Service Centre approach required by the draft RSS. Highways Agency Observations Overall, the agency has no specific comment on this document, which seeks to identify and justify 1519 1804 Market Villages, although the agency stresses the need for sequential testing and the need to apply sustainability principles when deciding where to allocate development land. Any development either in isolation or cumulatively that could impact on the SHN must be discussed with the Agency at the earliest opportunity in order to consider suitability and whether any mitigation measures are required in accordance with Circular 04/2001 or any subsequent guidance. Parking provision is a significant issue, especially for a borough such as the East Riding, and the document tends toward higher provision. However, care is required to ensure that such an approach does not discourage the use of public transport and detrimentally affect the service, particularly for the relatively high proportion of non car owning households. In addition the East Riding is known to provide housing for workers in surrounding large towns and cities, and thus the borough is subject to much commuting. Policies should seek to reduce this by encouraging services and employment opportunities at the local level and particular care should be taken when providing housing that would appeal to commuters, e.g. Executive Housing. Hull City Council Observations Overall, Hull City Council supports the preferred options document. We welcome the identification 1482 1249 of a limited number of ‘Market Villages’ (JSP policy DS4 settlements) in the preferred option. This will prevent a more dispersed pattern of development which the JSP and draft RSS seek to avoid. Such dispersed patterns of development under the policies of the Humberside Structure Plan in the past have been damaging for the City of Hull which has suffered from high levels of out-migration with many residents moving to rural East Riding areas near the City. Focussing the majority of limited rural development in a small number of larger villages will mean that these villages will be more likely Name/ID Type/ID Representation to retain a variety of services, therefore making them better able to perform their Market Village function. Although the general approach of the preferred option is supported, we would question whether all 28 of these settlements need to be included as Market Villages. North Cave, Roos, Beeford, and Skipsea in particular are smaller than the average size of settlements included under this policy approach. North Cave is also located in close proximity to the other market village of South Cave which weakens the case for including it as such. Identifying settlements as Market Villages which are unsuitable to act as such would only increase commuting from these Villages. Cllr Symon Fraser Object There are three fundamentals which require further development:- (Conservative Group) 651 a) Enabling local residents to have a meaningful say in shaping their village or settlement 1421 b) Addressing the challenges to sustainability c) Tailoring planning guidance to more accurately and realistically reflect rural needs. We are determined to see local opinion more actively involved in the process of shaping the East Riding of Yorkshire. We must continue to counter NIMBYism but to do this successfully we must enable residents to have a say in how their villages and towns are developed. Leconfield Parish Council Object This Council supports the views of the Conservative Group as set out in the letter dated 6th 443 1992 November 2006. Sue Lang (East Riding of Observations We are also very concerned about the impact on smaller settlements services becoming a ‘self- Yorkshire Council) 663 fulfilling prophesy’ - Restricted housing development leads to price rises leads to fewer younger 276 families, leads to falling school roll, leads to school viability being in doubt, etc. (From comments to Housing Site Selection Methodology) Cllr Winifred I Knight Object I still think that this document is in conflict with the Joint Structure Plan for the area you describe as 1452 1070 the sub-regional Urban area. As Greater Hull the sub regional Urban Area has a different agenda to exercise restraint to encourage the regeneration of Hull. The present situation leaves us wide open at a time when we should be cooperating with Hull and sending a firm message to developers. This frustrating situation needs to be resolved without delay. Wilberfoss and Thornton Observations In principle the Board has no real comment to make on specific issues but would like to remind the Level Drainage Board 2057 Council that development should be undertaken in a sustainable manner without increasing flood risk. 839 Within the context of the new PPS25 each development should generally discharge surface water into the watercourses that serve its natural catchment at the rate that can be proved to exist prior to the Name/ID Type/ID Representation development taking place. In addition consideration must be given to the possible presence of drainage routes through the various sites. These should be maintained so as not to cause problems elsewhere in the systems. Preston Drainage Board Observations In principle the Board has no real comment to make on specific issues but would like to remind the 839 2058 Council that development should be undertaken in a sustainable manner without increasing flood risk. Within the context of the new PPS25 each development should generally discharge surface water into the watercourses that serve its natural catchment at the rate that can be proved to exist prior to the development taking place. In addition consideration must be given to the possible presence of drainage routes through the various sites. These should be maintained so as not to cause problems elsewhere in the systems. Development Land & Object In general terms the following points in general are objected to in relation to this document: The Planning 1113 exclusion of Newbald as a potential development areas 1454 The low rating of Nafferton as a development area

Development Land & Object The identification of those small settlements deemed suitable for development should be referred to Planning 1114 as rural service centres rather than Market Towns as this causes confusion in definitions and lacks 1454 clarity Development Land & Object Undue weight has been accorded to the Hull and East Riding Joint Structure Plan in light of the draft Planning 1116 RSS. 1454 Development Land & Object Objection must also be made to the terminology adopted within the document. While Option 1 refers Planning 1123 specifically to “rural service centres” this document instead refers to what can be defined as Market 1454 Towns. This appears to introduce a new definition of Market Town specific only to this Development Plan Document and as such creates confusion as what could reasonably be considered to meet the requirements set out by the Development Plan Document. The terminology should be revised so as to refer specifically to “rural service centres” and not Market Towns. Country Land & Business Observations We are concerned that the proposals in this plan will prevent growth in smaller settlements. Small Association 1169 scale, appropriate economic and residential development is required elsewhere in rural areas; without 510 it they will be unable to develop in the incremental way that villages/rural settlements have done in Name/ID Type/ID Representation the past. PPS7 seeks to “facilitate and promote sustainable patterns of development and sustainable communities in rural areas. This should include policies to sustain, enhance, and where appropriate revitilise country towns and villages (including through the provision of affordable housing) for strong, diverse economic activity”. The regional assembly, in a recent background paper (BP6) to the RSS stresses that “employment opportunities and development should be encouraged in rural areas to support a healthy and diverse rural economy and maintain the vitality of rural communities”. The above two policies are more positive about the need for economic and residential development than ERYC Smaller Settlements Development Plan. At a time of change (and decline) in British agriculture, the plan fails to recognise the need for the economic development in rural areas required to maintain a diversified and viable rural economy. Newton on Derwent Object Whilst in broad agreement with the development plan document, this Parish council has some Parish Council 1237 concerns relating to the very small settlements such as ours. Our overreaching concern is that, if much 474 of the focus is on the targeted Market Villages, and if residential development in "non targeted" villages is too limited, these may gradually become less viable as mixed communities where young people are able to afford homes. Easington Parish Council Observations Easington Parish Council has discussed this document at several of their meetings and councillors 596 2045 have now been able to look closely at the document as it affects Easington. I have filled in the questionnaire and have been asked to let you know that their conclusion is that the information used to designate Easington as a 'Market Village' is flawed or out of date. They queried particularly the information on the public transport links to the village, and to the amount of employment offered by the gas terminals (minimal). I was asked to you the the ERYC contact the gas terminals, who would have up-to-date information on how many local people worked there. As this is a consultative document only we assume you will be following it up. As you may gather the Parish Council are not happy with the designation of 'Market Village' and feel that it is inappropriate for a village which is 'on the edge' as it were, and notthe centre of a network of connections with other places. Mr G E Wright Observations It is considered that the overall intention of the Document is to identify a level of settlements which Name/ID Type/ID Representation 562 1283 would fall in the hierarchy below those set out in the Joint Structure Plan policies DS1, DS2 and DS3. It is the starting point of these observations that the settlement hierarchy set out in JSP policies 1, 2 and 3 is merely a recognition of an historic established hierarchy of settlements that has subsisted over a significant timescale and was not created in consequence of an earlier planning policy. It reflects development patterns over a significantly greater timescale than is covered by policy developed under Town and Country Planning Act legislation. It is therefore considered that any further identification of the hierarchy below the level identified in the JSP should equally respect the historic hierarchy of settlements that exists. Mr G E Wright Observations Terminology 562 1292 There appears to be no sound reason to create a new definition of new locations namely ‘Market Villages’. The LDF will be better to bring its definition of settlements in line with that of the RSS with ‘Principal Towns’ being defined as ‘Principal Service Centres’, ‘Towns as Local Service Centres’ and any additional locations for development below that level in the hierarchy being defined as either ‘Service Villages’ or ‘Selected Settlements’. Cllr Charles Bayram (East Observations Part 2 of the 2004 Planning Act contains the provisions relating planning at the local level. Riding of Yorkshire 1332 Section 18 says Local Authorities should keep relevant matters under review which could effect new Council) development in their area. 627 Section 14 gives more detail, it starts with the understanding of the present position then how the Local Authority expects that area to change along with the effect that change will have on the people and places of the area, i.e. ‘Spatial Planning’. My initial objections are summarised as to progress smaller settlements D.P.D which is not a recognised D.P.D but an unusual/highbred document and therefore very likely to be rejected by an inspector as unsound, wasting valuable time, as the Local Authority will have to produce a core- strategy from scratch. Further objections relate to the evidence base, focusing around flooding, employment, urban/rural definitions and services linked to sustainability, including travel distances. Cllr Charles Bayram (East Observations Additional detail is found in PPS 12 guidance on L.D.Fs, but the procedure starts with the Act and at Riding of Yorkshire 1332 section 17 a Local Development Scheme has to include a description of the prescribed documents Council) and their content, the Local Authority may add or change that list, as it feels necessary. Name/ID Type/ID Representation 627 Section 19 states the Local Authority should follow the scheme and have regards to the following: a) National Policy/Guidance ,Statements by the Minister Law both ‘statute and common’ as well as best practice papers issued by the Secretary of State b) Regional Planning Guidance RSS 12 c) Any Spatial Strategies for that area d) The Community Plan/Strategy e) The present or most recently adopted plans f) How any specific projects will be funded g) Anything else the Secretary of State may require Statement of Community Involvement (S.C.I) and an Environment Assessment under E.E.C. Directive No 2001/42. Other provisions can also be found in the ‘Town and Country Planning (Local Development – ) Regulations 2004’. The minimum requirements puts the first document as a core strategy followed by a proposals map and a site specific allocation of land (D.P.D) along with any action area plans as the Local Authority so wish. ‘In plain English, a core-strategy for us would be an East Riding/Unitary Local Development Plan, containing everything you would find in a Local Plan except any allocations or hint of allocations.’ Cllr Charles Bayram (East Observations I support the intentions and objectives of the 2004 Act making past requirements now statutory, and Riding of Yorkshire 1334 asserting that a plan is the interpretation of national policy into local policy, by the people for the Council) people, prepared by the Council and implemented by the Council. 627 Cllr Charles Bayram (East Object Objection 1: The consultation co-ordinator is not taking a prominent role in the process. Riding of Yorkshire 1335 1a) The Council should set out the roles and responsibilities of the Consultation Co-ordinator. Council) 627 Cllr Charles Bayram (East Observations Objection 2: All Planning Committees should have direct links with the Cabinet and make Riding of Yorkshire 1336 representations on all successive drafts of plans whilst policy is being formulated, this is not Council) happening – see ‘Functions and Responsibilities – ‘England’ – Regulations 2000’ at paragraph 5.18. Name/ID Type/ID Representation 627 2a) The Council should make arrangements with area Planning Committees to address the matter. Cllr Charles Bayram (East Observations Objection 3: Members of the East Riding Council have never had any training in relation to planning Riding of Yorkshire 1337 ‘unless they arrange and pay for their own outside training’. Council) 3a) Members should receive Planning Training. 627 Cllr Charles Bayram (East Object Objection 4: The Council’s priority should be to produce a core-strategy as it’s first L.D.D. Riding of Yorkshire 1338 If Members of the Community object to the approach of hiding behind the Structure Plan, which was Council) not consulted on as a core-strategy, nor did it follow the current procedures. An inspector will have 627 no option but to reject as unsound these minor documents presently listed on the schemes. 4a) The Council should make a core strategy it’s first priority. Cllr Charles Bayram (East Observations Objection 5: A partial review of the Waste Plan should be carried out urgently. Riding of Yorkshire 1338 5a) Incorporate the recent B.P.E.O. produce site specific allocations updating the present proposals Council) map into the waste plan. 627 Cllr Charles Bayram (East Observations An affordable housing and obligations policy would form part of a core-strategy. Riding of Yorkshire 1340 Council) 627 Cllr Charles Bayram (East Object Objection 6: I object to the present sub area approach. Riding of Yorkshire 1340 6a) Amend the sub-areas into 3 broad area types; the coastal area closer to , the rural area to Council) include closer to Cottingham and classed as Broad Areas of Restraint. 627 6b) The urban suburbs linked to Hull and the broad area along the A63-M62 should be classed as an area of opportunity (‘growth area’). Agree: Hull and its urban conurbations of 100,000 population and over at the 1991 census, , Beverley and fit the 10,000 and over population. Cllr Charles Bayram (East Objrect Objection 7: There is no reasonable justification to set the next urban threshold at 3,000 + Riding of Yorkshire 1340 7a) Use the recognised urban/rural definition of 1,000 and over population at the 1991 census, the Council) settlement population not the parish population as urban, rather than the proposed 3,000. 627 The 2004 Act now makes a statutory duty to protect the environment for future generations, through Name/ID Type/ID Representation design, reducing the need to travel by the private motor car and to avoid development on land which could be at risk from flooding due to predicted rising sea levels. Cllr Charles Bayram (East Observation Objection 8: In the past, flooding has been caused by breaches in river banks. Riding of Yorkshire 1340 8a) The Council should not allocate land which could be at risk of flooding from a breach. Council) 627 Roy Hunt Observations I have spent some time analysing the Local Development Framework (LDF) as being applied to the 1490 1372 smaller settlements. My analysis has focused on the methodology applied and the conclusions reached. In summary, I am extremely concerned that the methodology is flawed and the conclusions drawn are, as a consequence, very much open to dispute. I was first introduced to this work some time ago when there was a presentation in Goole on Sustainable Threshold Analysis. Doubts were raised then about the methodology, in particular the sole use of settlement boundaries to define the presence of local infrastructure; but we were assured that this model would only be used in an advisory way to help planners determine planning applications. It would now appear that this methodology has been amended, I consider in a retrograde way, to establish a more rigid framework for future development in the East Riding. Throughout this document I have focused on the areas I know well. However, I use these as examples of generic problems where I consider the study falls down. I am sure that what I see in my own areas of knowledge will be repeated many times in other areas across the East Riding. Cottingham Parish Observations Extract from the east Riding Local Development Framework: Council 1387 "Support the regional spatial strategy and the joint structure plan development strategy by restraining 1491 the current dispersed pattern of development and help place emphasis on the development strategy statements". Again, rather heavy going for the lay person. Woodmansey Parish Observations Surprise was also expressed at the meeting at the use of the term 'Market Village' to define those Council 1400 settlements which are likely to benefit from future development. Dunswell is the only village in the 564 area that has a market, and is therefore entitled to class itself as a Market Village, but in planning terms it does not qualify. Blacktoft Parish Council Observations It is felt by the members of Blacktoft Parish Council that not enough time was allowed by the E R Y Name/ID Type/ID Representation 551 1435 Council for responses. Also not enough consideration, consultation and forethought has been given to Gilberdyke being listed as a Market Village. Blacktoft Parish Council, therefore, requests that Gilberdyke be taken off the Market Village list. Carter Jonas LLP Observations We believe that there are a number of issues that should be addressed ahead of preparing the Smaller 1509 1609 Settlements DPD. We are particularly concerned as to the appropriateness of progressing the Smaller Settlements DPD to the Preferred Options Stage (and possibly beyond) when the Council has not yet formulated the Core Strategy. The Core Strategy DPD is the cornerstone of the LDF, as it sets out a Vision of what East Riding should look like at the end of the LDF period, and the mechanisms for how the Vision will be realised. We consider that without having first agreed the Core Strategy the Council cannot realistically defend any policy approach to the rural settlements, because there is no real policy framework to determine an approach to shaping development across the District. Any decisions as to how to distribute development across the rural settlements outside of determining the bigger picture would be premature and based on an insufficient evidence base. The options for accommodating and delivering the District’s development requirements need to be considered thoroughly and holistically. We note in paragraph 1.8 the Council states ‘Following Government advice, the Joint Structure Plan for and the East Riding (adopted in June 2005) is to ‘act as’ the Core Strategy for the east Riding Local Development Framework.’ However, we consider that since under the new system the JSP will not be a statutory document then the Council needs to transfer the policies within that document into its own Core Strategy and to give full justification for why the policies are still the most appropriate. The Council has given significant weight to the JSP which appears to be the basis on which it has developed the policy approach for the rural settlements in the LDF. In doing so, the issue of having to address more fundamental issues through the development of a Core Strategy has been fudged and has taken insufficient account of emerging RSS. If the Council is intent on adopting this approach it needs to fully justify the reasons for doing so. It is an approach which we consider to be unsustainable and unsound. Good practice would be for the Council to commence work on the Core Strategy and include within this policy options for the Smaller Settlements. This would enable the District settlements and their respective hierarchies and functions to be reviewed holistically and would be a Name/ID Type/ID Representation better means of achieving sustainable development. Without the existence of a Core Strategy it is impossible to properly consider the Preferred Options for the Smaller Settlements. There is no context against which to assess the options and how they will contribute to delivering an overall Vision for the District. We therefore consider that the overall approach is fundamentally flawed and unsound. Notwithstanding our serious reservations, our comments specific to the Smaller Settlements DPD are set out below. Mr Chris Worrall Object This whole document is based on theory. Insufficient weight is given to the fact that we are a truly 1515 1706 rural area. H.O.S.M experience is that purchasers of £500,000 + homes like the idea of moving out to the countryside, then complain and want more 'urban' facilities, thereby changing the ethos and begs the question "why did you move here and then try to change it for what you have recently left?" Mr Peter Lacy Observations A restrictive approach to development in non-rural service centres is in my opinion not feasible; 1511 1802 surely it makes more sense to infill build in established communities as opposed to building on good farming land, a good example of this is the ongoing development in . With regard to Principle Towns and Towns we have already set the precedent with Out of Town Shopping, supermarkets etc all requiring the use of cars. I feel that there will always be areas which will lend themselves more suitably to development than any other use, i.e. infill “bad land” small plots etc. This question is not easily answered, as over the last couple of decades the population has been encouraged to travel further a field for work, if in a couple of decades the housing requirements will change and smaller development (single houses) be viewed differently. Mrs Julie Sherwood Object <> 1419 177

Chapter 1 Comments

Chapter 1 Comments...... 1 Paragraph 1.3...... 1 Paragraph 1.7...... 2 Context...... 2 Paragraph 1.10 ...... 5 Paragraph 1.12 ...... 6 Paragraph 1.13 ...... 7 Paragraph 1.14 ...... 7 Paragraph 1.15 ...... 7 Paragraph 1.19 ...... 8 Links with the Community Strategy ...... 8 Paragraph 1.24 ...... 8

Paragraph 1.3 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Yorkshire and Humber Observations As you know, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 introduced mechanisms to help ensure Assembly 982 that DPDs drawn up by local authorities as part of the Local Development Framework are in general 483 conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). The intention is to ensure that DPDs are contributing to the delivery of the RSS and that the two strands of the Development Plan for an area (the RSS and DPDs) are mutually supportive and not in conflict. The Assembly welcomes the statement of the ‘general need’ for conformity between the RSS and DPDs documents that is set out at the start of the document, which demonstrates the need for a strong link between the LDF and the RSS. Also welcomed are the references made to the RSS throughout the document. In order for the Smaller Settlements Document to more clearly reflect the Regional Spatial Strategy set out in both current RSS (December 2004) and the draft RSS (Yorkshire and Humber Plan – December 2005), it is suggested that the following issues should be taken into account in the next stages of the Document’s development.

Paragraph 1.7 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Yorkshire and Humber Object There is a brief reference to SA/SEA (paragraph 1.7) but more needs to be made of this given that the Assembly 1022 SA report is a fundamental part of the evidence base and is also an important part of option generation 483 and appraisal. You should look to make a more explicit link to this in the document drawing out how SA/SEA has influenced the document and linking a summary of these into the plan. Soundness test iii refers.

Context Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mr G E Wright Observations The existing Regional Spatial Strategy constitutes the current policy framework with which a local 562 1284 development framework would have to conform in general terms. It is not clear from the Document whether it is intended that the Document addresses conformity with that with adopted RSS. A Submission RSS has progressed through EIP and sets out a different range of policies from those of the existing RSS. It is likely that there will be amendment to the terms of the Submission RSS before it is adopted. It is also likely that the East Riding LDF will essentially have to be in general conformity with the emerging Submission RSS policies. A question arises as to whether the replacement of the current RSS by the emerging policies of the Submission RSS is a relevant factor to this element of the work in the Local Development Framework. It is the submission of these observations and representations that a significant issue arises in respect of rural policy in consequence of the potential replacement of existing adopted RSS policy with that emerging in the Submission RSS. The current RSS made a clear distinction between the requirement for urban policies and the requirement for rural policies. This distinction was to address identified rural issues including counter urbanisation, the effects of existing dispersal of urban populations to rural villages as well as issues of a more traditional rural nature such as declining agriculture employment and accessibility to services. The RSS acknowledged that counter urbanisation had given rise to needs for affordable housing in rural areas but also acknowledged that local services needed on-going support. The adopted RSS gave equal support for this separate group of rural policy to that of the group of urban policies. The Submission RSS on the other hand places significantly less emphasis on rural issues and rural policy and it remains to be seen, following representations made by organisations such as CPRE, whether any substantial and significant rural policy will be incorporated into the Submission RSS. If this does not occur then it is clear that there has been a shift in policy emphasis with regard to rural matters and this would need to be addressed in the East Riding LDF including the Core Strategy. The Document does not flag up the issue outlined in the previous paragraph or seek to indicate how such an issue might be addressed through the LDF. This is a significant shortcoming. Mr G E Wright Observations No interpretation as to the likely outcome of the Submission RSS is given by the Council in the 562 1285 Document, though it is noted that the Council did not promote the inclusion of any additional rural policies through its EIP representations in respect of the Submission RSS. By implication the Council appear to be supporting the shift in priority previously afforded to rural policy Mr G E Wright Observations The choices in respect of a rural policy context in the absence of any overarching framework could be 562 1286 simply characterised as having one of three directions:- • Growth • Maintaining the status quo • Contraction by way of readdressing counter urbanisation of the past. The option for growth is not to be compatible with existing national policy and therefore does not present itself as a realistic consideration for the Document. Maintaining the status quo may or may not be an appropriate approach to the areas outside the DS1 – DS3 settlements. Maintaining the status quo in this context means maintaining the rural communities as they are currently constituted. If that were to be the objective of the policy, it would mean a level of development sufficient to maintain the population having regard to the projected changes in household size. The currently adopted RSS suggests that maintaining the status quo is an objective of rural policy but this is not specifically reflected in the JSP and the Submission RSS in its deposited format does not propose or continue that policy direction. The Submission RSS, as now placed before the EIP, appears to indicate that rural policy would be strictly limited to promoting agriculture and forestry (and possibly activities directly associated with those functions). That would envisage a reversal of the previous trends of counter urbanisation. That would result in the reduction of the rural population and the redirection of urban populations back to urban centres with the consequential loss of rural services and facilities. Mr G E Wright Observations The Council’s approach sets out in the context to the Document, an emphasis on the urban 562 1287 concentration of policies. The Document does not flag up the current rural policies in RSS which are supportive of maintaining the status quo, and the Council has not sought to promote the requirement for such policies in the Submission RSS. Mr G E Wright Observations The housing distribution proposals of the Submission RSS, using a 5:1 ratio between levels in the 562 1288 hierarchy, would result in a minimal allocation below DS3. This is projected based on the Submission RSS figure, at 84 dwellings per annum for the District as a whole. Such a figure would not maintain the status quo. The Council rejected proposals from the RPB of a housing provision of 1800-2000 per annum. Such figures would have allowed the status quo to be maintained. The Council’s rejection implies it does not support the status quo approach. Mr G E Wright Observations The Document however does not indicate any acknowledgement of a step change in rural policy 562 1289 cascading down from emerging RSS. It is considered that such a step change was intended by the RPB but it remains to be seen whether the finally adopted form of Submission RSS will maintain that position. If it does then this affects the policy which underpinned the JSP policies on the development strategy and would require those matters to be revisited and reconsidered. Mr G E Wright Observations There are specific elements in the Submission RSS which indicate policy changes which are not flagged 562 1290 up in the Document. A particular example of this is that in Submission RSS, Driffied has been elevated to the role of Principal Service Centre which puts it on the same status in the hierarchy as Beverley, Goole and Bridlington. Mr G E Wright Observations Context Conclusions 562 1293 The matters and issues highlighted above indicate a choice between two potential interpretations of policy that is:- either to maintain the status quo, or to instigate a positive process to reverse counter urbanisation. This choice is not clearly stated in the Document and it would be appropriate for the Council (in particular the elected members of the Council) to understand the choice and its consequences for on-going services and facilities in settlements below the DS3 level in the hierarchy. This policy choice needs to be both identified and evaluated, particularly with regard to the question as to whether the choice will remain upon the adoption of Submission RSS. If a choice does remain then the Council needs to be clear in its choice. If it elects to go for the policy to reverse counter urbanisation (which is the apparent approach of the Document preferred options proposals) then there needs to be a recognition of the level of lost services and facilities which will occur in the rural settlements across the District.

Paragraph 1.10 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Yorkshire and Humber Observations The Assembly welcomes the helpful reference to the overall East Riding Settlement Hierarchy as set out Assembly 983 in the Joint Structure Plan in the introduction of the document. 483 Cllr Winifred I Knight Observations Why are the Haltemprice settlements included in this document when Cottingham, for instance, has 1452 1071 around 20,000 inhabitants? Is this small in the context of the East Riding? Cottignham and the other Haltemprice settlements were removed from the smaller settlements matrix, so why are they lingering here? This document is in direct conflict with the Joint Structure Plan in its recommendations for the ‘Haltemprice’ settlements described here as the sub-regional urban area, and described in the JSP as Greater Hull. The enquiry into the Joint Structure plan emphasized the regeneration of Hull and restraint in development in settlements around Hull because building in the sub-regional urban area will impede the regeneration of Hull. The core of Cottingham has been ringed with developments and infilled over the past 50 years. [Just as is currently experiencing]. The building of the supermarket at Willerby killed trade in Cottingham hence the proliferation of charity shops. The JSP recommends that the remaining spaces between Haltemprice settlements and Hull are important and should be maintained. To label the Haltemprice sub-regional Urban Area as sustainable is not sufficient to overthrow the JSP recommendations. Cottingham’s sustainability is in question; services are stretched; doctors do not see their own patients; the post office queues should be seen to be appreciated; the library is far too small a facility; school downsizing is in progress. Cottingham has a population the size of a town with the facilities of a village. I quote the ‘Yorkshire in Bloom’ TOWN designation of Cottingham! The Parish Council has commissioned a professional consultation of all the people over the age of 16 in Cottingham, directly, and in this context four items stand out. Lack of leisure facilities particularly for younger persons; playgrounds; sports centre; swimming pool; meeting room for scouts etc. Concern at the volume and size of vehicles passing through Cottingham. They want a halt to the development schemes that build in gardens; blocks of flats; developments that demolish existing houses and replace with estates; just no more development and anger at inspectors allowing developments that have been turned down locally. They want to keep the green space and not become part of Hull, and there is still anger at Hull building a cemetery in Cottingham. The East Riding of Yorkshire Local Strategic Partnership that produced the community plan “Our East Riding” is an unelected body that the government imposed upon us and should take second place to the will of the people. Build where dwellings are needed such as Goole and in villages where they need affordable housing.

Paragraph 1.12 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mrs Susan Lang (East Object The pattern of employment, housing and transport hubs in the East Riding only conforms to this Riding of Yorkshire 315 service centre typology at the highest 'towns' level. Elsewhere, major employment sites, existing and Council) planned, often fall outwith the main centres 1424

Paragraph 1.13 Name/ID Type/ID Representation East Riding of Yorkshire Observations Limited development will be allowed in these Market Villages to meet local needs. It is intended that Rural Partnership 1348 this level of development will sustain their roles as ‘places providing important local services for people 1488 who live in them and their surrounding rural areas’. It is a concern of the ERY RP that that ‘limited development’ does not stifle this vital role.

Paragraph 1.14 Name/ID Type/ID Representation East Riding of Yorkshire Observations Government guidance indicates some limited development should be allowed ‘in, or next to’, such Rural Partnership 1349 smaller rural settlements that are not designated as local service centres. It is the experience of the ERY 1488 RP that rural communities perform in clusters, providing key services to one another within a network of villages and or smaller settlements. The ERY RP would encourage a wider interpretation of ‘in, or next to’ to take account of the ‘cluster’ nature of service provision in rural communities.

Paragraph 1.15 Name/ID Type/ID Representation East Riding of Yorkshire Observations It is clear from paragraph 5.25 in the supporting text to Policy DS4 that not all settlements should be Rural Partnership 1350 considered able to accommodate development and it identifies criteria to be used to determine the 1488 suitability of smaller settlements to accommodate new development. Not only is the nature of the criteria a concern, but the application of the criteria makes an assessment of a settlement in ‘isolation’ and does not consider the ‘cluster’ affect of rural communities. This isolated assessment of rural settlements will inhibit vital services being developed and or supported, ultimately to the detriment of the rural East Riding of Yorkshire.

Paragraph 1.19 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mrs Susan Lang (East Support Support these objectives. Riding of Yorkshire 316 Council) 1424

Links with the Community Strategy Name/ID Type/ID Representation Sport England Observations The distribution, quantity/ quality and allocation of sport facilities, open space and recreation provision 539 586 based on the settlement hierarchy proposed, should therefore also have regard to other plan strategies such as: Playing Pitch Strategy, Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy and associated data bases such as Sport England's Active Places to inform the distribution and level of investment required in such facilities. Government Office for Object Under soundness test v, the DPD needs to set out how its policies and proposals deliver components Yorkshire and the 1024 of the Community Strategy and how the objectives of the Community Strategy relate to the plan. The Humber document runs over this, setting out the process and the relevant target (paragraphs 1.23-1.24). I also 694 note a new Community Plan is being prepared which will link closely with the LDF. Will this be completed in time to inform submission of the document?

Paragraph 1.24 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mrs Susan Lang (East Observations The Sustainable Communities Action Group is not yet functional. Needs to make sure that the Riding of Yorkshire 317 Sustainable Economic Development Task Group is adequately represented in these considerations. Council) 1424

Chapter 2 Comments

Chapter 2 Comments ...... 1 Paragraph 2.4...... 1 Paragraph 2.5...... 1 Paragraph 2.7...... 2 Paragraph 2.8...... 2

Paragraph 2.4 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Development Land & Object Paragraph 2.4 of the document must be objected to as a dispersed approach should not be discounted Planning 1117 on the grounds of its examination during the preparation of the Joint Structure Plan. For instance, the 1454 Joint Structure Plan deals with Hull and East Riding Yorkshire. Government advice in the form of PPS7 has been published since the preparation of the JSP. The RSS is currently under review and will form part of the Development Plan when adopted, thus replacing the extant Joint Structure Plan. The Draft RSS provides different housing requirements from East Riding of Yorkshire and separates this from Hull unlike the previous and extant regional guidance.

Paragraph 2.5 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Development Land & Object Paragraph 2.5 comments are agreed with in terms of the need to reconsider the dispersed pattern of Planning 1120 development in the smaller settlements, however it appears that this approach has been dismissed out 1454 of hand by the Development Plan Document. On the basis of the continued reference to the policy context in place at the time of the JSP review, the potential for a proper reconsideration of the approach to the distribution of development in the smaller and rural settlements is very limited.

Paragraph 2.7 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Development Land & Object Paragraph 2.7 sets out Option 1 of the Issues and Options Consultation Paper and it is noted that this is Planning 1121 the preferred option of the Council subject to a balance being struck between the identification of a 1454 suitable number of settlements. Whilst this option is preferable to Option 2 i.e. not identifying any development potential for the smaller settlements, the interpretation of this preferred option in the current Development Plan Document must be objected to.

Paragraph 2.8 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Holme on Spalding Moor Observations Section 2 - the scale of the development should be limited for local people. Parish Plan Advisory 1368 Committee 1489

Chapter 3 Comments

Chapter 3 Comments...... 1 Selection of the 'Study Group Settlements'...... 1 Paragraph 3.2...... 2 Paragraph 3.6...... 2 Paragraph 3.7...... 3 Paragraph 3.8...... 3 Paragraph 3.9...... 3 Paragraph 3.16 ...... 9 Table 3.3 ...... 9 Paragraph 3.23 ...... 10 Paragraph 3.29 ...... 10 Table 3.4 Transport services and accessibility ranking ...... 10 Paragraph 3.35 ...... 11 Table 3.5 – Relationship to Larger Settlement Ranking...... 12 Overall Assessment...... 12 Table 3.7 – Overall Assessment ...... 13

Selection of the 'Study Group Settlements' Name/ID Type/ID Representation Sport England Observations A coherent approach is required based on a robust evidence base to complement this DPD, which 539 587 combined can ensure the soundness of the DPD as well as address the specific sustainability, accessibility and quality of life issues that exist within this relatively rural district.

Paragraph 3.2 Name/ID Type/ID Representation East Riding of Yorkshire Observations The classification hierarchy puts the future of some rural villages in the East Riding in doubt. Concerns Rural Partnership 1352 are expressed where the hierarchy has been applied to decisions made within this context; concerns are 1488 exaggerated where the hierarchy has/could be misapplied to decisions outside of this direct context. The ERY RP requests that some flexibility is used when applying the categories, since some villages will be borderline cases, and their status may change over time. East Riding of Yorkshire Observations The classification hierarchy puts the future of some rural villages in the East Riding in doubt. Concerns Rural Partnership 1363 are expressed where the hierarchy has been applied to decisions made within this context; concerns are 1488 exaggerated where the hierarchy has/could be misapplied to decisions outside of this direct context. The Rural Policy & Partnerships Team requests that some flexibility is used when applying the categories, since some villages will be borderline cases, and their status may change over time. Development Land & Object Reference is made within paragraph 3.2 that those identified settlements should provide for the Planning 1124 everyday needs of local communities in order to comply with Policy DS4 of the Joint Structure Plan. 1454 Once again it should be noted that the JSP is subject to replacement following the adoption of the Yorkshire and Humber Plan which is currently being considered by the Panel following the Examination of the document in September and October of 2006. It is somewhat short sighted therefore to seek to be rigidly compliant with a policy in a document which is of such a limited life expectancy.

Paragraph 3.6 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Government Office for Observations Settlements of less than 500 population not selected for study group (except for the 10 used to test the Yorkshire and the 1026 assumption) as it would be difficult for these to meet JSP criteria. Can you be more explicit about the Humber basis for this and assumptions behind it? 694 Development Land & Observations Paragraph 3.6 of the document identifies those settlements with a population over 500 which then Planning 1125 could the potential to meet the criteria sought under the terms of paragraph 5.25 of the document 1454 which sets out the services and facilities requirements to support new development. It is worth noting that Newbald and Nafferton all fall within this category of 500 plus population.

Paragraph 3.7 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Development Land & Object The reference in paragraph 3.7 of the document to the additional 10 settlements of between 300 – 500 Planning 1126 does not justify the inclusion of these additional 10 sites or set out why these locations may have other 1454 sustainability criteria ahead of those villages which have been discounted on the grounds of their lower population.

Paragraph 3.8 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Government Office for Observations Selection criteria – the document says Issues & Options responses helped develop them and they are Yorkshire and the 1027 using a range of criteria and indicators (paragraph 3.8) – need more clarity about how these have been Humber derived? 694

Paragraph 3.9 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mrs Susan Lang (East Observations The weighting and rationale of these criteria is not clearly set against the objectives. Eg if most car Riding of Yorkshire 319 journeys are generated by people travelling to work, then proximity to existing employment should rank Council) higher than existing services and transport. This would then provide a different perspective for places 1424 that provide centres of employment now, eg Full Sutton, but are not currently well served by public transport, and therefore rank poorly in the tables. Without this 'reverse engineering' approach to employment, we cannot see how reliance on private car transport can be reduced without running the risk of limiting the viability of businesses and threatening the survival of jobs in these areas. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Michael & Wendy O'Pray Object Access to major road e.g. motorway. 1105 552 Driving HGV through e.g. Gilberdyke! Mr D Miller (Bovis Object Settlement population size should be added in to denote popularity and public success as place where Homes Ltd) 561 people wish to live and potential catchment to support services and build communities. 611 Mrs Plumb (Twin Rivers Object Main drainage was left out and is an important amenity for any village. There is an environmental issue Parish Council) 589 with this criteria as detailed in 4.6. 1444 Mr J E Milner Object Demographics- housing for all age ranges. 1199 628 Cllr Symon Fraser (East Object The ability of local communities to provide answers to a shortfall in some of these criteria needs to be Riding of Yorkshire 655 factored into the “Indicators”. i.e. the capacity and willingness of a community to be actively involved in Council) tackling the sustainability challenges need to be shown as a gain in terms of sustainability. For instance 1421 could the community provide for innovative community based transport provision or a community provided village post office or shop. Miss K. E. Laister Object Market Villages will by definition need to be accessible from the surrounding area i.e. the 'rural' villages (Ferriby Conservation 699 nearby. (we note the later comment on the unlikely uses of an increase in transport services). Society) 1019 Garton-on-the-Wolds Object The comment made by the Conservative group is most apt. Parish Council 766 1457 Skidby Parish Council Support The Council has considered the documents and commends the manner and detail in which the 37 428 787 villages have been identified as Market Villages. Natural England Support Natural England is supportive of the approach/methodology to identify the Market Villages and agree 1459 791 with the proposal for the hierarchy of the settlements identified. Natural England Support Natural England is supportive of the approach/methodology to identify the Market Villages and agree 1459 793 with the proposal for the hierarchy of the settlements identified. N Mainwaring (Smitths Support with Yes, but a lack of compliance on one/two criterion should not preclude development in certain villages Name/ID Type/ID Representation Gore) conditions such as Shiptonthorpe which have a range of services and good transport and accessibility which could 1461 806 support limited development. N Mainwaring (Smitths Support with Yes, but a lack of compliance on one/two criterion should not preclude development in certain villages Gore) conditions such as Shiptonthorpe which have a range of services and good transport and accessibility which could 1461 807 support limited development. Mr & Mrs Glew Object Desirability of settlement as a place one would choose to live. 1333 813 JD Atkinson (JG Object Desirability of settlement as a place to live. Hatcliffe & Partners) 815 1462 Mr D. J. Lord Object There should be different weighting applied to each criteria if this system is to be used ie services and (Bugthorpe and Kirby 836 employment should be a higher weighting than transport and relationship. Underdale Parish Council) Mr D J Lord Object There should be different weighting applied to each criteria if this system is to be used i.e. services and 1194 852 employment should be a higher weighting than transport and relationship. Mrs M. Chapman Object Areas failing the sustainability criteria should be allowed time to address the short falls. (Patrington Parish 882 Council) 880 Mr Roger Jones (Humber Object Assess lack of facilities in clusters of villages and encourage additional services into selected central & Wolds Rural 903 village. Community Council) 318 English Heritage Observations We generally endorse the approach and the choice of selection criteria which the Council has used to Yorkshire Region 949 select the final group of settlements. 515 However, under the provisions of Structure Plan Policy DS4, one of the key criteria for identifying Market Villages is whether or not there are any environmental constraints. Whilst it is appreciated that the Market Villages are only likely to accommodate limited amount of development which will primarily Name/ID Type/ID Representation meet the everyday needs of the local community, nevertheless, one might have expected, as part of this initial work, a greater assessment of what environmental constraints there might be to further growth within each of the settlements - even if this analysis is only at a very broad level. Compared to the other Criteria detailed in Paragraph 5.25 of the Joint Structure Plan, the assessment of the environmental constraints is extremely limited. The ability of the settlements to accommodate further development is an important consideration which does not appear to have been factored into the assessment of their suitability as Market Villages. In terms of the historic assets of the area, fourteen of the 28 settlements which have been selected have Conservation Areas - some of whose boundaries encompass large parts of the area included within the current Development Limits; Stamford Bridge has a Registered Battlefield along its entire south-eastern edge; Middleton-on-the-Wolds has a Scheduled Monument abutting its north-eastern edge; Nafferton has a Scheduled Monument at its southern end; Skipsea has a Scheduled Monument at its southern end and another (Skipsea Castle) to its west; 13 of the villages have a Grade I Listed Building and 10 have Grade II* Listed Building. Although it might well be the case that these assets would not necessarily prevent these settlements being identified as Market Villages, by identifying them at this stage in the process one would have been able to gain at least a broad assessment of their likely sensitivity to further development. Stephanie Marriott Object I would add "Environmental constraints which may adversely affect development possibilities". ( and District 952 Assessing possible brownfield sites would be useful but may be problematic. Chamber of Trade) 1464 Mr John Mackenzie Support Yes. However, as stated within the wider representations, the Crown Estate has concerns over how (Crown Estate) 967 these have been applied in selecting settlements. 1467 Dunlop Haywards Observations Yes, however, as stated within the accompanying representations, Persimmon Homes has concerns over (Persimmon Homes East 990 how these have been applied in selecting settlements. Yorkshire) 1468 Albanwise Ltd Support We suggest that the provision of affordable housing might usefully be added as a ‘social’ criterion. Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1470 1012 Clearly if two settlements perform similarly in terms of accessibility and service provision, the lack of affordable housing in one settlement should further inform where future development is focused. Inclusion will also provide an important link to the emerging Housing DPD. Government Office for Observations The selection criteria set out in paragraph 3.9 are essentially the first four criteria set out in JSP Yorkshire and the 1028 paragraph 5.25; the fifth of these – no environmental constraints - is covered in section 4 of the Humber consultation document. There seems to be no explicit account taken of the potential to accommodate 694 growth particularly through the use of PDL and conversions (though I acknowledge the latter is covered at paragraph 5.11 and in a proposed general policy), ie the sixth criteria of JSP 5.25. Is this something which should be addressed, whether the issue itself or the justification/reasoning for the lack of explicit consideration, as appropriate? Mrs E J Sherwood Object The selection criteria used are reasonable, but they need further investigation to see if all the settlements 594 1089 criteria and indicators are working well in the designated settlements chosen, with no present day problems attached. It is no good choosing settlements with badly functioning criteria, because any further additions to these settlements will just produce further costly problems. Further in-depth community cross referencing must occur to iron out any current criteria based problems that exist within these chosen Market Villages. R J Kingdom (South Object Broad thrust of Criteria is acceptable however there should be a weighting to the criteria. For example, Cave Active Residents) 1099 relationship to larger settlements especially within context of a hub and spoke approach is probably 1000 more important and para 3.17 accepts the services are being overestimated and should therefore not carry the same weight as the other criteria. The transport criteria doesn’t address the village acting as a Market village (i.e. being travelled too rather than travelling from (after all this is for limited development only) The population of the catchment area that could be served around each potential market town is totally ignored and the saving on distance travelled by each small settlement when compared to that If the proposed market village wasn’t adopted would be a better measure. Andy Watts (Walker Object The survey work carried out to define MVs and categorise them into three Priorities is unsound and the Morris) 1154 methodology has distorted the results, albeit the supporting text (para 3.17) acknowledges the potential 1427 for inaccuracies and the need for updating. Jean Kitchen Object Asking residents what they want (to some extent). Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1475 1180 Mr J Tait (Planning Support The selection criteria are supported however there are limitations to their extent which causes Prospectus) 1193 fundamental problems with the ranking. For example the services assessment only has a maximum 1476 score of 12 meaning that many villages are scored equally which substantially affects their overall scoring. Equally there appears to be no weighting attached to each of the selection criteria, and it may well be that the availability of services should be weighted more heavily than say transport links or employment for example. Michael Glover LLP H Object Generally agree but insufficient weight given to the creative industries and professional employment Lount & Sons 1317 which can be achieved in the stimulating environment of a rural area, brought about by the roll out of 1487 Broadband technologies. Sue Walters Thompson Object No. We have a number of concerns with the indicators that have been developed. Particular concerns (Carter Jonas LLP) 1617 relate to the detailed application and the appropriateness of the indicators bearing in mind the 1509 characteristics of East Riding and local circumstances. These issues are discussed further in later responses. Paul Robinson Object This is far too simplistic, and a one size fits all formula does not give enough information. Again, the (Gilberdyke Parish 1641 communities and Parish Councils must have an input into this. Council) 1510 Mrs S. Wainwright Object The ability of local communities to provide answers to a shortfall of some of these criteria needs to be (Burton Fleming Parish 1664 factored into the ‘indicators’ i.e. the capacity and willingness of a community to be actively involved in Council) tackling the sustainability challenges need to be shown as a gain in terms of sustainability. For instance 589 could the community provide for innovative community based transport provision or a community provided village post office or shop. Mr David Horsley Observations The problem is not the criteria as such, but that the criteria and the proposals have a circular (Beverley Town Council) 1738 relationship. (“Chicken and Egg”) if you lack facilities you will be prevented from getting the sort of 1499 developments which might bring those facilities. This is perhaps most crucial in relationship to good public transport. A Brown (Melrose Plc Object The criteria should also include a prioritisation for the reuse of previously developed land in accord with Colliers Cre) 1885 national and regional policy guidance. Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1524 John Potts (John Potts Object The criteria are incomplete and the ranking system used seems arbitrary. The ‘market villages’ approach Limited) 2016 is driving the methodology when the function of each settlement is more consistent with the 1530 governments approach in for example sequential testing of sites for new housing.

Paragraph 3.16 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Government Office for Observations Community Services and Facilities – it is explained how the data has been gathered (paragraph 3.16) but Yorkshire and the 1029 not how indicators were derived? Humber 694

Table 3.3 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Lockington Parish Object Lockington does not have a general/village store or a public house. This would move the settlement Council 153 down on the tables. 293 M E Farrar Object In table 3.3, Swinfleet scores a total of 10 and should be placed joint 8th. The table puts Swinfleet out 1417 154 of place at 49th. This is obviously a mistake. Brigadier AJ Simmons Object I recognise the difficulty of defining common standards against which to evaluate village facilities, but it 1447 598 is a simple matter of fact that North Froddingham does not have both a village store and a Post Office. We have a petrol/filling station/'country hardware' store where you can buy a lawnmower, a pair of wellies and a multiplicity of tools and agricultural necessities, and we have a carpet shop (open on Saturday mornings) but we have not had a village store since a 'Spar' shop closed some (15?) years ago. The sub-post office sells a small range of groceries, but no fresh food. Cllr Symon Fraser Object Table 3.3 Fails to acknowledge the scale and type of development, which local people would want for (Conservative Group) 657 their settlement. 1421 N Mainwaring (Smiths Object Shiptonthorpe has a 'Spar' local store which provides a range of convenience goods. This is not Gore) 809 indicated on Table 3.3. 1461 Woodmansey Parish Object Can I also point out that in the scoring process, Woodmansey is shown in table 3.3 as not having a Council 1399 village hall. This is not the case- we hold our meetings there - although correcting this item does not 564 make a significant change to the overall result. Burton Fleming Parish Object Table 3.3 fails to acknowledge the scale and type of development, which local people would want in Council 1666 their settlement. 859

Paragraph 3.23 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mr Raymond Barnes Object No evidence to support statements in paragraph 3.23 1473 1175

Paragraph 3.29 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mr James Durham (Hull Observations In paragraph 3.29, the emerging RSS table the paragraph refers to should be Table 16.9, not Table 6.19. City Council) 1257 1482

Table 3.4 Transport services and accessibility ranking Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mrs M. Barker (Swanland Object Swanland has a direct bus service only to Hull via Anlaby and to Brough. The first bus is at 7.37am, the Parish Council) 1602 second at 8.08am and thereafter at approximately hourly intervals until 4.47pm. The next bus is at 426 6.24pm and the last bus at 7.00pm. We do not consider this to be a frequent service. Mrs M. Barker (Swanland Object There is a bus from Swanland to Brough at 5.35pm and 11.32pm with return journeys early in the Parish Council) 1603 morning. This clearly can be discounted for the purpose of access to employment. The bus journey time 426 from Swanland to Hull is generally 33 minutes but the 8.05 bus takes 38 minutes. Using table 16.9 of the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy, a maximum journey time of 40 minutes is allowed to the place of employment. It follows therefore, that the users of the 7.37am and 8.08am buses to Hull, have, if the buses are on time, 7 minutes and 2 minutes respectively, to get to their place of employment by 9.0am. Employment in Hull which can be accessed in an overall journey time by public transport is clearly limited to a small area adjacent to the bus station and to the bus route. Employment elsewhere cannot be accessed by public transport in an overall journey time of 40 minutes. Mrs M. Barker (Swanland Object Leisure activities are not to be found in the centre of Hull, and within a short walking distance of the Parish Council) 1604 bus station and within an overall journey time of 40 minutes. Neither is the bus service conducive to 426 reasonable access. In an evening there are two buses from Swanland to Hull at 6.24pm and 7.00pm. After 5.45pm there is only one bus from Hull to Swanland at 10.55pm. It is true that there are department stores in Hull that can be accessed within an overall journey time of 40 minutes but comparison shopping in Marks & Spencer is not accessible within that time. What perhaps is more important is that food shopping in the supermarkets cannot be accessed by bus in any satisfactory time or way. Furthermore, the whole ethos of food shopping is centred on the use of the motor car which is essential for the sustainability of life in Swanland. We consider these matters to be of great importance and request that the table 3.4 be amended to reflect the facts as they are. We would be more than happy to discuss this matter.

Melbourne Parish Object Better rating system I.e. maybe so many points out of 5. Council 2009 1528

Paragraph 3.35 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Ms L Strogen (Barton Object We disagree with the statement found at paragraph 3.35 that Willmore Partnership 1050 “..settlements at greater distances from an identified Development Strategy Settlements (or equivalent) (Richmond Properties would be better suited as Market Villages.” Ltd)) This appears to counter the criteria established in paragraph 5.25 of the JSP. By doing so, the Council 1471 are not conforming to the aim established for the Small Settlement DPD. Mr John Potts (John Object Para 3.35 is a self fulfilling prophecy to skew results based on a ‘market villages’ approach without Potts Limited) 2019 another approach along side it to acknowledge the proximity of Woodmansey to Hull as you do in paras 1530 3.33 and 3.34.

Table 3.5 – Relationship to Larger Settlement Ranking Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mr James Durham (Hull Observations Paragraph 3.36 does not give reasons why settlements having higher percentages of self-containment in City Council) 1256 employment terms are preferable as paragraph 3.42 suggests. 1482

Overall Assessment Name/ID Type/ID Representation Andy Watts (Walker Object A further concern with the survey work carried out is the equal weight given to individual services and Morris) 1157 facilities. Bubwith in the Northern Sub-Area is ranked above Hutton Cranswick principally due to it's 1427 remote distance from a Nearest JSP Settlement. To score a MV favourably on the basis of its remoteness providing a level of rural services to surrounding areas, appears to be at odds with sustainability objectives where in this instance Bubwith is acknowledged to have very poor Transport Services and Accessibility with local residents having to be reliant on car ownership/usage. Andy Watts (Walker Object To score well (the lower the number the better) for being remote from a 'Nearest JSP Settlement' and Morris) 1158 then to achieve a poor score (a higher number) for lack of Transport Services and Accessibility is a 1427 contradiction to EROY Council's approach to sustainable development. Where para 4.77 considers Option 3 to be a balanced approach that will – "Direct development away from settlements that have poor means of travel other than the private car with little prospect of developing such alternative means."

Table 3.7 – Overall Assessment Name/ID Type/ID Representation Andy Watts (Walker Object It is considered that Hutton Cranswick should be 'ranked' higher than 8th in the overall order and in Morris) 1155 particular above Holme on Spalding Moor and Bubwith in the Northern Sub-Area. 1427

Chapter 4 Comments

Chapter 4 Comments...... 1 4 Selection of Market Villages by Joint Structure Plan sub-area - Introduction...... 1 Paragraph 4.6...... 11 Paragraph 4.10 ...... 11 Summary of Market Villages...... 12 Figure 4.1...... 12 Paragraph 4.76 ...... 12

4 Selection of Market Villages by Joint Structure Plan sub-area - Introduction Name/ID Type/ID Representation Ms Nicola Salvidge Object More should be selected to allow a more honest picture to be given. (Seaton PC) 518 1413 Mr D Miller (Bovis Object No- A larger number would still support and promote the aim of choosing sustainable locations for Homes Ltd) 565 future development. 611 Mr J E Milner Object Larger to provide more flexibility. 1199 633 Cllr Symon Fraser Object We have concerns here not for the settlements which are designated to accept development but for (Conservative Group) 660 those which face a future with no further development. How will the maintenance, upgrading and 1421 reinvestment in service infrastructure by outside agencies and providers, like Waste Water Treatment, be justified in settlements where the service authorities or providers know there will be no growth? Also the tables fail to give any scoring to reflect local wishes. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Ms J. Crowther Object The way you have assessed the settlement is flawed which raises questions about others. (Easington Parish 2051 Council) 596 Mr Paul Jackson Object Don't agree with the principle of selections. What long term effects will those areas not able to develop (Carnaby Parish Council) 671 suffer from? 1451 Mrs K. Soltys Observations Is there any evidence that some 'weighting' should be applied to each of the criteria rather than the (Mappleton Parish 732 simplistic approach of summing orders? Council) 350 Mr David Watts (W. Object Carnaby should be included, it would give people a chance to live nearer to where they work on the Clifford Watts Ltd) 737 industrial estate, also we have great transport links. 1455 Mr Paul Jackson Object Larger number- so some settlements that would merit building on their own rights, i.e. large 1456 749 employment, e.g. Carnaby. Mr R. L. Mole (Foston Support with Support in principle, but: what status are those areas not selected? Non-growth, non-sustainable - Parish Council) conditions locked in a time warp? 329 782 Miss M. Hudson Support with Yes, but by agreeing we are not saying we want any large scale development. (Wetwang Parish conditions Council) 802 230 Mr D. J. Lord (Bugthorpe Object We are very concerned about the settlements that are not selected but are currently vibrant settlements and Kirby Underdale 841 in their own right. They will stagnate if not allowed to grow in a controlled and sensitive way. Vital Parish Council) services will be lost and some villagers will be forced to move elsewhere. 603 Mr D J Lord Object We are very concerned about the settlements that are not selected but are currently vibrant settlements 1194 856 in their own right. They will stagnate if not allowed to grow in a controlled and sensitive way. Vital Name/ID Type/ID Representation services will be lost and some villagers will be forced to move elsewhere. S Hirst (Alliance General Object They appear to be based on Parish. This excludes Dunswell. Property Development 894 Ltd) 1465 Mr Roger Jones (Humber Object 4.3.2 is typical of East Riding villages. & Wolds Rural 908 4.3.3 rural bus services can adapt to need. Community Council) 4.3.5 conversely, if smallest settlements are deprived of any development they will be condemned to 318 unsustainable decline. Mr John Mackenzie Support Yes, in broad terms the selection of a limited number of settlements is agreed with. This statement is (Crown Estate) 972 made in the context of the wider representations made however. 1467 Mr J Mackenzie (Dunlop Support Yes, in broad terms the selection of a limited number of settlements is agreed with. This statement is Haywards (Persimmon 994 made in the context of the wider representations made however. Homes East Yorkshire)) 1468 Ms L Strogen (Barton Observations Having regard to paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 of the Smaller Settlements DPD, it is unclear from the text Willmore Partnership 1051 provided, how exactly the Council arrived at their conclusion to select 37 settlements as potential (Richmond Properties Market Villages from the list of 72 study settlements. Further explanation should be provided. Ltd)) We are surprised to see that Woodmansey has not been selected as a settlement for further examination. 1471 We do not concur with the Council’s assessment of the Relationship to Larger Settlements criterion. R J Kingdom (South Object There should be fewer preferred market villages for further examination as the criteria used are fairly Cave Active Residents) 1103 crude and because as para 4.3 recognises very few settlements have the capacity, most rely on the 1000 Development strategy settlements for everyday needs and many have poor , if any, public transport and little prospect of developing any. Market villages should only be declared where a strong argument can be put forward based on strategic and pragmatic reasons for them. This may be the case in the large isolated rural areas where the need for local housing, services and facilities may outweigh the otherwise unsustainable development, There is no rationale offered as to why the top 50% was chosen. It could just as easily been the top quartile. However as the actual selection is most critical whether or not a Name/ID Type/ID Representation settlement is examined further appears to have little impact on the outcome. Mr Greg Smith Object A larger number should be selected to enable demand to be met where it is created as set out in draft (Development Land & 1137 PPS3. Planning) 1454 Jean Kitchen Observations I am pleased Hook is not included and pleased Airmyn & Adlingfleet are. Swinefleet too or Reedness? 1475 1184 Mr J Tait (Planning Object What the analysis points to is that there are quite a number of settlements in the East Riding that have Prospects) 1198 some significant merit and are sustainable. The fact that there are a number of suitable market villages in 1476 certain parts of the district should not be a reason to limit the identification of more market villages. There is no harm to having more than less, if the assessment points to this. The number should be broadened. Ashleigh Swan (St Object No, Welton/Melton (which operates as a single settlement, sharing a secondary school for example) Modwen Properties Plc 1228 should be selected. (Indigo Planning)) 1477 GJ Perry (City Object Include Full Sutton which has more opportunities than most mainly due to employment areas. Developments) 1241 1479 David Jackson Object Seventy to eighty smaller villages with limited development in all rather than a lot of development in 1485 1273 fewer villages. Mr G E Wright Observations Accepting the approach at face value there appears to be limited justification for the number of 562 1300 settlements selected particularly in the areas of sparse populations. Examples are:- Roos and Partington are unnecessary. Easington might be subject to a special case for development linked to local employment. Are Skipsea and North Frodingham necessary if Beeford is selected? Nafferton is close to Driffield as is Leconfield to Beverley and Keyingham to Hedon, therefore are they necessary. Newport is superfluous if Gilberdyke is selected. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Holme on Spalding Moor and Melbourne are unnecessary if Bubwith is selected and also having regard to the proximity to and Holme on Spalding Moor. Stamford Bridge has a 10 minute bus service to York and therefore has the best public transport connection to a higher order settlement of any or all settlements in East Riding. This needs to be reflected in the level of development allocated to this location. The map on page 50 does not show Hutton Cranswick. Mrs Jean Mayland Support Yes, provided that resources required to sustain smaller settlements are not adversely affected. (Barmston & Fraisthorpe 1392 Parish Council) 484 Ridley & Roberts Object If all settlements had been included others might have been included in the selection. There is concern ( Town Council) 1428 that if you do not develop at all then a village will die. It is important that 'community' in a village is 1497 maintained. Mr David Winter (Roos Object A smaller number. Parish Council) 1443 Reasons 1498 Roos should be removed, reducing the number to 36. Paragraph 4.3 gives reasons applicable to Roos , e.g. employment, travel and the assessed score for leisure and amenities – as discussed in earlier responses. R Swailes (Pegasus Observations As commented previously in this response, it is considered that the general rationale behind the Planning Group) 1452 selection of the ‘Market Villages’ is appropriate. In this instance it is considered that the inclusion of 1500 Kilham is fully supported given its particular sustainable development attributes and that development within the settlement can be provided without significant environmental constraint. However, the document does not reflect the requirements and impacts of the emerging RSS, primarily the need to account for a coherent direction for growth and subsequent allocation of land up to and beyond 2021. Nor does the document fully identify the role of each settlement in accommodating a quantum of residential development within this timeframe. On this basis it is considered that the drafting of a hierarchy of ‘Market Villages’ is not wholly supported with the alternative being a preference toward a single list of the selected settlements. This would ensure that the allocation of housing targets between each settlement is fully coordinated in a manner of optimum benefit to each and would be relevant to Name/ID Type/ID Representation the emerging RSS and PPS3 documents. This would undoubtedly create a progressive structure up to 2021 for the direction of growth and clearly affords the Local Planning Authority the opportunity to correctly plan for the provision of supporting infrastructure and importantly levels of affordable housing that may not otherwise be achieved on a piecemeal basis. Mr C Hill Observations As commented previously in this response, it is considered that the general rationale behind the 1391 1475 selection of the ‘Market Villages’ is appropriate. In this instance it is considered that the inclusion of Nafferton is fully supported given its particular sustainable development attributes and that development within the settlement can be provided without significant environmental constraint. However, the document does not reflect the requirements and impacts of the emerging RSS, primarily the need to account for a coherent direction for growth and subsequent allocation of land up to and beyond 2021. Nor does the document fully identify the role of each settlement in accommodating a quantum of residential development within this timeframe. On this basis it is considered that the drafting of a hierarchy of ‘Market Villages’ is not wholly supported with the alternative being a preference toward a single list of the selected settlements. This would ensure that the allocation of housing targets between each settlement is fully coordinated in a manner of optimum benefit to each and would be relevant to the emerging RSS and PPS3 documents. This would undoubtedly create a progressive structure up to 2021 for the direction of growth and clearly affords the Local Planning Authority the opportunity to correctly plan for the provision of supporting infrastructure and importantly levels of affordable housing that may not otherwise be achieved on a piecemeal basis. Mr & Mrs JH Foreman Observations As commented previously in this response, it is considered that the general rationale behind the 1503 1489 selection of the ‘Market Villages’ is appropriate. In this instance it is considered that the inclusion of Hutton Cranswick is fully supported given its particular sustainable development attributes and that development within the settlement can be provided without significant environmental constraint. However, the document does not reflect the requirements and impacts of the emerging RSS, primarily the need to account for a coherent direction for growth and subsequent allocation of land up to and beyond 2021. Nor does the document fully identify the role of each settlement in accommodating a quantum of residential development within this timeframe. On this basis it is considered that the drafting of a hierarchy of ‘Market Villages’ is not wholly supported with the alternative being a preference toward a single list of the selected settlements. This would ensure that the allocation of Name/ID Type/ID Representation housing targets between each settlement is fully coordinated in a manner of optimum benefit to each and would be relevant to the emerging RSS and PPS3 documents. This would undoubtedly create a progressive structure up to 2021 for the direction of growth and clearly affords the Local Planning Authority the opportunity to correctly plan for the provision of supporting infrastructure and importantly levels of affordable housing that may not otherwise be achieved on a piecemeal basis. J Boat Object As commented previously in this response, it is considered that the general rationale behind the 1504 1509 selection of the ‘Market Villages’ is appropriate. In this instance it is considered that the inclusion of Beeford is fully supported given its particular sustainable development attributes and that development within the settlement can be provided without significant environmental constraint. However, the document does not reflect the requirements and impacts of the emerging RSS, primarily the need to account for a coherent direction for growth and subsequent allocation of land up to and beyond 2021. Nor does the document fully identify the role of each settlement in accommodating a quantum of residential development within this timeframe. On this basis it is considered that the drafting of a hierarchy of ‘Market Villages’ is not wholly supported with the alternative being a preference toward a single list of the selected settlements. This would ensure that the allocation of housing targets between each settlement is fully coordinated in a manner of optimum benefit to each and would be relevant to the emerging RSS and PPS3 documents. This would undoubtedly create a progressive structure up to 2021 for the direction of growth and clearly affords the Local Planning Authority the opportunity to correctly plan for the provision of supporting infrastructure and importantly levels of affordable housing that may not otherwise be achieved on a piecemeal basis. MB Goodwin (MB Observations As commented previously in this response, it is considered that the general rationale behind the Goodwin (Skipsea) Ltd.) 1521 selection of the ‘Market Villages’ is appropriate. In this instance it is considered that the inclusion of 1505 Skipsea is fully supported given its particular sustainable development attributes and that development within the settlement can be provided without significant environmental constraint. However, the document does not reflect the requirements and impacts of the emerging RSS, primarily the need to account for a coherent direction for growth and subsequent allocation of land up to and beyond 2021. Nor does the document fully identify the role of each settlement in accommodating a quantum of residential development within this timeframe. On this basis it is considered that the drafting of a hierarchy of ‘Market Villages’ is not wholly supported with the alternative being a preference toward a Name/ID Type/ID Representation single list of the selected settlements. This would ensure that the allocation of housing targets between each settlement is fully coordinated in a manner of optimum benefit to each and would be relevant to the emerging RSS and PPS3 documents. This would undoubtedly create a progressive structure up to 2021 for the direction of growth and clearly affords the Local Planning Authority the opportunity to correctly plan for the provision of supporting infrastructure and importantly levels of affordable housing that may not otherwise be achieved on a piecemeal basis. D Watts (WC Watts Observations As commented previously in this response, it is considered that the general rationale behind the Estate (Pegasus Planning 1537 selection of the ‘Market Villages’ is appropriate. In this instance it is considered that the inclusion of Group)) South Cave, Leven and North Frodingham is fully supported given their particular sustainable 1506 development attributes, relationship to larger settlments and that development within the settlement can be provided without significant environmental constraint. However, the document does not reflect the requirements and impacts of the emerging RSS, primarily the need to account for a coherent direction for growth and subsequent allocation of land up to and beyond 2021. Nor does the document fully identify the role of each settlement in accommodating a quantum of residential development within this timeframe. On this basis it is considered that the drafting of a hierarchy of ‘Market Villages’ is not wholly supported with the alternative being a preference toward a single list of the selected settlements. This would ensure that the allocation of housing targets between each settlement is fully coordinated in a manner of optimum benefit to each and would be relevant to the emerging RSS and PPS3 documents. This would undoubtedly create a progressive structure up to 2021 for the direction of growth and clearly affords the Local Planning Authority the opportunity to correctly plan for the provision of supporting infrastructure and importantly levels of affordable housing that may not otherwise be achieved on a piecemeal basis. Bryan Brown (Bryan Observations As commented previously in this response, it is considered that the general rationale behind the Brown & Son) 1559 selection of the ‘Market Villages’ is appropriate. In this instance it is considered that the exclusion of 1507 Flamborough is not justified given its particular sustainable development attributes and that development within the settlement can be provided without significant environmental constraint. Given that the document does not reflect the requirements and impacts of the emerging RSS, primarily the need to account for a coherent direction for growth and subsequent allocation of land up to and beyond 2021 the value of permitting additional development within Flamborough should be reconsidered over Name/ID Type/ID Representation this extended period of time. On the basis that the document does not fully identify the role of each of the selected settlements in accommodating a quantum of residential development within this timeframe, it difficult to determine why Flamborough has been excluded in this instance as it performs such a pivotal role to the area North of Bridlington. On this basis it is considered that the drafting of a hierarchy of ‘Market Villages’ is not wholly supported with the alternative being a preference toward a single list of the selected settlements, which should include Flamborough. A single list of the most sustainable settlements within the four Sub Areas would ensure that the allocation of housing targets between each settlement is fully coordinated in a manner of optimum benefit to each and would be relevant to the emerging RSS and PPS3 documents. This would undoubtedly create a progressive structure up to 2021 for the direction of growth and clearly affords the Local Planning Authority the opportunity to correctly plan for the provision of supporting infrastructure and importantly levels of affordable housing that may not otherwise be achieved on a piecemeal basis. To omit Flamborough from the selected list would be contrary to the provisions of the above and the requirement to focus development within and adjoining the settlement itself. Sue Walters Thompson Support with We agree with the principle of selecting a smaller number of settlements for further examination rather (Carter Jonas LLP) conditions than selecting all 50. We also support the inclusion of both North Cave and South Cave. However, we 1509 1623 are concerned that within the document there is insufficient reasoning and justification for the number of settlements and the selection process that resulted in 37 settlements being chosen for further examination. Our concerns are further tempered by the fact that we consider a number of the criteria for assessing settlements to be flawed and that they require reconsideration. The Council may find on reflection that the list of settlements is inappropriate in light of responses to the current consultation. We therefore are of the opinion that it is premature to take any view of the number of settlements that should be included. Moreover we recommend that this number is reviewed once settlements have been reassessed against more robust criteria. Paul Robinson Object One needs to also consider those small communities in which limited development will ensure their (Gilberdyke Parish 1646 long-term sustainability. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Council) This is completely ignoring many settlements that are determined to be to small, for even small-scale 1510 development all communities and settlements must be included. Grouping smaller settlements together to form a larger grouping, or linking with those identified may well be a way forward. The ERYC cannot ignore those many people who chose to live in small hamlets. Again local people must have their say and Parish Councils must be part of the decision making process Mrs S. Wainwright Object We have concerns here not for the settlements which are designated to accept development but for (Burton Fleming Parish 1670 those which face a future with no further development. How will the maintenance, upgrading and Council) reinvestment in service infrastructure by outside agencies and providers, like waste water treatment, be 859 justified in settlements where the service authorities or providers know there will be no growth? Also the tables fail to give any scoring to reflect local wishes. Peter Robinson Object No. The 37 settlements include 4 of the test settlements – if these were originally picked as ‘no hopers’ 994 1730 and they still got through to this stage then either the selection process is flawed or these settlements and any below them on the list should be deleted. Mr David Horsley Observations The problem is not the criteria as such, but that the criteria and the proposals have a circular (Beverley Town Council) 1743 relationship. (“chicken and Egg”) if you lack facilities you will be prevented from getting the sort of 1499 developments which might bring those facilities. This is perhaps most crucial in relationship to good public transport. Mrs M. Barker (North Object Should be some flexibility to take into account the wishes of the community. Ferriby Parish Council) 1787 427 Julie Abraham Object Needs to have more flexibility to take account of the wishes of communities to add to or delete from 1523 1869 the list. A Brown Object A smaller number of settlements should be progressed for further examination. This reflects the (Melrose Plc (Colliers 1890 objectives of permitting only limited development outside Development Strategy Settlements. Cre)) 1524 Christine Gatenby Object Have the settlements which have not been selected been condemned to have no further development at (Rudston Parish Council) 1989 all? Will this mean that investment is curtailed? 1526 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mr John Potts Object The ranking system uses just multiplies previous inconsistencies in the methodology and then applying a (John Potts Limited) 2021 cut off denies those settlements the opportunity for growth. 1530

Paragraph 4.6 Name/ID Type/ID Representation RSPB Northern England Support with We support the inclusion of the issues in 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8, and support the decision to carry out a Region conditions Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. However, we believe that the sustainability of the DPD would have 970 1060 been strengthened if these issues were formally evaluated as part of the Study Group settlement analysis. We note in 4.6 that ‘It is important that there are no significant environmental constraints that would prevent any site-specific allocations’ and in 4.8. that ‘Consideration will be given to a settlement’s proximity to any designated site of environmental importance.’ Given that settlements in close proximity to sites designated for the international importance of their birds and/or habitats have nevertheless been selected as Market Villages, the DPD should clarify the process that took these ‘other considerations’ into account when appraising the 37 selected settlements, and explain the outcome of this process in more detail in the relevant sections.

Paragraph 4.10 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mr John Potts (John Object Woodmansey is a village suitable for further development in para 4.10. Potts Limited) 2022 1530

Summary of Market Villages Name/ID Type/ID Representation Government Office for Observations Diagrams- It might be useful to illustrate all of the East Riding area – ie all four sub-areas together – Yorkshire and the 1031 with the DS settlements and 37 potential market villages in diagrammatic form (ie similar to the Humber individual sub-area diagrams). 694

Figure 4.1 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Geoffrey Prince Object In my opinion there is no need to make a distinction between Priority 1, 2 and 3 settlements/market Associates Ltd 606 villages. There is very little to differentiate most of the selected market villages - they are simialr in size 1449 and have a similar range of services. The policies should allow for flexibility in the relative rates of development in each centre and allow for some competition. There is no need to 'stigmatise' the villages by placing them in different categories. Pegasus Planning Group Support I just wish to clarify that my clients and I support the overall selection and total number of the 1501 1469 settlements (with the exception of the inclusion of Flamborough). I do not wish my response to be interpreted as one that would support a reduced number of settlements, moreover I suggest a case of retaining the complete list as it currently stands (with the inclusion of Flamborough), but without any particular hierarchy as currently shown. My reasoning behind this is explained with the letters themselves.

Paragraph 4.76 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Ms Nicola Salvidge Object Identify more than 28 Priority 1, 2 and 3 Market villages. Identify a different combination of market (Seaton Parish Council) 534 villages to give a fairer interpretation of our area. 1413 Mr D Miller (Bovis Support with Agree with alternative approach- to identify more than 28 priority 1, 2 and 3 Market Villages. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Homes Ltd) conditions Reason- There are more than 28 smaller settlements that can support the aim to achieve a sustainable 611 568 pattern of development. Michael & Wendy O'Pray Object Identify a different combination of market villages. 1105 576 Reason - Gilberdyke and Newport (re-worded?) North Cave and South Cave into west sub area Mrs C. Hird (Snaith and Object We do not agree with the principle of market villages. Cowick Parish Council) 620 248 Mr J E Milner Object 'Yes' identify less than the 13 Priority 1 Market Villages 1199 638 'Yes' identify more than 28 Priority 1, 2 and 3 Market Villages 'Yes' identify a different combination of Market Villages Reason - population over 2500 becomes a town not a village. Mr Paul Jackson Object Encourage development on individual merit. (Carnaby Parish Council) 673 1451 Mr John Deakin Object Identify less than the 13 Priority 1, 2 and 3 Market Villages. (Stamford Homes Ltd) 680 There are too many Market Villages and certainly too many Priority 1 Market Villages. This number will 478 jeopardise efforts to regenerate Principal Towns and will just continue the process of dispersed and unsustainable pattern of development in the East Riding. Miss K. E. Laister Object Identify a different combination of Market Villages. (Ferriby Conservation 704 In the central sub-area, there seems to be less need for Market Villages. North Cave and North Ferriby Society) could be deleted. 1019 Mr Paul Jackson Object Identify a different combination of Market Villages. 1456 753 Want Carnaby on the list. N Mainwaring (Smiths Object Identify more than 28 Priority 1,2 and 3 Market Villages. Gore) 811 A lack of compliance on one/two criterion should not preclude development in certain villages such as 1461 Shiptonthorpe, which have a range of services and good transport and accessibility which could support limited development. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mr D. J. Lord (Bugthorpe Object There is scope for a wider spread of development across all settlements. What will happen to redundant and Kirby Underdale 844 farmsteads for example in rural villages? Will they be left to deteriorate and become dangerous eyesores Parish Council) and havens for vermin and vandals? They could be converted to provide housing to benefit the local 603 economy and community (this is partially recognised in 5.11 Page 55). Mr D J Lord Object There is scope for a wider spread of development across all settlements. What will happen to redundant 1194 859 farmsteads for example in rural villages? Will they be left to deteriorate and become dangerous eyesores and havens for vermin and vandals? They could be converted to provide housing to benefit the local economy and community (this is partially recognised in 5.11 Page 55). Ms Sarah Watson Object Identify more than 28 Priority 1,2 and 3 Market Villages. (Sigglesthorne Parish 863 Support all the above dwellings. Council) 1443 Ms H. Harvatt (Hollym Object Identify a different combination of Market Villages. Parish Council) 870 S Hirst (Alliance General Object Identify a different combination of Market Villages. Property Development 897 Consider proximity to major settlements e.g. Dunswell. Ltd) 1465 Mr Roger Jones (Humber Object Identify a different combination of Market Villages. Should be less MV. & Wolds Rural 922 4.76. Option 5 different combination. Community Council) 4.77.5. Disagree with this point. 318 14 MV required, more evenly distributed, avoiding duplication within 2-5 miles. +1 other needed west of Bridlington? Kilham is too close to Driffield. Stephanie Marriott Object Identify a different combination of Market Villages. (Hornsea and District 957 Reasons for including some settlements are wrong, e.g environmental considerations should preclude Chamber of Trade) the inclusion of Bubwith and Stamford Bridge, delete South Cave (close to North Cave), priority should 318 be given to inland settlements. Mr John Mackenzie Object Identify more than 28 Priority 1,2 and 3 Market Villages. (Crown Estate) 976 The Crown Estate does not agree with the list of Market Villages identified and supports an alternative Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1467 approach whereby a limited number of additional settlements are identified. In particular, consideration should be given to identifying Sutton upon Derwent. Mr J Mackenzie (Dunlop Object Identify more than 28 Priority 1, 2 and 3 Market Villages Haywards (Persimmon 998 Persimmon Homes does not agree with the list of Market Villages identified and supports an alternative Homes East Yorkshire)) approach whereby additional settlements are identified. In particular, and as stated elsewhere, the 1468 approach to omit potential Market Villages that lie in close proximity to Development Strategy Settlements is objected to. As such, additional settlements such as Flamborough and Walkington should be identified. Ms L Strogen (Barton Object As we do not concur with the Council’s assessment of the Relationship to Larger Settlements criterion Will more Partnership 1053 and question the exclusion of Woodmansey as a Market Village, we do not therefore agree with the (Richmond Properties Council’s Preferred Option in paragraph 4.75 to identify 28 Market Villages. Ltd)) The Council have ranked the settlements in to Priority 1, Priority 2 and Priority 3 Market Villages. It is 1471 unclear from the contents of the Smaller Settlement DPD, the purpose of and method behind this ranking. This explanation should be provided in advance of the sub area analysis. R J Kingdom (South Object Identify 13 Priority 1 Market Villages Cave Active Residents) 1106 There should be a minimum of preferred market villages because as para 4.3 recognises very few 1000 settlements have the capacity, most rely on the Development strategy settlements for everyday needs and many have poor , if any, public transport and little prospect of developing any. Market villages should only be declared where a strong argument can be put forward based on strategic and pragmatic reasons for them. This may be the case in the large isolated rural areas where the need for local housing, services and facilities may outweigh the otherwise unsustainable development, However within the central area there appears to be no rationale in identifying Market villages which are all within the easy commuting distance to the Sub regional urban area, Beverly as a DS2 settlement or a development strategy settlement. There is no rationale offered as to what constitutes first, second or third priority which appears to be made up after the discussions. At para 4.41 it is stated it is questionable for either South Cave (as with other settlements elsewhere) identified as a Market village immediately after stating it is identified as a market village. The case for Market villages in the Central zone has not been made with the proximity of the sub region urban area. The identification should at least be restricted to the priority one category if not fewer in order to support the JSP and emerging RSS HE1. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mr Greg Smith Object Identify more than 28 Priority 1,2 and 3 Market Villages. (Development Land & 1140 To allow development in those unnamed settlements and increase the number of identified settlements Planning) to include Newbald. 1454 Andy Watts (Walker Object A revised hierarchical version of Option 1 would be more appropriate, where only Priority 1 MVs are Morris) 1153 designated and ranked according to their suitability of achieving the objectives of the Core Strategy and 1427 soundness of the DPD. Andy Watts (Walker Object In para 4.67 the LPA suggest Hutton Cranswick should be identified as a Preferred Village Service Morris) 1160 Centre. No definition of this meaning is provided within the SSDPD. It is acknowledged that Hutton 1427 Cranswick is identified as a Priority 1 Preferred MV in Table 4.5. However, it is 'missing' from the Northern Sub-Area map that identifies DS2, DS3 and DS4 settlements. What is the reasoning for this when by the officer's own survey work Hutton Cranswick ranked 8th overall - district wide. Andy Watts (Walker Object It should be noted that this new term was not previously referred to in the Draft 'Preferred Options' Morris) 1161 SSDPD considered by EROY Council Cabinet on 18th July 2006. 1427 Jean Kitchen Support To include Airmyn if residents want. 1475 1187 Mr J Tait (Planning Object Identify more than 28 Priority 1, 2 and 3 Market Villages. Prospects) 1203 Our concern is that in restricting the number of market villages, it is done so for reasons which do not 1476 relate to effective planning. The fact that a number of other villages have met the selection criteria but are only not chosen because there is another village merit nearby is not reason enough. Such villages still have services to offer which still should be supported and will contribute to sustainability aims. The absence of development or support may mean that the services in these villages are at risk. Ashleigh Swan (St Object The approach takes too much weight to the objectives of distributing Market Villages evenly at the Modwen Properties Plc 1231 expense of recognising the particular characteristics of particular areas. The area around (Indigo Planning)) Elloughton/Brough and North-Ferriby is semi-rural in character and is dominated by the A63 and large 1477 employment allocations; it should not be treated as if it is a typical and relatively sparsely populated rural area. GJ Perry (City Object Identify a different combination of Market Villages. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Developments) 1244 Add Full Sutton. 1479 Mr James Durham (Hull Observations The document on page 53 sets out the preferred option along with alternative options however these City Council) 1255 options are not put through the sustainability appraisal (SA). The appropriate place for assessing the 1482 sustainability of these options would be on page 49 and 50 of the appraisal where the option of identifying a limited number of settlements (without a specific number) is appraised. The document sets out five distinct options with a 6th being a free choice option. The appraisal should at least put the five distinct options through the SA process to allow consultees to make a more informed response. Mr James Durham (Hull Observations Generally agree but question the inclusion of North Cave, Brandsburton, Roos, Beeford, and Skipsea as City Council) 1263 Market Villages. 1482 David Jackson Object Identify a different combination of Market Villages. 1485 1475 Carnaby added. Laura Carr (The Gateway Object Identify less than the 13 Priority 1 Market Villages Pathfinder) 1311 Please see comments re central sub-area:- 943 It is our view that there is no clear rationale for the identification of so many additional foci for development in this sub area, where most locations are close to the sub regional urban area and/or the principal town of Beverley and/or the towns of Hedon and Elloughton/Brough (as highlighted in paras 4.41, 4.43, 4.45 for North Cave, South Cave, North Ferriby and Leconfield). As noted in para 5.5 ‘There will be pressure on housing development in particular, because Market Villages will be desirable places to live and perceived as being sustainable locations’. We believe the selection of so many market villages in this area (particularly in the west of the sub area) will put at risk the overall development strategy. It fails to recognise the role of many of these places in providing for people commuting to the sub regional urban centre rather than as rural centres, and potentially undermines the role of the sub regional urban area and principal town, and our Housing Market Renewal Strategy. We do not agree with the identification of both Leven and Brandesburton, due to their close proximity. Given their proximity to the sub regional urban area and the potential for development to increase commuting we do not think that all three of Leven, Skirlaugh and Keyingham should be identified. Michael Glover (Michael Object Identify more than 28 Priority 1,2 and 3 Market Villages. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Glover LLP (H Lount & 1320 Reason: greater provision of local services. Sons)) 1487 Mr J Kilby (Hornsea and Object Identify 17 Priority 1 and Priority 2 Market Villages. District Civic Society) 1324 Identify a different combination of Market Villages. 756 Skipsea, in spite of constraints referred to in 4.21 should be considered. Not actually a different combination. Mrs K. Richmond (South Object Do not want South Cave to be identified as a Market Village. Cave Parish Council) 1416 465 Ridley & Roberts Object Identify a different combination of Market Villages. (Howden Town Council) 1431 I think the weighting has to be altered where schools are present in a non-selected community. Councils 1497 need to look more to subsidising transport links to encourage sustainability. Mr David Winter (Roos Object Identify a different combination of Market Villages. Roos Parish should not have been included as it has Parish Council) 1446 inappropriately assessed (See previous responses) and ranked in the wrong order in the final column of 1498 Table 3.7. Bryan Brown (Bryan Observations Comments referring to the promotion of a single list of Market Villages has already been given in earlier Brown & Son) 1565 sections of this response. Nonetheless the fundamental reasoning behind the overall selection of the full 1507 list of Market Villages, with the exception of the omission of Flamborough is supported. Sue Walters Thompson Observations We agree with the principle to select a number of important rural settlements that perform the role of (Carter Jonas LLP) 1626 local service centres. However, we consider that based on the evidence provided by the Council to date 1509 and the methodologies used, which we have queried earlier, it is premature to agree with the identification of all 28 settlements at this stage. We also consider that based on the evidence and the lack of a relevant SA it is impossible to consider whether any of the alternative approaches put forward would be more suitable. However, we do consider that both North Cave and South Cave should remain in any revised list because of the functions they both perform and the range of service they both support. In addition, we reiterate our earlier statement that we consider the terminology used i.e. ‘market village’ to be inappropriate because it is inconsistent with the terminology in emerging RSS and it is likely to Name/ID Type/ID Representation cause confusion. Peter Robinson Object No Agree with alternative 4.76 3. 994 1735 Identify less than the 13 Priority 1 Market Villages. Mrs M. Barker (North Object Agree with all alternative approaches (4.76 1-5). Ferriby Parish Council) 1790 Reason: flexibility for other communities to be taken into account. 427 Julie Abraham Object Identify 17 Priority 1 and Priority 2 Market Villages - but with flexibility. 1523 1874 Too many villages would undermine the aims of directing new housing towards major sustainable settlements. A Brown (Melrose Plc Object Identify a different combination of Market Villages. (Colliers Cre)) 1893 A reduced number of Priority 1 Market Villages should be identified with an increased capacity for 1524 development. Mrs D. Beare (Hook Object Poor transportation links. Parish Council preference not to be a market village. Parish Council) 2043 838 Mr John Potts (John Object Either use a more robust methodology or have another policy alongside ‘market villages’ to recognise Potts Limited) 2024 the role of settlements such as Woodmansey. 1530

Chapter 5 Comments

Chapter 5 Comments...... 1 5 – Other Considerations...... 1 Paragraph 5.6...... 2 Paragraph 5.7...... 3 Paragraph 5.9...... 3 Paragraph 5.10 ...... 5 Paragraph 5.11 ...... 7 Paragraph 5.12 ...... 9 Paragraph 5.14 ...... 10 Paragraph 5.16 ...... 11 Paragraph 5.42 ...... 11 Paragraph 5.30 ...... 11

5 – Other Considerations Name/ID Type/ID Representation Andy Watts (Walker Object Objection to the saved development limits for Hutton Cranswick Morris) 1162 The development limits 'saved' for the purpose of this DPD are significantly out of date in the 1427 Northern Sub-Area and should be subject to review within the context of the SSDPD. Andy Watts (Walker Object The development limits should be re-defined to include existing development that has been granted Morris) 1163 permission beyond the settlement boundary to the south of Sheepman Lane and to the north of Station 1427 Road and should specifically exclude the Housing allocation known as HUT2. Andy Watts (Walker Object HUT2 is an extremely attractive Greenfield site that makes a significant environmental and visual Morris) 1165 contribution to the appearance and rural character of this part of Hutton Cranswick. Support for the 1427 development of this site is contrary to the sequential approach set out in PPG3 where there is evidence of existing brownfield sites in the locality. Continued support for the delivery of this site to meet housing targets is an unrealistic prospect and is unsound. To include this site within the development limits would prejudice future development prospects of the MV to support local services and facilities, employment and public transport provision. Ms Ann Williams Observations We welcome the provisions made in paragraphs 5.8 to 5.12 and hope the necessary flexibility to allow (Newton on Derwent 1238 for full consultation and consideration of the views of the people in the community itself. We are Parish Council) concerned about the provision and maintenance of services for these communities, which may be 474 considered low priority and to have fewer needs. Ms J. Crowther Object An approach which was more responsive to local needs. (Easington Parish 2054 Council) 596 Ms Ann Williams Observations We would welcome the retention of a development limit for this village, possible with some (Newton on Derwent 1240 amendments. The criteria based policies may not in themselves be sufficient to avoid "back-land" Parish Council) development (for example if a proposed development met some of the criteria) whereas a development 474 limit would restrict development to 'infill'. Mr G E Wright Observations Development Limits. The general approach to development limits seems appropriate but the Document 562 1301 needs to record that where development limits are to be retained that these will be reviewed at the time of the determination of development allocation options and the current limit should not be regarded as a material consideration or pre-condition in that process.

Paragraph 5.6 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mr Graham Lenton Object I think this would be wrong for the following reasons. It is proposed that Market Villages will have 1022 613 some limited development and some of the proposed Market Villages do not encompass many, if any, potential development sites within the constraints of the existing development limits. Therefore, in the short term, pressure will be applied by developers/builders to infill existing gaps between houses. These gaps are an essential part of the character of most villages and if 'closed' would have a detrimental affect on the street scene. It would be preferable, in my opinion, to redefine the development limits to include parcels of land that are effectively 'back land' within the existing village traditional boundaries thereby not having an adverse affect on the street scene but still providing the required limited development. Mr Greg Smith Object Included as an appendix to this report are ordnance survey plans of sites we and our clients wish to see (Development Land & 1127 considered for future residential development. These are the sites at Lowthorpe Lane in Nafferton, and Planning) Hall Farm at Eastgate, North Newbald. The case for these sites being suggested for housing use has 1454 been outlined in full in our Comments on the Core Strategy. However, should you require copies of these representations please do not hesitate to contact our offices.

Paragraph 5.7 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Annie Hadfield (East Observations Objective 1.1: of the Rural Strategy 2005 aims to help existing businesses, especially those in the food Riding of Yorkshire Rural 1358 and drink business cluster - including agriculture - develop and adapt to new circumstances and market Partnership) opportunities. The new planning guidance should not make conditions less favourable for the 1488 expansion of the local food sector, which often takes place in rural areas, i.e. Conversion and expansion of buildings for farm shops. The new guidance should not significantly add to the administrative burden of applicants. Annie Hadfield (East Observations Objective 3.3: of the Rural Strategy 2005 aims to create the conditions that will help to sustain a viable Riding of Yorkshire Rural 1362 agricultural industry which can continue to exercise good land management and environmental Partnership) protection. Is there going to be an advice system put in place to help farmers negotiate the planning 1488 process, and understand the implications of the LDF? They must be helped to take advantage of the opportunities open to them, including farm diversification.

Paragraph 5.9 Name/ID Type/ID Representation F Henley Support Yes 997 190 Ms Nicola Salvidge Object Disagree with policy- community infrastructure (Seaton Parish Council) 536 1413 Christine A Brown Support Agree- community infrastructure 569 545 Mrs. Plumb (Twin Rivers Support Parish Council) 591 1444 Mr J E Milner Object Disagree community infrastructure policy. 1199 640 Mr Paul Jackson Support Support community infrastructure policy. 1456 756 Mr Roger Jones (Humber Support Yes community infrastructure. & Wolds Rural 925 Community Council) 318 Stephanie Marriott Object Disagree with community infrastructure policy. (Hornsea and District 958 Chamber of Trade) 1464 M O'Connell (Albanwise Support with Re: Community Infrastructure: Support in principle. Clarification of what constitutes community Ltd) conditions infrastructure is needed – is this flexible enough to accommodate facilities such as energy generation 1470 1016 which could be developed for community use? Mr Greg Smith Support Agree with community infrastructure policy. (Development Land & 1143 Planning) 1454 David Jackson Support Support community infrastructure policy 1485 1277 Mrs K. Richmond (South Support Support community infrastructure policy. Cave Parish Council) 1418 465 Mrs M. Barker (North Support Agree with community infrastructure policy. Ferriby Parish Council) 1793 427 Julie Abraham Support Agree with community infrastructure policy. 1523 1876

Paragraph 5.10 Name/ID Type/ID Representation F Henley Support Yes 997 192 Ms Nicola Salvidge Support Agree with policy - affordable housing (Seaton Parish Council) 537 1413 Christine A Brown Object Disagree- Affordable housing 569 546 Mr J E Milner Support Agree with affordable housing policy. 1199 641 Mr Paul Jackson Object Disagree with affordable housing policy. 1456 757 Mr Roger Jones (Humber Object Yes affordable housing. & Wolds Rural 926 Community Council) 318 Mr Greg Smith Support Agree with affordable housing policy. (Development Land & 1144 Planning) 1454 David Jackson Object Object to affordable housing policy. 1485 1278 Mr John Pilgrim Observations The Regional Economic Strategy recognises the pressures placed on rural communities by the influx of (Yorkshire Forward) 1330 commuters and retired people, particularly in relation to the provision of affordable housing and the 1433 retention of young people, which are both crucial to the creation of sustainable communities. We welcome the policy approach within this DPD which allows for affordable housing to be developed within settlements not earmarked for additional market housing, while directing market housing towards more sustainable locations. Annie Hadfield (East Observations To achieve sustainable rural communities the SSDP must demonstrate its support for initiatives that Riding of Yorkshire Rural 1355 provide homes for rural communities, keeping families, friends and support networks together, such as Partnership) shared equity/intermediate housing. The creation of a new category between green and brownfield sites 1488 to allow a mix of market and affordable housing would support the East Riding in its target of some 681 affordable rural homes. Annie Hadfield (East Observations Objective 2.1: of the Rural Strategy 2005 aims to support choice and affordability of homes which meet Riding of Yorkshire Rural 1359 decent standards in sustainable rural locations. Affordable housing is an issue in the East Riding of Partnership) Yorkshire. A total of 79% of all housing is owner occupied. Only 10% is affordable housing for rent 1488 owned by the Council and housing associations - much less than the average for England and Wales - 19% - and for all rural districts - 13.4%. The SSDP needs to ensure much more shared equity housing is made available and more proposed schemes should contain a mixture of rented, shared ownership and low-cost market housing options to sustain a vibrant rural community. Mrs K. Richmond (South Object Disagree with affordable housing policy. Cave Parish Council) 1419 465 Mrs M. Barker (North Support Agree with affordable housing policy. Ferriby Parish Council) 1794 427 Julie Abraham Support Agree with affordable housing policy. 1523 1877

Paragraph 5.11 Name/ID Type/ID Representation F Henley Support Yes 997 193 Ms Nicola Salvidge Support Agree with policy - Reuse of buildings for residential purposes (Seaton Parish Council) 538 1413 Christine A Brown Support Agree- Reuse of buildings for residential purposes 569 547 Mrs. Plumb (Twin Rivers Object Object to reuse of buildings for residential purposes. Parish Council) 592 1444 Mr J E Milner Support Agree with reuse of buildings for residential purposes policy. 1199 642 Mr Paul Jackson Support Agree with reuse of buildings for residential purposes policy. 1456 758 Mr Roger Jones (Humber Object No- reuse of buildings for residential purposes. & Wolds Rural 929 Community Council) 318 Mr Greg Smith Object Agree with reuse of buildings for residential purposes policy. (Development Land & 1145 Planning) 1454 Shirley Davies (York Observations The church of Rimswell St Mary has recently been declared redundant and consideration is currently Diocese) 1267 being given to the possible redundancy of Ulrome St Andrew. It may be that further churches in small 1484 communities in the East Riding also come forward for redundancy in the near future. As you will be aware, small, rural communities by their very nature often struggle to maintain community buildings and we as a church are very aware of the important community function carried out by church buildings, which often serve as one of the few local places where people can gather. When churches are declared redundant the DRCUC endeavours to find the most appropriate alternative use for church buildings. Whilst it would strive to find some form of continuing community use for the building, it is often the case that the local community has not sufficient resources to take on such a responsibility. The DRCUC is also aware of its responsibility to safeguard where possible the built heritage which former church buildings represent – you will be aware that churches are often the most significant and historic buildings within the community and form an important part of the local landscape. The DRCUC also however does have to find an alternative use for former churches and is in many respects dependant on those markets that have the available resources and time to take on a historic building. For this reason a significant number of former churches are the subject of - hopefully sympathetic – residential and other conversions as the only practical means by which these buildings can be maintained for the future. The DRCUC firmly believes that the appropriate re-use of former church buildings is sustainable and resource efficient and is encouraged by the degree of flexibility already contained within the Document, particularly as set out in paragraph 5.15. We feel however that the Development Plan Document needs to make provision / facilitate the economic re-use of any closed church buildings within the area for the reasons set out above and would urge that every effort is made to enable this to happen. Without such provision the future preservation of our former church buildings is further jeopardised. David Jackson Support Support re-use of buildings for residential purposes. 1485 1279 Mrs K. Richmond (South Support Agree with re-use of buildings for residential purposes. Cave Parish Council) 1420 465 Mrs M. Barker (North Object Disagree with reuse of buildings for residential purposes policy. Ferriby Parish Council) 1795 427 Julie Abraham Support with Agree with reuse of buildings for residential purposes policy but not if it means the loss of a business 1523 conditions premises that provides an essential service/facility. 1878

Paragraph 5.12 Name/ID Type/ID Representation F Henley Support Yes 997 196 Ms Nicola Salvidge Support Agree with policies- Countryside workers developments and single houses for local housing needs (Seaton Parish Council) 539 1413 Christine A Brown Object Disagree- Countryside workers' dwellings 569 548 Disagree- Single houses for local housing needs Mr J E Milner Object Disagree with countryside workers' dwellings policy. 1199 643 Agree with single houses for local housing needs policy. Mr Paul Jackson Object Agree with countryside workers' dwellings and single houses for local needs policies. 1456 759 Mrs M. Greenwood Object The North Dalton Parish Council feel that in small villages like North Dalton scope should be (North Dalton Parish 790 incorporated into the plan for small scale development like in-filling or barn conversions. The policy Council) proposed is too absolute. 897 Ms H. Harvatt (Hollym Object Disagree with single houses for local housing needs policy. (agree with all other policies). Parish Council) 872 833 Mr Roger Jones (Humber Object Yes- countryside workers dwellings & Wolds Rural 930 No -single houses for local housing needs. Community Council) 318 M O'Connell (Albanwise Object Re: Single houses for local housing needs: We consider that the term ‘single houses’ is too restrictive – Ltd) (Entec UK Ltd) 1017 there could be instances where the development of more than one dwelling unit on a plot within a 1470/1436 village envelope is justified to help meet local housing needs. We suggest that the wording is amended to: ‘dwellings to meet local housing needs in Rural Villages’. Mr Greg Smith Object Disagree with single houses for local housing needs policy. (Development Land & 1142 Agree with countryside workers' dwellings policy. Planning) 1454 Miss Dorothy Fairburn Object As regards rural housing, the CLA would like to see small scale, incremental development in much (Country Land & 1171 smaller settlements. These must be allowed to prevent rural stagnation. The CLA favours the use of Business Association) exception sites with appropriate “cross-subsidy” from open market housing as the only way to 510 encourage land owners to release land for affordable rural housing in smaller settlements. The emphasis should be on “locally generated housing need” rather than just “affordable”. Such housing is needed for key workers in agriculture and the growing diversified rural economy. David Jackson Support Support countryside workers' dwellings and single houses for local needs policies. 1485 1280 Mrs K. Richmond (South Support Agree with countryside workers' dwellings and single houses for local needs policies. Cave Parish Council) 1421 465 Mrs M. Barker (North Support Agree with countryside workers' dwellings and single houses for local needs policies. Ferriby Parish Council) 1796 427 Julie Abraham Support Agree with countryside workers' dwellings and single houses for local needs policies. 1523 1879

Paragraph 5.14 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Annie Hadfield (East Observations Objective 3.2: of the Rural Strategy 2005 aims to maintain and enhance the settlement character of the Riding of Yorkshire Rural 1361 Rural East Riding. Significant features of the settlement character and built environment considered to Partnership) be an important asset to the East Riding of Yorkshire include – 1488 • Historic market towns such as Driffield, Hedon and and distinctive East Riding villages and hamlets including the estate villages of Sledmere and Warter. • Farmsteads with their dispersed pattern and style, including natural woodland shelter belts on the Wolds, are a key feature of the area and fundamental to its heritage • Estates and parklands, including Sledmere House, Burton Constable Hall, Burton Agnes Hall and Warter Estate. • Attractive churches such as those at Hedon, North Frodingham, Patrington and Warter. • Including many sites and monuments protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 and numerous grade I and grade II* listed buildings - of particularly great importance to the nation’s built heritage. ERY RP will need to examine the strategic environmental assessment and its assessment of impact on the built and natural environment, furthermore the ERY RP will undertake a wider examination of this document will need to ensure that significant weight has been placed on ‘rural’ within its assessment.

Paragraph 5.16 Name/ID Type/ID Representation B Ryan (Frank Hill) Object Policy is too rigid. Some selected villages may have no option but to look at greenfield development. 1416 147

Paragraph 5.42 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Humber & Wolds Rural Object Do not agree with 5.24 a and c. Local need for residence in a particular village can be based on ‘family Community Council 942 connection’ (PPG3). 318

Paragraph 5.30 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mr Roger Jones (Humber Object 5.30. There should be a base level of 4 affordable homes per village. & Wolds Rural 943 Community Council) 318

Appendices Comments

Glossary of Terms – Sustainable Communities Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mrs Sally Hulme (Snaith Observations In consideration of the Government’s Definition of Sustainable Communities, we should like to make & Cowick Together) 614 the following points. The definition states in its various sections, that sustainable communities should 1159 be:- ‘Active, Inclusive and Safe’ offering ‘a sense of community identity and belonging’ - Residents of new housing developments in the area are perceived not to be active participants in of the community. Further developments would not improve this situation. ‘Well designed and built’ offering: a) ‘sufficient range, diversity, affordability and accessibility of housing within a balanced housing market’ - Snaith and Cowick are becoming overwhelmed with modern, expensive detached, executive houses, which upsets the balance of the housing market and creates less opportunities for local first time buyers to purchase or rent low cost property. There is no room for more expensive developments; b) ‘accessibility of jobs, key services and facilities by public transport, walking and cycling’ - Data from the 2001 census indicated that of the 1484 residents who travelled to work (an average of 21.92 kilometres), only 52 used public transport. Since that census many more commuters have moved into the area and public transport services have been cut. ‘Well connected’ offering ‘transport facilities, including public transport, that help people travel within and between communities and reduce dependence on cars’ - Public transport facilities in the area are very poor. By bus, it is necessary to travel via Goole or Selby to get to any major town or city e.g., York, Leeds, Doncaster or Hull and the train service is virtually non-existent. Transport is made especially difficult because of the position of the area on the boundary of East Riding and the associated problems of linking into other authorities’ systems. It is therefore necessary to rely on private cars to travel between communities. (A large majority of respondents to the town questionnaire indicated that the car was their only means of transport.) ‘Thriving’ featuring: a) ‘a wide range of jobs and training opportunities’ - There are very few new job and/or training opportunities in the area; b) ‘dynamic job and business creation, with benefits for the local community’ -there is little evidence of new business being created in the area; c) ‘a strong business community with links into the wider community’ - The business community of Snaith and Cowick is small and there are few links to the wider area. Local businesses have not reported any increase in trade following the new housing developments.

Question 2: Do you think the Aim is a suitable base for the Smaller Settlements Document?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Specific Consultation Bodies - Hull City Council, Yorkshire Water (2)

Neighbouring Authorities - Hull City Council

Town and Parish Councils - Watton, Twin Rivers, Swanland, Anlaby, Paull, Seaton Ross, Beeford, Langtoft, Mappleton, Bainton, Garton, Wetwang, Sigglesthorne, Patrington, Aldbrough, Sutton Upon Derwent, North Frodingham, Barmston&Fraisthorpe, Middleton, Hayton&Burnby, South Cave, Howden, Roos, Fridaythorpe, Stamford Bridge, North Ferriby, Rudston, Melbourne, Easington (29)

Other Bodies - Ferriby Conservation Society, Hornsea Residents' Association, Bridlington & District Civic Society, Hornsea & District Chamber of Trade, Derwent Valley Conservation Group, Gateway Pathfinder, Hornsea & District Civic Society (7)

Agents and Individuals - CW&DC Hattee, BP Ryan, C.Brown, F.Henley, O'Pray, GS Lenton, Stamford Homes Ltd., W Clifford Watts Ltd., H Hook, R Bryan, R Hall, Smiths Gore, JF&KM Glew, JG Hatcliffe&Partners, JM Fielden, S Hirst, Crown Estate, Persimmon Homes, Albanwise Ltd, EJ Sherwood, R Barnes, GJ Perry(City Developments), M Glover, Ramsden Developments, Cllr Abraham (25)

64 respondents in total

The following respondent answered 'No' without any further comment:

Town and Parish Councils - Newton Upon Derwent

Agents and Individuals - C.Worrall

2 respondent in total

Name/ID Type/ID Representation Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mrs Susan Lang (East Object Surely the aim has to be to sustain/enhance opportunities for all communities, regardless of their Riding of Yorkshire 318 size/location. Concentrating development is an objective, not an aim Council) 1424 Seaton Parish Council Object You need to allow other villages to grow and improve in the decision you have made you appear to be 1413 510 willing to allow smaller villages to die. Bovis Homes Ltd Object Aim- N0 - Delete the phrase "suitable network of smaller settlements". Replace with "network of non 611 558 development strategy settlements". Snaith and Cowick Parish Object Aim- No- All villages should be allowed the option to develop brown field sites particularly when they Council 615 are unsightly. 248 Hook Parish Council Support with Support Aim. Support all 4 ojectives with the comment that "they sound/read positively. It is in the 838 conditions interpretation that things go awry. Local people must be involved." 2041 Mr J E Milner Object Aim - No - Provide the services to all rural areas or else they will slowly die and house prices will be 1199 623 suppressed. Mr J E Milner Object Aims- no- provide the services to all rural areas or else they will slowly doe and house prices will be 1199 625 suppressed. Carnaby Parish Council Object Aims- No - Limited development as required on a case by case basis on own merits/needs. Ensure local 1451 665 views are given sufficient weighting. Mr Paul Jackson Object Aim- No- To identify 40+ villages with smaller developments in each village to keep the character of all 1456 742 villages rather than develop them into small towns. Foston Parish Council Object Aim- No- add: through the positive engagement with Parish and Town Councils. 329 778 Bugthorpe and Kirby Object There is scope for limited and suitable development in most villages where a local need can be Underdale Parish Council 825 demonstrated and where there are appropriate sites i.e. redundant farm buildings where an alternative 603 commercial use is not viable. Mr D J Lord Object Aim- There is scope for limited and sustainable development in most villages where a local need can be 1494 848 demonstrated and where there are appropriate sites ie redundant farm buildings where an alternative Name/ID Type/ID Representation commercial use is not viable. Hollym Parish Council Object Aim- No- more freedom for regeneration of village. There needs to be some new building if only on a 833 866 small scale. Humber & Wolds Rural Object Aim- Disagree with terminology and concept of ‘market villages’ Community Council 898 318 Richmond Properties Ltd Support The Core Strategy (1) for the East Riding area has set out a Development Strategy which distributes 1471 1044 new development within an agreed settlement hierarchy. While the overall aim is to concentrate development at the Sub-Regional Urban Centre, ‘principal towns’, and at a limited number of defined ‘towns’, this Strategy acknowledges that other settlements within the East Riding area act as local centres providing services, facilities and amenities for both the settlement and the surrounding rural hinterland. (1) Joint Structure Plan for Kingston upon Hull & East Riding, June 2005 which has been adopted as the Core Strategy for East Riding. It is considered appropriate in light of the policy context of Core Strategy Policy DS4 and H7 that the Smaller Settlements DPD seeks to indicate those smaller settlements within the District which will function as smaller rural service centres i.e. “Market Villages”. RSPB Northern England Observations Aim- Whilst the Aim may provide a suitable base, the DPD should define what a ‘Market Village’ is in Region 1056 more detail within the Introduction. This information is not presented until later on in the DPD, which 970 makes the Aim unclear. South Cave Active Object Aim- no- Residents 1097 To support the JSP policy of directing most development to the identified Development Strategy 1000 Settlements whilst providing local centres in remote rural areas with demonstrable indicators of local need Development Land & Object Aim- no- Planning 1128 Reference should be made to rural service providers, not Market Towns. 1454 Jean Kitchen Object Aim - the first two bullet points are opposites!! 1475 1176 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Planning Prospects Support The aim is supported. It would be clearer if the aim was to state that the network of market villages was 1476 1189 to compliment the development strategy in identifying the most suitable locations to accommodate growth which would support local services and reduce the need to travel. St Modwen Properties Object No, each settlement should be considered on its own merits having regard, for example, to the need to Plc 1214 sustain the viability of vulnerable services. 1477 David Jackson Object Aim- Seventy to eighty smaller villages with limited development in all rather than a lot of development 1485 1269 in fewer villages. Mr G E Wright Observations There is a lack of clarity and consistency in the objectives set out in the Document and the underlying 562 1291 text which seeks to explain the objectives. At one point the Document seeks to indicate that villages are being selected having regard to giving a spread of locations against the background of the existing distribution of the DS1 –DS3 settlements. On the other hand the objectives indicate an objective to provide housing services, facilities and employment opportunities for residents in rural areas. Those residents in rural areas include a substantial number of people who have sought homes in the rural environment though they effectively represent part of the urban based population of the District. The way the objective is expressed is to achieve provision for the persons currently resident as opposed to those who are currently engaged in the rural economy. Equally the provision of affordable housing in respect of this population represents the provision of housing for a significant number of persons who are not directly linked to the rural economy but are part of the dispersed urban population of the District. It is inconsistent that affordable housing should be provided across a range of villages or even in identified villages if provision is not going to be made for market housing to cover the requirements of that resident rural population in the same way. Because of the change in household size it does mean that in order to retain the resident population in rural areas, housing will have to be provided and this housing will need to be in the form of both affordable and market housing. On the other hand if the intention is to reduce car dependency, it would be better to focus development on settlements closer to the Main Urban Areas which are providing an employment focus i.e. adjacent to Hull and York. On this basis it will be better to contemplate expansion at Swanland, North Ferriby and Stamford Bridge and Wilberfoss rather than in remoter locations such as Aldbrough, Newport, Skirlaugh or Melbourne. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Yorkshire Forward Support We welcome the aims and objectives outlined within the document, in particular objectives 2 and 3, 1433 1326 which aim to maintain and encourage a range of housing, services, facilities and employment opportunities for residents in rural areas, and reducing the dependence on the private car respectively. R Swailes Support Aims and Objectives: Given the overall content of the current Development Plan and the tone of 1500 1448 National planning policy and guidance the aim and its supporting objectives are an acceptable starting point for the identification of a suitable network of smaller settlements to act as ‘Market Villages’ within the East Riding. Mr C Hill Support Aims and Objectives: Given the overall content of the current Development Plan and the tone of 1391 1470 National planning policy and guidance the aim and its supporting objectives are an acceptable starting point for the identification of a suitable network of smaller settlements to act as ‘Market Villages’ within the East Riding. Mr & Mrs JH Foreman Observations Given the overall content of the current Development Plan and the tone of National planning policy 1503 1484 and guidance the aim and its supporting objectives are an acceptable starting point for the identification of a suitable network of smaller settlements to act as ‘Market Villages’ within the East Riding. J Boat Observations Given the overall content of the current Development Plan and the tone of National planning policy 1504 1505 and guidance the aim and its supporting objectives are an acceptable starting point for the identification of a suitable network of smaller settlements to act as ‘Market Villages’ within the East Riding. MB Goodwin (Skipsea) Observations Given the overall content of the current Development Plan and the tone of National planning policy Ltd. 1517 and guidance the aim and its supporting objectives are an acceptable starting point for the identification 1505 of a suitable network of smaller settlements to act as ‘Market Villages’ within the East Riding. WC Watts Estate Observations Given the overall content of the current Development Plan and the tone of National planning policy 1506 1532 and guidance the aim and its supporting objectives are an acceptable starting point for the identification of a suitable network of smaller settlements to act as ‘Market Villages’ within the East Riding. Bryan Brown & Son Observations Planning policy and guidance the aim and its supporting objectives are an acceptable starting point for 1507 1550 the identification of a suitable network of smaller settlements to act as ‘Market Villages’ within the East Riding. Carter Jonas LLP Support with Aim- 1509 conditions Yes, we support the general aim ‘To identify a suitable network of smaller settlements in the East Riding 1611 to act as Market Villages to complement the identified Development Strategy Settlements’. However, Name/ID Type/ID Representation we are concerned that within the DPD the Council: Has not used terminology that conforms with emerging RSS. We consider that the term ‘Market Village’ is inappropriate and does not properly define the role of such settlements. The Council should use terminology which is consistent with that contained in emerging RSS and that being used by other local authorities within the Yorkshire Region. • Has not adequately justified the basis for applying this approach. In particular, whether it is based on the need for growth within the District or to meet local needs. The reasoning behind any approach is fundamental in terms of determining its appropriateness and therefore without a full explanation we consider the document is inherently flawed and not capable of meeting tests of soundness. • Has not demonstrated that it has adequately investigated the possibility of other approaches toward settlement policy. It is a requirement of soundness tests for the Council to show that all relevant options have been considered and to fully justify the reasons why one approach is preferred as opposed to another. • Has not given sufficient weight or attention to local circumstances. The Draft RSS paragraph 5.22 states: ‘Whilst local discretion is important, to ensure that allocated development sites are the most sustainable in meeting other policy requirements, it is vital that the Plan’s focused growth approach is delivered through LDFs and in decisions on planning applications. In conformity work the Assembly as The Regional Planning Body will need to be satisfied that this focus is being achieved in an appropriate way given local conditions.’ • Has placed too much emphasis on the current needs of the Borough and has not given sufficient consideration to meeting its future needs. The Council should not dwell on the past or present but should use the LDF as an opportunity to look forward and thoroughly review its planning policies in terms of delivering the Council’s Vision of where it sees the District in 2021. • Has not given sufficient attention to the fact that the JSP states ‘Many rural communities face pressure relating to limited public transport services and the need to secure the future of local services such as post offices, public houses, village halls, health services, Name/ID Type/ID Representation schools and shops. In certain cases, small-scale market housing development can help to meet local needs and support the viability of local services.’ • Has not, in our opinion, provided satisfactory evidence that the DPD has been produced having full and proper regard to the local authority’s Community Strategy. Gilberdyke Parish Object Aim- no- Council 1637 To identify a suitable network of smaller settlements in the East Riding to act as ‘Market Villages’ to 1510 complement the identified Development Strategy Settlements, and to identify those small communities that require small developments to ensure their continued viability. Beverley Town Council Support Aim- yes- 1499 1736 Fine as an aim. The crucial question is what the balance should be in permitted development in the Market Villages and in the identified larger settlements, and indeed the extent of development permitted in the East Riding as a whole. Asselby Parish Council Object Aim- no- 274 1759 Revert to policy of judging each application on own merits. Melrose Plc (Colliers Cre) Object Aim- no 1524 1882 To identify the most sustainable settlements to act as service centres and the focus for new development outside the Development Strategy Settlements in the Core Strategy. Mr John Potts (John Object Aim - The ‘market village’s approach is too inward looking. Woodmansey performs a function different Potts Limited) 2012 to other East Riding villages due to its proximity to Hull and its northern suburbs of Sutton-on-Hull, 1530 Bransholme and Wawne, its accessibility from the A1

Question 3: Do you agree with all of the 4 Objectives?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Specific Consultation Bodies - Yorkshire Water

Town and Parish Councils - Watton, Twin Rivers, Swanland, Anlaby, Langtoft, Mappleton, Bainton, Sigglesthorne, Sutton Upon Derwent, North Frodingham, Barmston&Fraisthorpe, Middleton, Hayton&Burnby, Stamford Bridge, North Ferriby, Easington (16)

Other Bodies - Ferriby Conservation Society, Bridlington & District Civic Society, Hornsea & District Chamber of Trade, Derwent Valley Conservation Group, Hornsea & District Civic Society (5)

Agents and Individuals - CW&DC Hattee, BP Ryan, C.Brown, F.Henley, O'Pray, GS Lenton, W Clifford Watts Ltd., H Hook, R Bryan, R Hall, Smiths Gore, JF&KM Glew, JG Hatcliffe&Partners, S Hirst, Crown Estate, Persimmon Homes, Albanwise Ltd, R Barnes, GJ Perry(City Developments), M Glover, Ramsden Developments (21)

43 respondents in total

The following respondent answered 'No' without any further comment:

Town and Parish Councils - Newton Upon Derwent

Agents and Individuals - C.Worrall

2 respondent in total

Name/ID Type/ID Representation Seaton Parish Council Object Objective 1 - Disagree strongly, to allow development in rural areas may encourage more rural services. 1413 511 Objectives 2 and 3 - Agree. Objective 4- Surely you can allow some development to provide homes for locals and allow local business to continue. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Bovis Homes Ltd Object Objectives- No-1- disagree- Delete "limited new development in rural areas". Replace with the phrase " 611 559 new development at" because rural areas are not mentioned in the overall aim. Snaith and Cowick Parish Object Objectives- No Council 616 1- Disagree. All villages should be allowed the option to develop brown field sites particularly when 248 they are unsightly. 3- We agree with this but it is not practicable Hook Parish Council Support with Support Aim. Support all 4 ojectives with the comment that "they sound/read positively. It is in the 838 conditions interpretation that things go awry. Local people must be involved." 2041 Mr J E Milner Object Objectives – No 1199 624 1- disagree - provide more services 2- be flexible, judge each on its merits 3- provide public transport 4- judge each on its merits Cllr Symon Fraser Object Objectives- To amend the objectives to include: “To ensure that the views of local people are given (Conservative Group) 652 sufficient weighting to enable them to be engaged and involved in the “shaping of the place where they 1421 live.” Carnaby Parish Council Object Objectives- no- disagree with: 1451 667 1) limited development as required on a case by case basis on own merits/needs. Ensure local views are given sufficient weighting. 3) Nice aim but ultimately considered impractical. Stamford Homes Ltd Object Objectives- No 478 676 1) disagree- The term 'limited new development' needs to be identified from the outset. 2) disagree- these uses cannot be encouraged in smaller settlements if we are to 'have limited new developments'. These uses are more appropriate in principal towns. There needs to be a strongerfocus for development in principal towns and above. However, the objectives need to clearly emphasise the need to provide stronger focus to development in principal towns and above. There also needs to be a more restrained approach to development in smaller centres which has delivered an unsustainable development pattern. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Paull Parish Council Support with Objectives- support for the objectives but views of local people/parish councils should be taken into 845 conditions account. 684 Seaton Ross Parish Object Objectives- No- Council 696 3) disagree- How is this going to be implemented in rural areas? 527 Beeford Parish Council Object Objectives- No- 608 723 To include to ensure the views of local people are given sufficient weighting to enable them to engage in the shaping of the place where they live. Mr Paul Jackson Object Objectives- No- 1456 743 1) disagree- building in rural areas should be examined on their own merits. Garton-on-the-Wolds Object Objectives- no- Parish Council 763 The objectives do not give sufficient opportunity for the views of local people to be considered in the 1457 planning of their community. (Broaden the scope). Foston Parish Council Support with Objectives- Agree but please ensure local involvement is included through positive engagement with 329 conditions 779 Town and Parish Councils in the 'aim' or in 'objectives'. Wetwang Parish Council Support with Objectives- yes- but local views should still be taken into consideration. 230 conditions 801 JM Fielden Object Objectives- No- 1463 816 3) disagree- this should be achieved simply by restricting car parking facilities. Bugthorpe and Kirby Object Objectives- No- Underdale Parish Council 826 1) disagree- there is scope for development in other villages subject to it enhancing the village and 603 satisfying a local need. 3) in principle this is a laudable objective but in practise residents of rural areas rely very heavily on the car due to inadequate and unflexible public transport. Mr D J Lord Object Objectives- no- 1494 849 1)disagree- there is scope for development in other villages subject to it enhancing the village and satisfying a local need. Name/ID Type/ID Representation 3) in principle this is a laudable objective but in practice residents of rural areas rely heavily on the car due to inadequate and inflexible public transport. Hollym Parish Council Object Objectives- No- 833 867 3) disagree- you cannot stop people buying cars as there is a need to commute and public transport is too expensive. Hornsea Residents Object Objectives- All four objectives ticked. (no comments). Association 874 480 Patrington Parish Council Support with Support all objectives but ensure local people are given sufficient involvement in preserving the 880 conditions character of the area. 881 Humber & Wolds Rural Object Objectives- no- Community Council 900 1)disagree- To encourage appropriate scale and type of development in all rural settlements , 318 irrespective of current services and access. 3)disagree- Rural areas have a high car dependency. Alternative fuel systems should be encouraged to reduce carbon emissions. English Heritage Observations Objectives Yorkshire Region 947 We broadly support the four Objectives proposed for this DPD. However, whilst we welcome the 515 intentions of the final Objective, it would benefit from a number of changes to address the following:- (a) The intention of this Objective should be to minimise the ”adverse” impacts of development upon the character and appearance of the settlement and to try and “maximise” the beneficial impacts which developments might provide. (b) This Objective should be seeking to minimise the adverse impact not only upon the character and appearance of the countryside but also upon the character and appearance of the settlement itself. (c) There should be an intention to ensure that development helps to reinforce the distinctive character of the settlement. It is suggested, therefore, that the final Objective be amended to read:- “To minimise the adverse impacts of development upon the character of the settlement and its landscape setting and to reinforce local distinctiveness, including where appropriate, the enhancement Name/ID Type/ID Representation of the built and natural environment of the settlement” Aldbrough Parish Object Objectives – no Council 962 1) disagree- views of local people to be taken into account. 1466 Yorkshire and Humber Observations One of the main objectives of this Smaller Settlements Document is to reduce dependency on the Assembly 984 private motor car and increase opportunities for using public transport, cycling and walking. The 483 Assembly welcomes this objective as it clearly reflects the overarching spatial vision of the RSS. Richmond Properties Ltd Support The proposed objectives appear appropriate when considered against the aim of the DPD and the Core 1471 1045 Strategy. It is important that the Smaller Settlements DPD ensures that while development within rural villages does not undermine the overall development strategy, provision for growth within the villages should be planned for which will create and maintain mixed and inclusive rural communities. RSPB Northern England Observations Objectives - The fourth objective would be strengthened if it referred specifically to biodiversity, which Region 1057 may not always be an obvious component of the countryside’s ‘character and appearance’. We suggest 970 the following wording: ‘To minimise the impact of development on the character, appearance and biodiversity of the countryside, including enhancing the quality of the built and natural environment’. Mrs E J Sherwood Object Objectives- No- 594 1087 Addition to Objective 2 or New Objective - Community involvement throughout. All existing Objectives OK. South Cave Active Object Objectives- no- Residents 1098 1) Add.. “ Where there is a demonstrable local need which cannot be provided by a Development 1000 Strategy Settlement within the travel standards set out in table 6.19 of the emerging RSS 2) Add…. “commensurate with the demonstrable local need” Development Land & Object Objectives- no- Planning 1129 1) disagree- in principle yes but scope to support other settlements also. 1454 3) disagree- alternatively internalise sustainability 4) disagree- clarify, potentially contradiction Jean Kitchen Object Objectives- no 1475 1176 1)disagree- some villages will end up with no young people and no schools. 3)disagree- public transport would do that Name/ID Type/ID Representation 4)disagree- depends on the village and residents Survey the residents not just Parish Councils. Planning Prospects Support Objectives: The objective of the DPD is supported in that it can only be sustainable to concentrate new 1476 1190 development in rural areas to those well serviced and accessible location. It must be recognised that the aim is to: “concentrate” new development but this shouldn’t be to the exception of all other development of a limited, proportionate scale in other localities, dependent upon specific circumstances. 2. The reason for the DPD, given the dispersed and relatively rural character of the East Riding, must be to positively use development to support local services and provisions where they exist and this would fall in line with government policy. 3. Complimentary to positively using development, the DPD could reduce dependence on the private car, but also generally the need to travel. 4. The sensitivity of development in the East Riding should be a factor taken into account. St Modwen Properties Object Objectives – no Plc 1217 1) disagree- new development should normally be directed to locations where it will meet identified 1477 housing needs and/or help to sustain vulnerable local services. 4) disagree- to minimise the impacts on identified countryside features of significant value, and to enhance the built and natural environment where possible. Hull City Council Object Objectives- no- 1482 1258 We would like to see an additional objective: To ensure that development in Market Villages (policy DS4) in the JSP central sub-area and a large part of the JSP eastern sub-area (ie the Hull housing market area), does not put at risk the aim of the Joint Structure Plan of directing most development to the Sub-Regional Urban Area (policy DS1), Principal Towns (policy DS2), and Towns (DS3). The Gateway Pathfinder Object Objectives- no- 943 1308 We would like to see an additional objective: To ensure that development does not put at risk the aim of the Joint Structure Plan of directing most development to the DS1-DS3 settlements. Yorkshire Forward Support We welcome the aims and objectives outlined within the document, in particular objectives 2 and 3, Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1433 1326 which aim to maintain and encourage a range of housing, services, facilities and employment opportunities for residents in rural areas, and reducing the dependence on the private car respectively. South Cave Parish Support with Objectives - yes, but would add one: Council conditions 5) Take note and consider local views given by local people. 465 1413 Howden Town Council Object Objectives- no- 1497 1424 1)disagree- will this not kill off the other villages? Roos Parish Council Object 1. Disagree: The phrase well-serviced and accessible developments is ill-defined. 1498 1439 Well-serviced can be quantified by ticking amenities available but, as is admitted, involves subjective and qualitative judgements too. Accessible – To whom? Note the apparent contradiction with 1.14, which seems to be anticipating the criteria for market villages : such smaller rural settlements that are not designated as local service centres … villages that are remote from, and have poor public transport links with, service centres. (2 - 4. Agree) R Swailes Support Aims and Objectives: Given the overall content of the current Development Plan and the tone of 1500 1448 National planning policy and guidance the aim and its supporting objectives are an acceptable starting point for the identification of a suitable network of smaller settlements to act as ‘Market Villages’ within the East Riding. Mr C Hill Support Aims and Objectives: Given the overall content of the current Development Plan and the tone of 1391 1470 National planning policy and guidance the aim and its supporting objectives are an acceptable starting point for the identification of a suitable network of smaller settlements to act as ‘Market Villages’ within the East Riding. Mr & Mrs JH Foreman Observations Given the overall content of the current Development Plan and the tone of National planning policy 1503 1484 and guidance the aim and its supporting objectives are an acceptable starting point for the identification of a suitable network of smaller settlements to act as ‘Market Villages’ within the East Riding. J Boat Observations Given the overall content of the current Development Plan and the tone of National planning policy 1504 1505 and guidance the aim and its supporting objectives are an acceptable starting point for the identification of a suitable network of smaller settlements to act as ‘Market Villages’ within the East Riding. MB Goodwin (Skipsea) Observations Given the overall content of the current Development Plan and the tone of National planning policy Name/ID Type/ID Representation Ltd. 1517 and guidance the aim and its supporting objectives are an acceptable starting point for the identification 1505 of a suitable network of smaller settlements to act as ‘Market Villages’ within the East Riding. WC Watts Estate Observations Given the overall content of the current Development Plan and the tone of National planning policy 1506 1532 and guidance the aim and its supporting objectives are an acceptable starting point for the identification of a suitable network of smaller settlements to act as ‘Market Villages’ within the East Riding. Bryan Brown & Son Observations Planning policy and guidance the aim and its supporting objectives are an acceptable starting point for 1507 1550 the identification of a suitable network of smaller settlements to act as ‘Market Villages’ within the East Riding. Fridaythorpe Parish Object Objectives- no- Council 1582 2) disagree-Facilities – greengrocers, butchers, farmshops, etc to negate use of motor vehicle. Produce 863 at fair price though otherwise people will still travel to large supermarkets to undertake their shopping. 3) disagree- Need to educate how people use private motor vehicles – there will always be a need for these especially in the rural locations of East Yorkshire, eg promote car sharing / Improve bus links / open rural train networks. Carter Jonas LLP Support Objectives- 1509 1613 The principles of each of the 4 objectives appear to be honourable. However, we are concerned that some of the objectives may not necessarily sit comfortably with one another. For instance, the first objective is to concentrate limited new development in rural areas to well-serviced and accessible locations, whilst the second is to maintain and encourage a range of houses, services, facilities and employment opportunities for residents in rural areas. We would flag up that limiting new development to well-serviced and accessible locations will not necessarily maintain and encourage opportunities for all residents in rural areas. This selective approach is unlikely to meet all rural local needs. Indeed, it may lead to some settlements being left to stagnate and smaller communities being disadvantaged. Whilst we do not necessarily disagree with this approach we feel that the Council needs to properly balance the implications of its preferred approach against other sustainability objectives in order to ensure that its will satisfy tests of soundness. We can understand the reasons why in identifying ‘Market Villages’ the Council is seeking to reduce the dependence on the motor car. However, the Council has failed to give sufficient consideration to local circumstances. East Riding is a rural District and the level of public services in many rural parts of the Name/ID Type/ID Representation District is poor. This means the Council needs to recognise that as a consequence residents living in rural areas have a greater reliance on private transport to undertake their normal daily activities, such as shopping, travelling to work and travelling to school than residents in more urban Districts or more built up parts of the East Riding. The Council needs to balance the benefits of reducing independence on the car against the long term support for sustainable and viable rural communities. It is unlikely that car dependency will be reduced until a more comprehensive public transport network is created, but this will take time. It may therefore be appropriate in developing a strategy towards development in rural settlements to look at where the transport network can be improved during the LDF period or how new development might help to encourage improvements in service. The lack of a Core Strategy is particularly apparent in the Sustainability Assessment of the four Objectives. It is good practice to measure objectives of a DPD against strategic objectives found in a Core Strategy, rather than just a set of general SA Objectives such as those identified for the purposed of the Carl Bro Report (Sept 2006). The idea of the SA objectives is that they reflect the desired outcomes of the Core Strategy Vision and provide a means of measuring the likely affect of the emerging strategy or options in relation to what is wanted for the future of the District. It is considered that the SA criteria are insufficient and far too general, as they do not provide a locally distinctive set of key SA objectives that are appropriate for the District. The SA objectives do not provide a sound basis on which to measure whether emerging policy will have the desired affect or a means of monitoring progress of policy in the future. The SA objectives, structure and context should therefore be revised and the Smaller Settlements DPD put on hold until a Core Strategy is in place. Gilberdyke Parish Object Objectives- no- Council 1638 1. To concentrate new development in rural areas to well-serviced and accessible locations and to allow 1510 limited developments in those small rural communities threatened by falling school roles, and uneconomical services and shops. Also to include “to ensure that the views of local people are given sufficient weighting to enable them to be engaged and involved in the “shaping of the place where they live.” Burton Fleming Parish Object Amend objectives to include: “to ensure that the views of local people are given sufficient weighting to Council 1662 enable them to be engaged and involved in the ‘shaping of the place where they live” 859 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Beverley Town Council Support Yes, but: 1499 1737 2) should specifically mention affordable homes. All fine objectives, depending on what they actually MEAN. We do not believe that the ‘identified larger settlements’ can accept vastly more development proportionally than the ‘Market Villages’, nor that the remaining villages (some actually larger than the Market Villages) should be ‘protected’ from developments which may be essential to safeguard local schools etc. We believe the remaining villages should be specifically allowed by clear choice of their Parish Councils and Parish meeting to accept developments larger than would usually be permitted if they think it necessary to make the settlement sustainable (e.g. keep the school open). Julie Abraham Object Objectives- no- 1523 1865 Local views need to be taken into account. Melrose Plc (Colliers Cre) Object Objectives - no – 1524 1883 1) to focus most development in non-Development Strategy Settlements on previously developed land in and around the most sustainable settlements. 2) To encourage development would provide a range of housing, facilities and employment to sustain local services and communities. 3) To encourage sustainable transport. 4) To minimise the affect of development on the countryside, built and natural environment. Rudston Parish Council Object Objectives 1526 1982 Additional objective- to consult local population. Melbourne Parish Object Remove objective 3 unless going to improve public transport Council 2008 1528 Mr John Potts (John Object Objectives – Potts Limited) 2013 1: Add and in those locations where regeneration of Hull can be assisted. This is justified in para 1.5 of 1530 PPG2. 2: Replace ‘maintain and encourage’ to ‘maintain and increase’ the range of housing etc. 3: Add ‘acknowledging the rural nature of the area and the need to develop greenfield sites where Name/ID Type/ID Representation sequentially preferable’. Add ‘this does not preclude sensitive backland development to make more efficient use of land.

Question 4 – Do you agree with the principle to identify a limited number of Market Villages?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Specific Consultation Bodies - Hull City Council, Yorkshire Water (2)

Town and Parish Councils - Watton, Twin Rivers, Swanland, Anlaby, Paull, Seaton Ross, Langtoft, Bainton, Wetwang, Sigglesthorne, Patrington, Sutton Upon Derwent, Newton Upon Derwent, North Frodingham, Middleton, Hayton&Burnby, South Cave, Roos, Fridaythorpe, Stamford Bridge, North Ferriby, Melbourne (22).

Other Bodies - Ferriby Conservation Society, Hornsea Residents' Association, Bridlington & District Civic Society, Hornsea & District Chamber of Trade, South Cave Active Residents, Derwent Valley Conservation Group, Gateway Pathfinder, Hornsea & District Civic Society (8)

Agents and Individuals - CW&DC Hattee, BP Ryan, C.Brown, O'Pray, GS Lenton, W Clifford Watts Ltd, H Hook, R Bryan, R Hall, Smiths Gore, JM Fielden, Albanwise Ltd, EJ Sherwood, R Barnes, GJ Perry (City Developments), M Glover, Ramsden Developments, Melrose Plc, Cllr Abraham (19).

51 respondents in total

The following respondent answered 'No' without any further comment:

Agents and Individuals - C.Worrall

1 respondent

Name/ID Type/ID Representation Yorkshire and Humber Support with It is the Assembly’s view that the document sets out a positive approach to try and reconcile the dual Assembly conditions needs of achieving a more concentrated pattern of development and supporting vibrant rural areas and 483 985 communities, which successfully meets policies YH7 and YH8 in the draft RSS. English Heritage (Yorks Support We support the principle of identifying a limited number of settlements to be identified as Market Region) 948 Villages. Name/ID Type/ID Representation 515 Seaton Parish Council Object More, who is the one to decide to allow smaller settlements to close down completely 1413 513 Bovis Homes Ltd Object The number should not be limited so that the choice of sustainable development locations close to the 611 560 sub-regional urban area can be maximised. Alliance General Object More - the policy should not rule out those closest to major urban areas as these are sustainable Property Development 889 locations. Ltd 1465 Snaith and Cowick Parish Object All villages should be given the option to develop brown field sites particularly when they are unsightly. Council 616 248 Cllr Symon Fraser Object To note that as it stands this option erodes the ability of the views of local people to be able to be taken Conservative Group 653 into account, there need to be further work done to establish the level of development seen as desirable 1421 or acceptable at a local, Parish level. Carnaby Parish Council Object Ensure local views are given sufficient weighting. Danger that local views will be eroded. 1451 668 Aldbrough Parish Object Development to be acceptable at Parish level. Council 963 1466 Hollym Parish Council Object All planning should be on merit. 833 868 Beeford Parish Council Object As it stands this option erodes the ability of the views of local people to be taken into account at Parish 608 724 level. Gilberdyke Parish Object One needs to also consider those small communities in which limited development will ensure their Council 1663 long-term sustainability. The communities and Parish Councils must have input into this. 1510 Easington Parish Council Object Easington has been selected for what the Council regards as invalid reasons. 596 2046 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Stamford Homes Ltd Support with There needs to be an indication of the number of 'market villages'. There is concern that too many 478 conditions market villages will lead to the continuation of an unsustainable and dispersed pattern of development 679 in East Riding. This would have a detrimental impact on the regeneration of principal towns. Mr J E Milner Object Restricting development to these areas will put pressure on services and facilities and make them small 1199 626 towns not villages. Mappleton Parish Object We feel there should be more, as the ones specified will become over developed. Council 730 350 Mr Paul Jackson Object More Market Villages because there should be more smaller developments across more villages to keep 1456 744 character and nature of their essence. Garton-on-the-Wolds Object It would appear that only those villages identified as Market Villages would be considered for future Parish Council 765 development with limited Parish Council input. 1457 Foston Parish Council Support Support but: It seems that everything else is ignored if not within a selected Market Village. 329 780 Mr & Mrs Glew Support with Yes in principle, but not to the complete exclusion of all sites in other villages. 1333 conditions 812 JG Hatcliffe & Partners Support with Yes in principle, but not to the complete exclusion of all sites in other villages. 1462 conditions 814 Bugthorpe and Kirby Object There should be more flexibility to allow limited development in most villages where a LOCAL benefit Underdale Parish Council 850 can be demonstrated. 603 Humber & Wolds Rural Object Local centres should be geographically distributed ie.not 2 miles apart! Community Council 901 318 Mr M G Butler Observations Build a complete new Market Town with all energy saving devices to fulfil the need for housing in the 1388 961 future at least 20 metres above sea level. Allow individual housing to be built in all Parishes for local Name/ID Type/ID Representation needs. Crown Estate Support with The Crown Estate broadly supports Option 1 (i.e. the identification of a limited number of settlements 1467 conditions as rural service centres or Market Villages) over Option 2, which suggests a more restrictive approach to 965 development outside of the Development Strategy Settlements, as identified through Joint Structure Plan (JSP) Policies DS1 - 3. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the Preferred Options document omits a small number of additional key settlements that should be identified as Market Villages. The following representations expand on this point and provide a justification for the statement. Persimmon Homes East Support with Persimmon Homes broadly supports Option 1 (i.e. the identification of a limited number of settlements Yorkshire conditions as rural service centres or Market Villages) over Option 2, which suggests a more restrictive approach to 1468 989 development outside of the Development Strategy Settlements, as identified through Joint Structure Plan (JSP) Policies DS1 - 3. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the Preferred Options document omits a small number of additional key settlements that should be identified as Market Villages. The following representations expand on this point and provide a justification for the statement. Richmond Properties Ltd Support It is important that the Smaller Settlements DPD is in conformity with the adopted Core Strategy for 1471 1046 East Riding. The aim of the Core Strategy is to promote sustainable development and reduce dispersed growth within the District. As such it is recognised that some villages are more suitable than others to accommodate modest growth over the LDF period while supporting the overall development strategy. It is considered appropriate that the emerging LDF in the form of the Smaller Settlements DPD indicates to which villages within the District that modest levels of growth should be focussed. Therefore, Richmond Properties (UK) Ltd agree with the principle of identifying a limited number of Market Villages. RSPB Northern England Support We agree with the decision to limit the number of villages identified as Market Villages, provided the Region 1058 choice of villages takes due account of designated sites of conservation importance. Please see our 970 responses to Questions 13, 15 and 16. Development Land & Object There is no evidence within the consultation document to justify the dismissal of historic patterns of Planning 1118 development which would perpetuate development in a dispersed settlement pattern. A dispersed 1454 approach would not necessarily fail to retain local services and facilities and could stimulate provision of new amenities with additional households supporting and contributing to existing populations of settlements which is essential to the viability and vitality of the smaller and rural communities. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Population thresholds are central to securing those key rural services currently enjoyed by communities. Development Land & Object There is no evidence within the consultation document to justify the dismissal of historic patterns of Planning 1122 development which would perpetuate development in a dispersed settlement pattern. A dispersed 1454 approach would not necessarily fail to retain local services and facilities and could stimulate provision of new amenities with additional households supporting and contributing to existing populations of settlements which is essential to the viability and vitality of the smaller and rural communities. Population thresholds are central to securing those key rural services currently enjoyed by communities. Jean Kitchen Object Each village is different. Hook rates quite high but has not had enough new builds. 1475 1178 Planning Prospects Support Clearly the response of community consultation has been mixed. That said our view is that the 1476 1191 approach to identify a limited number of market villages is supported. The key question is how many given that the East Riding is one of the largest districts in the Country and contains over 330 settlements. The balance should be to identify more rather than less, given that the loss of even a few services in smaller villages could have a significant impact on sustainability of the district. St Modwen Properties Support Agree with the identification of rural villages for limited expansion but we suggest that scope should Plc 1219 remain for assessment of housing expansion on a case by case basis. 1477 David Jackson Object More Market Villages closer to hubs of employment which will enable the public to use other forms of 1485 1270 transport ie bicycle or walk rather than use their cars. Barmston & Fraisthorpe Support with Yes, provided that resources and transport are not withdrawn from smaller settlements. Parish Council conditions 484 1389 Howden Town Council Object Will this not kill off the other villages? 1497 1425 R Swailes Object Given the statutory requirement to produce a Local Development Framework that is consistent with 1500 1450 the provisions of National planning policy and guidance along with the Development Plan (i.e. the Regional Spatial Plan and the JSP) it is clear that there is little scope to adopt a different strategy to that now proposed. Nonetheless, whilst this general approach is supported the document should seek to ensure that it is consistent with the emerging RSS and PPS3 by ensuring that mechanisms are in place to Name/ID Type/ID Representation reflect the potential for increases in housing targets for the area and to adequately plan beyond the first five years of supply. The current revised housing targets are indicated to be above that currently reflected by the JSP and that the period for delivering these targets is to increased up to and beyond 2021 and not 2016 as currently advocated. On the basis of the current consultation document there does not appear to be any such ‘adjustment mechanism’ that would account for the above. Clearly the final list of selected ‘Market Villages’ will be deemed suitable for accommodating residential development, but it is not clear for how long an extended period of time that role would last. Consequently it is not considered to pass the ‘tests of soundness’ required by PPS12. It is considered that greater clarity should be given to the expected ‘lifespan’ of the ‘Market Villages’ and how their role in delivering a balance of housing targets in the area up to and beyond 2021. It is strongly recommended to confirm the above to ensure that provision is made for the identification of land within those settlements (which have been shown to be the most sustainable) to account for the housing requirement therein, up to and beyond 2021. This is not to suggest that identified land is developed immediately, the LDF can accommodate a policy structure that permits individual sites (or parts thereof) to be brought forward within certain timeframes and on the basis of the housing supply in that particular settlement/sub area. This need is further highlighted by the content of the current version of PPS3, which states that LDF’s should “allocate sufficient land and buildings for housing or mixed use development to deliver the first five years of the housing trajectory.” This allocation of land should take effect from the date of the documents adoption and not on the basis current figures. Whilst it is appropriate to assess the impacts of extant consents, it is likely that over the period of time leading to the adoption of this document and the proposals map these figures will change significantly and exhibits the need to plan beyond the first five years. To this end it is apparent that strong consideration be given to the identification of a single list of ‘Market Villages’ rather than the hierarchal approach currently shown. This would ensure that the selected settlements, either on the basis of the current preferred options or as modified by this consultation exercise and subsequent Examination in Public would conform on a longer term basis to the aim and objectives of the network of smaller settlements that are self contained and sustainable. This consequently affords the provision for the correct planning of sites, how they could be developed over a given period of time and with maximum benefits to the community. This could be achieved in Name/ID Type/ID Representation either a phased manner or in a comprehensive pattern of development that would accommodate justified levels of affordable housing as part of a larger market housing scheme. Such planning would ensure that provisions can be made to ensure that the growth of the settlement in housing numbers is matched by the proportionate increase in on or off site infrastructure, such as public open space and utilities. The Local Planning Authority will also have in place mechanisms to quantify the release of affordable housing, rather than to rely on exception sites. The absence of such progressive planning would prejudice such potential and will result in an ad hoc response to each selected settlement. The emerging draft PPS3 provides further guidance on this point through paragraph 16, which states that: “In general, local planning authorities should not phase land within the five year land supply, except where local circumstances require it for example in sub-regional housing market areas where demand is weak or the market failing and market pressures need to be managed in order to ensure that market failure is not exacerbated, or in sub-regional housing market areas where demand is high, where sustainability appraisal suggests that growth above planned levels would have unacceptable impacts. They may however set out the anticipated phasing of land beyond the five year land supply. If they choose to do this, the priority for development should be brownfield land. Annex D provides examples, solely for illustrative purposes, of the approach that local planning authorities could take to allocations and phasing in a variety of housing market circumstances and the companion guide provides further advice.” In the context of the majority of the Authority’s Sub Areas attaining high levels of demand and poor affordability, Annex D of the draft PPS3 identifies that LDF’s should seek to allocate land for 5 – 15 years and to provide an option to phase such release in years 6 – 15. This process is well suited to the selected ‘Market Villages’ as greater certainty can be provided toward the safeguarding and enhancement of existing local facilities in particular. It is recommended that this guidance is taken into account in the derivation of the Smaller Settlements DPD. Mr C Hill Observations Given the statutory requirement to produce a Local Development Framework that is consistent with 1391 1471 the provisions of National planning policy and guidance along with the Development Plan (i.e. the Regional Spatial Plan and the JSP) it is clear that there is little scope to adopt a different strategy to that Name/ID Type/ID Representation now proposed. Nonetheless, whilst this general approach is supported the document should seek to ensure that it is consistent with the emerging RSS and PPS3 by ensuring that mechanisms are in place to reflect the potential for increases in housing targets for the area and to adequately plan beyond the first five years of supply. The current revised housing targets are indicated to be above that currently reflected by the JSP and that the period for delivering these targets is to increased up to and beyond 2021 and not 2016 as currently advocated. On the basis of the current consultation document there does not appear to be any such ‘adjustment mechanism’ that would account for the above. Clearly the final list of selected ‘Market Villages’ will be deemed suitable for accommodating residential development, but it is not clear for how long an extended period of time that role would last. Consequently it is not considered to pass the ‘tests of soundness’ required by PPS12. It is considered that greater clarity should be given to the expected ‘lifespan’ of the ‘Market Villages’ and how their role in delivering a balance of housing targets in the area up to and beyond 2021. It is strongly recommended to confirm the above to ensure that provision is made for the identification of land within those settlements (which have been shown to be the most sustainable) to account for the housing requirement therein, up to and beyond 2021. This is not to suggest that identified land is developed immediately, the LDF can accommodate a policy structure that permits individual sites (or parts thereof) to be brought forward within certain timeframes and on the basis of the housing supply in that particular settlement/sub area. This need is further highlighted by the content of the current version of PPS3, which states that LDF’s should “allocate sufficient land and buildings for housing or mixed use development to deliver the first five years of the housing trajectory.” This allocation of land should take effect from the date of the documents adoption and not on the basis current figures. Whilst it is appropriate to assess the impacts of extant consents, it is likely that over the period of time leading to the adoption of this document and the proposals map these figures will change significantly and exhibits the need to plan beyond the first five years. To this end it is apparent that strong consideration be given to the identification of a single list of ‘Market Villages’ rather than the hierarchal approach currently shown. This would ensure that the selected settlements, either on the basis of the current preferred options or as modified by this consultation exercise and subsequent Examination in Public would conform on a longer term basis to the aim and objectives of the network of smaller settlements that are self contained and sustainable. Name/ID Type/ID Representation This consequently affords the provision for the correct planning of sites, how they could be developed over a given period of time and with maximum benefits to the community. This could be achieved in either a phased manner or in a comprehensive pattern of development that would accommodate justified levels of affordable housing as part of a larger market housing scheme. Such planning would ensure that provisions can be made to ensure that the growth of the settlement in housing numbers is matched by the proportionate increase in on or off site infrastructure, such as public open space and utilities. The Local Planning Authority will also have in place mechanisms to quantify the release of affordable housing, rather than to rely on exception sites. The absence of such progressive planning would prejudice such potential and will result in an ad hoc response to each selected settlement. The emerging draft PPS3 provides further guidance on this point through paragraph 16, which states that: “In general, local planning authorities should not phase land within the five year land supply, except where local circumstances require it for example in sub-regional housing market areas where demand is weak or the market failing and market pressures need to be managed in order to ensure that market failure is not exacerbated, or in sub-regional housing market areas where demand is high, where sustainability appraisal suggests that growth above planned levels would have unacceptable impacts. They may however set out the anticipated phasing of land beyond the five year land supply. If they choose to do this, the priority for development should be brownfield land. Annex D provides examples, solely for illustrative purposes, of the approach that local planning authorities could take to allocations and phasing in a variety of housing market circumstances and the companion guide provides further advice.” In the context of the majority of the Authority’s Sub Areas attaining high levels of demand and poor affordability, Annex D of the draft PPS3 identifies that LDF’s should seek to allocate land for 5 – 15 years and to provide an option to phase such release in years 6 – 15. This process is well suited to the selected ‘Market Villages’ as greater certainty can be provided toward the safeguarding and enhancement of existing local facilities in particular. It is recommended that this guidance is taken into account in the derivation of the Smaller Settlements DPD. Mr & Mrs JH Foreman Observations Given the statutory requirement to produce a Local Development Framework that is consistent with Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1503 1485 the provisions of National planning policy and guidance along with the Development Plan (i.e. the Regional Spatial Plan and the JSP) it is clear that there is little scope to adopt a different strategy to that now proposed. Nonetheless, whilst this general approach is supported the document should seek to ensure that it is consistent with the emerging RSS and PPS3 by ensuring that mechanisms are in place to reflect the potential for increases in housing targets for the area and to adequately plan beyond the first five years of supply. The current revised housing targets are indicated to be above that currently reflected by the JSP and that the period for delivering these targets is to increased up to and beyond 2021 and not 2016 as currently advocated. On the basis of the current consultation document there does not appear to be any such ‘adjustment mechanism’ that would account for the above. Clearly the final list of selected ‘Market Villages’ will be deemed suitable for accommodating residential development, but it is not clear for how long an extended period of time that role would last. Consequently it is not considered to pass the ‘tests of soundness’ required by PPS12. It is considered that greater clarity should be given to the expected ‘lifespan’ of the ‘Market Villages’ and how their role in delivering a balance of housing targets in the area up to and beyond 2021. It is strongly recommended to confirm the above to ensure that provision is made for the identification of land within those settlements (which have been shown to be the most sustainable) to account for the housing requirement therein, up to and beyond 2021. This is not to suggest that identified land is developed immediately, the LDF can accommodate a policy structure that permits individual sites (or parts thereof) to be brought forward within certain timeframes and on the basis of the housing supply in that particular settlement/sub area. This need is further highlighted by the content of the current version of PPS3, which states that LDF’s should “allocate sufficient land and buildings for housing or mixed use development to deliver the first five years of the housing trajectory.” This allocation of land should take effect from the date of the documents adoption and not on the basis current figures. Whilst it is appropriate to assess the impacts of extant consents, it is likely that over the period of time leading to the adoption of this document and the proposals map these figures will change significantly and exhibits the need to plan beyond the first five years. To this end it is apparent that strong consideration be given to the identification of a single list of ‘Market Villages’ rather than the hierarchal approach currently shown. This would ensure that the selected settlements, either on the basis of the current preferred options or as modified by this Name/ID Type/ID Representation consultation exercise and subsequent Examination in Public would conform on a longer term basis to the aim and objectives of the network of smaller settlements that are self contained and sustainable. This consequently affords the provision for the correct planning of sites, how they could be developed over a given period of time and with maximum benefits to the community. This could be achieved in either a phased manner or in a comprehensive pattern of development that would accommodate justified levels of affordable housing as part of a larger market housing scheme. Such planning would ensure that provisions can be made to ensure that the growth of the settlement in housing numbers is matched by the proportionate increase in on or off site infrastructure, such as public open space and utilities. The Local Planning Authority will also have in place mechanisms to quantify the release of affordable housing, rather than to rely on exception sites. The absence of such progressive planning would prejudice such potential and will result in an ad hoc response to each selected settlement. The emerging draft PPS3 provides further guidance on this point through paragraph 16, which states that: “In general, local planning authorities should not phase land within the five year land supply, except where local circumstances require it for example in sub-regional housing market areas where demand is weak or the market failing and market pressures need to be managed in order to ensure that market failure is not exacerbated, or in sub-regional housing market areas where demand is high, where sustainability appraisal suggests that growth above planned levels would have unacceptable impacts. They may however set out the anticipated phasing of land beyond the five year land supply. If they choose to do this, the priority for development should be brownfield land. Annex D provides examples, solely for illustrative purposes, of the approach that local planning authorities could take to allocations and phasing in a variety of housing market circumstances and the companion guide provides further advice.” In the context of the majority of the Authority’s Sub Areas attaining high levels of demand and poor affordability, Annex D of the draft PPS3 identifies that LDF’s should seek to allocate land for 5 – 15 years and to provide an option to phase such release in years 6 – 15. This process is well suited to the selected ‘Market Villages’ as greater certainty can be provided toward the safeguarding and enhancement of existing local facilities in particular. It is recommended that this guidance is taken into account in the derivation of the Smaller Settlements Name/ID Type/ID Representation DPD. J Boat Observations Given the statutory requirement to produce a Local Development Framework that is consistent with 1504 1506 the provisions of National planning policy and guidance along with the Development Plan (i.e. the Regional Spatial Plan and the JSP) it is clear that there is little scope to adopt a different strategy to that now proposed. Nonetheless, whilst this general approach is supported the document should seek to ensure that it is consistent with the emerging RSS and PPS3 by ensuring that mechanisms are in place to reflect the potential for increases in housing targets for the area and to adequately plan beyond the first five years of supply. The current revised housing targets are indicated to be above that currently reflected by the JSP and that the period for delivering these targets is to increased up to and beyond 2021 and not 2016 as currently advocated. On the basis of the current consultation document there does not appear to be any such ‘adjustment mechanism’ that would account for the above. Clearly the final list of selected ‘Market Villages’ will be deemed suitable for accommodating residential development, but it is not clear for how long an extended period of time that role would last. Consequently it is not considered to pass the ‘tests of soundness’ required by PPS12. It is considered that greater clarity should be given to the expected ‘lifespan’ of the ‘Market Villages’ and how their role in delivering a balance of housing targets in the area up to and beyond 2021. It is strongly recommended to confirm the above to ensure that provision is made for the identification of land within those settlements (which have been shown to be the most sustainable) to account for the housing requirement therein, up to and beyond 2021. This is not to suggest that identified land is developed immediately, the LDF can accommodate a policy structure that permits individual sites (or parts thereof) to be brought forward within certain timeframes and on the basis of the housing supply in that particular settlement/sub area. This need is further highlighted by the content of the current version of PPS3, which states that LDF’s should “allocate sufficient land and buildings for housing or mixed use development to deliver the first five years of the housing trajectory.” This allocation of land should take effect from the date of the documents adoption and not on the basis current figures. Whilst it is appropriate to assess the impacts of extant consents, it is likely that over the period of time leading to the adoption of this document and the proposals map these figures will change significantly and exhibits the need to plan beyond the first five years. To this end it is apparent that strong consideration be given to the identification of a single Name/ID Type/ID Representation list of ‘Market Villages’ rather than the hierarchal approach currently shown. This would ensure that the selected settlements, either on the basis of the current preferred options or as modified by this consultation exercise and subsequent Examination in Public would conform on a longer term basis to the aim and objectives of the network of smaller settlements that are self contained and sustainable. This consequently affords the provision for the correct planning of sites, how they could be developed over a given period of time and with maximum benefits to the community. This could be achieved in either a phased manner or in a comprehensive pattern of development that would accommodate justified levels of affordable housing as part of a larger market housing scheme. Such planning would ensure that provisions can be made to ensure that the growth of the settlement in housing numbers is matched by the proportionate increase in on or off site infrastructure, such as public open space and utilities. The Local Planning Authority will also have in place mechanisms to quantify the release of affordable housing, rather than to rely on exception sites. The absence of such progressive planning would prejudice such potential and will result in an ad hoc response to each selected settlement. The emerging draft PPS3 provides further guidance on this point through paragraph 16, which states that: “In general, local planning authorities should not phase land within the five year land supply, except where local circumstances require it for example in sub-regional housing market areas where demand is weak or the market failing and market pressures need to be managed in order to ensure that market failure is not exacerbated, or in sub-regional housing market areas where demand is high, where sustainability appraisal suggests that growth above planned levels would have unacceptable impacts. They may however set out the anticipated phasing of land beyond the five year land supply. If they choose to do this, the priority for development should be brownfield land. Annex D provides examples, solely for illustrative purposes, of the approach that local planning authorities could take to allocations and phasing in a variety of housing market circumstances and the companion guide provides further advice.” In the context of the majority of the Authority’s Sub Areas attaining high levels of demand and poor affordability, Annex D of the draft PPS3 identifies that LDF’s should seek to allocate land for 5 – 15 years and to provide an option to phase such release in years 6 – 15. This process is well suited to the selected ‘Market Villages’ as greater certainty can be provided toward the safeguarding and enhancement Name/ID Type/ID Representation of existing local facilities in particular. It is recommended that this guidance is taken into account in the derivation of the Smaller Settlements DPD. MB Goodwin (Skipsea) Observations Given the statutory requirement to produce a Local Development Framework that is consistent with Ltd. 1518 the provisions of National planning policy and guidance along with the Development Plan (i.e. the 1505 Regional Spatial Plan and the JSP) it is clear that there is little scope to adopt a different strategy to that now proposed. Nonetheless, whilst this general approach is supported the document should seek to ensure that it is consistent with the emerging RSS and PPS3 by ensuring that mechanisms are in place to reflect the potential for increases in housing targets for the area and to adequately plan beyond the first five years of supply. The current revised housing targets are indicated to be above that currently reflected by the JSP and that the period for delivering these targets is to increased up to and beyond 2021 and not 2016 as currently advocated. On the basis of the current consultation document there does not appear to be any such ‘adjustment mechanism’ that would account for the above. Clearly the final list of selected ‘Market Villages’ will be deemed suitable for accommodating residential development, but it is not clear for how long an extended period of time that role would last. Consequently it is not considered to pass the ‘tests of soundness’ required by PPS12. It is considered that greater clarity should be given to the expected ‘lifespan’ of the ‘Market Villages’ and how their role in delivering a balance of housing targets in the area up to and beyond 2021. It is strongly recommended to confirm the above to ensure that provision is made for the identification of land within those settlements (which have been shown to be the most sustainable) to account for the housing requirement therein, up to and beyond 2021. This is not to suggest that identified land is developed immediately, the LDF can accommodate a policy structure that permits individual sites (or parts thereof) to be brought forward within certain timeframes and on the basis of the housing supply in that particular settlement/sub area. This need is further highlighted by the content of the current version of PPS3, which states that LDF’s should “allocate sufficient land and buildings for housing or mixed use development to deliver the first five years of the housing trajectory.” This allocation of land should take effect from the date of the documents adoption and not on the basis current figures. Whilst it is appropriate to assess the impacts of extant consents, it is likely that over the period of time leading to the adoption of this document and Name/ID Type/ID Representation the proposals map these figures will change significantly and exhibits the need to plan beyond the first five years. To this end it is apparent that strong consideration be given to the identification of a single list of ‘Market Villages’ rather than the hierarchal approach currently shown. This would ensure that the selected settlements, either on the basis of the current preferred options or as modified by this consultation exercise and subsequent Examination in Public would conform on a longer term basis to the aim and objectives of the network of smaller settlements that are self contained and sustainable. This consequently affords the provision for the correct planning of sites, how they could be developed over a given period of time and with maximum benefits to the community. This could be achieved in either a phased manner or in a comprehensive pattern of development that would accommodate justified levels of affordable housing as part of a larger market housing scheme. Such planning would ensure that provisions can be made to ensure that the growth of the settlement in housing numbers is matched by the proportionate increase in on or off site infrastructure, such as public open space and utilities. The Local Planning Authority will also have in place mechanisms to quantify the release of affordable housing, rather than to rely on exception sites. The absence of such progressive planning would prejudice such potential and will result in an ad hoc response to each selected settlement. The emerging draft PPS3 provides further guidance on this point through paragraph 16, which states that: “In general, local planning authorities should not phase land within the five year land supply, except where local circumstances require it for example in sub-regional housing market areas where demand is weak or the market failing and market pressures need to be managed in order to ensure that market failure is not exacerbated, or in sub-regional housing market areas where demand is high, where sustainability appraisal suggests that growth above planned levels would have unacceptable impacts. They may however set out the anticipated phasing of land beyond the five year land supply. If they choose to do this, the priority for development should be brownfield land. Annex D provides examples, solely for illustrative purposes, of the approach that local planning authorities could take to allocations and phasing in a variety of housing market circumstances and the companion guide provides further advice.” In the context of the majority of the Authority’s Sub Areas attaining high levels of demand and poor affordability, Annex D of the draft PPS3 identifies that LDF’s should seek to allocate land for 5 – 15 Name/ID Type/ID Representation years and to provide an option to phase such release in years 6 – 15. This process is well suited to the selected ‘Market Villages’ as greater certainty can be provided toward the safeguarding and enhancement of existing local facilities in particular. It is recommended that this guidance is taken into account in the derivation of the Smaller Settlements DPD. WC Watts Estate Observations Given the statutory requirement to produce a Local Development Framework that is consistent with 1506 1534 the provisions of National planning policy and guidance along with the Development Plan (i.e. the Regional Spatial Plan and the JSP) it is clear that there is little scope to adopt a different strategy to that now proposed. Nonetheless, whilst this general approach is supported the document should seek to ensure that it is consistent with the emerging RSS and PPS3 by ensuring that mechanisms are in place to reflect the potential for increases in housing targets for the area and to adequately plan beyond the first five years of supply. The current revised housing targets are indicated to be above that currently reflected by the JSP and that the period for delivering these targets is to increased up to and beyond 2021 and not 2016 as currently advocated. On the basis of the current consultation document there does not appear to be any such ‘adjustment mechanism’ that would account for the above. Clearly the final list of selected ‘Market Villages’ will be deemed suitable for accommodating residential development, but it is not clear for how long an extended period of time that role would last. Consequently it is not considered to pass the ‘tests of soundness’ required by PPS12. It is considered that greater clarity should be given to the expected ‘lifespan’ of the ‘Market Villages’ and how their role in delivering a balance of housing targets in the area up to and beyond 2021. It is strongly recommended to confirm the above to ensure that provision is made for the identification of land within those settlements (which have been shown to be the most sustainable) to account for the housing requirement therein, up to and beyond 2021. This is not to suggest that identified land is developed immediately, the LDF can accommodate a policy structure that permits individual sites (or parts thereof) to be brought forward within certain timeframes and on the basis of the housing supply in that particular settlement/sub area. This need is further highlighted by the content of the current version of PPS3, which states that LDF’s should “allocate sufficient land and buildings for housing or mixed use development to deliver the first five years of the housing trajectory.” This allocation of land should take effect from the date of the Name/ID Type/ID Representation documents adoption and not on the basis current figures. Whilst it is appropriate to assess the impacts of extant consents, it is likely that over the period of time leading to the adoption of this document and the proposals map these figures will change significantly and exhibits the need to plan beyond the first five years. To this end it is apparent that strong consideration be given to the identification of a single list of ‘Market Villages’ rather than the hierarchal approach currently shown. This would ensure that the selected settlements, either on the basis of the current preferred options or as modified by this consultation exercise and subsequent Examination in Public would conform on a longer term basis to the aim and objectives of the network of smaller settlements that are self contained and sustainable. This consequently affords the provision for the correct planning of sites, how they could be developed over a given period of time and with maximum benefits to the community. This could be achieved in either a phased manner or in a comprehensive pattern of development that would accommodate justified levels of affordable housing as part of a larger market housing scheme. Such planning would ensure that provisions can be made to ensure that the growth of the settlement in housing numbers is matched by the proportionate increase in on or off site infrastructure, such as public open space and utilities. The Local Planning Authority will also have in place mechanisms to quantify the release of affordable housing, rather than to rely on exception sites. The absence of such progressive planning would prejudice such potential and will result in an ad hoc response to each selected settlement. The emerging draft PPS3 provides further guidance on this point through paragraph 16, which states that: “In general, local planning authorities should not phase land within the five year land supply, except where local circumstances require it for example in sub-regional housing market areas where demand is weak or the market failing and market pressures need to be managed in order to ensure that market failure is not exacerbated, or in sub-regional housing market areas where demand is high, where sustainability appraisal suggests that growth above planned levels would have unacceptable impacts. They may however set out the anticipated phasing of land beyond the five year land supply. If they choose to do this, the priority for development should be brownfield land. Annex D provides examples, solely for illustrative purposes, of the approach that local planning authorities could take to allocations and phasing in a variety of housing market circumstances and the companion guide provides further advice.” Name/ID Type/ID Representation In the context of the majority of the Authority’s Sub Areas attaining high levels of demand and poor affordability, Annex D of the draft PPS3 identifies that LDF’s should seek to allocate land for 5 – 15 years and to provide an option to phase such release in years 6 – 15. This process is well suited to the selected ‘Market Villages’ as greater certainty can be provided toward the safeguarding and enhancement of existing local facilities in particular. It is recommended that this guidance is taken into account in the derivation of the Smaller Settlements DPD. Bryan Brown Observations Given the statutory requirement to produce a Local Development Framework that is consistent with 1507 1551 the provisions of National planning policy and guidance along with the Development Plan (i.e. the Regional Spatial Plan and the JSP) it is clear that there is little scope to adopt a different strategy to that now proposed. Nonetheless, whilst this general approach is supported the document should seek to ensure that it is consistent with the emerging RSS and PPS3 by ensuring that mechanisms are in place to reflect the potential for increases in housing targets for the area and to adequately plan beyond the first five years of supply. The current revised housing targets are indicated to be above that currently reflected by the JSP and that the period for delivering these targets is to increased up to and beyond 2021 and not 2016 as currently advocated. On the basis of the current consultation document there does not appear to be any such ‘adjustment mechanism’ that would account for the above. Clearly the final list of selected ‘Market Villages’ will be deemed suitable for accommodating residential development, but it is not clear for how long an extended period of time that role would last. Consequently it is not considered to pass the ‘tests of soundness’ required by PPS12. It is considered that greater clarity should be given to the expected ‘lifespan’ of the ‘Market Villages’ and how their role in delivering a balance of housing targets in the area up to and beyond 2021. It is strongly recommended to confirm the above to ensure that provision is made for the identification of land within those settlements (which have been shown to be the most sustainable) to account for the housing requirement therein, up to and beyond 2021. This is not to suggest that identified land is developed immediately, the LDF can accommodate a policy structure that permits individual sites (or parts thereof) to be brought forward within certain timeframes and on the basis of the housing supply in that particular settlement/sub area. This need is further highlighted by the content of the current version of PPS3, which states that LDF’s Name/ID Type/ID Representation should “allocate sufficient land and buildings for housing or mixed use development to deliver the first five years of the housing trajectory.” This allocation of land should take effect from the date of the documents adoption and not on the basis current figures. Whilst it is appropriate to assess the impacts of extant consents, it is likely that over the period of time leading to the adoption of this document and the proposals map these figures will change significantly and exhibits the need to plan beyond the first five years. To this end it is apparent that strong consideration be given to the identification of a single list of ‘Market Villages’ rather than the hierarchal approach currently shown. This would ensure that the selected settlements, either on the basis of the current preferred options or as modified by this consultation exercise and subsequent Examination in Public would conform on a longer term basis to the aim and objectives of the network of smaller settlements that are self contained and sustainable. This consequently affords the provision for the correct planning of sites, how they could be developed over a given period of time and with maximum benefits to the community. This could be achieved in either a phased manner or in a comprehensive pattern of development that would accommodate justified levels of affordable housing as part of a larger market housing scheme. Such planning would ensure that provisions can be made to ensure that the growth of the settlement in housing numbers is matched by the proportionate increase in on or off site infrastructure, such as public open space and utilities. The Local Planning Authority will also have in place mechanisms to quantify the release of affordable housing, rather than to rely on exception sites. The absence of such progressive planning would prejudice such potential and will result in an ad hoc response to each selected settlement. The emerging draft PPS3 provides further guidance on this point through paragraph 16, which states that: “In general, local planning authorities should not phase land within the five year land supply, except where local circumstances require it for example in sub-regional housing market areas where demand is weak or the market failing and market pressures need to be managed in order to ensure that market failure is not exacerbated, or in sub-regional housing market areas where demand is high, where sustainability appraisal suggests that growth above planned levels would have unacceptable impacts. They may however set out the anticipated phasing of land beyond the five year land supply. If they choose to do this, the priority for development should be brownfield land. Annex D provides examples, solely for illustrative purposes, of the approach that local planning authorities could take to allocations Name/ID Type/ID Representation and phasing in a variety of housing market circumstances and the companion guide provides further advice.” In the context of the majority of the Authority’s Sub Areas attaining high levels of demand and poor affordability, Annex D of the draft PPS3 identifies that LDF’s should seek to allocate land for 5 – 15 years and to provide an option to phase such release in years 6 – 15. This process is well suited to the selected ‘Market Villages’ as greater certainty can be provided toward the safeguarding and enhancement of existing local facilities in particular. It is recommended that this guidance is taken into account in the derivation of the Smaller Settlements DPD. Carter Jonas LLP Support Yes. How limited will however depend on the number needed in order to effectively meet the various 1509 1615 development needs across the whole of the District. Sufficient villages will need to be identified to create a comprehensive network that is accessible to all. Paragraph 5.20 of the Draft RSS states: 'The overall effect of the Plan’s core approach should be to deliver strategic restraint with relatively low levels of development in rural areas. Within this approach and at a more detailed level it provides a framework for continued but more focussed growth in rural areas.' It is considered that Draft RSS does not intend to prevent development within the rural areas, but ensure it is at an appropriate level in order to meet the needs of the rural areas. This means at least catering for natural growth and development pressures. Peter Robinson Object No. Less - only a handful; of those identified should qualify as Market Villages, the remainder should be 994 1726 re-classified as DS5. Rudston Parish Council Object Each settlement should be considered on its merits, not helpful to have settlements "fail". 1526 1983 John Potts Limited Object Maintain dispersed approach for certain named settlements such as Woodmansey where there are no 1530 2014 alternative sites in order to meet the amount and range of housing set in RSS. This reflects the rural nature of the district and its setting next to the regional centre of Hull.

Question 5 – Do you agree with the selection of Study Group settlements?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Specific Consultation Bodies - Hull City Council

Town and Parish Councils - Watton, Swanland, Anlaby, Paull, Seaton Ross, Beeford, Langtoft, Mappleton, Foston, Bainton, Garton, Wetwang, Sigglesthorne, Patrington, Aldbrough, Sutton Upon Derwent, Newton Upon Derwent, North Frodingham, Barmston&Fraisthorpe, Middleton, Hayton&Burnby, South Cave, Roos, Fridaythorpe, Stamford Bridge, North Ferriby, Melbourne, Easington (28).

Other Bodies - Ferriby Conservation Society, Hornsea Residents' Association, Bridlington & District Civic Society, Hornsea & District Chamber of Trade, South Cave Active Residents, Gateway Pathfinder, Hornsea & District Civic Society (7)

Agents and Individuals - BP Ryan, CW&DC Hattee, C.Brown, O'Pray, Bovis Homes Ltd, GS Lenton, Stamford Homes Ltd, W Clifford Watts Ltd, H Hook, R Bryan, R Hall, Smiths Gore, JF&KM Glew, JG Hatcliffe & Partners, JM Fielden, Dunlop Haywards (Persimmon Homes), R Barnes, GJ Perry (City Developments), M Glover, R Swailes, C Hill, JH Foreman, J Boat, MB Goodwin (Skipsea) Ltd, WC Watts Estate, B Brown&Son, Ramsden Developments, Cllr Abraham (28).

64 respondents in total

The following respondent answered 'No' without any further comment:

Agents and Individuals - C.Worrall

1 respondent

Name/ID Type/ID Representation Development Land & Object No selection criteria for the 10 additional settlements Planning 1131 1154 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Howden Town Council Object All settlements of 300-500 should have been included not just 10. 1497 1426 Rudston Parish Council Observations We would be interested to know how the additional ten settlements with populations of 300-500 were 1526 1984 selected. Seaton Parish Council Object It is a hard job to choose, there appears to be many wholes of communities missed out. 1413 516 Twin Rivers Parish Object 3.5 states you concentrated the study on those potentially having services and facilities needed to Council 588 perform such a function. 1444 You include Addingfleet in your study group table 3.1 As being the main settlement of Twin Rivers. All three villages should have been assessed individually because under the headings 'village hall' and 'sports field' Adlingfleet is shown as possessing these facilities when in fact they are over two miles away in Ousefleet. Indeed Addingfleet has nowhere to cast our votes in local or national elections because of the distance to a community hall, and residents are asked if they would volunteer their property for this purpose. Just because it is convenient to lump the three villages together for the purpose of completing table 3.3 these facilities are non-existent in Adlingfleet. I note you state the population of Twin Rivers as 357, is this figure the population of all three villages or Adlingfleet only? Humber & Wolds Rural Object Use geographical criteria first. Community Council 902 318 Richmond Properties Ltd Support It is recognised that not all villages and small settlements within East Riding would be appropriate 1471 1047 locations for development. It is considered appropriate that the Council undertook an initial sifting exercise to establish what settlements within the Local Authority Area display the components of sustainable communities and thus help inform decisions on the selection of settlements to fulfil the role of “Market Villages”. Therefore, we agree with the selection of Study Group Settlements. Planning Prospects Support The study group is supported, however there are always likely to be some smaller settlements which for 1476 1192 various reasons and over time have a disproportionate level of services. Our caveat to this support is that Development Limits for all but the very smallest of villages should be maintained and the effective countryside designation outside Market Villages needs to be reconsidered (see comments below). St Modwen Properties Support with Agree with the selection of study group settlements in principle, however, Welton/Melton should be Name/ID Type/ID Representation Plc conditions added to the selection list. In addition, scope for assessing the suitability of individual sites to 1477 1220 accommodate the expansion of rural villages should be included in the DPD. Carter Jonas LLP Support We agree with the inclusion of North Cave and South Cave. Both have a good range of services and 1509 1616 facilities, and have the ability to accommodate measured growth without causing harm to their character or form. There are a number of sites where development is appropriate in North Cave, including land at Station Road, land to the north and south of Everthorpe Lane and land at Townend Lane. Melrose Plc Colliers Cre Object Fewer settlements should be identified. Many of those identified in the DPD are unsustainable and are 1524 1884 not suitable for additional limited development. These settlements should be deleted from the DPD. Snaith and Cowick Parish Object All villages should be given the option to develop brownfield sites particularly when they are unsightly. Council 618 248 Bugthorpe and Kirby Object All settlements should be considered for development on their own particular merits/needs. Underdale Parish Council 835 603 Mr D J Lord Object All settlements should be considered for development on their own particular merits/needs. 1194 851 Hollym Parish Council Object Rural villages need local amenities such as shops and post offices not office blocks. 833 869 Gilberdyke Parish Object Some settlements not included could be grouped with their neighbouring communities/settlements to Council 1640 form larger communities, in which small scale development could be considered to ensure continued 1510 sustainability. There is recognition of Parishes rather than settlements, which can easily slant the figures and findings Mr J E Milner Object New and Old Ellerby classed as one and included in order to get the required services. 1199 626 Mr Paul Jackson Object Carnaby to be added to the selection. 1456 745 David Jackson Object Carnaby should be on it. 1485 1271 Alliance General Object Should include Dunswell. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Property Development 891 Ltd 1465 Jean Kitchen Support To a certain extent. Where is Reedness in this? Is it in with Twin Rivers or Swinefleet? 1475 1179 Mr John Potts Object Woodmansey Parish as far as it affects Beverley has been included but not Woodmansey as a separate (John Potts Limited) 2015 settlement. This is inconsistent. Woodmansey as well as its location described above is just as large a 1530 settlement as some others included in table 3.1. Crown Estate Support with Yes, subject to the comments made in the wider representations regarding Elvington and its links to 1467 conditions Sutton Upon Derwent. 966

Question 6 – Do you agree with the list of selection criteria used in the evaluation of the Study Group settlements?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Specific Consultation Bodies - Hull City Council

Town and Parish Councils - Seaton, Watton, Swanland, Anlaby, Paull, Seaton Ross, Beeford, Langtoft, Mappleton, Foston, Bainton, Wetwang, Sigglesthorne, Hollym, Aldbrough, Sutton Upon Derwent, Newton Upon Derwent, North Frodingham, Barmston&Fraisthorpe, Middleton, Hayton&Burnby, South Cave, Howden, Roos, Fridaythorpe, Stamford Bridge, North Ferriby, Rudston, Melbourne, Easington (30)

Other Bodies - Hornsea Residents' Association, Bridlington & District Civic Society, Derwent Valley Conservation Group, Gateway Pathfinder, Hornsea & District Civic Society (5)

Agents and Individuals - BP Ryan, CW&DC Hattee, C.Brown, GS Lenton, Stamford Homes Ltd, W Clifford Watts Ltd, H Hook, P Jackson, R Bryan, R Hall, JM Fielden, R Barnes, GJ Perry(City Developments), Mr&Mrs D Jackson, R Swailes, C Hill, JH Foreman, J Boat, MB Goodwin(Skipsea)Ltd, WC Watts Estate, B Brown&Son, Ramsden Developments, Cllr Abraham (23)

59 respondents in total

The following respondent answered 'No' without any further comment:

Town and Parish Councils - Snaith and Cowick.

Agents and Individuals - C.Worrall

2 respondents in total

Name/ID Type/ID Representation Government Office for Object I think it would help to have clearer / more consistent explanations of methodology and sources, Yorkshire and the 1025 especially assumptions made and the evidence to support these assumptions. (Soundness test vii is Name/ID Type/ID Representation Humber relevant) It is made clear, for example, that the standards used to assess settlements accessibility is taken 694 from table 6.19 of emerging RSS; and the employment indicators derive from ‘origin-destination statistics in 2001 census’. RSPB Northern England Observations We believe that the selection criteria should have included an assessment of the environmental Region 1059 constraints for each village. In particular, this should aim to assess the potential impacts of each village 970 on: i) Internationally, nationally and locally-designated sites of nature conservation importance ii) Protected species and priority habitats iii) The maintenance of networks of natural habitats iv) Flood management (e.g. increased flood risk within the village or elsewhere) and the functioning of floodplains. Yorkshire Forward Support We welcome the methodology for determining preferred ‘Market Villages’ within the East Riding, 1433 1327 which assesses each individual village through a comprehensive and easy to understand list of sustainability factors. The overall aim of the document is to provide market villages in locations that will contribute to a well-distributed network when viewed alongside the existing network of development strategy settlements. Therefore, we welcome the four criteria used to assess each settlement within the document and the equal weighting given to each, providing a sound basis for determining which settlements should be identified as ‘Market Villages’. Cllr Charles Bayram (East Object The Council’s interpretation of paragraph 31 ppg3, “settlement sustainability” only requires a shop, Riding of Yorkshire 1345 school and a meeting place as a minimum. The criteria proposed by the Council is too complicated and Council) not necessary. 627 Cllr Charles Bayram (East Object Re-look at the minimum requirement for sustainability. Riding of Yorkshire 1346 History shows the link between housing and jobs is very important and the main reason for travel by Council) the private motor car. 627 The primary method of travel is walking, the National distance recognised by policy and the courts is 2km ’20 minutes’ providing there is footway provision. East Riding of Yorkshire Observations The SSDPD states that rural dwellers should be within ‘reasonable proximity’ to a Market Village for a Rural Partnership 1353 basic level of service provision, but does not specify what a ‘reasonable proximity’ is. This could leave Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1488 parts of the rural population deprived of basic services, particularly the less mobile. A reasonable distance in a car is different to a reasonable distance on foot. ‘Proximity’ is also not a good measure of accessibility due to hills, road gritting policies, lighting and public transport provision etc. East Riding of Yorkshire Observations The SSDPD states that rural dwellers should be within ‘reasonable proximity’ to a ‘Market Village’ for a Rural Partnership 1364 basic level of service provision, but does not specify what a ‘reasonable proximity’ is. This could leave 1488 parts of the rural population deprived of basic services, particularly the less mobile. A reasonable distance in a car is different to a reasonable distance on foot. ‘Proximity’ is also not a good measure of accessibility due to topography, road gritting policies, lighting, fuel prices and public transport provision etc. East Riding of Yorkshire Observations Paragraph 7.10 of the Transport Development Plan Document introduces a policy to consider the Rural Partnership 1366 impact of generated traffic from new development when making planning decisions, and to resist 1488 development where this causes worse congestion. The Rural Policy & Partnerships Team would like to ensure that were this policy is used to resist development, that a realistic interpretation of ‘congestion’ has been considered – and not just a moderate increase in traffic flow. Alliance General Object More weight should be given to close proximity to major urban centres. Property Development 892 Ltd 1465 Richmond Properties Ltd Observations The list of selection criteria used in the elevation of the Study Group Settlements reflects that found at 1471 1048 Paragraph 5.25 of the Joint Structure Plan (Core Strategy) and as such is considered to be an acceptable list of criteria against which the suitability of a particular settlement to accommodate new development should be considered. However, as set out in our representations at Issues and Options Stage, we are of the view that the criteria, as listed at Paragraph 5.25 of the Joint Structure Plan, ought to be augmented to include: • the need for infrastructure improvements; • the ability to accommodate growth within or adjacent to the settlement without detriment to village character or areas of environmental sensitivity; and • the need to diversify the settlement’s population. Due to local government funding constraints many small road and environmental improvements which Name/ID Type/ID Representation although necessary within villages and supported by local residents cannot be funded from the public purse with the resulting lack of provision having a negative impact on the settlement. It is considered that development at these settlements can often proceed with small-scale infrastructure improvements financed by developers which results in environmental benefits for the local community and provides additional or extended local services and facilities. Regard should also be given to the ability of small scale development to come forward, particularly at the edge of villages which would not undermine the established village character or, indeed would through its development enhance that character. The populations of rural settlements are becoming increasingly elderly and in some cases this can be addressed by the introduction of new housing stock which will maintain young families within settlements. Development Land & Object Self containment in employment could be expanded to community services and facilities and for this to Planning 1132 be encouraged. 1454 St Modwen Properties Object Agree in principle, however, a flexible approach to settlement expansion should be adopted in smaller Plc 1222 settlements where natural landscape features offer opportunities to accommodate limited housing 1477 development in a manner which remains sensitive to the surrounding rural landscape (such as land at Home Farm and 'The Paddock' site at Melton, as shown on the enclosed plan. Mr G E Wright Observations It is considered that the approach and use of the selection criteria and assessment scoring is 562 1294 fundamentally flawed due to a lack of soundness, evidence base and transparency. Although the factors identified are factors that might be placed into any selection based on sound planning judgement, they are not the only factors that would be relevant to that assessment and the judgement would be based on, rather than directed by, the factors. The selection process would have to acknowledge as its starting point the existing historic hierarchy of settlements currently existing below the DS 3 level. A more detailed criticism of the inadequacies of the selection and assessments process are set out below. Roy Hunt Observations In Gilberdyke there are reservations about the ability of the sewage network to handle increased 1490 1376 demands. In Newport, we already have an approved development which cannot be concluded until the sewer serving the site is improved. There are other questions about the availability of gas, water and electricity – for instance the Name/ID Type/ID Representation development of the tile works at Broomfleet required a major investment in the electricity supply. I am not suggesting that these problems could not be overcome, but in the same way that factors included in the study are used to determine sustainable development (and which could be enhanced if the investment was made), it seems to be short sighted at this stage not to give any consideration to these key services. There is also a problem in both Newport and Gilberdyke about flood risk, which again is not considered in the study. The argument world-wide is that we need to think carefully about climate change and flood risk when we consider where to build new houses and settlements. Roy Hunt Observations Here I have two concerns. The first is that equal consideration is given to different facilities. For 1490 1380 instance in table 3.3, should the presence of a public house in the settlement area have equal weighting to having a primary school or village store. Personally I think not. Secondly, I am concerned about the binary scoring system used which takes no account of things like quality of service and ability to sustain growth. For instance, I would, on a score of 1 to 5, give South Cave a score of at least 4 on Rail Network and Gilberdyke a score of perhaps 1. On a more granular scale we could for instance score a public house 1 or 0 and a primary school between 1 and 5 dependent on its ability to accommodate more pupils. Hedon Town Council Object Although the report and proposals recognise that the levels of services are merely a picture at one point 1514 1701 in time this Council has concerns over the known proposed reductions in village provision of Post Offices; banks; and especially the reduction in medical and hospital services away from large centres. Recent proposals to reduce Post Office provision and Cottage hospitals and A&E facilities are of greatest concern in this connection. Peter Robinson Object The points scoring bandwidth is too narrow throwing up a number of anomalies and resulting in a very 994 1722 large number of settlements of varying degrees of suitability all bunched together with the same points. Example 1. Leconfield on table 3.4 has a score of 1 for rail network which is exactly the same as Hutton Cranswick. Leconfield does not in fact have its own station as it’s situated in Arram which is almost as far from parts of Leconfield as Beverley is. Furthermore Hutton Cranswick has 20 trains per day to Beveley and Hull whereas Arram (leconfield) has only four trains per day. Example 2. Table 3.4 shows 35 settlements all scoring the same single point for bus network when in reality these will vary enourmously. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Example 3. The Accessibility to Activities indicator on table 3.4 is confusing and probably meaningless as there is so little variation in each of the three columns. The differences that do occur are not easily explained.

Question 7 – Do you agree with the way we have assessed the Services and Facilities criterion and the assessment of the Study Group settlements?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Specific Consultation Bodies - Hull City Council

Town and Parish Councils - Watton, Anlaby, Seaton Ross, Langtoft, Mappleton, Foston, Bainton, Wetwang, Sigglesthorne, Hollym, Patrington, Aldbrough, Sutton Upon Derwent, Newton Upon Derwent, Barmston&Fraisthorpe, Middleton, Hayton&Burnby, Fridaythorpe, Stamford Bridge, Melbourne (20)

Other Bodies - Hornsea Residents' Association, Bridlington & District Civic Society, Hornsea & District Chamber of Trade, Gateway Pathfinder, Hornsea & District Civic Society (5)

Agents and Individuals - BP Ryan, CW&DC Hattee, O'Pray, Bovis Homes Ltd, Stamford Homes Ltd, W Clifford Watts Ltd, H Hook, R Bryan, R Hall, JF&KM Glew, JG Hatcliffe& Partners, JM Fielden, Persimmon Homes, R Barnes, GJ Perry(City Developments), M Glover, R Swailes, Ramsden Developments (18)

44 respondents in total

The following respondent answered 'No' without any further comment:

Town and Parish Councils - Snaith and Cowick, Beeford (2)

Agents and Individuals - C.Worrall

3 respondents in total

Name/ID Type/ID Representation Name/ID Type/ID Representation Ms Nicola Salvidge Object If using this criteria, why was our village not included in the study? We score 6. (Seaton Parish Council) 517 1413 Christine A Brown Object Require a more realistic (assessment?) of time requirements for travel and plans to use services and 569 543 facilities. Mr Henryk Peterson Support The selection of settlements as market villages based on the presence of such facilities as schools, (Sport England) 584 community centres and sports fields and degree of accessibility to these facilities is supported. 539 Mrs. Plumb (Twin Rivers Object Main drainage was left out and is an important amenity for any village. There is an environmental issue Parish Council) 590 with this criteria as detailed in 4.6. 1444 Mr Graham Lenton Object Bank / building society or cashpoint should be preferable. Table 3 o.k. 1022 610 Mr J E Milner Object These are more like towns not villages. Shop, pub, hall, bus service. 1199 629 Cllr Symon Fraser Object As with Q6 as this section stands it fails to take account of a community’s ability to provide or develop (Conservative Group) 656 its own answers to service shortfall or sustainability threats and it fails to recognise that whilst a 1421 settlement may lack facilities in its own right it may be close enough to an identified “market village” to access services from this near neighbour. Mr Paul Jackson Object More local control by parish council and local communities in influencing scale and type of (Carnaby Parish Council) 669 developments. 1451 Mrs D. E. Franks (Paull Support Agree with assessment. Paull no longer has a shop or a post office. Parish Council) 685 845 Ms J. Crowther Object Agree with the way you have chosen the objectives but not with how you have evaluated Easington. (Easington Parish 2047 Council) 596 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Miss K. E. Laister Support We agree with 3.17 that you may be over estimating the level of services (local) as these are tending to (Ferriby Conservation 700 decrease. Society) 1019 Mr Paul Jackson Object Local gymnasium with swimming pools at hotels would be desirable. 1456 746 Mr Cliff Wilson (Garton- Object The comment made by the Conservative Group is most apt. on-the-Wolds Parish 767 Council) 1457 N Mainwaring (Smiths Object Shiptonthorpe has a 'Spar' local store which provides a range of convenience goods. This is not Gore) 808 indicated in table 3.3. 1461 Mr D. J. Lord (Bugthorpe Object There should be different weighting applied to each criteria if this system is to be used ie services and and Kirby Underdale 837 employment should be a higher weighting than transport and relationship. Parish Council) 603 Mr D J Lord Object There should be different weighting applied to each criteria if this system is to be used ie services and 1194 853 employment should be a higher weighting than transport and relationship. Mr Roger Jones (Humber Object Desirable indicators too heavily weighted. Library, Internet and Cit Link not important. Where is the & Wolds Rural 904 population figure in table 3.3? All villages scoring ‘5 preferable’ only lack GP surgery. Community Council) 318 Mr John Mackenzie Support The Crown Estate is broadly in agreement with the Services and Facilities Assessment Criteria and the (Crown Estate) 968 assessment of the settlements. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that, in the case of Sutton upon 1467 Derwent, the services and facilities within Elvington (excluded from the study group settlements), should be taken into consideration. In this context, it is noted that the facilities within Elvington, including a village store and a medical centre are generally within 400 – 800m of Sutton upon Derwent, i.e. within easy walking / cycling distance. Name/ID Type/ID Representation On the basis of the foregoing, it is considered that Sutton upon Derwent should score 6 on the preferable services indicator. M O'Connell Support Perhaps add pharmacy to the doctor’s surgery indicator as a ‘one-stop-shop’ service is often beneficial (Albanwise Ltd) 1014 to remoter communities. 1470 Amending the sports field to ‘sports field/other recreational opportunity’ would better reflect the diversity of leisure opportunities which could be created to satisfy existing and potential demand. Ms L Strogen (Barton Observations We question the relevance of some of the desirable indicators (Community Internet Access and Citizens Willmore Partnership 1049 Link Kiosk) listed at Table 3.2 and their true value in measuring the potential for a settlement’s everyday (Richmond Properties needs. Ltd)) 1471 Mrs E J Sherwood Object It has been fairly easy to classify the DS1 to DS3 settlements through size and the fact there are a 594 1090 limited number of them within the East Riding. Classifying the DS4 settlements is much harder as there are far more and the criteria used to classify them, does vary from location to location along with the quality and efficiency of the services & facilities criterion. This method is fine to obtain a rough guide to services and facilities, but further study as to the size & range of products within that facility, opening times, waiting & appointment availability, school capacity & variety of leisure activities available must take place, before a final conclusion is reached. R J Kingdom Object Assessment is crude even if the services used are accepted. There is little purpose in differentiation (South Cave Active 1101 between preferable and desirable if the scores have equal value. There is no rationale given as to reasons Residents) some services are included in a section or why they were included in the first place. It would make more 1000 sense to have Essential (i.e. without which a village could not be classed as a market village) and desirable as the criteria and using a weighted system would be more sophisticated. Mr Greg Smith Object Include surrounding rural communities also many of these villages may be a destination for other rural (Development Land & 1133 areas, particularly where there are schools. Planning) 1454 Jean Kitchen Observations Some villages would like to grow to enable them to get these facilities. Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1475 1181 Mr J Tait (Planning Support But- There are some limitations to the assessment, mainly because there are only a limited number of Prospects) 1194 services and facilities which are identified, meaning that many settlements score a similar amount. This 1476 has the disproportionate effect in the final evaluation and means that the availability of even 1 of the services mentioned can have a fundamental effect on the assessment, more so than any other factor in the other selection criteria. Ashleigh Swan (St Object No, secondary schools are highly significant but are excluded from the analysis. Modwen Properties Plc 1223 (Indigo Planning)) 1477 Mr James Durham (Hull Observations Assessment of the number of preferable and desirable community services and facilities is a good City Council) 1252 criterion for judging the suitability of settlements as Market Villages . In a time when rural services and 1482 shops are in decline, such Market Villages need to have a significant number of shops and services to form a good base on which to enhance and expand on. David Jackson Object Carnaby services should be Carnaby village alone and not close villages which could be classed as 1485 1272 Market Villages. Mr G E Wright Observations There is no evidence base which indicates that the identified preferable and desirable services and 562 1296 facilities are those appropriate to an assessment of the aims and objectives of the Document. However it is reasonably apparent that there are other services and facilities which could equally be selected such as hot food takeaway, dentists, veterinary surgeons. That there are other issues which might have at least as much, if not greater significance than the identified services and facilities such as proximity to a supermarket, NHS outpatient facility, district hospital and so forth. Mr G E Wright Observations No evidence base is put forward to indicate that the mathematical consequences of the point scoring 562 1297 system or ranking appropriately and adequately give weight to the considerations in respect of the various preferred and desired elements in the process. Mr G E Wright Observations The Document lacks transparency due to the failure to explain the mathematical relationship between 562 1298 the scoring and ranking system and the outcome result in terms of the weighting of the services and facilities in relation to the aim and objectives of the process. Mr BA Rookes (North Support Yes, but it does not assess the quality of services or take into account mobile deliveries e.g. butcher, Name/ID Type/ID Representation Frodingham Parish 1315 milk, online shopping. Council) 1486 Roy Hunt Observations In considering the availability of services and facilities, the study only considers those that are within the 1490 1373 settlement boundaries. This can be very misleading, in particular where a score in tables 3.3 and 3.4 of plus or minus 1 can have a dramatic effect on the overall ranking. I will give some examples below. In Newport there is no petrol station. However, there is effectively only one road which runs through Newport and in either direction there is a petrol station within half a mile of the settlement boundary and before the first major road intersection. It is clear therefore that Newport is very well served by two petrol stations within half a mile of the village, (there are in four within a mile), but by your analysis, Newport is shown to be deficient in this facility. In Newport we have no health centre, but are in fact very well served by health centres in Gilberdyke, about half a mile outside our village and South Cave, about three miles away. In fact, compared with South Cave, where the health centre is on the edge of their much larger village, Newport health centres are in fact more conveniently placed than for the majority of inhabitants in South Cave. But again, your analysis shows that Newport is deficient in this facility. Roy Hunt Observations I am concerned that there is an implied assumption in the report that because there is a facility or 1490 1374 service within a settlement area, this can absorb additional pressures from further development. Again I will give some specific examples which explain the concern. In Gilberdyke there is a school. However, that school I am told is nearly full and there is virtually no land (except the playing field) available to extend. I am told that the new development already started within the village could push numbers above the school’s limit. There is also a concern, again in Gilberdyke, that the health centre has similar problems. In addition there is concern about parking for the health centre and the local shops which will only be exacerbated by further development. Therefore, if the question posed is not “does this facility exist?” but is instead “is there a facility which can absorb growth?”, then Gilberdyke would score zero in each case, instead of 1. Roy Hunt Observations What we are considering here is a fairly long term structure plan which will be used by planners to 1490 1375 determine where future development will be focused. However, some of the factors used in the study Name/ID Type/ID Representation are best described as transient in nature. In Newport for example we did originally have an ATM in the newsagents, but that ATM was removed by ram raiders, so at the time the survey was carried out there was no ATM. However, since then, a new ATM has been installed in the village store. Citizen Link and Community Internet are both types of facility which are very much in their infancy and which could be provided very easily and at little cost in almost any village at any time. There are similar concerns about post offices and banks, where the tendency is more to lose the facility than gain it in rural areas. I therefore fail to understand how a long term development plan can be so much influenced by factors which could alter substantially in months, let alone the lifetime of the LDF. Put another way, would a priority 1 market village have to lose its status if it lost a couple of key facilities or vice versa, would a priority 3 village move up to a higher priority if it installed say an ATM. Mrs K. Richmond (South Object Bank / building society should be in list of preferable services. Cave Parish Council) 1414 465 Ridley & Roberts Support with However heavier weighting for school. This is already out of date as Airmyn lost its Post Office. With (Howden Town Council) conditions these plans it could soon lose its school. 1497 1427 Mr David Winter (Roos Object Review the criteria for the final rank order. Parish Council) 1440 Reasons: 1498 In Table 3.3, in the Preferable + Desirable column, five parishes (including our own parish, Roos) have a score of 8 but in the final ranking column are placed at 17, higher than nine parishes scoring 9 in the Preferable + Desirable column. If repositioned, the five parishes would be placed much lower. The adjustment would affect the scoring in the Table 3. (So would other adjustments suggested in later responses.) Mr C Hill Observations No objections are raised to the manner in which the document assesses the provisions of services and 1391 1472 facilities. In this particular instance the assessment demonstrates the level of services available within the village of Nafferton. Mr & Mrs JH Foreman Observations No objections are raised to the manner in which the document assesses the provisions of services and Name/ID Type/ID Representation (Mr Chris Calvert - 1486 facilities. In this particular instance the assessment demonstrates the level of services and facilities Pegasus Planning Group) available within the village of Hutton Cranswick. 1503/81 J Boat Observations No objections are raised to the manner in which the document assesses the provisions of services and 1504 1507 facilities. This assessment accurately reflects the level of services and facilities located within Beeford and demonstrates its sustainable development attributes. MB Goodwin (MB Observations No objections are raised to the manner in which the document assesses the provisions of services and Goodwin (Skipsea) Ltd.) 1519 facilities. Indeed, the assessment demonstrates the sustainable attributes of Skipsea and the role that it plays toward its population and those within its hinterland. D Watts (WC Watts Observations No objections are raised to the manner in which the document assesses the provisions of services and Estate (Pegasus Planning 1535 facilities. The document accurately highlights the sustainable attributes of South Cave, Leven and North Group)) Frodingham and the role that they play to the surrounding area. 1506 Bryan Brown (Bryan Observations No objections are raised to the manner in which the document assesses the provisions of services and Brown & Son) 1533 facilities. Given the content of Table 3.3 it is clear that Flamborough contains all of the preferable and 1507 desirable services and facilities and scores the highest of all 72 study group settlements. This reinforces the demonstrable benefits given by the inclusion of Flamborough within the complete list of selected Market Villages. Mrs M. Barker (Swanland Object We do not consider that the cash dispenser in the Village Convenience Store equates with the services Parish Council) 1595 obtainable from a bank or a building society. This service is not free and is only obtainable when the 426 store is open. Sue Walters Thompson Object No. Even though we are satisfied in general terms that the selection criteria listed in the table on page (Carter Jonas LLP) 1619 12, paragraph 3.9 are acceptable, we are concerned that the approach is insufficiently robust in terms of 1509 the detailed methodology. This is in relation to: identifying facilities that help to meet the ‘essential’ needs of communities, and the weighting which is given to each criterion when ranking settlements. The detailed methodology results in only very marginal variations between the scores achieved by each settlement. The subsequent ranking of settlements is therefore questionable, because the distinction between each is so marginal. We feel that this therefore shows a distorted picture of how settlements Name/ID Type/ID Representation compare to one another and it is not a sound or robust basis on which to make policy decisions. Paragraph 4.55 of the Draft RSS states that ‘Local Service Centres include a wide range of settlement types and sizes including small towns and large rural villages. They provide important facilities that help to meet the essential needs of local communities.’ RSS is therefore quite clearly considers Local Service Centres as those that have ‘important’ facilities that meet a range of ‘essential’ needs. However, the Council’s assessment refers to services that are ‘preferable’ and ‘desirable’. These are words that are rather indistinct in meaning and do not accord with terminology used in RSS. We consider that services and facilities identified for the purposes of the selection criteria should be those considered to be ‘essential’ in accordance with Draft RSS. Many of the facilities listed in the DPD are considered to be ‘essential’, although we are concerned that a number of the items listed by the Council are not ‘essential’ and are also of no relevance to planning. For example, ‘Community Internet’ and ‘Citizen Link’. We request that the Council reviews the list and only includes ‘essential’ facilities to meet a community’s needs. Furthermore, we consider that a more appropriate approach would be to give each ‘essential’ facility a ‘weighting’ in terms of importance in order to truly identify those settlements that have a strategic role to play within the District and that may have a role in the future. For instance, if the provision of a Post Office is viewed as being more important than a local library then it would warrant a higher point score. We consider that by adopting a weighting approach the Council will be able to rank the settlements in a more robust manner and as a consequence the settlements would not be so closely grouped in terms of their overall ranking. This should improve soundness. The Council should consider an approach similar to that used by Hambleton District Council. Hambleton scored facilities and service provision on the following basis: Facility or service Score: Post Office 4 General Convenience Store 6 If settlement has got both then it scores 7 Public house* 2 Other Food Shop 2 Other non food shop 1 Petrol Filling Station 2 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Playgroup/Nursery 6 Primary School 8 Public Hall* 2 Place of Worship* 2 Youth Club 2 Doctors (Health) 6 Sports Ground 1 Children’s Play Area 1 Casual Recreation Area 1 Those marked* gain plus 1 for each addition of the same facility This appears to be a reasonable approach for areas where there are a large number of rural settlements. Paul Robinson Object This appears to be flawed in the respect that: (Gilberdyke Parish 1642 Services such as a doctor’s surgery, or a petrol station, available in neighbouring communities are not Council) taken into account. 1510 The number and size of general stores (shops) is not taken into account It is not clear why community Internet access is included rather than say broadband access. A cash point can be there one day and removed the next or vice versa. Post offices are under threat from Central Government policy therefore using this, as one of the criteria may not be current in the months to come. Burton Fleming Parish Object As with Q6 as this section stands it fails to take account of a community’s ability to provide or develop Council 1665 its own answers to service shortfall or sustainability threats and it fails to recognise that whilst a 859 settlement may lack facilities in its own right it may be close enough to an identified ‘Market Village’ to access services from this near neighbour. Peter Robinson Object No. Delete post offices, petrol stations and banks from the list – Market forces will determine the 994 1727 presence of these and the situation will undoubtedly change before the LDF is adopted. Mr David Horsley Observations The problem is not the criteria as such, but that the criteria and the proposals have a circular (Beverley Town Council) 1739 relationship. (“chicken and Egg”) if you lack facilities you will be prevented from getting the sort of 1499 developments which might bring those facilities. This is perhaps most crucial in relationship to good public transport. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mrs M. Barker (North Object North Ferriby has no direct link to Beverley. Residents without transport would benefit from such a Ferriby Parish Council) 1784 service if only 2/3 days per week. It could also take in Swanland. 427 Julie Abraham Support Yes, but these can change rapidly in a small settlement and a sustainable can become unsustainable 1523 1866 almost overnight. Planning applications to convert premises from business to residential must be resisted. For instance, in North Ferriby since April 2006 we have lost a dentist and a butcher/baker. There is a threat that we shall lose a doctors surgery, and suddenly the village is looking far less sustainable than 12 months ago. A Brown (Melrose Plc Object Services should be classified as ‘Essential’ and ‘Non-essential’ to the sustainability of settlements. It is Colliers Cre) (Mr Andy 1886 considered that those services currently entitled ‘preferable’ should be reclassified as ‘Essential’, whilst Brown MCP Planning the remaining ‘Desirable’ services should be reclassified as ‘non-essential’. The scoring system does not and Development) reflect the importance of the services and facilities in table 3.2. Services classified as 1524/110 ‘preferable/essential’ should be afforded a higher score than the facilities that are considered to be ‘desirable/nonessential’. Rudston Parish Council Object This is rather a blunt instrument - for instance the facility "village hall" can cover a wide range of 1526 1985 buildings and facilities. Mr John Potts (John Object The system adopted is not derived from government advice and is over-prescriptive. For example Potts Limited) 2017 Woodmansey scores lowly but when taking into account the bus services it is just as accessible as other 1530 villages to a range of services and facilities. Some of the settlements considered will not have available sites coming forward compared to Woodmansey so the exercise is academic.

Question 8 – Do you agree with the way we have assessed the Transport Services and Accessibility criterion and the assessment of the Study Group settlements?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Specific Consultation Bodies - Hull City Council

Town and Parish Councils - Seaton, Watton, Twin Rivers, Anlaby, Carnaby, Paull, Seaton Ross, Langtoft, Mappleton, Bainton, Wetwang, Hollym, Aldbrough, Sutton Upon Derwent, Newton Upon Derwent, North Frodingham, Hayton&Burnby, South Cave, Howden, Stamford Bridge (20)

Other Bodies - Bridlington &District Civic Society, Hornsea &District Chamber of Trade, Gateway Pathfinder, Hornsea &District Civic Society (4)

Agents and Individuals - BP Ryan, GS Lenton, Stamford Homes Ltd, W Clifford Watts Ltd, P Jackson, R Bryan, R Hall, Smiths Gore, JF&KM Glew, JG Hatcliffe&Partners, Albanwise Ltd, Richmond Properties UK Ltd, GJ Perry(City Developments), Mr&Mrs D Jackson, R Swailes, MB Goodwin (Skipsea) Ltd, WC Watts Estate (17)

42 respondents in total

The following respondent answered 'No' without any further comment:

Town and Parish Councils - Snaith and Cowick, Beeford (2)

Agents and Individuals - C.Worrall

3 respondents in total

Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mr Colin Hattee Object You should consider alternative routes other than main roads that are accessible to buses 547 399 Christine A Brown Object Need a more realistic assessment of time requirements for travel and plans to use services and facilities. Name/ID Type/ID Representation 569 544 Bovis Homes Ltd Object How can Leven and Gilberdyke be considered to be connected to the strategic road network when 611 562 Swanland is not. Swanland is as close to the main network as those places. Swanland should score 1 in terms of the network connection to be consistent. Michael & Wendy O'Pray Object Broomfleet has a rail station and is joint educational with Newport, therefore you can say Newport has 1105 573 a rail station. Mr J E Milner Support Agree with reservations. 1199 630 Ms J. Crowther Object If in the case of Easington you have assessed its transport inaccurately you may have done so in other (Easington Parish 2048 cases. Council) Cllr Symon Fraser Object Must also recognise the potential for a community to contribute to, or provide community transport (Conservative Group) 658 solutions as an alternative to proximity to public transport access. 1421 Ferriby Conservation Object We query the score for Welton as this is as close to the A63 as North Ferriby, has buses to Society 701 Elloughton/Brough and access to retail (and leisure?) in the latter. 1019 Mrs H Hook Object No mention of Bewholme on lists. 1435 761 Mr Cliff Wilson Object The comment made by the Conservative Group is most apt. (Garton-on-the-Wolds 768 Parish Council) 1457 Mr R. L. Mole (Foston Support with Support but: include community transport as a possible solution however funded/provided. Parish Council) conditions 329 781 JM Fielden Observations Whilst I agree with the criterion the application is flawed. I cannot get to Hull in under one hour by 1463 817 public transport before 9 am. Mr D. J. Lord (Bugthorpe Object It does not account for local transport solutions ie shared lifts to school/work which are widely Name/ID Type/ID Representation and Kirby Underdale 839 operational now. Parish Council) 603 Mr D J Lord Object It does not account for local transport solutions i.e. shared lifts to school/work which are widely 1194 854 operational now. Ms Sarah Watson Observations No mention of Sigglesthorne though? (Sigglesthorne Parish 862 Council) 1443 Mrs J. Heathershaw Object Suggested journey time is too long. Frequency of service is highly important and should be a criterion of (Hornsea Residents 875 services. Association) 480 Mrs M. Chapman Object Must include the potential for a community to contribute to or provide own community transport link (Patrington Parish 885 to public transport. Council) 880 Humber & Wolds Rural Object Rural bus services are now more flexible than pre 1998 deregulation. Most people do weekly shop to fill Community Council 905 car boot, buses could not cope except for the elderly, who can always get ‘home deliveries’. 318 Mr John Mackenzie Object The Crown Estate has concerns over the application of the bus network indicator and the implications (Crown Estate) 969 of this for the selection of potential Market Villages. In particular, it is noted that settlements are 1467 provided with a -1 score If they are not either on a Core or Secondary bus network. In order to better identify the most sustainable settlements, it is considered that it would be prudent to provide a clearer distinction between those settlements that benefit from existing bus services (and have the potential for upgraded services), and those that do not benefit from a bus service at all. Persimmon Homes East Object Persimmon Homes has concerns over the application of the bus network indicator and the implications Yorkshire 991 of this for the selection of potential Market Villages. In particular, it is noted that settlements are 1468 provided with a -1 score If they are not either on a Core or Secondary bus network. Name/ID Type/ID Representation In order to better identify the most sustainable settlements, it is considered that it would be prudent to provide a clearer distinction between those settlements that benefit from existing bus services (and have the potential for upgraded services), and those that do not benefit from a bus service at all or have services with low frequency (i.e. less than every hour). In this context, it is recommended that the scoring is amended so that those on the Core Bus Network are allocated a score of 1; those on the Secondary Network and the settlements that have bus services to main settlements every hour or more frequently are allocated a score of 0; and, settlements with services that are less frequent than every hour or have no bus service are allocated a score of -1. Mrs E J Sherwood Object No. The assessment of the transport services and accessibility criterion is fine in its self, but the crucial 594 1091 question must be, does the public use them now! This information is far more important when assessing transport services that hopefully will sustain future development and growth. If the answer to this question is NO or ONLY LIMITED USE, the fact that it exists is immaterial, until the reasons for its lack of use have been addressed. Reference to Gilberdyke Parish Plan (GPP) survey data may be useful with regard to Gilberdyke. R J Kingdom (South Object This area most produces the dichotomy within the sustainability agenda in selecting Market villages as Cave Active Residents) 1100 rural centres, which themselves are in unsustainable locations(i.e. reliance on the motor car). However 1000 as above point 6, the population of the catchment area that could be served around each potential market town is totally ignored and the saving on distance travelled by each small settlement when compared to that If the proposed market village wasn’t adopted would be a better additional measure of how a village could perform as a rural centre. Clearly DS3 settlements will have a larger catchment area and any village with such should be excluded from further consideration as a Market village. Outputs should be weighted with bus and rail higher than road. As per previous comments this measure currently only crudely looks at the sustainability of the village itself, not the capacity to become a rural centre. Mr Greg Smith Object Need to take into account potential future provision/contribution of development to surrounding (Development Land & 1134 public transport. Planning) 1454 Andy Watts (Walker Object Hutton Cranswick has excellent access to public transport including frequent, fast and efficient bus and Name/ID Type/ID Representation Morris) 1159 train services accessing not only the nearest identified town (Driffield) but the wider area including 1427 Beverley, Hull, Bridlington, Filey and Scarborough. These public transport travel options provide significantly increased accessibility for employment, shopping and recreation without reliance on car usage and as such Hutton Cranswick in addition to the provision of the everyday needs of the local community should be ranked higher and new development encouraged as a means of retaining and encouraging further social and economic growth as an identified MV Service Centre. Miss Dorothy Fairburn Object The plan gives insufficient recognition to the necessity of car ownership in rural areas. There is (Country Land & 1172 frequently no public transport provided. The CLA believes that special recognition must be given to the Business Association) need to develop innovative solutions to public transport in rural areas. It will, however, be several years 510 before any such schemes impact generally on rural areas, and until then those who must rely on car travel should not be penalised. The lack of public transport in rural areas should not be regarded as a reason to inhibit economic or residential development in rural areas. Jean Kitchen Object Hook is connected- but does not want more housing. Airmyn maybe wants to grow? 1475 1182 Mr J Tait (Planning Support But- Again there are some limitations to the assessment, mainly because there are only a limited number Prospects) 1195 of indicators which are identified, meaning that many settlements score a similar amount. This has the 1476 disproportionate effect in the final evaluation and means that the availability of even 1 of the services mentioned can have a fundamental effect on the assessment, more so than any other factor in the other selection criteria. Weighting needs to be considered. Ashleigh Swan (St Object No, Welton/Melton has been scored -1 in respect of the road network but is alongside and easily Modwen Properties Plc 1225 accessible from the A63; it has been scored 0 in respect of employment access, and this should be (Indigo Planning)) reconsidered. 1477 Mr James Durham (Hull Observations The assessment of the parishes (which include non-urban areas) rather than just the actual built up area City Council) 1254 of the village in each parish produces anomalies in terms of assessment of the quality of the road 1482 network. Whilst the village of Gilberdyke is only accessible via the B1230 (although we recognise that this is still a good quality road), it has been given a score of 1 for this criterion in table 3.4 implying that it is accessed by the strategic road network. This is assumably due to the parish being crossed by the M62 (with no access off it in the parish). Barmby Moor is directly accessed via the A1079 but yet it has Name/ID Type/ID Representation only been given a score of 0 for the same criterion. Michael Glover LLP (H Support Yes generally, the generally high cost of rail travel compared to the emerging car sharing within villages Lount & Sons) 1318 is a factor that needs to be considered. 1487 Cllr Charles Bayram (East Support Support: The present 800 m walking distance to the bus route, as set out in the present U.P.S. Riding of Yorkshire 1344 Council) 627 Annie Hadfield (East Object The ERRYRP would support development on key transport routes, as an alternative to breaching the Riding of Yorkshire Rural 1354 service capacity and settlement character of our market towns. Partnership) 1488 Annie Hadfield (East Observations The Rural Policy & Partnerships Team would support development on key transport routes, as an Riding of Yorkshire Rural 1365 alternative to breaching the service capacity and settlement character of our market towns. Partnership) 1488 Roy Hunt Observations There is also a significant anomaly in relation to Gilberdyke and Eastrington on the question of Road 1490 1378 Network. Gilberdyke has a major problem in that the traffic for the factory estate has to pass through narrow residential roads to gain access to any main road. By contrast, the industrial areas within Eastrington have excellent access to the M62. Even ignoring this, the villages are adjacent and can easily be reached by a very good road. However, Eastrington has been given a score of –1 and Gilberdyke a score of +1. On the basis of my understanding I would reverse the scores, making a comparative change of 4 points between the two villages. In table 3.4 this would move Gilberdyke from 1st position in the order to 21st and Eastrington would move from 21st to 1st. Roy Hunt Observations If I compare for instance South Cave with Gilberdyke on the question of Rail Network in table 3.4, I 1490 1379 see that Gilberdyke scores 1 and South Cave scores nil. However, the rail station in Gilberdyke has a very limited rural service. This means that for most journeys undertaken, the station most commonly used is Brough. South Cave by contrast is adjacent to Elloughton/Brough which I consider has the best rail service anywhere in the East Riding. On my scoring I would say that Gilberdyke is about 11 miles Name/ID Type/ID Representation from Brough station and should be given a lower score than South Cave. In short, South Cave is much better served by the rail network than Gilberdyke. Mrs Jean Mayland Support Yes, but re-open stations e.g. Burton Agnes. (Barmston & Fraisthorpe 1390 Parish Council) 484 Sue Atkins (Middleton on Support However, Middleton on the Wolds has been allocated a -1 for bus network, when a secondary network the Wolds Parish 1401 exists. Council) 1474 Roos Parish Council Object Use road usage as a basis for scoring road and bus networks (based on local knowledge such as the 1498 1441 Roos VDS and Roos Parish Plan) rather than the road classification system. Review the application of criteria for Retail and Leisure Access.

Reasons Use of the road classification system as a guide is inappropriate. For example, many commuters use the road through Burton Pidsea to get to work in Hull and beyond. This is an unclassified road. But because Roos also has a B road (B1242 to Hornsea) the score of Roos is higher than that of Burton Pidsea – even though the bulk of commuters travelling north and west from Roos use the same unclassified road via Burton Pidsea. Equally, the same very limited bus service takes passengers from Roos and Burton Pidsea whether to Hedon, Hull and beyond or to Withernsea. In Table 3.4 although the two villages have the same level of amenities, their scores in the Retail & Leisure Access column are again different : Roos 1, Burton Pidsea 0. For these three reasons the scores of Roos should be adjusted both here and in the final table, 3.5. Mr C Hill Observations No objections are raised to the manner in which the document assesses the provisions of transport 1391 1473 services and accessibility. In the particular instance of Nafferton the assessment demonstrates the high levels of access to a range of transport modes other than by private car. Mr & Mrs JH Foreman Support No objections are raised to the manner in which the document assesses the provisions of transport Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1503 1487 services and accessibility. The assessment is a good reflection of the settlements access to a full range of public transport modes and to local employment. Bryan Brown (Bryan Observations The preferred option’s refers to the Council’s bus strategy and the implications of the Core and Brown & Son) 1554 Secondary Networks. Whilst Flamborough is not located upon either a Core or Secondary network it 1507 does have a high frequency of bus services running between the village and Bridlington (principally the 510 service). This service runs from 08:17 in the morning to 21:44 in the evening, with the return journeys running from 07:45 and 23:00. Each journey typically lasting 20 minutes. By reference to the frequency of the service, it is clear that the bus route is valued by the existing population with the majority of the village being within comfortable walking distance of a bus stop. On this basis the settlement should score a positive rating, rather than that currently given for the category of ‘bus network’. The frequency of services is highlighted by the positive scoring of access to employment and retail/leisure services. To this end the settlement and its bus route accords with the provisions of table 16.9 (page278) of the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy. Whilst noting that Bridlington Road is not classified as an ‘A’ road, being the primary route into and out of a village of this size it is of strategic importance. Given this role, it is undoubtedly an efficient length of highway. The level of services and facilities reflected by the assessment of the ‘Services and Facilities’ have not been undermined by the village’s location upon a ‘B’ highway network and the preferred options has not demonstrated how, in this particular case there is demonstrable harm. Consequently it is considered that in the instance of Flamborough and in light of the lack of any evidence to the contrary, it is not considered that future sustainable patterns of development within the settlement would be prejudiced by its location on a classified ‘B’ highway. Fridaythorpe Parish Object 3.29 – Don’t assume that a workforce is 9am-5.30pm. Modern day working allows for flexible working Council 1583 patterns and you often have people starting work at 7am and finishing at 3pm, for example. Public 863 transport must accommodate this otherwise everyone relies on a private motor vehicle. Mrs M. Barker (Swanland Object We do not agree with the marking given for bus network, employment access and retail and leisure Parish Council) 1596 access for the following reasons. (SEE TABLE 3.4 BELOW) Sue Walters Thompson Object No. We disagree. The assessment is inherently flawed since it does not provide evidence that the (Carter Jonas LLP) 1620 Council has adequately assessed the frequency of bus services. The scoring system used is just not 1509 sophisticated enough to properly gauge which settlements are more sustainable and more accessible Name/ID Type/ID Representation than others, since it does not differentiate between those settlements that have a very frequent bus service to important shopping and employment centres and those which do not. We consider that those with a higher frequency of service should be giving a higher score in order to fully gauge how accessible settlements are by public transport. Such an approach should also provide a more transparent system of ranking, and provide a clearer and better means ordering settlements. We would also recommend that the Council adopts some element of weighting system in order to provide a more robust evidence base, such as that undertaken by Hambleton District Council where bus services were scored as follows: Bus to town before and after 5 6 Bus to town before 10:30 and after 3 4 Bus- other daily service 2 Bus/community less frequent 1 Paul Robinson Object See attached document ref: Gilberdyke. There is no account taken of transport services in neighbouring (Gilberdyke Parish 1643 communities or the quality of the services provided. There is also the distance industrial developments Council) may be along unclassified roads from classified roads. Also part of a parish may be on a classified road, 1510 but the settlement some distance away on an unclassified road, and vice versa. Mrs S. Wainwright Object Must also recognise the potential for a community to contribute to, or provide community transport (Burton Fleming Parish 1668 solutions as an alternative to proximity to public transport access. Council) 859 Kenny Dhillon (Barton Object The client disagrees with the score of 0 for bus network scoring in table 3.4 on page 22 of the Willmore (Ramsden 1683 document and recommends that this core is changed to 1, as Bubwith is served by 13 bus services Developments)) which link the village with the nearby town of Selby and the city of York. There are several bus stops on 1512 Main Street which further promote the use of public transport. It should be noted that the site outlined in this report is within a 350 metre walk of this bus stop on Main Street. Peter Robinson Object Page 21 table 3.4….. Airmyn is shown with a score of 1 under rail network heading which gives it an 994 1719 order of 6. As far as I am aware Airmyn does not have a railway station and it is difficult to see how it qualifies under 3.28. Without this point the settlement would move down the order from 6th to 21st Peter Robinson Object Page 22 table 3.4….. Roos is shown as having a score of 1 and an order of 45 when it should have a Name/ID Type/ID Representation 994 1720 score of 2 and an order of 38. Peter Robinson Object According to 3.28 the criteria for employment access is slightly less demanding than that of retail and 994 1723 leisure as it includes DS3 settlements. It follows therefore that a settlement may get a point for employment access and not get one for retail and leisure but surely if a settlement has access to DS1 and DS2 and therefore qualifies for a point under retail and leisure then it should also get a point for employment access. Peter Robinson Object In the case of Paull a point has been given under retail and leisure (which I suppose is in Hull) and yet 994 1724 there isn’t a point for employment access which is within walking distance. On the other hand Easington does have a point for employment access even though it is 10 miles away from the nearest DS3 settlement. Mr David Horsley Observations The problem is not the criteria as such, but that the criteria and the proposals have a circular (Beverley Town Council) 1740 relationship. (“chicken and Egg”) if you lack facilities you will be prevented from getting the sort of 1499 developments which might bring those facilities. This is perhaps most crucial in relationship to good public transport. Mrs M. Barker (North Support However the infrequency of bus/train services could be looked at. Ferriby Parish Council) 1785 427 Julie Abraham Support Yes, but need also to look at potential for future e.g. a new supermarket could bring with it a 1523 1867 community bus. A Brown (Melrose Plc Support Settlements on Strategic Roads should be given a higher score, as they provide a more direct route to (Colliers Cre))( Mr Andy 1887 other services. In addition, they are the primary focus for the public transport network. Brown - MCP Planning The Transport Services and Accessibility criterion should account for public transport services/links and Development) with main settlements outside East Riding. For example Stamford Bridge has regular services to York, 1524/110 which provides a sustainable link to a major city of the region. The Transport Services and Accessibility criterion should therefore be revised to reflect this consideration. In addition, the scoring system should also account for the regularity of service. For example Stamford Bridge is served by buses every 20 mins and should be afforded a higher score than it is at present. The system should also account for planned transport investment such as the reopening of the York to Hull railway. Settlements on such routes, particularly those with proposed stops/stations should also be Name/ID Type/ID Representation given higher scores. For example, Stamford Bridge would be given a higher score than settlements in which no proposed station is located. Rudston Parish Council Support Yes, although community transport may be an option. 1526 1986 Mr John Potts Support Woodmansey scores much higher on this criteria a suggested above. This criteria should be given (John Potts Limited) 2018 greater weight as it is consistent with PPG3 and PPG13. 1530

Question 9 – Do you agree with the way we have assessed the Relationship to Larger Settlements criterion and the assessment of the Study Group settlements?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Town and Parish Councils - Seaton, Watton, Twin Rivers, Swanland, Anlaby, Carnaby, Paull, Seaton Ross, Langtoft, Mappleton, Foston, Bainton, Wetwang, Bugthorpe&Kirby Underdale, Sigglesthorne, Hollym, Patrington, Aldbrough, Sutton Upon Derwent, Newton Upon Derwent, North Frodingham, Barmston&Fraisthorpe, Hayton&Burnby, South Cave, Howden, Roos, Fridaythorpe, Stamford Bridge, North Ferriby, Melbourne (30)

Other Bodies - Hornsea Residents' Association, Bridlington & District Civic Society, Hornsea & District Chamber of Trade, South Cave Active Residents, Hornsea & District Civic Society (5)

Agents and Individuals - BP Ryan, CW&DC Hattee, C.Brown, O'Pray, GS Lenton, Stamford Homes Ltd, W Clifford Watts Ltd, H Hook, R Bryan, R Hall, JF&KM Glew, JG Hatcliffe&Partners, DJ Lord, Albanwise Ltd, R Barnes, J Kitchen, GJ Perry(City Developments), Ramsden Developments, Cllr Abraham (19)

54 respondents in total

The following respondent answered 'No' without any further comment:

Town and Parish Councils - Snaith and Cowick

Agents and Individuals - C.Worrall

2 respondents in total

Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mr D Miller (Bovis Object Greater reference should be given to locations with closer connections to the larger urban settlements. Homes Ltd) 563 Additional weight can be given to such examples on sustainability grounds. The current way of 611 measuring such relationships does not accord with the overall aim and will work to distort the objective of complimenting the sustainable development patterns promoted through the development strategy settlements. Mr J E Milner Support Agree with reservations. 1199 631 Ms J. Crowther Object Just do not understand why being furthest away from Withernsea gives Easington any advantages. (Easington Parish 2049 Council) 596 Mr Cliff Wilson (Garton- Object Our village, for its population has significant employment opportunities. Will this be borne in mind on-the-Wolds Parish 769 when the Local Plan is introduced? Council) 1457 JM Fielden Object A composite JSP such as Anlaby/Willerby/Kirkella cannot be compared with Beverley. The 1463 819 combination does not provide comparable facilities. S Hirst (Alliance General Object These are sustainable locations and the scoring should recognise this. Property Development 819 Ltd) 1465 Mr Roger Jones (Humber Object In theory 3.33 & 3.35 is a good basis, but this has not followed through in practice. & Wolds Rural 906 Community Council) 318 Mr John Mackenzie Object The Crown Estate is concerned about how the LPA has ordered settlements depending on their (Crown Estate) 970 relationship to larger settlements. In particular, it is considered that the approach, which ranks those 1467 settlements closest to the Development Strategy Settlements lowest potentially undermines the broader sustainability objectives of national guidance and the Core Strategy. National guidance and the Core Strategy seek to deliver additional development in sustainable locations. One of the key means of securing sustainable development patterns is to locate additional housing and other development as close to large urban areas as possible. Notwithstanding the above, it is acknowledged that one of the objectives of identifying Market Villages is to focus development in key hubs within more remote areas, and this is supported as a matter of principle. However, it is illogical and harmful to the wider spatial strategy to undermine the ranking of potential Market Villages that lie in close proximity to Development Strategy Settlements and may be an appropriate focus for some additional development. In particular, it is noted that Patrington is ranked quite poorly under the ‘Relationship to Larger Settlements’ indicator, because of its proximity to Withernsea. This is considered to be inappropriate. It is accepted that the identification of Market Villages should be distributed in such a way as to reduce dependence on the private car and the social exclusion that may result from rural isolation. However, this should not undermine the ranking of sustainable settlements close to larger urban centres. As such, it is considered that the ranking method should be amended to prioritise potential Market Villages that are close to Development Strategy Settlements (i.e. 5 miles away and less); and those some distance away (i.e. more than say 7 miles away); with settlements lying between those thresholds being ranked less highly. This would support a good geographical distribution of Market Villages without undermining broader sustainability objectives. Mr J Mackenzie (Dunlop Object Persimmon Homes is concerned about how the LPA has ordered settlements depending on their Haywards (Persimmon 992 relationship to larger settlements. In particular, it is considered that the approach, which ranks those Homes East Yorkshire) settlements closest to the Development Strategy Settlements lowest, is fundamentally flawed and 1468 potentially undermines the broader sustainability objectives of national guidance and the Core Strategy. National guidance and the Core Strategy seek to deliver additional development in sustainable locations. One of the key means of securing sustainable development patterns is to locate additional housing and other development as close to large urban areas as possible. Whilst it is noted that one of the objectives of identifying Market Villages is to focus development in key hubs within more remote areas, it is illogical and harmful to the wider spatial strategy to undermine the ranking of potential Market Villages that lie in close proximity to Development Strategy Settlements and are an appropriate focus for some additional development. In particular, it is noted that the settlements of Flamborough, North Ferriby and Walkington are ranked poorly under the ‘Relationship to Larger Settlements’ indicator, because of their proximity to the larger settlements of Bridlington, Brough / Elloughton, and Beverley respectively. This is considered to be inappropriate. It is accepted that the identification of Market Villages should be distributed in such a way as to reduce dependence on the private car and the social exclusion that may result from rural isolation. However, this should not undermine the ranking of sustainable settlements close to larger urban centres. As such, it is considered that the ranking method should be amended to prioritise potential Market Villages that are close to Development Strategy Settlements (i.e. 5 miles away or less); and those some distance away (i.e. more than 7 miles away); with settlements lying between those thresholds being ranked less highly. This would support a good geographical distribution of Market Villages without undermining broader sustainability objectives. Mrs E J Sherwood Object No. Not sure why in table 5. Newport has been linked with Brough/Ellouoghton for its distance, when 594 1092 surely it is nearer to Howden? Otherwise no comment on the question. Mr Greg Smith Object Also need to examine relationship with allocated employment sites. (Development Land & 1135 Planning) 1454 Andy Watts (Walker Object The survey work initially assessed the impact of 72 villages and scores were attributed from 1 to 72 the Morris) 1156 lower the score the more 'sustainable' the MV. Of particular concern is the score of 49 Hutton 1427 Cranswick received for the distance to the 'Nearest JSP Settlement' (3.5 miles from Driffield), by comparison to Holme's score of 22 for 6.4 miles distance to Market Weighton. The distance between Holme and Market Weighton is nearer to 4 miles as re-surveyed and identified by street sign in Market Weighton town centre. This inaccuracy in scoring makes a significant difference to overall ranking, which is further distorted when the scores of 44 settlements that have been excluded from the Preferred Option Priority 1, 2 and 3 list are included in the overall calculations. A more accurate and closer comparison should be drawn when assessing only the 37 settlements in table 4.1 or the 28 identified in Priority 1, 2 and 3. Mr J Tait (Planning Support But- The approach here needs to be re-thought. We can see the logic which the council are taking in Prospects) 1196 scoring those settlements which “plug a gap” higher. This does have advantages and should be a factor 1476 as it can reduce the need to travel. However it doesn’t make the other settlements which maybe closer to higher order settlements, less sustainable. It equally shouldn’t mean that support to their services would be withheld by not allowing development. The fact that they are closer to higher order settlements would mean that they are in a better position to support development. Ashleigh Swan (St Object No, it would be perverse for proximity to a JSP settlement to disadvantage a settlement that meets other Modwen Properties Plc 1226 criteria. (Indigo Planning)) 1477 Mr James Durham (Hull Observations The consideration of settlements at greater distances from development strategy settlements (or City Council) 1251 equivalents) being better suited as Market Villages is strongly supported. We consider having Market 1482 Villages in close proximity to Hull would only serve to encourage further out-migration from the City adding to problems of failing housing markets and undermining Gateway housing market renewal initiatives. This approach also ensures that shops and services are retained and supported in rural areas away from the larger settlements where they are needed the most. Mr James Durham (Hull Support with Yes, however we are not certain that the correct development strategy settlement has been identified for City Council) conditions some villages. For example, Skirlaugh is closer to the sub regional urban area than it is to Hedon. 1482 1259 Laura Carr (The Gateway Object Whilst we agree with the principle of identifying villages at a greater distance from the nearest Pathfinder) 1309 development strategy settlement we are not certain that the correct development strategy settlements 943 have been identified for some villagers. For example Skirlaugh is closer to the sub regional urban area than it is to Hedon, Leven is closer to Beverley than Hornsea. Roy Hunt Observations There are some obvious errors in the study, for instance Newport is quoted in table 3.5 as being 9.4 1490 1377 miles from its nearest JSP settlement (Brough). However, it is only 6 miles from Howden. The difference might not be great in miles, but when it is translated to ranking, Newport moves from 4th place to 28th. Sue Atkins (Middleton on Support In principle there was agreement, but concern was expressed regarding health facilities accessed by rural the Wolds Parish 1402 settlements. Council) 1474 R Swailes Observations Whilst the document identifies that distances to the nearest JSP settlement was measured on a (Mr Chris Calvert - 1451 consistent basis, it is not known if this distance accounts for a travel distance to, or from the centres of Pegasus Planning Group) the respective settlements. 1500/81 It is important to recognise the benefits of a dedicated school bus service between settlements. Mr C Hill Observations Whilst the document identifies that distances to the nearest JSP settlement was measured on a 1391 1474 consistent basis, it is not known if this distance accounts for a travel distance to, or from the centres of the respective settlements. It is important to recognise the benefits of a dedicated school bus service between the settlements. Mr & Mrs JH Observations Whilst the document identifies that distances to the nearest JSP settlement was measured on a Foreman(Mr Chris 1488 consistent basis, it is not known if this distance accounts for travel distances to, or from the centres of Calvert - Pegasus the respective settlements. Planning Group) It is important to recognise the benefits of a dedicated school bus service between the settlements. 1503/81 J Boat Observations Whilst the document identifies that distances to the nearest JSP settlement was measured on a 1504 1508 consistent basis, it is not known if this distance accounts for a travel to, or from the centres of the respective settlements. It is important to recognise the benefits of a dedicated school bus service between the settlements. MB Goodwin (Mr Chris Observations Whilst the document identifies that distances to the nearest JSP settlement was measured on a Calvert - Pegasus 1520 consistent basis, it is not known if this distance accounts for a travel distance to, or from the centres of Planning Group) the respective settlements. 1505/81 It is important to recognise the benefits of a dedicated school bus service between settlements. D Watts (WC Watts Observations Whilst the document identifies that distances to the nearest JSP settlement was measured on a Estate) (Mr Chris Calvert 1536 consistent basis, it is not known if this distance accounts for a travel distance to, or from the centres of - Pegasus Planning a the respective settlements. Group) 1506/81 Bryan Brown (Bryan Observations Whilst the document identifies that distances to the nearest JSP settlement was measured on a Brown & Son) (Mr Chris 1556 consistent basis, it is not known if this distance accounts for a travel distance to, or from the centres of Calvert - Pegasus the respective settlements. Planning Group) It is also important to recognise the benefits of a dedicated school bus service between settlements. 1507/81 The assessment places Flamborough with a ranking of 40 from the total 72 Study Group Settlements. The reason for this ranking being the village’s proximity to Bridlington. Given that the JSP seeks to reduce the level of commuting distance this is perhaps surprising, but conversely it is acknowledged that the greater the distance the more likely services within more remote settlements will be used by their population. Nevertheless, given the size of Flamborough and the high proportion of services within the settlement it is not considered that in this particular instance the Local Planning Authority’s case is justified. As the full range of preferable and desirable services are contained within the settlement it is considered that its existing, or potential population have the actual requirement or need to travel to Bridlington for every day needs. For example, the village has a number of convenience and grocery stores which are not typically located within other settlements. Such services and their accessibility to the village is such that they are well used. If they were not, and that the attraction of Bridlington is so great they would be in significant decline. Further consideration of this matter and the other considerations given by the document toward the exclusion of Flamborough are discussed in the response to question 12. Consequently, in respect of the settlement of Flamborough it is considered that its ranking on this matter should be adjusted favourably. Sue Walters Thompson Object Disagree. Whilst the theory of this appears to be acceptable, in practice it is an inappropriate approach (Carter Jonas LLP) 1621 for the reasons outlined below: 1509 The physical characteristics of this particular District mean that there are only very small differences in respect of the distances between the location of smaller settlements to their nearest JSP settlement (or equivalent). This results in a scoring system whereby a difference only amounting to 9.1 miles determines whether a settlement ranks 1st or 72nd. This is considered to be ludicrous. Measures for many of the settlements only vary by fractions of miles. We would argue that in rural areas such fractional distances are irrelevant in terms of overall journey times. The methodology does not consider road classifications and congestion. It may prove more sustainable for people to travel along quieter back roads rather than exacerbating areas already suffering from congestion. The approach also appears to be overly simplistic since it has seemingly disregarded the important issue of networks and the inter-relationships between rural settlements. Whilst these may be complex and operate at a number of different levels they have a fundamental contribution to make in terms of ensuring that rural communities are sustainable in the future. In view of the above, we question the reasoning behind this approach and would ask either that the Council adopts another methodology which is more robust and appropriate having regard to local characteristics, or considers disregarding this criterion altogether. Paul Robinson Object In theory this is important, but again distance may not be the only criteria that should be used, time (Gilberdyke Parish 1644 taken and available means of transport being perhaps equally or more important. It should also be Council) noted that there are a number of significant errors in the table. 1510 Peter Robinson Object No. The distance from strategic service centres is not relevant i.e. most on the list are of a similar 994 1728 distance, there is really no difference between the 7.9 miles which puts Bubwith and Blacktoft in 10th place and the 6.4 miles which puts Holme on Spalding Moor down in 22nd place. Mr David Horsley Observations The problem is not the criteria as such, but that the criteria and the proposals have a circular (Beverley Town Council) 1741 relationship. (“chicken and Egg”) if you lack facilities you will be prevented from getting the sort of 1499 developments which might bring those facilities. This is perhaps most crucial in relationship to good public transport. A Brown (Melrose Plc Object The scoring system should reflect the importance of the larger settlement. Higher scores should be (Colliers Cre)) 1888 given to settlements with close relationships with regionally important towns and cities, with a lower 1524 grading of scores of DS1, DS2 and DS3 towns. For example Stamford Bridge, which is closely related to York (a regionally important city), would score higher than Burton Pidsea, which is located 5.4 miles outside Hedon (a DS3 settlement in the Core Strategy). It is considered that this strategy reflects the objectives of the RSS and Core Strategy in directing development towards the largest and most sustainable settlements.

Christine Gatenby Object No. The distance from a settlement which is not a Development Strategy Settlement may be relevant. (Rudston Parish Council) 1987 For instance Burton Fleming is ranked highly, as it is 9.6 miles from Bridlington. However it is 1526 considerably closer to Hunmanby, which is in North Yorkshire. Hunmanby is a village, but has many facilities, such as a railway station, doctor's surgery, dentist, solicitor, garage, cashpoint, and a range of shops.

Question 10 – Do you agree with the way we have assessed the Employment criterion and the assessment of the Study Group settlements?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Town and Parish Councils - Seaton, Watton, Twin Rivers, Swanland, Anlaby, Seaton Ross, Langtoft, Mappleton, Foston, Bainton, Wetwang, Sigglesthorne, Hollym, Patrington, Aldbrough, Sutton Upon Derwent, Newton Upon Derwent, North Frodingham, Middleton, South Cave, Howden, Stamford Bridge (22)

Other Bodies - Ferriby Conservation Society, Hornsea Residents' Association, Bridlington & District Civic Society, Hornsea & District Chamber of Trade, Gateway Pathfinder, Hornsea & District Civic Society (6)

Agents and Individuals - BP Ryan, CW&DC Hattee, C.Brown, GS Lenton, Stamford Homes Ltd., H Hook, R Bryan, R Hall, Smiths Gore, JF&KM Glew, JG Hatcliffe&Partners, JM Fielden, Albanwise Ltd, Richmond Properties UK Ltd, R Barnes, GJ Perry(City Developments), M Glover, R Swailes, C Hill, JH Foreman, J Boat, MB Goodwin (Skipsea) Ltd, WC Watts Estate, Ramsden Developments (24)

52 respondents in total

The following respondent answered 'No' without any further comment:

Town and Parish Councils - Snaith and Cowick

Agents and Individuals - C.Worrall

2 respondents in total

Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mr D Miller (Bovis Object The precision of the measure and its objectivity is a concern. Using a measure of the potential for jobs Homes Ltd) 564 within a 3 to 5 mile radius is a mere perceptive reasoning for the term "local" in the context of the 611 objective. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Brigadier AJ Simmons Object On the broader (and less tangible) question of 'employment' levels, I would only observe that very few 1447 600 'employment opportunities' are contained within the parish boundaries. In recent years we have lost all or part of four farms to new housing developments and not a single additional job vacancy has since been established as a direct result. Some new residents are pensioners, but the majority commute daily by private car to Beverley, Hull, Bridlington, York and even, Leeds. Any question of reducing the use of private cars in the forseeable future can only be classed as 'pie in the sky'. I do not know any new resident who has found employment in the parish and I would class the nature of today's village as being rather more 'Dormitory' than 'Market'. As regards your inclusion, under the headig of 'self containment', of those 'working from home', I don't understand the relevance of this distinction. At one end of the bracket is the self-employed joiner with a workshop inhis yard; at the other end is the businessman with an office in London who conducts much of his business by computer from his home. Neither job, to me, constitutes a continuing 'employment opportunity'. Mr J E Milner Support Agree with reservations. 1199 632 Cllr Symon Fraser Object We have serious doubts whether this employment section takes adequate regard of the increasing trend (Conservative Group) 659 of “home working”, and of the opportunities being taken up by people to work at home through the 1421 Internet. There is also a need to make sure that development is not unnecessarily constrained where the benefits of both child and adult care within an extended family can be addressed in remote locations through pragmatic and sensible development. There is also a need for a flexible and pragmatic approach where a development proposal can clearly demonstrate that it will contribute to long term employment opportunities for the locality. Ms J. Crowther Object A proper study of local employment. In Easington's case you need to find out. (Easington Parish 2050 Council) 596 Mr Paul Jackson Object No recognition of the relationship between Carnaby industrial estate and Carnaby parish as opposed to (Carnaby Parish Council) 670 Bridlington. 1451 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mrs D. E. Franks (Paull Object Increasing 'home working' is not included. Parish Council) 686 845 Mr David Watts (W. Object Carnaby is not on the list but holds one of the largest industrial estates in the East Riding. Clifford Watts Ltd) 736 1455 Mr Paul Jackson Object Employment should be in the immediate vicinity i.e. Carnaby has a large industrial estate within walking 1456 748 distance yet doesn't meet the criteria. Mr Cliff Wilson (Garton- Object Our village, for its population has significant employment opportunities. Will this be borne in mind on-the-Wolds Parish 770 when the Local Plan is introduced? Council) 1457 Mr D. J. Lord (Bugthorpe Object Account should be taken of the ability of many people to work from home particularly now that and Kirby Underdale 840 broadband internet connections are widely available. Parish Council) 603 Mr D J Lord Object Account should be taken of the ability of many people to work from home particularly now that 1194 855 broadband internet connections are widely available. Mr Roger Jones (Humber Object Based on 2001 census. Spread of Broadband has enabled a rapid increase in home-working & Wolds Rural 907 opportunities, which will reduce commuting. Community Council) 318 Mr John Mackenzie Object The Crown Estate is concerned that the use of parishes to measure the employment roles of settlements (Crown Estate) 971 and their surrounding areas could distort their employment ranking. In particular, it is noted that the 1467 ‘self containment’ indicator, penalises settlements where residents of the parish are employed in other parishes. This will undermine the ranking of a settlement that is located in close proximity to higher order settlements, where there is bound to be a better range of employment opportunities. In reality, travelling a short distance from potential Market Villages to these employment opportunities in nearby Development Strategy Settlements, particularly by public transport, would be sustainable. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mr J Mackenzie (Dunlop Object Persimmon Homes is concerned that the use of parishes to measure the employment roles of Haywards (Persimmon 993 settlements and their surrounding areas could distort their employment ranking. In particular, it is noted Homes East Yorkshire)) that the ‘self containment’ indicator, penalises settlements where residents of the parish are employed in 1468 other parishes. This will undermine the ranking of a settlement that is located in close proximity to higher order settlements, where there is bound to be a better range of employment opportunities. In reality, travelling a short distance from potential Market Villages to these employment opportunities in nearby Development Strategy Settlements, particularly by public transport, would be sustainable. It is considered that a better indicator of sustainability would be the distance travelled by residents to employment opportunities. Mrs E J Sherwood Object No. I feel for this exercise the 2001 Census stats are quite an out of date source of data and again 594 1093 further community consultation would have been more beneficial. Once again the type of employment available has not been analysed along with the effect, if any, it may have on the community e.g. Heavy transport issues. Do the employment opportunities available meet the intellectual cross section within the community to encourage the want to work locally? Employment Opportunities may be present, and may stem from an historic origin, do they complement or cause problems within the identified Market Villages? These questions do need answering before employment opportunities are used to identify settlements for further growth. Many problems exist in Gilberdyke. Ref to GPP may prove useful. In addition Bubwith's southern Industrial site also has a knock on effect for Howden. R J Kingdom (South Object The general principle is reasonable however for South Cave for example figures state 29% working Cave Active Residents) 1102 population of 4515 = 1309. @ 55 jobs per 100 = 720 jobs which is unbelievable. Figures need to be on 1000 full time equivalent jobs basis not part time. Employment is difficult as there needs to be some reflection of the cost of housing or available rented accommodation. The issue is that more expensive housing means a requirement for higher paid jobs, availability of low paid part time jobs does not give greater local employment opportunity except for second incomes, return to work and first timers Mr Greg Smith Object Also need to examine relationship with allocated employment sites. Name/ID Type/ID Representation (Development Land & 1136 Planning) 1454 Jean Kitchen Object Some people like to live away from their work. The problem is we have not encouraged jobs in the 1475 1183 countryside through planning. Mr J Tait (Planning Support Yes in part but: Prospects) 1197 The availability of employment is a factor to consider but it is unlikely that with the dispersed nature of 1476 the East Riding that any settlement is likely to be self sustaining in this regard. The Council should be more flexible here. The proximity to other higher order settlements should be recognised as the JSP is aiming to reduce long distance commuting, expecting consequently that some degree of travel to work is expected. Swanland for example has been the subject of a recent appeal decision exploring the merits of it location, given that it is a sizeable settlement with a range of facilities, but slightly more limited in terms of available employment opportunities. That appeal decision relating to a proposed scheme for 37 No residential properties on land at 18 and 20A West End in Swanland was a proposal by Scruton Co (Builders) Ltd and whilst refused planning permission by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council under reference 04/05838, was granted permission at appeal in September 2005. The appeal explored the suitability of Swanland as a settlement in sustainability terms to accommodate further residential development, having regard to JSP policy and emerging policy of the ERYC at that time, concerning settlement hierarchy (both of which are explored further in later sections of this statement). It concluded that Swanland was sufficiently sustainable to accommodate further residential development and had a range of services and supporting provisions which would make it a suitable location for new housing. Whilst the appeal recognised some short comings in respect of the availability of employment opportunities within the village, it further recognised that because of its location and public transport, wider employment opportunities existed in the immediate surrounding area and any development would not, in reality, give rise to any long distance commuting. These principles are relevant to the DPD here. Ashleigh Swan (St Object No, the indicator of self containment is given too much weight as it might be irrelevant to new jobs (i.e. Modwen Properties Plc 1227 provided on committed sites). The first criterion should be weighted, perhaps by 80% to 20%. (Indigo Planning)) Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1477 Mr James Durham (Hull Observations When assessing the employment benefits of the villages, it is not just the number of jobs per 100 City Council) 1253 employed people and the percentage of employed people working in the parish that’s important. The 1482 types of jobs in the area are important too, for example, Full Sutton ranks the highest for the employment criterion in table 3.6, but its employment is dominated by the prison with some industrial uses. It therefore does not provide a broad profile of different types of employment desirable for supporting a larger, more mixed community. Mr James Durham (Hull Object No. The mix of employment opportunities should be assessed too. City Council) 1260 1482 Mr G E Wright Observations The information which addresses employment issues is based on employment statistics at parish level. It 562 1295 is the position of the Office of National Statistics that the statistics are unreliable at this level. No Government policy considers labour market statistics at a level lower than ward level. An analysis of ward level statistics does not entirely match the sub areas identified in the JSP but a reasonable match to the sub areas can be achieved. In respect of the East Riding the relationship between jobs and the resident economically active population indicates that 14% of the resident population commute out of the District. The highest rate of commuting occurs in the central area, the lowest in the western sub area (8%) and the eastern and northern sub areas has commuting rates just below the district average of 13%. Having regard to the proximity of the Haltemprice settlements to the City of Hull, it becomes clear from a fairly superficial view of the employment statistics that there is not a significant internal issues within the District so far as commuting is concerned and that employment is distributed in balance with the population distribution. Mr John Pilgrim Observations The recognition that local employment opportunities can contribute to sustainable communities (Yorkshire Forward) 1328 through sustaining, enhancing and revitalising rural settlements is welcomed and compliments the 1433 Regional Economic Strategy (2006-2015) which recognises that; ‘supporting local business goes beyond the need for boosting competitiveness. It encompasses issues such as retaining services and ensuring economic sustainability of our rural communities’ (paragraph 3.119). Cllr Charles Bayram Object Objection 10: To the method of calculating jobs linked to a settlement, the method proposed by the (East Riding of Yorkshire 1347 Council is not accurate, understandable or practical. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Council) 10a) The Council should set the job numbers by calculating all jobs which can be reached within 2km of 627 a settlement limits ‘20 minutes’ walking providing there is a footway to jobs, adding future jobs on presently approved sites not yet operational. Mrs Jean Mayland Support Yes, but should also take into account home and internet working. (Barmston & Fraisthorpe 1391 Parish Council) 484 Hayton and Burnby Object Does not seem to address home working either full time or part time. Parish Council 1410 1496 Roos Parish Council Object Review the evidence from local knowledge, e.g. The Roos VDS and the Roos Parish Plan. 1498 1442 Reasons Table 3.6, Employment Criterion Rating, the % of Employed People Working in Resident Parish is given as 31. What is the provenance of the evidence? Responses to the Roos Parish Plan Questionnaire give a figure of 14.2%. Bryan Brown (Bryan Observations No objections are raised to the manner in which the document assesses employment. It is noted that Brown & Son) 1558 Flamborough is contained within the top 50% of settlements on this matter. 1507 Ms Samantha Dunwell Object A lot of rural locations are becoming inhabited by professional workforce employees and not just those (Fridaythorpe Parish 1584 that have agricultural backgrounds. Therefore lots of residents in rural areas will not change jobs to Council) work in their local area unless their profession moves there – will large organisations really move out of 863 large towns/cities like Hull/York? Sue Walters Thompson Object No. We are concerned that the way that the Council has assessed employment criterion is not (Carter Jonas LLP) 1622 necessarily the result of a robust evidence base that best reflects the needs of the District. It is a rather 1509 unsophisticated approach that looks only at existing employment opportunities and does not take into account the future. The absence of a Core Strategy and the necessary evidence base means that it is impossible to fully consider the impact of applying this approach in terms of achieving wider employment objectives and an overall Vision for the District. It also means that it is difficult to assess the relevance of applying this Name/ID Type/ID Representation methodology to the Study Group Settlements. We also consider that it is a very restrictive approach. It does not provide any flexibility to deal with changes in circumstance and has no clear mechanisms for implementation and monitoring. Furthermore, we consider that the approach is fundamentally flawed. The Council itself admits there is no guarantee that local employment opportunities will be taken up by local residents. We therefore proffer that this approach conflicts with general sustainability objectives. There appears to be no understanding of whether there are sufficient houses to meet local employment needs and whether commuting might be discouraged by building more houses close to existing employment areas. The approach only focuses on existing employment opportunities. There is therefore no understanding of where future employment growth might be and whether there needs to be provision of new housing to accommodate potential employment growth. Paul Robinson Object Gilberdyke Parish Council have a problem with this and are sceptical of the figures used, as the (Gilberdyke Parish 1645 information on which the figures are based is not provided. Historically employment was a major factor Council) in where people chose to live, but this has changed drastically as car ownership has increased. The case 1510 of increased home working must be taken into account, with one of the only constraints to anyone working from any home in the East Riding being a broadband Internet connection. Mrs S. Wainwright Object We have serious doubts whether this employment section takes adequate regard of the increasing trend (Burton Fleming Parish 1669 of ‘home working’, and of the opportunities being taken up by people to work at home through the Council) internet. 859 There is also a need to make sure that development is not unnecessarily constrained where the benefits of both child and adult care within an extended family can be addressed in remote locations through pragmatic and sensible development. There is also a need for a flexible and pragmatic approach where a development proposal can clearly demonstrate that it will contribute to long term employment opportunities for the locality. Peter Robinson Object No. Too much emphasis on relatively small settlements with one large employer – prisons, gas 994 1729 terminals, colleges etc., these require specialists – teachers, officers etc., not necessarily locals. Large employers on their own do very little to promote the life of the village as once inside a big complex the workforce is isolated and the village is deserted whereas the comings and goings from a handful of small businesses in the heart of a village creates a buzz. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Most of the settlements at the top of table 3.6 are in this position and even Bishop Burton with a large employee and student presence cannot support a village shop. Full Sutton is at the top of the list and should not be in the study group, I am surprised there is anything there apart from the prison and its accommodation and in any case Stamford Bridge is just down the road. Mr David Horsley Observations The problem is not the criteria as such, but that the criteria and the proposals have a circular (Beverley Town Council) 1742 relationship. (“chicken and Egg”) if you lack facilities you will be prevented from getting the sort of 1499 developments which might bring those facilities. This is perhaps most crucial in relationship to good public transport. Mrs M. Barker (North Object Unclear whether or not it takes in home working. Ferriby Parish Council) 1786 427 Julie Abraham Object Need also to take account of the type of jobs, e.g. Melton Park will soon provide many more jobs in 1523 1868 walking distance of North Ferriby, but these jobs are hoped to attract workers from Hull. A Brown (Melrose Plc Object The assessment of the employment criterion is not an accurate reflection of sustainability. In particular, (Colliers Cre)) 1889 it cannot account for instances where local jobs are taken up by non-residents of the various 1524 settlements. In addition, the matter of self containment should reflect the relationship with major regional towns and cities and the employment opportunities therein. Christine Gatenby Object The assessment should take account of the fact that development may increase opportunities for local (Rudston Parish Council) 1988 employment. 1526 Melbourne Parish Object No alternative but cannot understand how Melbourne has been assessed. Council 2010 1528 Mr John Potts (John Object The employment in a settlement is not a factor in assessing whether it should be considered for further Potts Limited) 2020 expansion. It is the role that settlement performs which is important as explained earlier. 1530

Question 11 – Do you agree with the selection of the 37 settlements for further examination and the reasons for not selecting a larger or smaller number?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Neighbouring Authorities - Hull City Council

Town and Parish Councils - Watton, Twin Rivers, Swanland, Anlaby, Paull, Seaton Ross, Beeford, Langtoft, Bainton, Garton, Sigglesthorne, Hollym, Patrington, Aldbrough, Sutton Upon Derwent, Newton Upon Derwent, North Frodingham, Middleton, Hayton&Burnby, South Cave, Fridaythorpe, Stamford Bridge, Melbourne (23)

Other Bodies - Ferriby Conservation Society, Hornsea Residents' Association, Bridlington & District Civic Society, Hornsea & District Chamber of Trade, Gateway Pathfinder, Hornsea & District Civic Society (6)

Agents and Individuals - BP Ryan, C.Brown, O'Pray, GS Lenton, Stamford Homes Ltd, H Hook, R Bryan, R Hall, Smiths Gore, JF&KM Glew, JG Hatcliffe&Partners, JM Fielden, Albanwise Ltd, R Barnes, M Glover, Ramsden Developments (16)

46 respondents in total

The following respondent answered 'No' without any further comment:

Town and Parish Councils - Snaith and Cowick

Agents and Individuals - C.Worrall

2 respondents in total

Name/ID Type/ID Representation Government Office for Observations Why pick the top half of the study group to identify your preferred settlements? While paragraph 4.3 Yorkshire and the 1030 sets out reasons for (the principle of) not pursuing a number of settlements, no reasons or stated Name/ID Type/ID Representation Humber assumptions seem to be given as to the top 50% threshold, as opposed to higher or lower percentage? 694 Mr David Winter (Roos Object The arguments in previous questions come to a head here in Table 4.1 (Eastern JSP SubArea). The Parish Council) 1437 Overall Order gives Roos a higher ranking than it should. 1498

Question 12: Do you agree with the other considerations that have been taken into account?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Neighbouring Authorities - Hull City Council

Town and Parish Councils - Watton, Twin Rivers, Swanland, Anlaby, Seaton Ross, Langtoft, Mappleton, Bainton, Sigglesthorne, Hollym, Patrington, Sutton Upon Derwent, Newton Upon Derwent, North Frodingham, Barmston&Fraisthorpe, South Cave, Fridaythorpe, Stamford Bridge, North Ferriby, Rudston, Melbourne (21)

Other Bodies - Hornsea Residents' Association, Bridlington & District Civic Society, South Cave Active Residents, Gateway Pathfinder, Hornsea & District Civic Society (5)

Agents and Individuals - BP Ryan, C.Brown, O'Pray, GS Lenton, JE Milner, Stamford Homes Ltd, W Clifford Watts Ltd, H Hook, P Jackson, R Bryan, R Hall, Smiths Gore, JF&KM Glew, JG Hatcliffe&Partners, JM Fielden, ST Modwen Properties, Albanwise Ltd, R Barnes, Planning Prospects, EJ Sherwood, GJ Perry(City Developments), M Glover, R Swailes, C Hill, JH Foreman, J Boat, MB Goodwin (Skipsea) Ltd, WC Watts Estate, Ramsden Developments, C.Worrall, P Robinson (31)

58 respondents in total

The following respondent answered 'No' without any further comment:

Town and Parish Councils - Snaith and Cowick

1 response in total

Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mrs Susan Lang Observations The wording throughout the analysis gives the appearnace that the the 'status quo' has to be maintained (East Riding of Yorkshire 320 in terms of transport and services - it does not and the raft of measures to support rural businesses and Council) social enterprises means that there is considerable potential to adjust other policy areas and funding to Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1424 increase these services. We would make the same point as made earlier - that the methodology does not take adequate account of places that are existing relatively major centres of employment like Preston, Welton, Pollington, Bishop Burton, etc. Ms Nicola Salvidge Object Sometimes rural areas need to grow to allow those wishing to move or stay in the area to do so. (Seaton PC) 519 1413 Mr D Miller (Bovis Object No- The diversity of the sub-areas is not a material factor in determining the distribution of market Homes Ltd) 566 villages. It is not clear how diversity can impact on the choice of such settlements as an objective 611 measure. Brigadier AJ Simmons Observations I would suggest that any long-term development plan should regard standards of drainage and sewerage 1447 602 as being a proper part of the 'essential services' of any prospective development. Cllr Symon Fraser Object Yes, but again local wishes have not been included in the scoring mechanism. Parish Councils should be (Conservative Group) 661 offered a much greater chance to put forward their “preferred scale of desired development” within 1421 their villages. We understand that there is an increased risk of refused applications being taken to appeal and Parish Councils need to be prepared to commit to be “active and fully committed partners with the ERYC” in fighting any appeals which developers may lodge against decisions if those decisions were to give greater weighting to local wishes. A grid or questionnaire needs to be devised to enable Parish or Town Councils to input their preferred level of desired or acceptable development. No further development Limited development of existing properties Limited infill development of dwellings (less than 5 dwellings) Opportunistic development of sites to give planning gain Scope for larger scale development welcomed (5 to 15 dwellings) Scope for extensive development welcomed (more than 15 dwellings) Mr Paul Jackson Object Greater chance for parish councils to put forward their preferred scale of desired development. (Carnaby Parish Council) 672 1451 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Ms J. Crowther Object A proper evaluation of transport and employment rather than the superficial one you have used. (Easington Parish 2052 Council) 596 Mrs D. E. Franks (Paull Support with But feel Parish Councils should be offered a chance to input their preferred level of development. Parish Council) conditions 845 689 Mr Cliff Wilson Support The comments made by the Conservative Group are well made and most pertinent. (Garton-on-the-Wolds 771 Parish Council) 1457 Mr R. L. Mole (Foston Object There must be a link to Parish plans and therefore local wishes. Parish Council) 783 329 Mr P. Wharton Object As a rural village, Skidby is pleased to note that its future status will be similar to our present non (Skidby Parish Council) 788 selected settlement designation. We look forward to the Rural Villages Document. 428 Mr P. Wharton Object Only other comment is a regret that communities are not being consulted directly on how if at all they (Skidby Parish Council) 789 wish to develop. 428 Ms Susan Wilson Observations (Page 38 Para 4.6 and 4.8) Natural England is pleased to see that Environmental issues are of (Natural England) 794 importance in the identification of Market Villages. However we would like to see specific mention of 1459 Internationally designated sites, sites of special scientific interest and sites of importance for nature conservation. In addition to designated sites there may also be important populations of protected species (outside designated sites) which may be affected by development. Miss M. Hudson Support with Yes, but we feel that local views should be taken into consideration as well. (Wetwang Parish conditions Council) 803 230 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mr D. J. Lord (Bugthorpe Support Yes, However the residents of the East Riding must be given an element of choice in where they want and Kirby Underdale 843 to live and Parish Councils should play an important part in deciding what level of development is Parish Council) appropriate (within agreed limits). 603 Mr D J Lord Support However the residents of the East Riding must be given an element of choice in where they want to live 1194 857 and Parish Councils should play an important part in deciding what level of development is appropriate (within agreed limits). S Hirst (Alliance General Object Proximity to major settlements is given a low score. It should be high. Property Development 895 Ltd) 1465 Mr Roger Jones (Humber Support Agree with all considerations 4.5 to 4.10. & Wolds Rural 909 Community Council) 318 Hornsea and District Object Environmental considerations, flooding and coastal erosion should be of much higher priority. Chamber of Trade 953 1464 Aldbrough Parish Object Parish Councils should have greater say in the size of the planned development. Council 964 1466 Dunlop Haywards Object Persimmon Homes is concerned about the weight that has been given to ‘other considerations’. The (Persimmon Homes East 995 ‘other considerations’ vary considerably depending on the sub area and the specific settlements referred Yorkshire) to. As such, the following comments relate to specific settlements as opposed to any broad ‘other 1468 consideration’ criteria. In particular, it is noted that although Flamborough ranks highly under the selection criteria, and is the highest ranked settlement for services and facilities, it has not been identified as a Preferred Market Village. The justification for this (under the ‘other considerations’ heading at paragraphs 4.22 and 4.23 of the Preferred Options document) is that:- Name/ID Type/ID Representation It could undermine the renaissance of the Principal Town of Bridlington; The settlement is within the Heritage Coast designation; and, Flamborough Parish Council has objected to the identification of the settlement as a Market Village. In response, it is not considered that significant weight should be attached to the above issues. In this context, it is submitted that the identification of Flamborough would not undermine or divert investment from Bridlington, as policies relating to Market Villages would only support limited development. Furthermore, and in response to Flamborough Parish Council’s concerns, it is considered that additional limited development can be accommodated in and around the settlement without undermining the Heritage Coast designation. In addition to the foregoing, it is noted that although North Ferriby is one of the higher order settlements, it is only identified as a Priority 3 Preferred Market Village. Questions are raised by the LPA (under the ‘other considerations’ heading at paragraphs 4.42 and 4.43 of the Preferred Options document) as to whether a Market Village is required is close proximity to the Sub Regional Urban Area and Elloughton / Brough, and whether the identification of the settlement would undermine the spatial objective to focus development within these areas. In response, it is submitted that the identification of North Ferriby would not undermine or divert investment from the larger urban areas, as policies relating to Market Villages would only support limited development. Development Land & Object Lack of potential for exploring internalised sustainability within settlements. Planning 1138 1454 Jean Kitchen Object All Parish Councils do not represent residents, they are often farmers in farming areas. 1475 1185 Sam Kipling Observations Section 4.7 - We welcome the acknowledgement of flood risk in this section. You should however be (Environment Agency) 1246 mindful of the impending PPS25 on Development and Flood Risk, which will advocate the use of the 1480 sequential test 'at all levels of planning'. Although the DPD does not categorically allocate land for development, it does introduce a hierarchy for the location of rural development, and in doing so will influence the spatial location of development. On this basis you are likely to be required to undertake the sequential test for this document. The absence of such a test may deem it unsound. We acknowledge that this document has been drawn up under your recently adopted Joint Structure Plan, Name/ID Type/ID Representation however the wording of PPS25 will make it a requirement for the sequential test to be considered. The consideration of the sequential test at this stage should also make the use of the test at planning application stage far simpler. With the above in mind, you are advised to make use of your impending Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) to take an overview of development and flood risk and to use this as an opportunity to guide development away from areas which are likely to flood. If you are minded to promote development in areas at risk from flooding, both the sequential test and exceptions test must be passed. Sue Atkins (Middleton on Support However could not see evidence of school capacity being a consideration and do think this should be an the Wolds Parish 1404 additional factor. Council) 1474 Mrs A Bland (Hayton Support But local wishes have not been included in the scoring. We feel limited development of existing and Burnby Parish 1411 properties or a small amount of infill is appropriate - not multiple properties - just an odd one. Council) 1496 Mr David Winter (Roos Object Add : Parish Council) 1444 If available, a settlement’s Village Design Statement or Parish Plan should be included. 1498 Bryan Brown & Son Observations Paragraph 4.23 of the preferred options identifies that Flamborough is a thriving coastal community 1507 1561 and the highest ranked settlement under the Services and Facilities criterion. It notes however, that the settlement is relatively close to Bridlington and is within the Heritage Coast. Clearly the village has expanded over the last plan period through the erection of developments that have complemented the existing urban form. This pattern of development is not considered to have had any significant or detrimental impact upon the character and quality of the Heritage Coast. There is no reason to suggest that a sensible continuation of this pattern of development, particularly where it would be a ‘rounding off’ or the infilling of the existing built form would continue to have any detrimental effect on the Heritage Coast. Much will rather depend upon the quality of the design and layout of such developments, which would be informed by the strong vernacular of the village in any Name/ID Type/ID Representation event. Paragraph 4.23 states the renaissance of the principal town of Bridlington is essential to future development proposals in the Northern segment of the Eastern Sub Area. The document concludes that this objective would be undermined by the identification of Flamborough as a Market Village. The document does not provide any evidence as to how limited development within the village would have this effect. Given the healthy housing market in both Bridlington and Flamborough, as emphasised by the Sub Areas performance in delivering its housing targets it is difficult to determine how some development within the village, that would help sustain its services and facilities up to and beyond 2021 can have any quantifiable impact upon the regeneration of Bridlington. This demonstrates further that the village is able to operate independent of Bridlington and has its own sphere of influence to surrounding settlements. The omission of the village from the selected list of Market Villages would prejudice this role. It is therefore requested that the Local Planning Authority reconsider this matter or provide conclusive evidence to support the omission of Flamborough. It is noted that the Parish Council responded to the Issues and Options consultation exercise and have indicated that it does not wish the village to be identified as a Market Village. Whilst this is a material consideration, it is noted that similar objections have been raised by the Parish Council at Aldborough but this has not had any effect on its selection as a Market Village within the Eastern Sub Area. Sue Walters Thompson Object No, we disagree with some of the considerations. (Carter Jonas LLP) 1624 In respect of self containment we consider this measure to be inappropriate and too restrictive since it 1509 does not have any regard to the inter-relationship or existing networks between settlements. We consider that these are very important factors in terms of understanding settlement hierarchy and retaining sustainable communities. In our view they should therefore be an important determinant in assessing whether or not a rural settlement performs the role of a ‘market village’. We consider that the document provides insufficient information to demonstrate that proper consideration has been given to potential environmental constraints. The Council needs to fully appraise each settlement and its physical ability to accommodate small-scale sustainable growth both in terms of infrastructure and environmental considerations. It would be questionable if it were appropriate to identify a settlement for growth if it were located in a flood risk area. Name/ID Type/ID Representation The Council has not provided any indication as to whether any priority might be given to the ability of settlements to accommodate brownfield development or whether the matter of land availability is less important than other considerations. The DPD has not satisfactorily addressed opportunities arising from small scale growth in certain rural settlements that would make them more sustainable in the longer term. For example, the fact that some development may result in the improvement of public transport services, increased school rolls, or provide for new or improved health facilities. It is considered that it would be more desirable to facilitate development that will improve the sustainability of marginal settlements rather than just expand existing settlements that already have a full range of services and facilities. In the long term this will make the District more sustainable and prosperous. Such issues should be factored into an assessment of the selection of market villages. Paul Robinson Support Again local people must have an input into what they want. There is a case that this is perhaps top (Gilberdyke Parish 1647 down and this must be addressed through wide consultation, much of which may already be available Council) through Parish Plans that have been carried out in many communities. 1510 Mrs S. Wainwright Object Yes, but again local wishes have not been included in the scoring mechanism. Parish Councils should be (Burton Fleming Parish 1671 offered a much greater chance to put forward their ‘preferred scale of desired development’ within their Council) villages. We understand that there is an increased risk of refused applications being taken to appeal and 859 Parish Councils need to be prepared to commit to be “active and fully committed partners with ERYC” in fighting any appeals which developers may lodge against decisions if those decisions were to give greater weighting to local wishes. A grid or questionnaire needs to be devised to enable Parish or town Councils to input their preferred level of desired or acceptable development. e.g. No further development Limited development of existing properties Limited infill development of dwellings (less than 5 dwellings) Opportunistic development of sites to give planning gain Scope for larger scale development welcomed (5 to 15 dwellings) Scope for extensive development welcomed (more than 15 dwellings) Name/ID Type/ID Representation

Hedon Town Council Object Most, if not all of the area in South Holderness is identified as a potential flood risk. For the coastal area 1514 1698 there is also the difficulty associated with coastal erosion. The provision of yet more properties across this area with their need for surface water drainage and sewage facilities must put further pressure on existing and new systems resulting in a further increase in flood risk. Hedon Town Council Object Additional traffic which would result from developments in Holderness has a cumulative effect as it 1514 1700 moves west. It is safe to assume that a substantial proportion would be commuting in that direction. The present difficulties in Hull at peak times in particular are too well known to go into detail here. This Council’s concern over any increase in traffic levels and the resulting hazards and increase in congestion (with its consequences for environmental pollution levels) must be put on record. Mr David Horsley Observations The problem is not the criteria as such, but that the criteria and the proposals have a circular (Beverley Town Council) 1744 relationship. (“chicken and Egg”) if you lack facilities you will be prevented from getting the sort of 1499 developments which might bring those facilities. This is perhaps most crucial in relationship to good public transport. Julie Abraham Object Proximity to areas of major economic importance. 1523 1870 A good supply of appropriate housing will be key to attracting senior personnel of large companies. Mrs D. Beare (Hook Support with Provided that residents/parish councils are given a real part in shaping development within their Parish Council) conditions villages. 838 2042 A Brown (Melrose Plc Object There should also be a comprehensive review of development limits/ settlement boundaries as part of (Colliers Cre)) 1891 the DPD. There are numerous settlements that include large expanses of undeveloped Greenfield land 1524 within the edge of adopted development limits. These should be omitted from development limits. In addition, there are sustainable previously developed sites that should be included within amended development limits.

Question 13 – Eastern sub area - do you agree with the Council’s identified preferred Market Villages?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Town and Parish Councils - Twin Rivers, Carnaby, Paull, Beeford, Langtoft, Foston, Bainton, Garton, Wetwang, Sigglesthorne, Patrington, Aldbrough, North Frodingham, Hayton&Burnby, North Ferriby, Rudston, Melbourne (17)

Other Bodies - Hornsea Residents' Association, Bridlington & District Civic Society (2)

Agents and Individuals - BP Ryan, CW&DC Hattee, C.Brown, Bovis Homes Ltd., GS Lenton, Stamford Homes Ltd., H Hook, R Bryan, R Hall, JF&KM Glew, JG Hatcliffe&Partners, R Barnes, GJ Perry(City Developments), M Glover, Cllr Abraham, John Potts Ltd (16)

35 respondents in total

No respondents answered 'No' without any further comment.

Name/ID Type/ID Representation Ms Nicola Salvidge Object There is not a fair mixture between priorities. (Seaton PC) 522 1413 Roos Parish Council Object Both the Roos Village Design Statement and the Roos Parish Plan show that residents want to preserve 1498 1436 green open spaces within settlements and for that reason oppose any significant development. Roos Parish Council Object The penultimate sentence of Paragraph 4.18 reads : 1498 1438 Whilst the Roos Parish Plan expresses a preference not to be a Market Village, the response from Parish Council accepts the settlement`s role as a service centre. Both the Chairman of the Parish Plan Committee and the Clerk to Roos Parish Council have written to point out that the Parish Council now totally agree that, though it has amenities used by some its outlying settlements, Roos should not be designated a Market Village. The statement quoted above from 4.18 should be ignored. Roos Parish Council Object Roos Parish should be deleted. Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1498 1445 Reasons See previous responses and attachment to covering letter. Mappleton Parish Observations From the map on p41 there appears to be a gap north of Bridlington & Kilham. Is that acceptable due Council 733 to the proximity of Bridlington? 350 Barmston & Fraisthorpe Support with Yes, including Skipsea. Parish Council conditions 484 1393 Atwick Parish Council Observations Atwick is a DS5 settlement and is thus not a Market Village, but we note that we will be affected by the 1495 1409 Smaller Settlements Development Plan. The key impact we conclude will be that it is proposed that there will no longer be a development limit for Atwick and that any planning in the village will be considered on a “criteria and policy” basis alone. It is noted however that no significant development is envisaged. The Development Limit actually represented one item of clear guidance to the PC. Atwick PC will now need clear advice on the “criteria and policy”. This as a minimum must be in the form of a simply formatted advice document to assist the Parish Councillors to understand the basis on which EYRC will themselves assess development proposals. Clearly we will be seeking to support appropriate domestic and commercial development, particularly if it is associated with local employment or is supported by significant weight of opinion in the Parish. Using the scoring criteria, Atwick is indeed a small community, but it is immediately adjacent to substantial leisure facilities and can take advantage of its location on the transport route that connects Hornsea and Skipsea. Against Question 19 all the categories are supported for development and against Question 20, we believe that for all Parishes, existing Parish Plans or those developed in the future should have significant bearing on the planning decision process. Lissett & Ulrome Parish Observations The council noted the contents of the Local Development Framework but do not wish to comment at Council 1911 this time. 388 Easington Parish Council Object Easington Parish Councillors do not consider their parish to be suitable for a market village. 596 2053 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Graham Stuart MP Object In complete agreement with the following views of Welwick Parish Council: "While Welwick Parish 1001 3664 Council has always been opposed to largescale development in the village, a small amount of building of the right type has always seemed appropriate.We accept that we have few facilities within the village itself, but the reduction in facilitites in the past has been due to the fact that rather than maintain and slightly increase its population, the population of Welwick has been allowed to stagnate and even slightly decline. We feel that a very small and sensitive amount of development in the village will keep it vibrant and alive." RSPB Northern England Observations We note that Easington lies within 1km from The Lagoons SSSI, part of the proposed Phase 2 of the Region 1061 Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast Special Protection Area (pSPA). The SPA is designated for its 970 internationally important breeding and wintering bird populations. If Easington were selected as a Market Village, it would be an appropriate precaution to ensure that any development resulting from this selection has no adverse impact on The Lagoons SSSI (and therefore also the pSPA). For example, new development and associated infrastructure that require additional flood defence measures could increase the rate of coastal erosion further down the coast. The Smaller Settlements DPD, and DPDs bringing forward significant allocations near Easington, will require an Appropriate Assessment into the implications for the SPA, as set out in the Habitats Regulations. At the project stage, Appropriate Assessment of individual proposals may be required in order to determine the scale of potential impacts. The Smaller Settlements DPD should include policy to reflect the need to protect the pSPA, for example: "New development within Easington which is identified as having a significant adverse effect on The Lagoons SSSI and the Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast pSPA will not be permitted." Hornsea and District Object Consideration should be given to village orientation. It seems to me that Skipsea is a part of Holderness Civic Society 1323 whereas Beeford is significantly defined by a different pattern of movement. 756 Mr J E Milner Object New and Old Ellerby. Delete any over population of 2500 as these are towns. 1199 634 W. Clifford Watts Ltd Object Carnaby should be added, Burton Flemming should be removed. 1455 738 Mr Paul Jackson Object Carnaby added because of employment opportunities within walking distance. Roos(?) and Aldborough Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1456 750 should be removed from list. Humber & Wolds Rural Object Demand for affordable housing is high. Community Council 910 318 Humber & Wolds Rural Object Roos parish council object to MV status also. Aldbrough is close to the coastal erosion, and has a high Community Council 911 need for affordable housing. 318 Humber & Wolds Rural Object Exclude Roos and Skipsea on grounds of coastal erosion. Add something? west of Bridlington. Community Council 912 318 Hornsea and District Object Priority should be given to inland settlements which can serve a larger area. Parish wishes should be Chamber of Trade 954 respected. 1464 Crown Estate Support The Crown estate supports the identification of Patrington as a preferred Market Village. 1467 973 Edwardson Associates 729 Bempton has the status of a “selected settlement” in the current Adopted Local Plan which made 1453 specific allocations of land for housing. It is not considered that things have moved on to warrant any significant departure from this approach. This letter makes representations specifically in relation to Bempton, the Methodology, how this may be used in connection with the Smaller Settlements DPD (SSDPD) and its relationship with the earlier guidance set out in the Sustainability Matrix. It is difficult to make meaningful comments in respect of the Methodology when the document does not clarify the way in which the SSDPD will be progressed. Clearly, these two are intertwined as the Methodology suggests that no sites other than those within identified settlements will be allocated for housing purposes but then does not explain how the housing hierarchy will be determined. It has to be assumed that the guidance set out in the Sustainability Matrix will be regarded as important in setting some of the parameters of the SSDPD. The main focus of this letter, therefore, relates to the way in which the Matrix may be used and why its findings should not be relied on in deciding which villages should be considered suitable to accommodate further housing development. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Various comments raised to justify why Bempton should be categorised as a 'Village Service Centre' Conclusion. A simple assessment of “sustainability” by means such as the Matrix is of little value in identifying the function of a settlement like Bempton. Bempton acts as a service village for a wider hinterland. Facilities within the village and continued availability of the bus and rail service would benefit from some growth in the population. This requires positive allocations of land for residential development. Such allocations may also present the opportunity to provide additional facilities thereby making the settlement more sustainable by having more of what the resident population require on their doorstep further reducing the need to travel by car. Existing public transport facilities are first-class with full rail and bus interface. It is requested, that the Methodology be clarified to acknowledge that the assessment of which settlements should be regarded as village service centres will be made based on the function of the village (and not some form of flawed “Sustainability Matrix”). The function of Bempton as a village service centre is clear to see. New development will help maintain the service village function, ensuring that residents can continue to live in Bempton in a “sustainable manner” and make full use of the Hull to Scarborough travel to work rail corridor and bus services. Persimmon Homes East Object Flamborough Yorkshire 996 1468 Planning Prospects Support Yes in part but: 1476 119 What the analysis points to is that there are quite a number of settlements in the East Riding that have some significant merit and are sustainable. The fact that there are a number of suitable market villages in certain parts of the district should not be a reason to limit the identification of more market villages. There is no harm to having more than less, if the assessment points to this. The number should be broadened. Hull City Council Object Would question the inclusion of Roos, Beeford, and Skipsea due to their smaller size. 1482 1261 David Jackson Object Carnaby added because of its proximity to the large Industrial Estate. 1485 1274 Name/ID Type/ID Representation David Jackson Observations For example, if Carnaby was made a Market Village (which it should be) a limited number of high 1485 1282 quality, two and three bedroomed houses and bungalows of which working couples could purchase, where one works on the industrial estate, there would be no reliance on a car which would probably mean only one car per household. If more development took place in Carnaby, it would service the two pubs and restaurants which we have, also a leisure centre with gym and swimming pool. A shop and other facilities would follow the building of more quality houses. Carnaby already has a retail outlet shopping centre with Park Rose Pottery, a large childrens' play area at John Bull Rock factory, a 'state of the art' car garage opening soon, as well as a number of factories producing and selling goods ranging from electrical to meat and fish, caravans and furniture. J Boat Observations Whilst mindful of the suggestion to devise a single list of ‘Market Villages’ and the requirement to plan 1504 1510 beyond 2016 should the current hierarchal approach be retained, the inclusion of Beeford within the current selection is fully supported. The settlement and the services located therein perform an important function to its existing population and to surrounding settlements and that it is located upon an efficient transport corridor to major urban areas. MB Goodwin (MB Observations Whilst mindful of the suggestion to devise a single list of ‘Market Villages’ and the requirement to plan Goodwin (Skipsea) Ltd.) 1523 beyond 2016, the inclusion of Skipsea within the current selection is fully supported. The settlement 1505 provides an important function to its residents and those in its hinterland. Whilst in proximity to Beeford for example it exhibits a different catchment area to this settlement given a differing highway network. Consequently it is recommended that Skipsea be retained on the selected list of Market Villages. Bryan Brown (Bryan Observations There are no objections to the selection of the settlements identified within this Sub Area. However, Brown & Son) 1563 earlier sections of this response have detailed the case for the inclusion of Flamborough into the list. 1507 Peter Robinson Object No. Delete Easington for reasons mentioned previously. Delete Roos and Skipsea as small size and 994 1731 closeness to other settlements on quiet country roads make them unnecessary.

Question 14 – Western sub area - do you agree with the Council’s identified preferred Market Villages?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Town and Parish Councils - Twin Rivers, Paull, Langtoft, Mappleton, Foston, Bainton, Garton, Wetwang, Aldbrough, Barmston&Fraisthorpe, Hayton&Burnby, North Ferriby, Rudston, Melbourne (14)

Other Bodies - Hornsea & District Chamber of Trade

Agents and Individuals - CW&DC Hattee, C.Brown, Bovis Homes Ltd., GS Lenton, Stamford Homes Ltd, W Clifford Watts Ltd, R Bryan, R Hall, JF&KM Glew, JG Hatcliffe&Partners, R Barnes, GJ Perry(City Developments), M Glover, John Potts Ltd (14)

29 respondents in total

No respondents answered 'No' without any further comment.

Name/ID Type/ID Representation Gilberdyke Parish Observations Gilberdyke as a Market Village Council 1755 The village of Gilberdyke has been identified as a priority 1 market village by the East Riding of 1510 Yorkshire Council’s Local Development Framework – smaller settlements development plan document (preferred options). There are plans to construct at least 250 dwellings each year in the Western Area with 13% of these shared between Gilberdyke, Newport and Rawcliffe. The plan indicates that future development is to be focused in villages such as Gilberdyke where it is perceived that existing housing, jobs and services are located in close proximity. This may well be a good theory but in practice there is a question mark over whether Gilberdyke’s already overstretched village services and infrastructure can actually cope with the present level of development, let alone any increase. History The village of Gilberdyke has expanded rapidly over the past 35 years, with many houses built and jobs created on the industrial estate located at the south side of the village. The industrial estate was Name/ID Type/ID Representation originally a ‘pole yard’ where trees were converted into telegraph poles. The yard was served by the railway, and had dedicated rail sidings so that the impact of traffic through the village was minimal. The pole yard and railway sidings were closed many years ago, before the industrial estate was re-developed and expanded to its present size. The desire for employment opportunities in the community appears to have been the rationale behind the planner’s decisions in allowing an industrial estate to develop at the far side of a village, without an adequate means of access. Unfortunately, the legacy of this is a situation, where the traffic travelling through the village has become intolerable for a great many residents. Overall this is the issue that most concerns residents throughout the whole community. Housing in Gilberdyke During the time of the industrial estate growth, housing development increased and the community changed, with many people moving into the village from towns and cities in search of low cost housing and employment. The village also became a commuter village with many people working in Hull. The employment opportunities within the community have remained relatively static for the past few years, as the businesses on the industrial estate have ceased to grow. This has not stopped housing development, which has been rapid over the past 5 years, so rapid that the village services and infrastructure are unable to cope with any further development. This is widely accepted by the Community, Gilberdyke Parish Council, Gilberdyke School, the Health Centre, and Memorial Hall - but NOT the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC). There is much evidence to indicate that there is not the consent of the community for more housing, after the present phase of low cost housing is complete. People moved to Gilberdyke having chosen to live in a village, not to live in a town, but through decisions taken by developers, landowners and planners, they find themselves living in nothing less than a town. Gilberdyke Industrial Estate The industrial estate is the largest employer in the village with many members of the community being employed. There is also a large proportion of the workforce who are not from the community and travel from other villages and towns, most travelling by car. All raw materials used by the companies on the industrial estate, and all products manufactured there have to travel through the village by road. It should be noted that the industrial estate is approximately 1 mile along the non classified village roads from the B1230 resulting in many large lorries traversing Name/ID Type/ID Representation these narrow, traffic lined roads at all hours of the day and night. It is also worth noting the operation of the Warburton’s depot, which is a distribution centre for bread, although no bread, is actually made on site. Large articulated lorries bring the bread through the village to the depot in the early hours of each morning, when the bread is then transferred to a fleet of smaller lorries. These articulated lorries then return empty through the village back to the bakeries. Most of the drivers of the smaller lorries and the depot staff then drive through the village to the depot. The smaller lorries having been loaded, then leave the depot in the early hours of the morning, and drive through the village to deliver bread to various outlets returning empty back through the village a few hours later. The drivers then drive back through the village in their cars as they return home. The jobs are of course valuable, but the price of excessive traffic movements is a very high price to pay for the residents of Gilberdyke. Traffic movements through the village to and from the industrial estate are the greatest concern for residents, and many feel let down by the planning process. However, the Parish Council and residents send many planning objections to the ERYC and all seem to go unheeded. The quality of life for many Gilberdyke residents is certainly deteriorating, yet their taxes increase. There is no doubt, that at school times, there is an accident waiting to happen as lorries and buses have been seen mounting the pavement, in order to pass parent’s parked cars and all at a time when school pupils are arriving or leaving, and children are present on the pavements. Much of the traffic from the industrial estate also passes through our neighbouring village of Newport on route to the M62, burdening this community with similar problems associated with heavy traffic movements. We understand that many Newport residents are unhappy about this. Retail Outlets If one takes into account the retail outlets in Gilberdyke there is one small supermarket, with very limited parking for both customers and suppliers. Adjacent to the supermarket is a newsagent, pharmacy and fruit shop. These outlets serve a population of 3028. When one looks at settlements of a similar or smaller size a great many have more retail outlets and facilities. What is clear is that the lack of retail outlets results in many residents shopping outside the community with a great many travelling by car. This is a significant issue within the village now, and this does not take into account the occupation of the 64 houses that are presently being built. Name/ID Type/ID Representation On Clementhorpe Road there are the issues of lack of parking space at the butchers, fish and chip shop and post office, which also contributes to problems with traffic flow through the village. Gilberdyke School Gilberdyke Primary School is very fortunate when compared to other schools in the area, in the fact that it has a rising role, which means school funding is less of an issue. However, the school has a finite amount of space and buildings and therefore capacity, so it is now approaching the level where the school is actually full. It is predicted that the school will reach and exceed capacity during the next year, when some extra 48 low cost houses, and 16 mid-cost houses, which are presently being constructed in the village, are completed. The Governing body of Gilberdyke School has not been consulted on housing development. This is clearly a weakness in the system. It is not clear how the ERYC has planned for the increased numbers who will want to attend the school. This is an issue that the Parish Council would like addressing before these new houses are sold and occupied. Gilberdyke Health Centre Gilberdyke Health Centre serves not only the village of Gilberdyke (50% of the patients) but also many neighbouring communities within its catchment area including Newport (20%), Eastrington (8.25%), North Cave (3.5%) and Blacktoft (2%). As with the school, the Health Centre has a finite capacity and is rapidly approaching the situation, where the catchment area may well have to be reduced and the number of patients restricted. This would probably not directly affect the village of Gilberdyke, but the impact would certainly be felt for those who live in the communities outside any reduced catchment area. Parking outside the Health Centre has been a contentious issue for many years. There is limited parking at the centre itself, and many motorists park on Thornton Dam Lane and Scalby Lane. The Health Centre is situated near to a busy bend in the road, so that this is a major contributor to the through traffic issue, one of the biggest problems faced by the residents, and again the Parish Council would like it to be addressed before those houses planned or under construction are completed. Flooding and drainage Another significant problem facing the residents of Gilberdyke is flooding and drainage. Historically the village was surrounded by land that was difficult to drain, with many of the grass fields having ‘dips and Name/ID Type/ID Representation mounds’ where the livestock stood on the mounds during and after rainfall. Subsequently much of this land was built upon, and to compound this, the dykes draining this land have been filled in or piped incorrectly by the builders or by the original householders, which has left a legacy of flooding during and after times of rainfall in a number of areas within the village. Foul water drainage has also been an issue over the years, with many drains and sewers struggling to cope. This has been improved through the construction of the new sewage works but there is a question hanging over the capacity of this facility to accommodate significant further housing developments. These factors must be considered when making any future decisions on industrial or housing developments in Gilberdyke. Doubts and issues raised by the document The village of Gilberdyke is determined by the ERYC as a sustainable settlement and quite rightly so. Although the criteria can be somewhat confusing as clearly a ‘one size fits all’ approach cannot be applied to all communities. Why for example is Gilberdyke credited with having a Health Centre and none of those villages within a 5-mile radius having the same facility, even when this is clearly shared? One can look at Newport, which has properties closer to the Gilberdyke Health Centre than some of those in the Parish of Gilberdyke. It would be perhaps better to consider the distances from the Health Centre, rather than whether its location falls within one village or another. The Health Centre acknowledges that it is unable to take on large numbers of new patients. The Centre itself is built on a bend with inadequate parking which is already posing a danger to pedestrians and motorists alike when patients park on this bend to visit their GP. There is also a question of the 36% of those employed and living in Gilberdyke who work in the parish. There is also a high ratio of jobs available, to the number of employed residents – in this case 112 jobs per 100 people employed, therefore meaning there are 12% more jobs available in Gilberdyke, than people working. The Parish Council is curious as to the accuracy of these figures and how up to date is the information on which they are based. The accuracy of the maps in the document is also flawed giving a false impression, as the housing developments totalling approximately 149 houses constructed during the last 4 years are not included. There is also confusion with the distances to the nearest JSP settlement where Gilberdyke is 5.5miles from Howden whilst Newport is 9.4miles from Elloughton/Brough - but Newport is less than 2 miles from Gilberdyke so why the big difference in the figures. Name/ID Type/ID Representation If one looks at the LDF Transport Development Plan it would appear that the village of Gilberdyke is ignored completely, the does not this fit with the Smaller Settlements Development Plan, which identifies Gilberdyke at the ‘top of the list’ for priority 1 market village development. These two documents are clearly not compatible in the respect of Gilberdyke. Conclusions There is a suggestion that some of the information provided in the document is flawed, and very little evidence of ‘on the ground research’ or consultation with the community. There is very little consent from within the community of Gilberdyke for any further industrial development on the industrial estate to the south of the village, the opposite being the case. Further housing development is also a very contentious issue with again very little support for any more developments. Numerous surveys show a limited degree of support for limited ‘low cost’ housing development, but very little support for any other type of housing. Gilberdyke Parish Council therefore requests that the village and community of Gilberdyke be removed from the list of Market Villages, and that no further significant industrial or housing developments be imposed upon us, until such a time that the wrongs of the past are corrected and there is significant investment in village infrastructure. This is to include a link road from the industrial estate, car parking solutions at the Health Centre and shops, and the potential overcrowding issues at Gilberdyke School. In the meantime it is requested that there is no housing development outside the existing development limits, until such a time that the above has been achieved. It is also requested that Gilberdyke be re- categorised as a ‘Rural Village’ for the purposes of the LDF. The above document is to be put out to public consultation in the village and community of Gilberdyke, and when the results are known this information will be passed to the ERYC As approved the members of Gilberdyke Parish Council on 14th November 2006 Gilberdyke Parish Object Gilberdyke Parish Council requests that the village and community of Gilberdyke be removed from the Council 1648 list of Market Villages, and that no further significant industrial or housing developments be imposed 1510 upon us, until such a time that the wrongs of the past are corrected and there is significant investment in village infrastructure. This is to include a link road from the industrial estate, car parking solutions at the Health Centre and shops, and the potential overcrowding issues at Gilberdyke School. In the meantime it is requested that there is no housing development outside the existing development Name/ID Type/ID Representation limits, until such a time that the above has been achieved. It is also requested that Gilberdyke be re- categorised as a ‘Rural Village’ for the purposes of the LDF. Gilberdyke Parish Observations In addition Council 1757 “In theory the basic principles laid out in the Local Development Framework (LDF) are a logical step 1510 forward, and I can fully support future housing and industrial developments being located in sustainable areas, but not exclusively so. I feel help should also be given to communities struggling to remain sustainable through falling school rolls, and uneconomic village shops and post offices. History will not look back favourably on the ERYC if communities are allowed to die, simply because planning decisions having been made prevented limited development, when using the guidance offered by the ‘Sustainability Matrix’” “In the case of Gilberdyke, there have been many development-planning decisions in the past that have left the community with many problems, some of which, especially heavy traffic movements, are shared with our neighbours in Newport. I have every faith the ERYC will take on board the comments and views of Gilberdyke people as part of this consultation process, and infrastructural investment will be forthcoming before any further housing or industry is permitted.” “Should Gilberdyke continue to be developed against the wishes of the community then I can see an exodus of Gilberdyke people, breaking the already fragile community spirit that has struggled to remain over the years, as more and more people have moved into the village. This community spirit has had a positive effect on maintaining a low rate of crime and very few social problems. This is something to be valued as part of village life.” *** Paul Robinson, Chairman Gilberdyke Parish Council *** Asselby Parish Council Observations The Parish Council have requested me to convey to you their problems with the questionnaire you sent 1761 for completion. The members felt the questions were loaded and did not allow for any flexibility to give answers/comments they wished to make. They felt the original system was much better and that each planning application should be decided on its own merits. They do not agree with the concept of trying to force development into a number of small market towns whilst eliminating all development in the smaller villages. The Market Town of Howden cannot cope with all the new residential development that is taking place Name/ID Type/ID Representation at present. As residents of a smaller village, probably the closest to Howden, there is great difficulty at present trying to shop in the town as it is so busy and there are not enough areas to park for shoppers/visitors. Snaith and Cowick Town Object We do not agree with the principle of the market villages nor with Snaith being classified as DS3. East Council 619 and west Cowick should be considered separately. 248 Howden Town Council Object Barmby / Asselby are going to become 'retirement' settlements.... and Airmyn - the school will go if we 1497 1429 stop development in these villages. Newport Parish Council Observations The residents of Newport were engaged in a wide scale survey of their views as part of the Newport 1395 1978 village Action Plan 2006. With regard to development planning the message was consistent and clear in that residents (> 80%) do not wish to see any further industrial or residential expansion beyond the existing plan. The existing plan recommends ‘in fill’ residential and sympathetic industrial development within the pre-designated B2 areas. The view of the Newport Parish Council of the proposed designation of Newport as a Market Village, and what that may imply, is inconsistent with the clearly expressed views of our residents. Newport Parish Council is particularly concerned with any collateral development that may take place in Gilberdyke and at the M62 junction of North Cave Parish and the likely through traffic impact that these may have on the village. The effect of additional traffic will pose a major risk to the safety and well being of residents as well as an increase in both noise and nuisance. This effect was recognised by the Highways Agency in remediation of the M62 to reduce noise levels in the village. The Plan is strong with regard to potential environmental impact at a regional level but extremely weak in a local context. This would seem to be contradictory and failing in the Plan’s stated aspiration of Local people determining Local need. Similarly there is a lack of integration of Transport Planning within the Development Framework. We do not consider this to be a separable issue. Newport Parish are supportive of an ‘organic’ growth strategy that is both sympathetic and adaptive to our local environmental and economic considerations. This must be posited from the ‘bottom up’ needs of Newport residents rather than the ‘top down’ aspirations of Regional Planners. It is the intention of both Newport and Gilberdyke Parish Councils to form a Joint Collaboration Name/ID Type/ID Representation Working Group to develop common approaches to a range of shared development issues. Thus a co- ordinated response will become more explicit from both of our settlements at the next stage in the Plan’s stage of preparation. Blacktoft Parish Council Observations Blacktoft parish council has concerns regarding Gilberdyke being listed as a Market Village. The small 551 1434 settlements in the Blacktoft Parish (Blacktoft, Yokefleet and Faxfleet) not only share a boundary with Gilberdyke Parish but also all the amenities – shops, post office etc., the medical centre along with the primary school catchment. Any increase in the amount of housing and resident numbers, traffic and traffic for increased industry would certainly impact on the school, medical centre, shops etc. which would have a knock-on affect for the smaller outlying villages including even further afield such as Laxton Parish. The Medical Centre – is almost full as regards clinics and patient numbers. The parking at the centre is none-existent and the current system of parking on the road side at a very dangerous corner in the village of Gilberdyke is a health and safety issue which has been ignored by E R Y Council Highways and Planning 0fficers. Gilberdyke Primary School – the school has a rising role and would soon be full to capacity if Gilberdyke was to have any further increase in housing development. The majority of Blacktoft Parish pupils for the primary school have a journey to and from school by bus provided by the L E A but the road outside the school is a melee of traffic including hgv’s etc negotiating the journey through the village to and from the industrial estate. Some pupils nearer Gilberdyke living in Blacktoft Parish, and not allowed to have a school bus service, already have a dangerous pedestrian journey into Gilberdyke to and from school and school bus connections (Howden Senior). More industry and housing bringing more traffic into the village of Gilberdyke is of great concern to the Blacktoft Parish Council members and residents. The Industrial Estate on Broad Lane - the traffic problems created by the employees, contractors and delivery vehicles are of concern to Blacktoft Parish Council members and residents. This is constantly being monitored by the parish council along with Humberside Police and the Highways department at E R Y Council. The damage caused by the hgv’s and lighter delivery vehicles, servicing the industrial estate, to the structure of Broad Lane has yet another knock-on affect for the through traffic for the outlying villages in Blacktoft Parish and again in Laxton Parish. Drainage and waste water - the village of Gilberdyke constantly has drainage problems – both surface and household. Blacktoft Parish is the Name/ID Type/ID Representation none-too-happy host to Gilberdyke waste water treatment plant. Complete with constant smell and the obvious unsightly structure of the site itself. The system provided by Yorkshire Water will only take so much more and then the overflow can be pumped untreated once again into the river Ouse at Blacktoft. The village of Blacktoft suffered with this archaic system for 20 + years and will not tolerate it again. Flooding - both Gilberdyke and Blacktoft parish council areas, and most of the land stretching for miles around, have been designated flood plain. Some years ago it was considered an intelligent move that, perhaps, there should not be large housing developments on this flood plain. Inundation and overtopping maps from the Environment Agency are available should the E R Y Council wish to make a more educated decision. Gilberdyke is lower than Blacktoft and would possibly flood first. However, Blacktoft farm land is constantly being flooded in wet weather because the surface rain water created in Gilberdyke flows into the Bishopsoil/Far Drain eventually on tide into the river Ouse at Blacktoft. When the water quantity going into the dyke is too much for the dyke to take and the tide is against the flow the farm land is then flooded. Seaton PC Object There is not a fair mixture between priorities. However, there is a slightly better range than in the 1413 525 Eastern sub area. Snaith & Cowick Observations In 2003 Snaith and Cowick Civic Society, supported by the vital villages programme of the Countryside Together 557 Agency, and assisted by the Humber and Wolds Rural Community Council, carried out a survey of all 1159 residents within Snaith and Cowick. Questionnaires were delivered to each dwelling and attracted an extremely high response rate of 82%. From the response to the questionnaire, a town plan was created. Snaith and Cowick Together Regeneration Partnership was constituted in 2004 by interested members of the community, with help from ERYC, to implement the Town Plan by addressing residents' concerns. In response to the ERYC's Local Development Plan, the steering group of Snaith and Cowick Together submit the attached report, based on the results of the residents' questionnaires and taking into consideration the Government's Definition of sustainable communities: An overwhelming number of respondents (79%) to the residents’ questionnaire believed that there is no more scope for new housing developments in Snaith and Cowick, other that small infill developments. The following reasons for that opinion were cited: 1. The local schools (Snaith School, Snaith Primary School and Cowick CE Primary School) are all over Name/ID Type/ID Representation subscribed and full to capacity, in spite of considerable further development on all three sites. Although Snaith School, originally designed for 300 pupils, now houses 820 pupils, there has been no increase in basic facilities such as school kitchens and dining halls. 2. The local sewerage and drainage systems are already unable to cope. A significant number of pavements flood badly during heavy rain, leaving muddy deposits as they dry. Further housing development would make these problems worse. Electrical supplies are also seriously affected, with some areas suffering frequent prolonged power cuts. 3. The area is on a flood plain and the Environment Agency web site, linked from ERYC website, indicates areas of significant risk around Snaith and Cowick. Concreting over more arable land with housing developments would increase the risk, as water, which would have been absorbed into the land, runs off, creating localised flooding. Water supplies are already suffering pressure reductions with consequent problems to existing boilers and heating systems. 4. The residents of the two recent developments appear to have contributed little to the local community. Very few have joined any of the local organisations and local businesses do not appear to be benefiting. Most new residents work and shop out of the area. There is a strong desire by residents that Snaith should not become a dormitory town. 5. Employment opportunities within Snaith and Cowick are very few. People from any new developments will have to work outside the area, mainly in West, North or South Yorkshire, none of which have adequate public transport links, so car travel is a necessity. Daily round trips of up to 60 miles will add considerably to local contributions to global warming. 6. Concerns are frequently expressed about the low level of policing in the area and about the fact that the ambulance service cannot meet the target response time to our community. These genuine concerns would become even more serious if the population of the area were to expand further. In summary, we do not think that our community can sustain further housing development. More building would put unacceptable pressure on the infrastructure and would cause the community to lose its identity and become a sprawling dormitory town, reliant on private cars. Julie Abraham Support But will both Newport and Gilberdyke dilute the effect? 1523 1871 Michael & Wendy O'Pray Object I would swap Newport with Gilberdyke. Also, add in North Cave and South Cave to western sub area Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1105 574 due to close proximity. Mr J E Milner Object Delete those with population over 2500. 1199 635 Mrs E J Sherwood Object No. Gilberdyke should be deleted from the list, UNTIL its various problems are addressed. To go 594 1094 ahead now and place Gilberdyke in a key position to support further limited Housing and/or Industrial growth without firstly addressing the traffic, drainage, school and Health Centre issues and capabilities, would be disastrous for the existing residents of the village and surrounding area that already depend on its services. Newport is very closely linked to Gilberdyke – share Health Centre, put up with all its Industrial HGV traffic – and I feel the two should not be looked at in isolation. I do agree that Gilberdyke is well suited to perform the job, however I must emphasis that Gilberdykes problems must be sorted first. The village has been at the centre of development for the last 20 + years without much consideration to the state this has left the village in. The village needs time to sort today’s problems out first. Gilberdyke Parish Plan is well underway in identifying the key areas of concern and I feel the results of this should be considered. As far as a transport nodal centre is concerned, yes the infrastructure is there, but when it comes to public use, no matter how much growth you give to the village, you will not attract public use, unless there is substantial subsidisation and improvement of the rail network and bus service. I do support the reference to retain development limits in Gilberdyke as this will help in keeping the village just that, a village. Jean Kitchen Support with Yes- but would like Reedness or Swinefleet adding. 1475 conditions 1186 Mr J Tait (Planning Support Yes in part but: Prospects) 1200 What the analysis points to is that there are quite a number of settlements in the East Riding that have 1476 some significant merit and are sustainable. The fact that there are a number of suitable market villages in certain parts of the district should not be a reason to limit the identification of more market villages. There is no harm to having more than less, if the assessment points to this. The number should be Name/ID Type/ID Representation broadened. Roy Hunt Observations The question I am posing from the above is whether what I consider to be a more realistic evaluation of 1490 1383 the individual settlements in relation to sustainable development would significantly affect the overall conclusions made in the report. Therefore I have considered three adjacent settlements – Gilberdyke, Newport and South Cave (EASTRINGTON?), and have amended the results, but not the overall scoring system used, to understand how the overall ranking would stand. Table 3.3 In table 3.3 the rankings are as follows: Gilberdyke 2 Newport 39 Eastrington 21 I will adjust the results in the grid as follows: Gilberdyke Primary School – change to 0 on the basis that the school is close to full and has little scope to be developed Gilberdyke GP surgery – the same Gilberdyke, Newport and Eastrington – score 1 on all transient services – ATM, Community Internet and Citizen Link on the basis that these could be installed at little cost in a short timescale. Newport petrol station – score as 1 for the reasons given previously. With the new scoring in place the rankings change as follows Gilberdyke (2) 49 Newport (29) 1 Eastrington (21) 21 Table 3.4 In table 3.4 the rankings are as follows: Gilberdyke 1 Newport 6 Eastrington 21 I would adjust the results in the grid as follows: Gilberdyke road network – change to –1 to reflect the traffic problems in the village caused by the Name/ID Type/ID Representation industrial estate and the parking problems at the health centre and shops. Newport Rail Network – score 1 due to proximity to Gilberdyke and Brough stations (Newport is the closest of the three villages to Brough. Eastrington Road Network – score 1 due to excellent connectivity to M62 and A63. With the new scoring in place the rankings change as follows Gilberdyke (1) 21 Newport (6) 1= Eastrington (21) 1= Table 3.5 In table 3.5 the rankings are as follows: Gilberdyke 32 Newport 4 Eastrington 52 I would adjust the error in Newport’s score so as to use a measurement from Howden instead of Elloughton/Brough. With the new scoring in place the rankings change as follows: Gilberdyke (32) 32 Newport (4) 29 Eastrington (52) 52 Table 3.6 In table 3.6 the rankings are as follows: Gilberdyke 10 Newport 33 Eastrington 13 I would propose making no changes. Table 3.7 In the overall assessment the scores and positions change as follows: Village Original score New score Original ranking New ranking Gilberdyke 45 122 1 26 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Newport 82 73 6 2 Eastrington 107 87 19 3 The above has been arrived at without questioning the weighting given to the different assessment criteria nor allowing a more granular scoring system (say from 1 to 5 to reflect quality etc.). Roy Hunt Observations On a subjective analysis, I would assess the three villages based on having lived in Newport for 23 years 1490 1384 as follows. Gilberdyke is a village that has been extensively developed over the past years. Unfortunately the infrastructure to support the village has not been developed to address the increasing needs of residents or industry. The result today is that to support further development of either, a substantial investment needs to be made in terms of the school, health centre, road access, sewage and parking (not considered in the LDF). From this subjective assessment it seems to me that a ranking of 26 compared to 1 in the LDF is reasonable. Newport is a smaller village (again a factor not included in the LDF) which does not have the infrastructure deficiences that Gilberdyke has. From a strictly statistical analysis Newport would appear to be a better prospect for further development than Gilberdyke. However, the views of the village have not been taken into account as they seem to have been in Eastrington. Eastrington is, from my subjective assessment, the best placed village to bear future development. There is considerable space close to the centre of the village for infill housing development and outside more space could be set aside for housing without too much detriment to the environment. There is also considerable scope for infill industrial development on the B1230 and A614, both of which have excellent connectivity to the M62 and A63. However, the village of Eastrington has apparently decided against further development and the LDF appears to accept this position. Roy Hunt Observations There is mention in the report that Eastrington doesn’t want to become a development area and as a 1490 1381 consequence seems to have been excluded from the analysis in the later stages of the report (fig 4.1 and section 3) But what about all the other settlement areas, do they have a choice or not? Mr Chris Worrall Object Holme on Spalding Moor and rest of Howdenshire villages should be deleted. We are RURAL villages 1515 1705 and should remain as such. Dev-control guidelines must not be ignored (i.e. the former Boothferry DCG) in the case of H.O.S.M. Peter Robinson Object No. Newport and Gilberdyke are for all intents and purposes one settlement only anomalies in the Name/ID Type/ID Representation 994 1732 points system separate them. Gilberdyke is given 1 point for Rail access when the station is at Staddlethorpe and serves both communities. Newport is placed 4th on table 3.5 as it’s shown as 9.4 miles from Elloughton/Brough when in fact it’s only 6.3 miles which would push it right down to 23rd place. Humber & Wolds Rural Observation Gilberdyke PC say there are no local jobs and needy should move to Goole! Community Council 913 318 Humber & Wolds Rural Object Newport Gilberdyke quite close. Community Council 914 318 A.C.S. Scutt & Son Observations I have read with interest the New Homes feature in the East Riding News. I appreciate that you are 1059 608 having to take an overview of the whole area with the proposed new Housing Development Plan, whereas my observations relate mainly to Eastrington, where I have lived for the last 66 years. I have taken careful note as to how the various developments over the years have affected the village in which I live. When I was thirty, I knew every family in the village. Unfortunately I cannot make that claim any longer but I can confirm that the people who have settled into this village over the years have quickly regarded themselves as part of the community. The main expansion in the village has taken place over the last 15 years and you only need look at the representation on the local parish council to appreciate how the newcomers have integrated into the village community. The local village show, which is rated as being one of the best village shows in the East Riding, has gone from strength to strength as a result of the heavy contribution that has been made by the newcomers to the village. Unfortunately the feeling of being part of a community does not exist to the same extent with the larger city developments and that is why villages of this type can sustain steady development. The village is compact with a primary school that is in the centre of the village and certainly within walking distance of the vast majority of the pupils. In the national rankings Eastrington Primary School is rated as being the number one primary school within the whole of the UK. Last year £360,000 was spent on refurbishing and enlarging the school and it is undoubtedly a huge asset to the village. I make the point regarding this school because I feel that there is no way in which the new points assessment Name/ID Type/ID Representation system can do justice to this school. In the last 10 years the village has built a new village hall with a stage and indoor bowling facilities. A superb play area has been built for the young children and £32,000 has been spent on a skateboard park for the teenagers. A further £35,000 has been spent on draining and upgrading the village cricket field and football pitch. All of these improvements have become viable propositions as a result of the steady development of the village and the injection of new blood that has helped to create the will to move forward for the benefit of everyone. On the edge of the village we have a council run picnic site and recreation area. There are properly maintained footpaths, which lead around eight large ponds, one of them being six acres in size. The ponds are a big attraction to many types of wildfowl and they also provide excellent opportunities for fishing and walking for residents of the local community. This area is a huge asset to the village and it is very difficult to assess its value in terms of points. Three years ago a new self-service shop and post office was built in the centre of the village. The village shop project went ahead on the back of the modest development that has taken place in the village during the last 15 years. Without the expansion the shop would not have been viable and everyone would have been burning petrol in order to purchase even the smallest of items. The village is well supported by an hourly bus service in both directions and even has trains stopping on a regular basis at Eastrington station which is on the Hull Leeds line and within easy walking distance of the village. The village is well located being only three miles from junction 37 of the M62 and a lot of demand for property in the village has come from the Press Association employees who have moved with their jobs from Leeds to Howden which is only three miles away. When Prince Charles opened the Press Centre three years ago the anticipated employment was 650 but they are now employing well over 1,000 people and the majority of them live in this area. When the old Boothferry Borough Council drew up the Howden Area Local Plan 14 years ago they were very far sighted when they made the village of Eastrington into a selected settlement. Most of the benefits that I have listed would not have taken place if development in this village had been totally restricted. In my opinion the planning authority permitted exactly the correct amount of development in this village to stimulate the projects that are to the long term benefit of the whole community. The fact that this village has thrived on steady sustainable development is not just talk, it is there for Name/ID Type/ID Representation everyone to see. Calling to a halt any further development in the village would be a retrograde step that in the long term would have a stagnating effect on the development of this community. This letter simply outlines what I have seen first hand as being the long term benefits that have resulted from an excellent planning decision by the old Boothferry Borough Council Planning Department. I only hope that the present planning authority is as positive in its approach to the continued development of this village. A.C.S. Scutt & Son Object I have lived in Eastrington for the last 66 years and I have noted how the various developments over 1059 675 the years have affected the village. When I was thirty I knew every family in the village. Unfortunately I cannot make that claim any longer but I can confirm that the people who have settled into this village over the years have quickly regarded themselves as being part of the community. The main expansion in the village has taken place over the last fifteen years and you only need look at the representation on the local parish council to appreciate how the newcomers have integrated into the village community. The local village show, which is rated as being one of the best village shows in the East Riding, has gone from strength to strength as a result of the heavy contribution that has been made by the newcomers to the village. The feeling of being part of a community does not exist to the same extent with the larger city developments and that is why villages of this type can sustain a steady development. (From response to Housing Site Selection methodology) A.C.S. Scutt & Son Object Advantages of the village 1059 677 It is compact. The primary school is in the centre and within walking distance of the vast majority of the pupils. In the national rankings Eastrington Primary School is rated as being the number one primary school in the whole of the UK. Last year £360,000 was spent on refurbishing and enlarging the school and it is undoubtedly a huge asset to the village. I make the point regarding this school because I feel that there is no way in which a points system can do justice to this school. In the last ten years the village has built a new village hall with a stage and indoor bowling facilities. A superb play area has been built for the young children and £32,000 has been spent on a skateboard park for the teenagers. A further £35,000 has been spent on draining and upgrading the village cricket field and football pitch. All of these improvements have become viable propositions as a result of the steady development of the village and the injection of new blood. Rating these recent improvements to the Name/ID Type/ID Representation village in terms of points is a very difficult task. On the edge of the village is a picnic site and recreation area. There are properly maintained footpaths which lead around eight large ponds. These are a big attraction to many types of wildfowl and they also provide excellent opportunities for fishing and walking for residents. Again this is a huge asset to the village which must be difficult to value in terms of points. Three years ago a new self service shop and post office was built in the centre of the village. The village shop project went ahead on the back of the modest development that has taken place in the village during the last 15 years. Without the expansion the shop would not have been viable and everyone would have been having to burn petrol in order to purchase even the smallest of items. The village is well supported by an hourly bus service in both directions. Trains stop on a regular basis on the Hull-Leeds line and within easy walking distance of the village. The village is well located being only three miles from junction 37 of the M62 and a lot of the demand for property in the village has come from the Press Association employees who have moved with their jobs from Leeds to Howden which is only three miles away. When the Press Centre opened 3 yrs ago the anticipated employment was 650, they are now employing well over 1,000 people and many of them want to live in this area. (From response to Housing Site Selection methodology) A.C.S. Scutt & Son Object When the old Boothferry Borough Council drew up the Howden Area Local Plan 14 years ago they 1059 678 were very far sited when they made the village of Eastrington into a Selected Settlement. Most of the benefits that I have listed would not have taken place if development in this village had been totally restricted. In my opinion the planning authority permitted exactly the correct amount of development within this village to stimulate the projects that are to the long term benefit of the whole community. The fact that this village has thrived on steady sensible development is there for everyone to see. Calling a halt to any further development in the village would be a retrograde step that in the long term would have a strangling effect on this community. (From representation to Housing Site Selection methodology)

Question 15 – Central sub area - do you agree with the Council’s identified preferred Market Villages?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Town and Parish Councils - Twin Rivers, Swanland, Anlaby, Paull, Langtoft, Mappleton, Foston, Bainton, Garton, Wetwang, Aldbrough, Barmston&Fraisthorpe, Hayton&Burnby, Rudston, Melbourne (15)

Agents and Individuals - CW&DC Hattee, C.Brown, GS Lenton, Stamford Homes Ltd, W Clifford Watts Ltd, R Bryan, R Hall, JF&KM Glew, JG Hatcliffe&Partners, JM Fielden, R Barnes, GJ Perry(City Developments) (12)

27 respondents in total

No respondents answered 'No' without any further comment.

Name/ID Type/ID Representation Walkington Parish Support The Council accepted the process that has been followed to identify 'Market Villages' and agree with the Council 721 result, so far as Walkington is concerned. 563 Woodmansey Parish Observations The Council accepted the process that has been followed, although they are disappointed to see that Council 1398 very little future development will take place in Woodmansey village. They are concerned that this may 564 make the village school unsustainable. Tickton & Routh Parish Observations Our concerns follow the refusal of consent to single house applications in Weel where sustainability (or Council 1268 lack of facilities) was given as the reason for refusal. The feeling is that the community will suffer 256 without growth even small scale. South Cave Parish Object As stated previously, do not want to be identified as a Market Village (South Cave), but may require Council 1415 some small/limited development at some point. 465 Hedon Town Council Object Places such as Preston score relatively highly and therefore are well up the ranking despite the appalling 1515 1699 difficulties which occur at the crossroads there. Seaton PC Object Still see the need to look at smaller settlements. Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1413 527 Beverley Town Council Support We chose to consider only the area closest to us, since we had the greatest knowledge of these villages. 1499 1745 We had no real quarrel with the selection made, but it was obviously arbitrary in places; e.g. Woodmansey village proper and Tickton are separated from Beverley to a similar degree, and Leconfield only slightly further from the Molescroft edge of ‘Greater Beverley’ yet they are treated very differently. North Ferriby Parish Object Take out of equation; limited space for expansion, close proximity to Brough and . Council 1789 427 Cherry Burton Parish Support The proposals lack flexibility and seem to put too much emphasis on the market villages and Beverley. Council 2007 Due to the proximity of Cherry Burton to Beverley it would seem to be unlikely that the village would 490 become a market village, and would therefore not receive investment and support for community projects and development. Potentially the future of the Cherry Burton community could be threatened by the changes. Burton Pidsea Parish Observations We feel that the time scale given, for our views to be put forward, was too short. We would have liked Council 1388 to canvas the village to get everyone's views. We do, however have a village design statement which was 1492 the result of many public meetings and surveys. This document states clearly that we wish to: "Encourage the building of retirement cottages of 'continued living' design with geneorus gardens" "Encourage the provision of appropriate housing to allow first time buyers and single people to remain in the village". Our main worry is that our status will be fixed- Rural or Market it takes away all possibilities for local decisions. The plan we feel is far too rigid and takes no account of what we want, either now or in the future, for our village. We also worry that as a rural village we will be at a disadvantage when finite resources are to be allocated. The utilities, Grant committees, transport providers and the local authority might feel that the best place to spend money or upgrade facilities is the Market Villages. If village amenities disappear, because of lack of growth, then people will travel to find such services elsewhere and so increase use of cars. We appreciate that this plan will protect us from wholesale Name/ID Type/ID Representation development but we regret the loss of the ability to choose the level of development suitable for our village. Julie Abraham Object North Ferriby too close to Hessle and Brough, no space to expand. 1523 1872 South Cave - close to Brough. Leconfield would be commuter village for Beverley. These will dilute effect and aims of the document. Mr D Miller (Bovis Object No- Swanland should be adopted as it is clearly a location that can support development in a sustainable Homes Ltd) 567 way. 611 Mr Geoffrey Prince Object a) The DPD has deliberately excluded several large villages close to Beverley. Many such as Cherry (Geoffrey Prince 604 Burton, Walkington and Skidby are attractive places to live, have a good range of services and have Associates Ltd) good public transport services. Whilst these settlements have grown in recent years, I consider that 1449 further modest growth in these villages should be encouraged to safeguard these services and also to add to the range of housing choice in an area of high demand close to jobs in and around Hull and Beverley. In my opinion they represent sustainable locations to live, more so than the villages in the outer parts of the Borough. If Leconfield, North Ferriby, South and North Cave are included as market villages, then so too should these settlements. Mr Geoffrey Prince Object b) I also consider that the villages of Woodmansey and Dunswell should be categorised as market (Geoffrey Prince 605 villages. These villages are located along the Hull- Beverley transport corridor - they are are also well Associates Ltd) served by public transport and a good range of services, as well as a large number of job opportunities 1449 along this corridor. Some development would enable the traffic, environmental and community issues along this corridor to be addressed in a comprehensive manner - at present ad hoc development is happening, and in my opinion a more planned approach to development is needed along this corridor where there is considerable demand and opportunities for new housing and employment. Kaye Bruce Object I cannot take part in this survey, not when I cannot understand why you have left our village of 461 609 Woodmansey. We badly need more houses, we have already lost our local post office and we both know that it will not be long before we lose our local school. I know that you may have a long term plan for all our children to attend schools in Beverley and if this is so there may be a good reason for this, but what really does Name/ID Type/ID Representation puzzle me, is the fact that we have well over 1000 workers within Woodmansey, who cannot afford to live here. Not to mention any of our village children who have been brought up here, but have to buy houses in other areas because they cannot afford one in the village. We have all the services to support more houses, yet we still get over looked. Mr J E Milner Object Delete those with population over 2500. 1199 636 Ferriby Conservation Object Delete North Ferriby (what other nearby villages would it serve as a centre?) Society 703 1019 Ferriby Conservation Observations The Society does not think that North Ferriby is needed as a Market Village as it is relatively near to Society 717 both Elloughton/Brough and the Sub-Regional Urban Area and it has public transport to these and to 1019 Hull. North Ferriby is almost equidistant from Elloughton/Brough and Hessle (the former being used as the nearest larger settlement in the document). We suggest that more North Ferriby residents use the latter for purposes of Primary Health Care and for shopping and other services, although probably more people go to the former (or to Hull) for employment. There is at present no public transport to Willerby/Cottingham nor to the large supermarket at Anlaby but Hessle and Hull seem to be likely to continue as the main larger service centres for people using public transport. There are at present many more services than in Elloughton/Brough but the use of public transport to reach Hessle centre from North Ferriby entails a fairly long walk on arrival. There is now a shortage of sustainable building land in North Ferriby, as the land to the east of the village is now classified as Grade II farmland and that to the north (towards Swanland) is not only farmland but also of fairly high landscape value. (See East Riding of Yorkshire Landscape Value Assessment - Nov 2005). We consider that the present total population of North Ferriby is high enough. Although many residents would prefer to have more local services and facilities, we realise that a growth in population is unlikely to provide these (with the possible exception of Primary Health Care, which is threatened at present). In our opinion the village has reached its optimum population for social cohesion and further development would not be an advantage to its residents. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mr Martin Kerby (RSPB Observations We note that North Ferriby lies adjacent to the Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast SPA. It is Northern England 1062 disappointing that this has not been identified. Whilst the limited level of development involved in Region) Market Villages is unlikely to have a direct impact on the habitats of the SPA, there is the potential for 970 SPA species such as golden plover to use areas behind the Humber’s sea wall to feed and roost, and therefore be affected by greenfield developments on the village’s outskirts. If North Ferriby is selected as a Market Village, the Council should adopt policy to ensure that developments on the outskirts of the settlement have no significant adverse impact on the SPA. The Smaller Settlements DPD, and DPDs bringing forward green-field allocations in the area will require an Appropriate Assessment into the implications for the SPA, as set out in the Habitats Regulations. At the project stage, Appropriate Assessment of individual proposals may be required in order to determine the scale of potential impacts. We therefore suggest adding the following to the Smaller Settlements DPD: “New development within North Ferriby that could have the potential to cause significant impacts on the Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast SPA will require an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations. If the Appropriate Assessment cannot rule out a significant adverse effect, the Council will not approve the development.” Mr T Annison Object I attended the planning surgery at Hedon and realised that Thorngumbald scored very low on your 990 720 preferred villages for development. Whilst I agree with many of your methods of evaluation, I do not think that Thorngumbald should be penalised as it is adjacent to a village that is high on the development list [Hedon]. Thorngumbald has some good points, mainly its infrastructure and the traffic on the roads being under capacity. Thorngumbald also has several areas of open land available adjacent to the main road that would suit development. Thorngumbald scores low with jobs within the village, but this could be altered if small industrial units were allowed to be developed in the village. Burton Pidsea Primary Observations We feel that much of the description of a Market Village fits Burton Pidsea. We feel that there is room School 800 in Burton Pidsea for some more families. We certainly would not want wholesale development but feel 1460 that we need rather more than our designation as a rural village will allow. We have always traditionally been the centre for local activities with the surrounding villages of Lelley, Name/ID Type/ID Representation Owswick, Danthorpe and Humbleton forming a cluster. We have read the Preferred Option Document and wonder why a children's play park is not included in the preferable or desirable facilities. People come to Burton Pidsea from many surrounding villages to use the play park, with its swings, roundabouts and games. People also come to use the tennis courts and bowling green and we are the venue for the Holderness Art Show and many other district wide activities. Community internet access- this is a community and anyone who does not have internet access does not have to go far to go to find someone who has. I have downloaded information for local youngster's homework and sent and received emails for neighbours and the school has several computers which are used for public classes. Employment- there are several places of employment: 2 farms, a demolition firm, 2 dog kennels and 2 riding stables which are not technically in the Parish of Burton Pidsea whilst in fact they are joined to it and are considered part of our community. The roads upon which Burton Pidsea stands, whilst not being the best in the country are considered good enough for the East Riding Council to designate this as the route for all heavy goods traffic for the proposed wind farm construction. We feel that a small amount of development would invigorate this village and help to sustain our many local facilities not least of all our award winning school whose Head teacher was recently invited to Downing Street as a reward for the school's successes. Alliance General Object Dunswell added. Property Development 896 Ltd 1465 Hornsea and District Object Delete South Cave (close to North Cave and Parish Council decisions should be respected). Chamber of Trade 955 1464 Crown Estate Support The Crown Estate supports the identification of Skirlaugh as a preferred Market Village. 1467 974 Persimmon Homes East Object It is considered that higher priority should be given to North Ferriby as a Market Village and that Name/ID Type/ID Representation Yorkshire 997 Walkington should be identified as a Market Village. 1467 Carter Jonas LLP Observations The ‘village service centres’ have yet to be identified through production of the Smaller Settlements 1432 666 document, which is timetabled for consultation in Autumn 2006. In determining those rural settlements that are capable of accommodating limited growth the Council should give full consideration to the inclusion of settlements such as North Cave. This particular settlement has accommodated housing growth in the past and has a good range of services and facilities, which are set out below: Primary school, Post office, Bank, Village hall, Grocery store/village shop, Estate Agent, Florist, Public House x2, Solicitors, Electrical servicing shop, B&B accommodation, Regular bus service. Allocation of land for housing or rural employment use may create more sustainable villages in the longer term and revitalise the rural economy in accordance with objectives contained in PPS7. Through planning gain, development of such lands could offer scope to improve community facilities, retain local shops/primary school, increase/extend bus services and provide much needed affordable housing. We are concerned that without some development important village communities may stagnate or decline. The LDF has the opportunity to make a real difference by providing support for communities rather than just reinforcing historic development patterns. (From comments to Housing Site Selection Methodology) Carter Jonas LLP Support We support the inclusion of North Cave and South Cave. 1509 1625 Richmond Properties Ltd Observations Found at Paragraph 5.25 of the Core Strategy for East Riding , which provides supporting text to Policy 1471 1052 DS4 is a list of criteria against which the suitability of a particular settlement to accommodate new development should be considered until a Local Development Document for Small Settlements has been produced. It recognises that some settlements are in sustainable locations in terms of their proximity and relationship to larger settlements. Woodmansey is considered to be a sustainable settlement and should be identified as a preferred Market Village. The village is located on the A1174 some 3.1km to the Saturday Market Place in Beverley and 4.6km to the Kingswood Retail Park in Hull. Within the village itself, there are a number of facilities catering for the immediate needs of local residents these include the post office located on Shopeth Way, a grocery store, play area between King Street, Queensway and Shopeth Way. The Woodmansey Name/ID Type/ID Representation Church of England Primary School is located on Hull Road. With regard to methods of transport other than the car, Woodmansey is well served. National Cycling Route 1 runs within kilometre of the village and is accessible by bike from it providing cycle access to Beverley and Hull City centre. East Yorkshire Motor Services Ltd provides a range of frequent bus services (No.s 121, 122/123 and 246) which link Woodmansey again to Beverley and Hull City Centre as well as a number of other destinations. The village has access not only to the whole of Beverley Town Centre and major facilities within Hull but also the employment areas and leisure opportunities at Tokenspire Business and Retail Park located to the immediate north of the village and those at Dunswell to the south. As the above demonstrates, Woodmansey is not an isolated settlement but enjoys proximity to the larger settlements of Hull, the sub regional urban area and Beverley, one of the region’s principal towns. Therefore, the location of the village is not remote and a number of services, facilities and employment opportunities are located within 2km. This according to PPG13: Transport is generally accepted as being a reasonable walking distance. In considering a recent appeal (PINS Ref: APP/E2001/A/06/2009309), the assigned Inspector having regard to the national and local policy situation concluded that the settlement of Woodmansey was a sustainable location and that development in the village would not lead to an increase in long distance commuting. It is considered that the settlement of Woodmansey is a sustainable location for additional housing, employment and community development over the course of the Local Development Framework and therefore, should be identified as a “Market Village” in this DPD. Its selection would build on existing functional and locational strengths of this rural settlement and would make a positive contribution to local sustainability. R J Kingdom (South Object At para 4.41 it is stated it is questionable for either South Cave (as with other settlements) or North Cave Active Residents) 1105 Cave to be identified as a Market village immediately after stating it is identified as a market village. The 1000 case for Market villages in the Central zone has not been made with the proximity of the sub regional urban area and could, especially in the West undermine the objectives within the JSP and the emerging RSS policy HE1 as developers land bank and hope for policy changes or reviews on Hulls performance of housing completions, allowing developments in the more lucrative and easily developable western Name/ID Type/ID Representation villages. In the case of South Cave on your proposed criteria, it is too near Elloughton/Brough at 3.7 miles and with Market Weighton only 7 miles away to serve any useful purpose as a rural centre. It has no natural hinterland of serving other settlements and should not therefore be included as a Market village. North Cave should be chosen if the need for a market village is made at all (we however, do not accept an argument has been made). The case generally for Market villages in the Central zone, with the proximity of the sub region urban area, has not been made in the preferred options paper and with the exception of Skirlaugh has even been questioned by the authors. With a view to the restrictive nature of the current policy context unless overriding cases can be met, either no market villages should be declared or only “priority one” Market villages identified. As the proposals questions the need for “priority 3” these clearly have a question mark against them and should be excluded from further consideration as having the potential to undermine the Strategic Development Settlements or Sub regional urban area. Mr J Tait (Planning Support Yes in part but: Prospects) 1201 What the analysis points to is that there are quite a number of settlements in the East Riding that have 1476 some significant merit and are sustainable. The fact that there are a number of suitable market villages in certain parts of the district should not be a reason to limit the identification of more market villages. There is no harm to having more than less, if the assessment points to this. The number should be broadened. Ashleigh Swan (St Object The approach takes too much weight to the objectives of distributing Market Villages evenly at the Modwen Properties Plc 1230 expense of recognising the particular characteristics of particular areas. The area around (Indigo Planning)) Elloughton/Brough and North-Ferriby is semi-rural in character and is dominated by the A63 and large 1477 employment allocations; it should not be treated as if it is a typical and relatively sparsely populated rural area. Mr James Durham (Hull Object Would question the inclusion of North Cave due to its small size and proximity to South Cave and City Council) 1262 Brandsburton due to its small size and proximity to Leven. 1482 Mr G E Wright Observations If reduction in car use and dependency is a significant objective then development in the settlement 562 1299 adjacent to the Main Urban Area would support that objective and the objective of urban concentration. That approach would recognise roles for locations such as North Ferriby, Swanland, Name/ID Type/ID Representation Skidby and Walkington. To promote North Cave before South Cave denies the historic settlement pattern. The Gateway Pathfinder Object It is our view that there is no clear rationale for the identification of so many additional foci for 943 1310 development in this sub area, where most locations are close to the sub regional urban area and/or the principal town of Beverley and/or the towns of Hedon and Elloughton/Brough (as highlighted in paras 4.41, 4.43, 4.45 for North Cave, South Cave, North Ferriby and Leconfield). As noted in para 5.5 ‘There will be pressure on housing development in particular, because Market Villages will be desirable places to live and perceived as being sustainable locations’. We believe the selection of so many market villages in this area (particularly in the west of the sub area) will put at risk the overall development strategy. It fails to recognise the role of many of these places in providing for people commuting to the sub regional urban centre rather than as rural centres, and potentially undermines the role of the sub regional urban area and principal town, and our Housing Market Renewal Strategy. We do not agree with the identification of both Leven and Brandesburton, due to their close proximity. Given their proximity to the sub regional urban area and the potential for development to increase commuting we do not think that all three of Leven, Skirlaugh and Keyingham should be identified. H Lount & Sons Support We endorse Leconfield as a Market Village. 1481 1319 Mr Roger Jones Object South Cave is a market town. N Cave is too close (Omit N Cave). (Humber & Wolds Rural 915 Community Council) 318 Mr Roger Jones Object Leconfield is too close to Beverley. (Humber & Wolds Rural 916 Community Council) 318 D Watts (WC Watts Observations Whilst mindful of the suggestion to devise a single list of ‘Market Villages’ and the requirement to plan Estate (Pegasus Planning 1539 beyond 2016, the inclusion of Leven and South Cave within the current selection is fully supported. The Group)) document recognises the sustainable attributes for each settlement and their role in the surrounding 1506 area. On this basis it is clear that each should be retained as Market Villages. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mrs P Browarska Observations In regard to the choice of the Market Villages around the Council area- I think that Long Riston would 318 880 be a better and more long lasting ‘Market Village’ than the proposed Skirlaugh or Leven. Long Riston (LR) is now a vibrant village, with many activities and facilities and room for further expansion. Unlike Skirlaugh which has a busy main road running through it, LR is now by-passed, leaving the old main road a safer quieter lane, with a safe access from Arnold, and safer access and parking for the village school. LR qualifies for nearly all the requirements proposed in the LDF and is in a good central position to support any of the towns. I have listed many of the advantages to you before, but mention a few again: School: there are several places still left, and is conveniently placed. Shop/petrol station: on the by-pass, and has a wide stocking of goods to cater for most needs. (Built on what was my land). It has a safe access from LR village for walking or cycling to it, as well as vehicles. Recreational facilities: - for all ages – play area, new upgraded all weather tennis courts, and football, netball (bowling and cricket planned), equestrian, livery stables etc! New sports pavilion, Public house, village hall which has various activities and clinics for toddlers all within 5 to 10 minutes access. Bus service for public schools (plus a bus service by request) and local towns. Also many quiet country lanes surrounding the village for cycling and walking. Apart from local employment of teachers, agricultural, shop assistants, builders and joiners, etc, is very central to support the ‘town’ areas as well as catering for the surrounding villages (2 to 12 miles). The LR Parish council are objecting to the development of 5 houses East of the village. Nearly all the objectors are on the Persimmon estate because the proposed houses only access would be through the Persimmon estate road (which has a ‘hammerhead’ connection), and they are concerned about noise from cars using it if this development goes ahead. No objections as far as I am aware for development elsewhere. Skirlaugh was considered to be ‘full’ a long time ago. Leven PC are also concerned that there could be further development if appointed a ‘Market Village’ and this is not what they want. I hope you will consider making LR a Market Village, as it has a lot to offer and is very vibrant, and perfectly situated more than any other village for this purpose. Mr Roger Jones Object Brandesburton is better located for MV than Leven. (Omit Leven). Name/ID Type/ID Representation (Humber & Wolds Rural 917 Community Council) 318 Mr Roger Jones Object 4.52. Keyingham is too close to Hedon. (Humber & Wolds Rural 918 Community Council) 318 Mr Geoffrey Prince Observations We feel the DPD has glossed over the unique role and functions of Woodmansey, its location along a (Geoffrey Prince 1707 local transport corridor (Hull and Beverley) and the planning issues it faces. Associates Ltd) Woodmansey has grown up in an ad hoc manner over many years in a ribbon form along Hull Road. 1449 There has been considerable infill development in recent years despiteits status as a non selected settlement; it also provides a high number of employment opportunities at Tokenspire Business Park, at Petunia Lakeside Business Park (450), the Coletta Tyson Business, as well as at other horticultural and industrial enterprises around the Plaxton Bridge area. The village is also well served by community facilities including a shop, public house, primary school etc, and has good public transport services – the information contained in the DPD appears to be misleading. Accessibility to higher order services in Hull (3-5 miles) and Beverley (1-3 miles) is good. If the settlement is not categorised there is a danger that further sporadic development will take place to the discomfort of local people and also to employers. The LDF process provides a unique opportunity for taking a comprehensive look at Woodmansey to address a range of issues: the ‘spillage’ effects from Beverley and also Hull; the expansion of existing employment nodes at Tokenspire and Plaxton Bridge; road traffic which is a source of major complaints from local residents – the proposed new Beverley Link Road and new junction along the A1079 to serve Smith’s Caravans and Coletta Tyson’s new glasshouses will provide opportunities to seek new connections and to remove traffic from Hull Road through Woodmansey; public transport; flood risk and drainage; environmental matters such as local amenity issues, general appearance of the settlement, landscape and Name/ID Type/ID Representation visual impacts; updating of the community infrastructure- there is a need for a new primary school and community hall, and possibly a new health centre. future housing requirements; funding of infrastructure and environmental enhancements through development. The emerging settlement policies will only allow Woodmansey to stagnate over the next 20 years. Anew policy should be included in the plan which addresses development along local public transport corridors such as along the Hull-Beverley corridor to enable the issues facing settlements such as Woodmansey to be tackled in a coherent way with full policy support. Peter Robinson Object Today we are all aware that the environment tis becoming a major issue. In recent years it has become a 994 1725 cause with increasing momentum, by the time the LDF is in use the subject will undoubtedly be significantly more important. With this in mind it is important that the major portion of new housing stock is as close as possible to the required facilities. We have to accept that for most people this is Hull. Even East Riding residents who do not work in Hull use the many other facilities provided. It follows therefore that the easiest way of reducing car miles is to concentrate development in this area. A good example of this is the Council own ‘Transport Development Document’ Appendix 3 households with two or more cars. This shows that Cottingham, which is as near to Hull as any East Riding Village and also has excellent public transport has comparably fewer two car households. Peter Robinson Object No. Delete all. If the purpose of a Market Village is as described in 3.20 then there appears to be no 994 1733 necessity for any in the Central Sub Area as residents chose to live in this area invariably because they travel regularly to the ‘Sub-Regional Urban Area’ or the ‘Principal Town’ either for employment, shopping, entertainment or healthcare. Mr John Potts (John Object Woodmansey should be listed as a Priority Village for the reasons set out above. Too much emphasis is Potts Limited) 2023 placed on Beverley an insufficient on proximity to Hull in the selection process. 1530

Question 16: Northern sub area - do you agree with the Council’s identified preferred Market Villages?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Town and Parish Councils - Twin Rivers, Paull, Seaton Ross, Langtoft, Mappleton, Foston, Bainton, Garton, Wetwang, Sigglesthorne, Aldbrough, Sutton Upon Derwent, Newton Upon Derwent, North Frodingham, Barmston&Fraisthorpe, Hayton&Burnby, Fridaythorpe, Stamford Bridge, North Ferriby, Rudston, Melbourne (21)

Agents and Individuals - CW&DC Hattee, C.Brown, Bovis Homes Ltd., GS Lenton, Stamford Homes Ltd., H Hook, R Bryan, R Hall, JF&KM Glew, JG Hatcliffe&Partners, R Barnes, M Glover, John Potts Ltd (13)

34 respondents in total

No respondents answered 'No' without any further comment.

Name/ID Type/ID Representation Watton Parish Council Support with Why is Hutton Cranswick referred to as Preferred Village Service Centre in paragraph 4.67? It is not on 902 conditions the map below table 4.5. This part doesn't seem to make sense. 553 Hutton Cranswick Parish Object The closeness of Hutton Cranswick to Driffield has a parallel with Nafferton but this is not reflected in Council 1307 the Smaller Settlements Plan priorities. A different classification appears justified 520 through the Parish Plan input. A closer examination of this Plan will reveal overwhelming support for the Parish Council’s long standing representation of local opinion for no more housing. In the Parish Plan questionnaire some 82% of 759 respondents were against more development. This was also enforced at a public meeting. In this Plan the somewhat idealist notion for more housing based on extensive speculative development adjoining the village and against current planning policies are personal opinions quite divorced and contrary to the conclusive survey carried out. It is considered that this misleading viewpoint needs to be removed, as it is not representative and will Name/ID Type/ID Representation weaken local wishes in possible future enquiries and appeals. Confirmation of a draft revised paragraph 4.67 will be appreciated. Hutton Cranswick Parish Object 1 The submitted Parish Plan indicates that a substantial extension of Cranswick village limits is Council 1386 desirable. This has not been endorsed by the Parish Council and is the person opinion of the Chairman 520 of the Vital Villages Committee and unrepresentative of local public opinion. 2 Exchanges of correspondence between us endorse (1). 3 As a supplementary planning document within the Local Government Development Framework the Parish Plan cannot be regarded as an accurate representation of local public opinion to influence planning policies 4 Paragraph 4.67 in the Smaller Settlements Development Plan needs amending to exclude reference to the Parish Plan as it is inaccurate and will weaken local wishes in possible future enquiries and appeals. 5 In view of (1) a reappraisal of Hutton Cranswick’s priority as a Market Village needs to be carried out. Bugthorpe and Kirby Object Add:- Bishop Wilton Underdale Parish Council 842 603 Middleton on the Wolds Observations A consensus could not be reached regarding Middleton on the Wolds being designated as a Market Parish Council 1405 Village. Concern prevailed regarding the use of 'limited' to describe building growth and further clarity 1474 should be sought regarding the application of 'limited' within this context. Views were also expressed that within the village plan agreement in principle regarding building was identified. A full debate commenced regarding this matter and agreement reached that there was need for a wider consultation within the village to determine a clearer answer. Ms Nicola Salvidge Object Still see the need to look at smaller settlements. (Seaton PC) 530 1413 Mr Martin Kerby (RSPB Observations i) Melbourne Northern England 1063 We are surprised at the statement that Melbourne has ‘no known fundamental constraints’. Melbourne Region) lies adjacent to the Lower Derwent Valley SPA and Special Area of Conservation (SAC), sites of 970 international importance for their birds and habitats. Furthermore, SPA bird species are likely to use areas adjacent to the SPA to feed or roost – potentially adverse impacts could therefore take place Name/ID Type/ID Representation outside the designated site. The Smaller Settlements DPD should state the presence of these significant constraints and, bearing in mind the strong legal protection given to these sites under European law, carefully reconsider the appropriateness of selecting Melbourne as a Market Village. If Melbourne is selected as a Market Village, the Council should adopt policy to ensure that development on the outskirts of the settlement has no significant adverse impact on the SPA or SAC. The Smaller Settlements DPD, and DPDs bringing forward any significant allocations in this area, will require an Appropriate Assessment into the implications for the SPA and SAC as set out in the Habitats Regulations. At the project stage, Appropriate Assessment of individual proposals may be required in order to determine the scale of potential impacts. We therefore suggest adding the following to the Smaller Settlements DPD: “New development within Melbourne that could have the potential to cause significant impacts on the Lower Derwent Valley SPA or SAC will require an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations. If the Appropriate Assessment cannot rule out a significant adverse effect, the Council will not approve the development.” Natural England Observations (Page 48 Para 4.59) Bubwith is close to the following designated sites: 1459 795 River Derwent SSSI and Special Area for Conservation (SAC), Derwent Ings SSSI which is part of Lower Derwent Valley Special Protection Area (SPA), SAC, Ramsar and National Nature Reserve. It is also close to Breighton Meadows SSSI. RSPB Northern England Observations ii) Bubwith Region 1064 We note that Bubwith is ‘close to two Sites of Special Scientific Interest – the River Derwent and 970 Derwent Ings’. This does not adequately reflect the environmental constraints in the area: Bubwith is adjacent to the Lower Derwent Valley SPA and SAC, and also the River Derwent SAC, sites of international importance for their birds or habitats. Furthermore, SPA bird species are likely to use areas adjacent to the SPA to feed or roost – potentially adverse impacts could therefore take place outside the designated site. The Smaller Settlements DPD should state the presence of these significant constraints and, bearing in mind the strong legal protection given to these sites under European law, carefully reconsider the appropriateness of selecting Bubwith as a Market Village. If Bubwith is selected as a Market Village, the Council should adopt policy to ensure that development on the outskirts of the settlement has no significant adverse impact on the SPA or the SACs. The Smaller Settlements DPD, and DPDs bringing forward any significant allocations in the area, will Name/ID Type/ID Representation require an Appropriate Assessment into the implications for the SPA as set out in the Habitats Regulations. At the project stage, Appropriate Assessment of individual proposals may be required in order to determine the scale of potential impacts. We therefore suggest adding the following to the Smaller Settlements DPD: “New development within Bubwith that could have the potential to cause significant impacts on the Lower Derwent Valley SPA or SAC or the River Derwent SAC will require an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations. If the Appropriate Assessment cannot rule out a significant adverse effect on any of these sites, the Council will not approve the development.” Natural England Observations (Para 4.62) Stamford Bridge is close to River Derwent SSSI and SAC. 1459 796 Holme on Spalding Moor Observations The HOSM Parish plan produced with the co-operstion of the PPAC (copy attached) has been drawn Parish Plan Advisory 1367 up after extensive consultation and the PPAC would wish to see that its proposals are taken into Committee account in any settlement policies, which are currently under consideration. 1489 In particular it is considered that while HOSM has a number of services, it has traffic and accessibility problems, which should be addressed before further development is allowed. There is also a need for affordable housing to serve local people, and a severe lack of facilities for young people. Holme on Spalding Moor Observations Section 4- although HOSM is the highest rated for the sub-region, it has traffic and accessibility Parish Plan Advisory 1370 problems. Committee 1489 Yvonne Wheeler Observations Would you please explain the significance of designating Melbourne as a Preferred Market Village 1508 1590 (priority 2)? Am I right in understanding that the area will be seen as open to development beyond immediate local needs (i.e. not a "rural village")? If so, I am surprised to see this designation. The village facilities are: One small village store / post office (which has, incidentally, just reduced hours so that the post office services are no longer available on Friday afternoons). One pub. No doctor's surgery. Abysmal public transport (I know - I have to use it!). Playing fields. Name/ID Type/ID Representation A scout hut and a village hall. Infant school. Sustainability: Beyond "normal" development, such as extensions and the occasional infill, I am not convinced that Melbourne is a village that can sustain much more development. The sewers and drainage cannot cope with the existing new development, of which there has been a fair amount in the last 10 years (Orchard Park, Forge Close, New Pastures, Prospect Close / Mews, and the land behind the pub, to name but a few). Frequently, these new homes have been host to a fairly transient population, begging the question of what sort of "housing need" is being met here. There was considerable flooding in the Winter of 2001, particularly to the North of Main Street, and which caused closure of the road near the school. I have, in the past, needed to call out council workmen to deal with effluent flowing into the drainage ditches to the rear of my property when the drains have been unable to cope, and have "backed up". The subsidised bus service provides, for commuters to York, one bus at 07.18, and a return bus at 17.15. This is not very useful for those who work in shops etc, that do not close until 17.30 or often later. There is no evening or Sunday service and a limited service during the day (one or two buses depending on which day of the week it is). Any additional development can only increase the traffic flow through the village. The village store is small and deals only in basics. and who knows for how much longer the Post Office will remain, if current trends are anything to go by? The only criteria I can see that marks Melbourne out is the presence of a (rather good) village school. Environment: I would point out that the area to the North of Main Street is sensitive SSSI land and the flooding of the Ings is a natural and essential part of the wildlife habitat there. It is also part of the regeneration area, where much has been done to restore the locks and provide a recreational area for locals and visitors alike. It would be a sad day if further development were allowed to mar this area of peace and beauty. Village character: Could I perhaps refer you to the Village Design Statement for the village, drawn up a few years ago, Name/ID Type/ID Representation which sets out the essential character of the village and the development criteria that was felt to be appropriate at that time, following widespread consultation in the village? Mrs Vivienne Martinson Observations I have enclosed two maps on which I have highlighted: 1448 603 Sleights Farm farmstead, Nafferton Field on Backcour Lane, Nafferton I would like these two areas to be considered for inclusion in the Local Development Framework. Development Land & Observations There are many smaller towns and villages which do not have any remaining housing allocations which Planning 735 have not been identified in the settlement hierarchy. Nafferton for example, is a sustainable self 1454 sufficient settlement close to Driffield which has no housing allocations and little if no previously developed parcels of land. There are also very few extant planning permissions within this area. The hierarchy essentially restricts any further housing development in this settlement unless there is a proven need for new housing. However, local needs housing often translates to being affordable (social rented) housing which does not serve to best promote vitality and viability of a settlement. A transient and low income population is less likely to be able to support enhanced community facilities. Furthermore the most common form of affordable housing provision is by securing such accommodation by legal agreement or condition on open market housing sites of a certain size or threshold. To refuse permission for general sale housing greatly inhibits the opportunity and means to meet affordable housing needs through this mechanism. There is certainly scope for Nafferton given its apparent sustainability and its potential to grow beyond the role of a service centre due to its close relationship with Driffield to be promoted within the settlement hierarchy. (Part of representation to Housing Site Selection Methodology) Brigadier AJ Simmons Object Please understand that this is not a 'NIMBY' reaction to the inclusion of North Frodingham in your 1447 599 proposed list of preferred Market Villages. We would welcome any improvement to our 'services and facilities' and I am concerned by the statement (para 4.69) that "The Parish Council did not express a view on the status of 'Market Village' in their responses to consultation on the Local Development Framework". My septuagenarian memory is not what it was, and I do not recall being invited to make our views known on this specific question. On the other hand, I am in no doubt that our views on the questionnaire design and the matrices have been represented to you (i.e. ERYC) both verbally and in Name/ID Type/ID Representation writing by our clerk. Clearly, there has been a failure somewhere in 'the system' and I suspect that part, at least, of the problem might lie within County Hall. I am frequently surprised (confused?) by unfamiliar terms such as "Spatial Planning Manager", "asset strategy" and "corporate policy and strategy", which constitute a formidable obstacle to simply understanding and, usually, reflect another 'reorganisation'. Brigadier AJ Simmons Object I don't intend to lose any sleep over this document because I suspect that it will sink into obscurity long 1447 601 before the development of North Frodingham into a Preferred Market Village (Priority 3) might become a reality. Humber & Wolds Rural Object Omit Hutton Cranswick and Nafferton, too close to Driffield? Community Council 919 318 Humber & Wolds Rural Object 69 North Frodingham too close to Beeford. Community Council 920 318 Humber & Wolds Rural Object 4.71 Kilham too close to Driffield and away from NE cluster of villages. Community Council 921 318 Sebastian & Pippa Green Observations We would like to make the comment that we think that Kilham should be a Preferred Market Village. 1469 1006 If Kilham and its community is permitted to develop and thrive we think that the services both within the village and to the village (eg public transport) will increase as will the employment opportunities within the village. However, if the village is not given the opportunity to develop and evolve there is a risk that the services will decline and there will be more of a reliance on services outside the village. Existing residents will therefore be more likely to use their own vehicles to visit the local towns making the village less sustainable. Mr J E Milner Object Delete those with population over 2500. 1199 637 W. Clifford Watts Ltd Object Wetwang as it has little employment and is a fair way off a larger settlement. 1455 740 Smiths Gore Object Add Shiptonthorpe. Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1461 810 Mr D J Lord Object Add:- Bishop Wilton 1194 858 Hornsea and District Object Environmental considerations should preclude the inclusion of Bubwith and Stamford Bridge. Chamber of Trade 956 1464 Mr John Mackenzie Object The Crown Estate considers that further consideration should be given to the joint settlements of (Crown Estate) 975 Sutton Upon Derwent/Elvington as a preferred Market Village. 1467 Mr Greg Smith Object Newbald is one example of where additional development to support local services would be (Development Land & 1119 appropriate, particularly in light of the potential to secure the long term viability of the local primary Planning) school. Indeed this matter was identified within the Inspector’s decision letter in relation to an appeal 1454 on the site of land north west of Eastgate under reference APP/E2001/A/05/1180883. Herein the Inspector identified that additional dwellings would support local facilities including the local school (paragraph 15 of the Inspector’s Decision Letter). Mr Greg Smith Object Newbald should be added to the list. (Development Land & 1139 Planning) 1454 Planning Prospects Object Yes in part but: 1476 1202 What the analysis points to is that there are quite a number of settlements in the East Riding that have some significant merit and are sustainable. The fact that there are a number of suitable market villages in certain parts of the district should not be a reason to limit the identification of more market villages. There is no harm to having more than less, if the assessment points to this. The number should be broadened. City Developments Object Full Sutton - busy village with employment sites in and close by. Some recent development but 1479 1243 services/ infrastructure exhausted. R Swailes Support Whilst mindful of the suggestion to devise a single list of ‘Market Villages’ and the requirement to plan 1500 1453 beyond 2016, the inclusion of Kilham within the current selection is fully supported. The settlement Name/ID Type/ID Representation performs an important function to its particular locality and the preferred options acknowledges this role. Access to public transport and the provision of local services, such as the primary school indicate that the village should be retained as a Market Village. Mr C Hill Support Whilst mindful of the suggestion made elsewhere in this response to devise a single list of ‘Market 1391 1476 Villages’ and the requirement to plan beyond 2016 should the current hierarchal approach be retained, the inclusion of Nafferton within the current selection is fully supported. The settlement provides an important function to not only its population, but those within outlying areas and in light of its excellent access to a range of public transport it is considered justified for Nafferton to be identified as a Market Village. Mr & Mrs JH Foreman Support Whilst mindful of the suggestion made elsewhere in this response to devise a single list of ‘Market 1503 1490 Villages’ and the requirement to plan beyond 2016 should the current hierarchal approach be retained,, the inclusion of Hutton Cranswick within the current selection is fully supported. The settlement is clearly sustainable and is particularly enhanced by the readily available access to local employment and a robust level of public transport infrastructure. WC Watts Estate Support Again comments to this aspect of the Preferred Options is made mindful of the suggestion to devise a 1506 1540 single list of ‘Market Villages’ and the requirement to plan beyond 2016. Nonetheless the inclusion of North Frodingham and its particular role, associated with the services contained therein and the distance from major urban areas clearly supports its current selection within the Market Villages. Peter Robinson Object No. Due to the low population density, limited public transport, remoteness of some parts and already 994 1734 existing DS2 and DS3 centres, which are probably as accessible as any new centres would be, it is difficult to imagine the need for any except maybe Stamford Bridge. Julie Abraham Object Nafferton is close to Driffield. 1523 1873 Melrose Plc Object The list of Market Villages for the Northern sub-region should be reduced significantly to the following 1524 1892 settlements:- Stamford Bridge Holme Upon Spalding Moor Hutton Cranswick These settlements are strategically located in the sub-region and have sustainable populations/services. Name/ID Type/ID Representation These remaining settlements should not be progressed for further assessment.

Question 17 – Do you agree with the Council’s Preferred Option in paragraph 4.75 to identify 28 Market Villages?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Town and Parish Councils - Watton, Twin Rivers, Swanland, Anlaby, Paull, Seaton Ross, Beeford, Langtoft, Foston, Bainton, Garton, Wetwang, Patrington, Aldbrough, Sutton Upon Derwent, Newton Upon Derwent, North Frodingham, Barmston&Fraisthorpe, Middleton, Hayton&Burnby, Fridaythorpe, Stamford Bridge, Rudston, Melbourne (24)

Other Bodies - Hornsea Residents' Association (1)

Agents and Individuals - CW&DC Hattee, C.Brown, Bovis Homes Ltd., GS Lenton, Stamford Homes Ltd., H Hook, R Bryan, R Hall, JF&KM Glew, JG Hatcliffe&Partners, R Barnes, M Glover, John Potts Ltd (13)

48 respondents in total

No respondents answered 'No' without any further comment.

Name/ID Type/ID Representation Ms Nicola Salvidge Object Disagree. (Seaton Parish Council) 532 1413 Mr Henryk Peterson Support Sport England generally supports the Council's preferred modified Option 1 approach in line with the (Sport England) 583 results of the Consultation exercise of August 2005, and the process it has gone through in identifying 539 28 suggested market villages to operate as Rural Service Centres, to accord with policy DS4 of the Joint Structure Plan. These 'Smaller Settlements' and rural villages will complement the operation of the larger main Development Strategy Settlements (as per policies DS1-DS3). It is acknowledged this will mean a restrictive approach to future development, the scale and principle of future development being conditioned by the type and size of settlement and its planned strategic function, the range of services that exist, public transport & road linkages, and growth opportunities Name/ID Type/ID Representation and constraints. Development within and outside rural settlements to be based on community need. The focusing of development guided by function and hierarchical role of settlements will help maximise the public benefit of investment in social infrastructure. Jenny Poxon (Yorkshire Observations The preferred option identified in the document (at paragraph 4.75) represents a positive measure to and Humber Assembly) 987 achieve a more concentrated and less dispersed pattern of development in the East Riding of Yorkshire 483 than in the past – the document itself explains this at paragraph 4.3 in terms of the change from the previous approach based on 50 selected settlements. This change in direction would be further re- enforced if the Alternative Options 1 or 2 (paragraph 4.76) were taken forward. For example, Alternative Option 1 would allow a settlement strategy focused on 25 places beyond the 4 Principle Service Centres identified in the draft RSS in the East Riding (as opposed to 36 settlements under the Preferred Option in paragraph 4.75). Jenny Poxon (Yorkshire Observations The use of the three ‘priority levels’ of ‘market villages’ does introduce additional layers into the and Humber Assembly) 988 settlement approach. It is the Assembly’s view that the identification of one single grouping of market 483 villages could be achieved by combining the ‘priority 1’ and ‘priority 2’ level settlements together (and not including the ‘priority 3’) and this would be our preferred option to take forward. Andy Watts (Walker Object On behalf of Mr Lisseter I object to the Preferred Option to identify 28 Market Villages – 13 Priority 1, Morris) 1152 4 Priority 2 and 11 Priority 3, on the following grounds – 1427 · The inclusion of 28 Market Villages ("MV") for the purposes of JSP Policy DS4 is considered contrary to the Strategic objective to resist dispersed and uncontrolled rural development in particular housing development. It is considered that the identification of Priority 2 and 3 Market Villages will considerably weakened the principal objective of achieving sustainable development. The identification of those MV will perpetuate dispersed patterns of development in rural and often remote areas where many people will be reliant on car ownership and usage to gain access to employment, education, retail and leisure. · Given the concerns expressed in paras 5.19 regard the definition of 'Limited Development' in MV as set out in JSP Policy DS4 and the adverse impact that cumulative 'Limited Development' on the Strategy, it is considered that the more MVs that are identified/designated and 'development limits' defined accordingly the more East Riding of Yorkshire will experience issues and problems of dispersed patterns development contrary to Strategic and Sustainability objectives for the Core Strategy. · The Summary to Preferred Option 3 for the inclusion of Priority 2 and 3 Market Villages makes Name/ID Type/ID Representation reference to the four identified Priority 2 MVs having 'some particular drawbacks' and also there being 'concerns' about the designation of 11No Priority 3 MVs. If there are concerns and drawbacks why include them? Mr David Horsley Support Yes. (Beverley Town Council) 1746 The problem is not the criteria as such, but that the criteria and the proposals have a circular 1499 relationship. If you lack facilities you will be prevented from getting the sort of developments which might bring those facilities. This is perhaps most crucial in relationship to good public transport.

Question 18 – Do you agree with the Council’s Preferred Option not to re-introduce development limits for those settlements not identified as a Development Strategy Settlement or Market Village?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Neighbouring Authorities - Hull City Council

Town and Parish Councils - Seaton, Twin Rivers, Snaith and Cowick, Swanland, Paull, Seaton Ross, Foston, Garton, Wetwang, Bugthorpe&Kirby Underdale, Sigglesthorne, Aldbrough, North Frodingham, Barmston&Fraisthorpe, Hayton&Burnby, Howden, Roos, Fridaythorpe, Beverley, Rudston, Melbourne (22)

Other Bodies - Bridlington &District Civic Society, Hornsea &District Chamber of Trade, Derwent Valley Conservation Group, Gateway Pathfinder, Hornsea &District Civic Society (5)

Agents and Individuals - BP Ryan, F.Henley, O'Pray, GS Lenton, H Hook, R Bryan, R Hall, Smiths Gore, JF&KM Glew, JG Hatcliffe&Partners, JM Fielden, Albanwise Ltd, R Barnes, J Kitchen, GJ Perry(City Developments), M Glover, Melrose Plc (17)

45 respondents in total

The following respondent answered 'No' without any further comment:

Town and Parish Councils - Carnaby.

Agents and Individuals - C.Worrall

2 respondents in total

Name/ID Type/ID Representation B Ryan (Frank Hill) Object Policy is too rigid. Each village needs to be looked in isolation as and when an application is submitted. 1416 145 Name/ID Type/ID Representation F Henley Support Yes 997 188 B Ryan (Frank Hill) Object Policy is too rigid. Each village needs to be looked in isolation as and when an application is submitted. 1416 477 Mr Colin Hattee Support with We believe development limits should be enforced 547 conditions 495 Mrs R. Hague (Watton Object Not until consultation with all these parishes have taken place. Parish Council) 554 902 Mrs R. Hague (Watton Object Needs more consultation with very small rural villages Parish Council) 555 902 Christine A Brown Object The use of parish boundaries on development limits in these areas. 569 570 Christine A Brown Object Let it develop organically inside agreed boundaries. 569 570 Michael & Wendy O'Pray Object New houses and industrial building from, say, Ferriby to Goole along the A63 / M62 so not to build up 1105 579 in Hull city centre. Good access to the road infrastructure to increase the width of area with more jobs. Mrs. Plumb (Twin Rivers Object Only for community infrastructure (objected to reuse of buildings for residential purposes). Parish Council) 593 1444 Mr Paul Dunnington Observations I have read with interest the councils documents concerning the development plan for smaller (Seltec Automation LLP) 596 settlements in our region and would like to offer the following comments for consideration. 1) The 1445 original concept of "limiting" development in the countryside or smaller settlements was I agree a good idea. However it was brought about by a need to restrict the larger commercial organisations and indeed stop them from over developing our smaller towns and villages. 2) The blanket approach taken by councils in restricting "all" development to within a pre-defined development limit has also penalised Name/ID Type/ID Representation the individual who seeks to build a domestic residence for themselves and their family. And also in some instances "skewed" the look of individual locations. The reasons as to why individuals have been penalised are easy to explain.. 1) By restricting the amount of land available, the councils have been instrumental in causing a steep rise in the cost of building land. This in turn has also helped to fuel the rise in house prices overall. 2) By setting out to identify areas of land as "suitable for residential development", the councils have tended to look at, or rather for, larger area's of land, more in keeping with what a commercial developer would find attractive than would an individual. This has the affect of discriminating against the individual as the cost of the "plot" is far in excess of what an individual would be able to afford. I would agree that there are, occasionally, opportunities for the individual to acquire an infill site or redevelopment site but even these are now becoming targets for the commercial builder as the larger sites are used up. I would urge the council to allow for some easement in the development boundary's when approached by an individual as distinct from a development company in order to provide the individual with a better than even chance of being able to succeed in their goal. If all other aspects of development control are in keeping with the councils requirements and the building is in keeping with those that would surround it then I see no reason why the development boundary could not become a little elasticated. The problem or threat of "over development" is a real one, one only has to take a look at what has happened at Brough an Beverley to see that! I would also like to see the council take a broader look at Commercial and Industrial development sites, specifically with regard to the affects of noise and traffic on nearby residential area's within the smaller settlements. By way of an example in our village, "Gilberdyke", an application for the development of land on the industrial estate providing an additional 18 industrial units will provide an unacceptable increase in the level of traffic through the village and an increase in noise and environmental pollution. If each unit has 2 people arriving for work in separate vehicles then there will be an additional 36 vehicles travelling through the school and residential areas each morning and night. An additional increase in the amount of commercial vehicle movement (delivery vans etc) during the daytime will also provide further traffic hazards for the pedestrians in our village. This type of commercial/industrial development should only go ahead if the local environment can withstand the "ongoing" impact or if alternative access away from residential area's can be provided together with a means to restrict noise and other pollution. The only access to this development is via a weak railway bridge that has had to be made traffic light controlled Name/ID Type/ID Representation to ease the pressure placed upon it by the ever-increasing level of traffic! so you can see, it makes perfect sense to allow a development to go ahead that will increase the traffic levels yet again ! It seems that it is OK for a commercial developer to make money at the expense of a local community or by cramming as many houses as possible onto a development so as to take away the look and feel of a community - but individuals who want to build for themselves and are more than willing to work with the councils to improve street scenes, build environmentally friendly, energy efficient homes etc, are being held back by the very same rules that where put in place to restrict those same commercial operations that seem to be given the upper hand by those same rules that are supposed to contain them ! I would even go so far as to suggest that most "self builders" would be prepared to accept a restriction as an integral part of planning permission which prohibits them, without councils permission, from re- selling the property for a period of time! In respect of land allocation, the councils could help to cool the current market situation by, for example, insisting that when a land owner or developer applies for planning permission for a residential site that a proportion of the site is made available as individual building plots to be sold to private self builders. This may have the effect of lessoning the desirability of the land as far as the developer is concerned and therefore assist in slowing down the pace of development overall. If you've read this far then I thank you for reading the rants of frustrated self builders that are now considering moving to another area in order to pursue the wish to build for themselves therefore removing three children from the education authority, the financial contributions to the area etc etc (sad but true!) Mr Graham Lenton Object Allowing affordable housing in rural villages will be exploited by developers - limit affordable housing 1022 611 to market villages. Likewise single houses. Mrs C. Hird (Snaith and Object We would also like to see infill and untidy site development allowed in the rural villages. Cowick Parish Council) 621 248 Mr J E Milner Object Be flexible. 1199 639 Mr J E Milner Object Be flexible. 1199 644 Mrs Val Wood (Anlaby Observations Para 5.9 re services and facilities very important! Name/ID Type/ID Representation with Anlaby Common 650 Parish Council) 1450 Cllr Symon Fraser Support Strongly support this with the addition that Parish Councils should be offered a much greater chance to (Conservative Group) 662 put forward their “preferred scale of desired development” within their villages. This does not 1421 necessarily relate to the existing size of the settlement but to how local people want to see their settlement develop. Where a “Parish Plan” has been developed this must be fully taken into account in the construction of the Local Development Framework. Mr John Deakin Object Development Limits should be applied to all settlements as this provides clear distinction between those (Stamford Homes Ltd) 681 parts of the settlement where development is acceptable and those parts of the settlement to be treated 478 as open countryside. Mrs D. E. Franks (Paull Support with Support for all policies in consultation with Parish Councils. Parish Council) conditions 845 691 Miss K. E. Laister Object The controls on development would need to be very strict. (See also additional notes on North Ferriby, (Ferriby Conservation 708 para 4.42). Society) 1019 Mrs Rosalind Turner Support with Agree with policies. (Beeford Parish Council) conditions Parish councils should be offered a greater chance to put forward their preferred scale of desired 608 725 development. Mrs K. Roe (Langtoft Observations Maintain the existing development limits but individually should be examined on their merits. Parish Council) 726 843 Mrs K. Soltys (Mappleton Object Keep limits at present levels. Parish Council) 734 350 Mr David Watts (W. Object Each application should be determined on its own merits or lack of them. Clifford Watts Ltd) 741 Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1455 Mr Paul Jackson Object Should have development limits to keep small amount of new housing coming to a village to stop it 1456 755 dieing and sustain current facilities. Mr Cliff Wilson (Garton- Observations The Conservative Group comments appear to be a sound point of view especially in respect of how on-the-Wolds Parish 772 local people see their community developing. Council) 1457 Mr Cliff Wilson (Garton- Object on-the-Wolds Parish 776 Council) 1457 E.D. Easkell (Bainton Object Retain development limits and apply criteria based policies. Parish Council) 777 1458 Mr R. L. Mole (Foston Support with Agree with policies but link to Parish Plan. Parish Council) conditions 329 784 Ms H. Harvatt (Hollym Object Planning by merit with Parish Council views given priority. Parish Council) 871 833 Mrs M. Chapman Support with Support for all policies with theParish Councils being offered the chance to state the size and scale of (Patrington Parish conditions any such developments. Council) 886 880 Mr Roger Jones (Humber Support NB. 5.8.2 wholly affordable housing for local needs. & Wolds Rural 923 5.10 Await HDPD & SPD. Community Council) 318 Mr Roger Jones (Humber Object Add. ‘Cross subsidy by a Local Choice policy’. Name/ID Type/ID Representation & Wolds Rural 931 Community Council) 318 Ian Smith (English Object Use of Development Limits Heritage Yorkshire 950 We support the Preferred Option of only defining Development Limits for Development Strategy Region) settlements and for Market Villages only 515 Stephanie Marriott Object I do not see a pub as important; access to a petrol station and banking facilities are much more (Hornsea and District 959 important. Chamber of Trade) 1464 Mr John Mackenzie Object The Crown Estate objects to the Preferred Option not to define Development Limits for those (Crown Estate) 977 settlements not identified as Development Strategy Settlements or Market Villages. It is considered 1467 important to define Development Limits in order to direct any development, deemed acceptable under the exceptions criteria (established through JSP Policy DS5), to the main body of the settlement. Development Limits should therefore be retained as a mechanism for protecting the open countryside. The foregoing is considered particularly important given that a policy is proposed (as a preferred option) that would allow for certain development in the Rural Villages. Mr J Mackenzie (Dunlop Object Persimmon Homes objects to the Preferred Option not to define Development Limits for those Haywards (Persimmon 999 settlements not identified as Development Strategy Settlements or Market Villages. It is considered Homes East Yorkshire)) important to define Development Limits in order to direct any development, deemed acceptable under 1468 the exceptions criteria (established through JSP Policy DS5), to the main body of the settlement. Development Limits should therefore be retained as a mechanism for protecting the open countryside. The foregoing is considered particularly important given that a policy is proposed (as a preferred option) that would allow for certain development in the Rural Villages. Mr A McIntyre Observations Were alternative options considered and rejected? You should set out the reasons for rejecting (Government Office for 1032 alternatives or why there were no alternative options. ) Name/ID Type/ID Representation 694 Mr A McIntyre Observations Should this policy regarding acceptable development in the countryside also include references to sites (Government Office for 1033 for gypsies and travellers (ODPM circular 01/2006, paragraphs 47-55, especially paragraph 48 refers)? Yorkshire and the Humber) 694 Mr John Wise (Sutton Object Retain existing Development Limit - This gives clarity and ensures transparency and consistency in upon Derwent Parish 1039 planning decisions. Council) 1420 Ms L Strogen (Barton Observations It is considered that all settlements within the District should be subject to development limits. To do Will more Partnership 1054 way with settlement limits at non selected settlements would result in even the most minor of proposals (Richmond Properties constituting development in the open countryside. Ltd)) 1471/28 Mrs E J Sherwood Object No. 594 1095 Development limits set physical boundaries and as we are seeing, these criteria based decisions can be quite grey at times. If the two were used together with slight adjustments to complement each other this may reduce the grey to a more positive black & white. R J Kingdom (South Object To allow for exceptions, such as for affordable housing sites, it would seem desirable to keep the Cave Active Residents) 1107 development limits to avoid unnecessary siting discussions for such planning exceptions in undesirable 1000 locations Mr Greg Smith Object There is a concern that this approach will washover a policy of restraint similar to a countryside (Development Land & 1141 designation which would be unduly restrictive. Planning) 1454 Mr J Tait (Planning Object The approach taken by the Council effectively means that the vast majority of the East Riding will be Prospects) 1205 treated as Open Countryside in planning terms. Development will effectively be restricted for all 1476 purposes other than agriculture or forestry related uses. The affordable housing opportunities are noted Name/ID Type/ID Representation but in reality it will not deliver any meaningful development as past trends have shown. By contrast ERYC has relied heavily on development across a wide number of settlements in the past. Whilst the very smallest of these may well be inappropriate for development, there is still a great number of villages for which Development Limits should be defined and which would benefit from small scale development and infill within such limits. Many of these villages, the analysis has shown have some positive sustainable merits and some small scale development in association with retaining and defining development limits would be in line with government policy and support their facilities. The hierarchy as proposed in the DPD is not responsive to these needs and is not supported. Ashleigh Swan (St Object In certain settlements, which are not included in the smaller development DPD, potential exists to Modwen Properties Plc 1233 accommodate limited additional development in a manner which remains sensitive to the surrounding (Indigo Planning)) countryside. Limited housing development at the sites shown in the enclosed would be appropriate as a 1477 natural rounding off of existing developments. However, such development is unlikely to come forward should the 'countryside' designation remain in place. Ashleigh Swan (St Object Additional wording should be introduced which allows for development which will round off existing Modwen Properties Plc 1234 settlements. (Indigo Planning)) 1477 David Jackson Object Development limits in villages allows a village to expand gradually and not become small towns or left 1485 1276 to die. Sue Atkins (Middleton on Object There needs to be restrictions on developments in order to prevent over development within certain the Wolds Parish 1407 areas and prevent sprawl. Council) 1474 Mrs A Bland (Hayton Support Would like to see Parish Councils given the chance to put forward their 'preferred scale of desired and Burnby Parish 1412 development'. Council) 1496 Mrs K. Richmond (South Object Should still have development limits. Cave Parish Council) 1417 Name/ID Type/ID Representation 465 Mrs K. Richmond (South Object Suggestions: Cave Parish Council) 1422 -Affordable housing. 465 -Local need but should be commensurate with size of settlement. R Swailes (Mr Chris Observations Given the requirement to promote a sequential approach to the delivery of new housing development it Calvert -Pegasus Planning 1455 would appear prudent to remove the provision of development limits to the non selected settlements. Group) This agreement is subject to the inclusion of adequate policy provisions elsewhere within the LDF to 1500/81 ensure that appropriate and justified development can still occur. Such policy must not only refer to the provision of new housing development but to the full range of development types. Mechanisms must also be in place to also reintroduce development limits to settlements where there is a clear need to do so. R Swailes (Mr Chris Observations Given the response to question 18 above, it is considered prudent to define the instances where Calvert -Pegasus Planning 1457 development could be permitted in Rural Villages. The list identified by the document (community Group) infrastructure, affordable housing, reuse of buildings for residential purposes, countryside workers 1500/81 dwellings, single houses for local housing needs) is supported. However, the policy framework should extend to include the provision of rural diversification/employment schemes. This would ensure that the document is in accordance with the content of PPS7. Mr C Hill Observations Given the requirement to promote a sequential approach to the delivery of new housing development it 1391 1477 would appear prudent to remove the provision of development limits to the non selected settlements. This agreement is subject to the inclusion of adequate policy provisions elsewhere within the LDF to ensure that appropriate and justified development can still occur. Such policy must not only refer to the provision of new housing development but to the full range of development types. Mechanisms must also be in place to also reintroduce development limits to settlements where there is a clear need to do so. Mr C Hill Observations Given the response to question 18 above, it is considered prudent to define the instances where 1391 1478 development could be permitted in Rural Villages. The list identified by the document (community infrastructure, affordable housing, reuse of buildings for residential purposes, countryside workers dwellings, single houses for local housing needs) is supported. However, the policy framework should extend to include the provision of rural diversification/employment schemes. This would ensure that Name/ID Type/ID Representation the document is in accordance with the content of PPS7. Mr & Mrs JH Foreman Observations Given the requirement to promote a sequential approach to the delivery of new housing development it (Mr Chris Calvert Pegasus 1491 would appear prudent to remove the provision of development limits to the non selected settlements. Planning Group) This agreement is subject to the inclusion of adequate policy provisions elsewhere within the LDF to 1503/81 ensure that appropriate and justified development can still occur. Such policy must not only refer to the provision of new housing development but to the full range of development types. Mechanisms must also be in place to also reintroduce development limits to settlements where there is a clear need to do so. Mr & Mrs JH Foreman Observations Given the response to question 18 above, it is considered prudent to define the instances where (Mr Chris Calvert Pegasus 1492 development could be permitted in Rural Villages. The list identified by the document (community Planning Group) infrastructure, affordable housing, reuse of buildings for residential purposes, countryside workers 1503/81 dwellings, single houses for local housing needs) is supported. However, the policy framework should extend to include the provision of rural diversification/employment schemes. This would ensure that the document is in accordance with the content of PPS7. J Boat Observations Given the requirement to promote a sequential approach to the delivery of new housing development it 1504 1511 would appear prudent to remove the provision of development limits to the non selected settlements. This agreement is subject to the inclusion of adequate policy provisions elsewhere within the LDF to ensure that appropriate and justified development can still occur. Such policy must not only refer to the provision of new housing development but to the full range of development types. Mechanisms must also be in place to also reintroduce development limits to settlements where there is a clear need to do so. J Boat Observations Given the response to question 18 above, it is considered prudent to define the instances where 1504 1512 development could be permitted in Rural Villages. The list identified by the document (community infrastructure, affordable housing, reuse of buildings for residential purposes, countryside workers dwellings, single houses for local housing needs) is supported. However, the policy framework should extend to include the provision of rural diversification/employment schemes. This would ensure that the document is in accordance with the content of PPS7. MB Goodwin (MB Observations Given the requirement to promote a sequential approach to the delivery of new housing development it Goodwin (Skipsea) Ltd.) 1524 would appear prudent to remove the provision of development limits to the non selected settlements. Name/ID Type/ID Representation (Mr Chris Calvert Pegasus This agreement is subject to the inclusion of adequate policy provisions elsewhere within the LDF to Planning Group) ensure that appropriate and justified development can still occur. Such policy must not only refer to the 1505/81 provision of new housing development but to the full range of development types. Mechanisms must also be in place to also reintroduce development limits to settlements where there is a clear need to do so. MB Goodwin (MB Observations Given the response to question 18 above, it is considered prudent to define the instances where Goodwin (Skipsea) Ltd.) 1525 development could be permitted in Rural Villages. The list identified by the document (community (Mr Chris Calvert Pegasus infrastructure, affordable housing, reuse of buildings for residential purposes, countryside workers Planning Group) dwellings, single houses for local housing needs) is supported. However, the policy framework should 1505/81 extend to include the provision of rural diversification/employment schemes. This would ensure that the document is in accordance with the content of PPS7. D Watts (WC Watts Observations Given the requirement to promote a sequential approach to the delivery of new housing development it Estate (Pegasus Planning 1541 would appear prudent to remove the provision of development limits to the non selected settlements. Group)) This agreement is subject to the inclusion of adequate policy provisions elsewhere within the LDF to 1506/81 ensure that appropriate and justified development can still occur. Such policy must not only refer to the provision of new housing development but to the full range of development types. Mechanisms must also be in place to also reintroduce development limits to settlements where there is a clear need to do so. D Watts (WC Watts Observations Given the response to question 18 above, it is considered prudent to define the instances where Estate (Pegasus Planning 1542 development could be permitted in Rural Villages. The list identified by the document (community Group)) infrastructure, affordable housing, reuse of buildings for residential purposes, countryside workers 1506/81 dwellings, single houses for local housing needs) is supported. However, the policy framework should extend to include the provision of rural diversification/employment schemes. This would ensure that the document is in accordance with the content of PPS7. Bryan Brown (Bryan Observations Given the requirement to promote a sequential approach to the delivery of new housing development it Brown & Son) (Mr Chris 1566 would appear prudent to remove the provision of development limits to the non selected settlements. Calvert Pegasus Planning This agreement is subject to the inclusion of adequate policy provisions elsewhere within the LDF to Group) ensure that appropriate and justified development can still occur. Such policy must not only refer to the 1507/81 provision of new housing development but to the full range of development types. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mechanisms must also be in place to also reintroduce development limits to settlements where there is a clear need to do so. Bryan Brown (Bryan Observations Given the response to question 18 above, it is considered prudent to define the instances where Brown & Son) (Mr Chris 1568 development could be permitted in Rural Villages. The list identified by the document (community Calvert Pegasus Planning infrastructure, affordable housing, reuse of buildings for residential purposes, countryside workers Group) dwellings, single houses for local housing needs) is supported. However, the policy framework should 1507/81 extend to include the provision of rural diversification/employment schemes. This would ensure that the document is in accordance with the content of PPS7. Sue Walters Thompson Observations We are not opposed to the principle of adopting this approach provided that the Council has (Carter Jonas LLP) 1627 undertaken an assessment of these settlements; has fully examined all other potential options; and can 1509 provide a robust argument that this is the best approach, having regard also to local circumstances. We are, however, of the view that to date the Council has not provided sufficient information to qualify its preferred option. Sue Walters Thompson Observations We agree that to provide specific policy in respect of these topic areas would be useful in terms of (Carter Jonas LLP) 1629 increasing certainty for landowners and developers. However, it is our view that this should be referred 1509 to within the Core Strategy and general policies included within a Development Policies DPD. More detail should then be provided within topic based SPDs, which should contain guidance, methodologies and calculations to provide the necessary level of certainty and consistency to ensure that the policies are applied fairly. It would, in our opinion, be inappropriate to include this level of detail in a DPD. It should be born in mind that if the Council intends to go to Submissions stage after this Preferred Options stage then it is too late to start introducing new policies. The Issues and Options stage should have highlight the issues and reasons why such policies are needed. The Preferred Option stage should then set out first drafts and possible options for resolving the issues identified at the previous stage. The Submissions stage is then a refinement of the Preferred Option, taking into account comments. If the Council does not consider that the process set out here has been followed then there may be the requirement to go out to Preferred Options stage again, which is what has happened in Kirklees. We believe that if the next version is to contain planning policies then it should take the form of another Preferred Options consultation. The consultation should, as required by procedures, highlight the Council’s preferred approach and then any relevant alternatives. Once comments have been received to Name/ID Type/ID Representation the alternative options then the Council will be able to proceed to the Submissions stage. We would advise that clarification is sought from Jenny Poxon at the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Assembly. In addition, the Council needs to provide evidence that such policies are necessary to address and resolve local issues. Such issues are normally identified through the Core Strategy process. We would point out that DPDs should be locally distinct and not repetitive of national policies. Sue Walters Thompson Observations We note that the Council states that it is not proposing to review the development limits at present in (Carter Jonas LLP) 1636 respect of the Preferred Market Villages. However, these may be subject to subsequent alteration and 1509 refinement as a result of allocations of land/or the deletion of existing allocations made during the preparation of other Development Plan Documents. We would like to bring to attention of the Council there is a clear need to undertake a full and proper appraisal of all existing development limits as part of the LDF process and to put forward reasoned justification for the reasons for amending/not amending them as appropriate. Unless the Council undertakes such an assessment the LDF will be fundamentally flawed in terms of meeting tests of soundness. Maps of the Development Limits We wish to alert the Council to the fact there is no plan in the Appendices showing the current development limit for Swanland. Paul Robinson Support Q19-Yes, very much agree (Gilberdyke Parish 1649 This is perhaps the most important part of the document. Again the communities should have a greater Council) input, and the findings of those with Parish Plans taken into account. 1510 Mrs S. Wainwright Support Q19 - Strongly support this with the addition that Parish Councils should be offered a much greater (Burton Fleming Parish 1672 chance to put forward their ‘preferred scale of desired development’ within their villages. This does not Council) necessarily relate to the existing size of the settlement but to how local people want to see their 859 settlement develop. Where a ‘Parish Plan’ has been developed this must be fully taken into account in the construction of the local development framework. Kenny Dhillon (Barton Object The client is concerned at paragraph 5.6 on page 54 of the document. PAragraph 5.6 states that existing Willmore (Ramsden 1687 development limits (boundaries) will not presently be amended. It is considered that development limits Developments)) should be reviewed as to ensure sites and buildings which are presently Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1512 unused or vacant and are located within close distance to the existing development limit boundary should be included in any future review of these development limit boundaries. The client wishes to reiterate the points made in section 5.0 of this document concerning the need for the development limit boundary to be reviewed as to ensure the full potential of Market Villages be realised and further sustained. The client notes that the villages of Brandesburton, Hutton Cranswick, Newport, Rawcliffe and South Cave have 'split' development limit boundaries. We respectfully request that the Development Limit boundary be revised for Bubwith as to include the site. Kenny Dhillon (Barton Object We would wish to reiterate the stance taken by PPS 7 in relation to the reuse of buildings within the Willmore (Ramsden 1688 countryside. Developments)) 1512 Mrs M. Barker (North Object Keep development limits. Ferriby Parish Council) 1791 427 Mrs M. Barker (North Object Reuse of buildings for residential purposes - no - not if it means losing businesses. Ferriby Parish Council) 1798 427 Julie Abraham Object Keep development limits to ensure affordable housing etc is located in close proximity. 1523 1875 Mr John Potts (John Object Retain development limits and be consistent nationally with other LPA’s and seek to identify where new Potts Limited) 2025 development can be accommodated by redrawing sensible new settlement boundaries that will endure 1530 until 2021.

Question 19 – Do you agree with the Council’s Preferred Option to include a policy(ies) in the Document to clarify the nature of development that will be acceptable in Rural Villages?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Neighbouring Authorities - Hull City Council

Town and Parish Councils - Snaith and Cowick, Swanland, Anlaby, Seaton Ross, Langtoft, Mappleton, Bainton, Wetwang, Bugthorpe&Kirby Underdale, Sigglesthorne, Sutton Upon Derwent, Newton Upon Derwent, North Frodingham, Barmston&Fraisthorpe, Middleton, Howden, Roos, Fridaythorpe, Stamford Bridge, Beverley, Rudston, Melbourne, Easington (23)

Other Bodies - Ferriby Conservation Society, Hornsea Residents' Association, Bridlington & District Civic Society, South Cave Active Residents, Derwent Valley Conservation Group, Gateway Pathfinder, Hornsea & District Civic Society, (7)

Agents and Individuals - CW&DC Hattee, F.Henley, Bovis Homes Ltd. Stamford Homes Ltd., W Clifford Watts Ltd., R Bryan, R Hall, Smiths Gore, JF&KM Glew, JG Hatcliffe&Partners, JM Fielden, DJ Lord, Crown Estate, Persimmon Homes, EJ Sherwood, R Barnes, J Kitchen, GJ Perry(City Developments), C.Worrall, John Potts Ltd (19)

40 respondents in total

No respondents answered 'No' without any further comment.

Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mr Martin Kerby (RSPB Support Yes – we support this decision. The scope of these policies should be widened to consider the Northern England 1065 additional provision of amenity space (including high quality green space) for residents. Region) 970 Mr John Pilgrim Support Yorkshire Forward is supportive of the preferred option to set out a policy to allow for specific (Yorkshire Forward) 1329 exemptions to Joint Structure Plan Policy DS5 which would allow for certain developments in the 1433 countryside, including for community infrastructure and affordable housing in rural areas. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Annie Hadfield (East Observations A strategic aim of the East Riding of Yorkshire Rural Strategy 2005 is to increase the rate of business Riding of Yorkshire Rural 1356 start-ups and business growth in rural areas, helping all forms of enterprise to adapt in order to sustain Partnership) and create jobs and wealth. The LDF and SSDP could have a significant adverse affect on the growth of 1488 rural SMEs. Small businesses collectively represent a significant contribution to the rural economy. How will the LDF allow new sustainable rural businesses to flourish? How will the LDF support the creation of new jobs in rural areas, e.g. business hubs? Annie Hadfield (East Observations The SSDP needs to demonstrate support for the development of major employment sites, by allowing Riding of Yorkshire Rural 1357 complementary development in related market villages. Partnership) 1488 Annie Hadfield (East Observations Objective 2.3: of the Rural Strategy 2005 aims to maintain a basic network of community services, with Riding of Yorkshire Rural 1360 a strengthened role for market towns as accessible hubs for service provision. To ensure that the Partnership) countryside remains an attractive place for people to live and work it is important to create conditions 1488 in which a basic network of community services can be retained. This includes primary schools, doctors’ surgeries, village halls, village shops and post offices. How will the SSDF hierarchy ensure it does not accelerate the decline in rural services, and thereby increase levels of social exclusion and rural deprivation? Roy Hunt Observations There is also a question relating to the type of development being proposed. For instance in Newport 1490 1382 there may be a case for allowing some housing development to increase school numbers and improve the viability of the local school, but not industrial development. Other villages may prefer industrial development, for instance on an existing old airfield site, but may not want housing development. Should there therefore not be a case for considering four types of development separately – small scale residential, large scale residential, light industrial and heavy industrial.

Question 20 - Do you agree with the Council’s preferred approach to the definition of limited development?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Town and Parish Councils - Watton, Twin Rivers, Snaith and Cowick, Anlaby, Paull, Seaton Ross, Mappleton, Bainton, Bugthorpe&Kirby Underdale, Sigglesthorne, Hollym, Patrington, Newton Upon Derwent, North Frodingham, Hayton&Burnby, South Cave, Howden, Roos, Fridaythorpe, Stamford Bridge, Beverley, North Ferriby, Rudston, Melbourne (24)

Other Bodies - Ferriby Conservation Society, Hornsea Residents' Association, Bridlington & District Civic Society, Hornsea & District Chamber of Trade, Derwent Valley Conservation Group, Hornsea & District Civic Society (6)

Agents and Individuals - CW&DC Hattee, C.Brown, GS Lenton, JE Milner, Stamford Homes Ltd., W Clifford Watts Ltd., H Hook, R Bryan, R Hall, Smiths Gore, JF&KM Glew, JG Hatcliffe&Partners, DJ Lord, Albanwise Ltd, EJ Sherwood, R Barnes, J Kitchen, GJ Perry(City Developments), C.Worrall, P Robinson, Cllr Abraham (21)

51 respondents in total

The following respondent answered 'No' without any further comment:

Town and Parish Councils - Carnaby, Easington.

2 respondents in total

Name/ID Type/ID Representation B Ryan (Frank Hill) Object Policy is too rigid. Some selected villages may have no option but to look at greenfield development. 1416 479 Ms Nicola Salvidge Object Why? (Seaton Parish Council) 540 1413 Mr D Miller (Bovis Object No- suggest 0.5 hectare and/or 10 dwellings Name/ID Type/ID Representation Homes Ltd) 569 611 Michael & Wendy O'Pray Object Green fields do not increase worth to people just our farmers which is on the incline now! 1105 580 Cllr Symon Fraser Support Strongly support this with the addition that Parish Councils should be offered a much greater chance to (Conservative Group) 664 put forward their “preferred scale of desired development” within their villages. This does not 1421 necessarily relate to the existing size of the settlement but to how local people want to see their settlement develop. Where a “Parish Plan” has been developed this must be fully taken into account in the construction of the Local Development Framework. Mrs K. Roe (Langtoft Observations Individual cases should be examined and considered on their merits. Parish Council) 727 843 Mr Cliff Wilson (Garton- Support The Conservative Group comments appear to be a sound point of view especially in respect of how on-the-Wolds Parish 773 local people see their community developing. Council) It would also be helpful if some simple guidelines could be formulated to help Parish Councils 1457 (especially the smaller ones) develop a Parish Plan. Mr R. L. Mole (Foston Observations Link to Parish Plan. Parish Council) 785 329 Miss M. Hudson Object Local peoples views should be taken into consideration with the amount of development. (Wetwang Parish 804 Council) 230 JM Fielden Object A threshold of 0.25 ha or 5 houses is too large. Consider 0.15 ha or 3 houses. 1463 821 Mr Roger Jones (Humber Object 0.25ha is too large. This would take 10d at 40dph. Suggest 0.2ha or 8 dwellings. & Wolds Rural 941 Community Council) 318 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mr John Mackenzie Object The Crown Estate objects to the assertion at paragraphs 5.18 – 5.19 of the Preferred Options document (Crown Estate) 978 that the scale threshold for ‘limited development’ should be 0.25 hectares and / or 5 houses. It is 1467 acknowledged that the text at paragraph 5.20 allows for development that exceeds this threshold, subject to a justification that the proposal addresses local needs. This is supported. On balance, it is considered that ‘limited development’ should be assessed in the context of the size and status of the particular settlement and an assessment of local needs. In this context, it is considered that the setting of a threshold as proposed could unnecessarily prevent development and result in an over restrictive policy framework. Mr J Mackenzie (Dunlop Object Persimmon Homes objects to the assertion at paragraphs 5.18 – 5.19 of the Preferred Options Haywards (Persimmon 1000 document that the scale threshold for ‘limited development’ should be 0.25 hectares and / or 5 houses. Homes East Yorkshire)) It is acknowledged that the text at paragraph 5.20 allows for development that exceeds this threshold, 1468 subject to a justification that the proposal addresses local needs. This is supported. On balance, it is considered that ‘limited development’ should be assessed in the context of the size and status of the particular settlement and an assessment of local needs. In this context, it is considered that the setting of a threshold as proposed could unnecessarily prevent development and result in an over restrictive policy framework. Mr John Wise (Sutton Object Retain existing development limit upon Derwent Parish 1040 Council) 1420 Ms L Strogen (Barton Observations It is agreed that guidance is required in respect of the interpretation of “limited scale” as set out in Will more Partnership 1055 Policy DS4 and this should be provided within the Small Settlements DPD. However, it is considered (Richmond Properties that small rural service centres could provide groups of dwellings and small residential estates ranging in Ltd)) excess of 5 dwellings. The Council are asked to consider a range of between 8 and 10 dwellings. 1471/28 Mr Martin Kerby (RSPB Support Yes – we support the decision to adopt a definition of up to 0.25ha and/or 5 houses for ‘limited Northern England 1066 development’. We welcome the decision to assess the in-combination effect of a number of limited Region) developments, and encourage the Council to adopt criteria-based policies to judge the cumulative 970 impacts of proposals e.g. on biodiversity or flood risk, and to refuse planning applications that would Name/ID Type/ID Representation result in significant cumulative impacts. R J Kingdom (South Object Would support generally 5.17-5.22 and specifically agree with the limited scale threshold being 0.25ha or Cave Active Residents) 1108 5 houses, however this needs a timescale attaching to make sense of limited development over the 1000 period of the plan, i.e. if this was allowed each year of the plan or as stated at 5.22 several small applications in one year come forward this could have a severe and unwanted impact. We would therefore propose a limit be stated for each market village to allow a strategic overview to be taken outside of an individual planning application discussion. A limit on the aggregate of Market villages limited development which does not detrimentally impact on the focus of development on the Development strategy settlements would also be a useful addition. Mr Greg Smith Object Clarity- 5 units or 0.25 HA reasonable. Higher if demand requires it. (Development Land & 1146 Planning) 1454 Andy Watts (Walker Object Objection to the definition of 'Limited Development' (as set out in paras 5.16 – 5.22) Morris) 1166 The introduction of the proposed definition in para 5.19 is over-prescriptive and unnecessary. 1427 Development proposals in MVs should be dealt with on their own merits with regard to the Development Plan and other material considerations. Mr J Tait (Planning Object The scale of development must be more flexible. Some villages can sustain a modest level of Prospects) 1206 development without harm. The figure proposed is arbitrary and inflexible. 1476 Mr James Durham (Hull Observations The approach to ‘limited development’ in Market Villages by setting thresholds for the interpretation of City Council) 1250 ‘limited scale’ under JSP policy DS4 and taking account of cumulative affects as appropriate is welcome. 1482 Hull City Council would not want to see any increase of the thresholds of 0.25 hectares and/or 5 houses outlined in paragraph 5.19. We consider however that the approach should be reinforced by setting a limit to the number of dwellings permitted in each Market Village based on local needs assessments. This should be done in line with draft PPS3 by setting a limit for each 5 year period as part of the housing trajectory. The setting of such limits adds clarity and benefits local residents and developers by showing how much housing is to be developed and whether or not planning permission is likely to be granted. Many of the Market Village settlements identified for the document’s preferred Name/ID Type/ID Representation option in the JSP central sub-area principally act as commuter villages. The local needs assessments are required to ensure that extra housing is likely to be taken up locally and commuting is resisted. Mr James Durham (Hull Observations The definition needs to be reinforced by using a managed release mechanism for the number of City Council) 1264 dwellings allowed in each Market Village in each 5 year period as part of the housing trajectory. 1482 Mr G E Wright Observations Limited development. There appears to be an indication from the text that limited development should 562 1302 be equated to a planning permission which gives a maximum consent in respect of 0.25 of a hectare or 4/5 dwellings. That would be an inappropriate approach to development in villages. Mr G E Wright Observations No clear indication is given in the Document whether when giving consideration to a planning 562 1303 permission for what period of time would elapse before a further permission might be considered. If a permission has been granted but not implemented, the plan, monitor and manage process should then have regard to the granting of a further permission in order to achieve delivery and the issue of any limitation on development should be geared to delivery rather than to the granting of planning permissions. Mr G E Wright Observations If the intention was for a limited amount of development of the order of 5 dwellings per annum in the 562 1304 selected villages, this does not mean that it would be sensible that individual permissions should be limited to development of that scale. There may well be a suitable site within the village that would accommodate for example 25 dwellings and in those circumstances it would probably be more appropriate, particularly in terms of sustainability, that a permission was granted for development of the 25 dwellings perhaps with the addition of some phasing conditions. If a policy were to place a strict limit on permissions of 5 dwellings only, it is likely to lead to the inefficient use of land and to schemes which do not deliver benefits which will address local need through planning obligations. Laura Carr (The Gateway Object We believe the approach should consider the overall size of development that will be permitted in a Pathfinder) 1312 sepptlement, rather than a site threshold, otherwise it is difficult to see how para 5.22 – determining 943 when an individual proposal would risk undermining the development strategy – would be implemented. We are concerned to note in the consultation document on transport development that it is proposed to protect the route of the proposed Keyingham bypass on the basis: ‘Provided sufficient land is allocated in the Housing DPD, developers should construct the bypass through planning gain….’ ~(Appendix 1, Issues and Options, Transport, Development Plan Document). Name/ID Type/ID Representation Michael Glover (Michael Object Land site identification and response to individual settlement needs formed by the community should Glover LLP (H Lount & 1321 be the drive. Sons)) 1487 NC Evans Observations Section 5- support limited scale for local need. (Holme on Spalding 1371 Moor Parish Plan Advisory Committee) 1489 Mrs Jean Mayland Support But Parish Councils should be offered a chance to put forward their preferred scale of development (Barmston & Fraisthorpe 1394 within their own villages. Parish Council) 484 Sue Atkins Object This requires clarification and put within a local context rather than a blanket principle. (Middleton on the Wolds 1408 Parish Council) 1474 R Swailes (R Swailes (Mr Observations Whilst recognising the need to define what would constitute ‘limited development’ and that some form Chris Calvert -Pegasus 1459 of agreement may have been reached with ‘house builders with a stake in the East Riding that a Planning Group)) threshold of 0.25 hectares and/or 5 houses be adopted for the identification of housing sites’ it must be 1500/81 considered if this limitation is appropriate to deliver a sustainable pattern of development over the forthcoming Development Plan period. This response has already presented grounds for the need to adopt a comprehensive and progressive approach to the delivery of housing in the selected Market Villages. Clearly such a process would allow the Local Planning Authority to allocate land within each particular settlement up to 2021 so as to firmly indicate directions and levels of growth therein. Such allocation(s) would not necessarily be brought forward in one five year plan period, but on a subsequent phasing of land beyond the first five year release and linked to existing housing supply within that settlement and/or Sub Area that may or may not account for the first five years in any event. This consequently allows the Local Planning Name/ID Type/ID Representation Authority to accurately determine the likely levels of affordable housing to be provided and would be of significant assistance in quantifying the levels of supporting infrastructure (utilities, open space and school places in particular) required in each location over any given period of time. The lack of a coordinated response, either in terms of the allocation of a number of individual parcels of ‘limited development’ or alternatively one single site to deliver the housing targets for a particular settlement, on a phased basis over the plan period would not afford these wide ranging benefits. Within this context it is recommended that the term ‘limited development’ be reconsidered to afford greater flexibility and to permit the Local Planning Authority the opportunity to accurately plan and deliver housing in accordance with the emerging RSS and other guidance. Mr C Hill Observations Whilst recognising the need to define what would constitute ‘limited development’ and that some form 1391 1479 of agreement may have been reached with ‘house builders with a stake in the East Riding that a threshold of 0.25 hectares and/or 5 houses be adopted for the identification of housing sites’ it must be considered if this limitation is appropriate to deliver a sustainable pattern of development over the forthcoming Development Plan period. This response has already presented grounds for the need to adopt a comprehensive and progressive approach to the delivery of housing in the selected Market Villages. Clearly such a process would allow the Local Planning Authority to allocate land within each particular settlement up to 2021 so as to firmly indicate directions and levels of growth therein. Such allocation(s) would not necessarily be brought forward in one five year plan period, but on a subsequent phasing of land beyond the first five year release and linked to existing housing supply within that settlement and/or Sub Area that may or may not account for the first five years in any event. This consequently allows the Local Planning Authority to accurately determine the likely levels of affordable housing to be provided and would be of significant assistance in quantifying the levels of supporting infrastructure (utilities, open space and school places in particular) required in each location over any given period of time. The lack of a coordinated response, either in terms of the allocation of a number of individual parcels of ‘limited development’ or alternatively one single site to deliver the housing targets for a particular settlement, on a phased basis over the plan period would not afford these wide ranging benefits. Within this context it is recommended that the term ‘limited development’ be reconsidered to afford Name/ID Type/ID Representation greater flexibility and to permit the Local Planning Authority the opportunity to accurately plan and deliver housing in accordance with the emerging RSS and other guidance. Mr & Mrs JH Foreman Observations Whilst recognising the need to define what would constitute ‘limited development’ and that some form 1503 (Mr Chris Calvert - 1493 of agreement may have been reached with ‘house builders with a stake in the East Riding that a Pegasus Planning Group) threshold of 0.25 hectares and/or 5 houses be adopted for the identification of housing sites’ it must be considered if this limitation is appropriate to deliver a sustainable pattern of development over the forthcoming Development Plan period. This response has already presented grounds for the need to adopt a comprehensive and progressive approach to the delivery of housing in the selected Market Villages. Clearly such a process would allow the Local Planning Authority to allocate land within each particular settlement up to 2021 so as to firmly indicate directions and levels of growth therein. Such allocation(s) would not necessarily be brought forward in one five year plan period, but on a subsequent phasing of land beyond the first five year release and linked to existing housing supply within that settlement and/or Sub Area that may or may not account for the first five years in any event. This consequently allows the Local Planning Authority to accurately determine the likely levels of affordable housing to be provided and would be of significant assistance in quantifying the levels of supporting infrastructure (utilities, open space and school places in particular) required in each location over any given period of time. The lack of a coordinated response, either in terms of the allocation of a number of individual parcels of ‘limited development’ or alternatively one single site to deliver the housing targets for a particular settlement, on a phased basis over the plan period would not afford these wide ranging benefits. Within this context it is recommended that the term ‘limited development’ be reconsidered to afford greater flexibility and to permit the Local Planning Authority the opportunity to accurately plan and deliver housing in accordance with the emerging RSS and other guidance. J Boat Observations Whilst recognising the need to define what would constitute ‘limited development’ and that some form 1504 1513 of agreement may have been reached with ‘house builders with a stake in the East Riding that a threshold of 0.25 hectares and/or 5 houses be adopted for the identification of housing sites’ it must be considered if this limitation is appropriate to deliver a sustainable pattern of development over the forthcoming Development Plan period. Name/ID Type/ID Representation This response has already presented grounds for the need to adopt a comprehensive and progressive approach to the delivery of housing in the selected Market Villages. Clearly such a process would allow the Local Planning Authority to allocate land within each particular settlement up to 2021 so as to firmly indicate directions and levels of growth therein. Such allocation(s) would not necessarily be brought forward in one five year plan period, but on a subsequent phasing of land beyond the first five year release and linked to existing housing supply within that settlement and/or Sub Area that may or may not account for the first five years in any event. This consequently allows the Local Planning Authority to accurately determine the likely levels of affordable housing to be provided and would be of significant assistance in quantifying the levels of supporting infrastructure (utilities, open space and school places in particular) required in each location over any given period of time. The lack of a coordinated response, either in terms of the allocation of a number of individual parcels of ‘limited development’ or alternatively one single site to deliver the housing targets for a particular settlement, on a phased basis over the plan period would not afford these wide ranging benefits. Within this context it is recommended that the term ‘limited development’ be reconsidered to afford greater flexibility and to permit the Local Planning Authority the opportunity to accurately plan and deliver housing in accordance with the emerging RSS and other guidance. MB Goodwin (MB Observations Whilst recognising the need to define what would constitute ‘limited development’ and that some form Goodwin (Skipsea) Ltd.) 1526 of agreement may have been reached with ‘house builders with a stake in the East Riding that a (Mr Chris Calvert - Pegasus threshold of 0.25 hectares and/or 5 houses be adopted for the identification of housing sites’ it must be Planning Group) considered if this limitation is appropriate to deliver a sustainable pattern of development over the 1505/81 forthcoming Development Plan period. This response has already presented grounds for the need to adopt a comprehensive and progressive approach to the delivery of housing in the selected Market Villages. Clearly such a process would allow the Local Planning Authority to allocate land within each particular settlement up to 2021 so as to firmly indicate directions and levels of growth therein. Such allocation(s) would not necessarily be brought forward in one five year plan period, but on a subsequent phasing of land beyond the first five year release and linked to existing housing supply within that settlement and/or Sub Area that may or may not account for the first five years in any event. Name/ID Type/ID Representation This consequently allows the Local Planning Authority to accurately determine the likely levels of affordable housing to be provided and would be of significant assistance in quantifying the levels of supporting infrastructure (utilities, open space and school places in particular) required in each location over any given period of time. The lack of a coordinated response, either in terms of the allocation of a number of individual parcels of ‘limited development’ or alternatively one single site to deliver the housing targets for a particular settlement, on a phased basis over the plan period would not afford these wide ranging benefits. Within this context it is recommended that the term ‘limited development’ be reconsidered to afford greater flexibility and to permit the Local Planning Authority the opportunity to accurately plan and deliver housing in accordance with the emerging RSS and other guidance. D Watts (WC Watts Observations Whilst recognising the need to define what would constitute ‘limited development’ and that some form Estate (Mr Chris Calvert - 1543 of agreement may have been reached with ‘house builders with a stake in the East Riding that a Pegasus Planning threshold of 0.25 hectares and/or 5 houses be adopted for the identification of housing sites’ it must be Group)) considered if this limitation is appropriate to deliver a sustainable pattern of development over the 1506/81 forthcoming Development Plan period. This response has already presented grounds for the need to adopt a comprehensive and progressive approach to the delivery of housing in the selected Market Villages. Clearly such a process would allow the Local Planning Authority to allocate land within each particular settlement up to 2021 so as to firmly indicate directions and levels of growth therein. Such allocation(s) would not necessarily be brought forward in one five year plan period, but on a subsequent phasing of land beyond the first five year release and linked to existing housing supply within that settlement and/or Sub Area that may or may not account for the first five years in any event. This consequently allows the Local Planning Authority to accurately determine the likely levels of affordable housing to be provided and would be of significant assistance in quantifying the levels of supporting infrastructure (utilities, open space and school places in particular) required in each location over any given period of time. The lack of a coordinated response, either in terms of the allocation of a number of individual parcels of ‘limited development’ or alternatively one single site to deliver the housing targets for a particular settlement, on a phased basis over the plan period would not afford these wide ranging benefits. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Within this context it is recommended that the term ‘limited development’ be reconsidered to afford greater flexibility and to permit the Local Planning Authority the opportunity to accurately plan and deliver housing in accordance with the emerging RSS and other guidance. Bryan Brown (Bryan Observations Whilst recognising the need to define what would constitute ‘limited development’ and that some form Brown & Son) (Mr Chris 1569 of agreement may have been reached with ‘house builders with a stake in the East Riding that a Calvert - Pegasus Planning threshold of 0.25 hectares and/or 5 houses be adopted for the identification of housing sites’ it must be Group) considered if this limitation is appropriate to deliver a sustainable pattern of development over the 1507/81 forthcoming Development Plan period. This response has already presented grounds for the need to adopt a comprehensive and progressive approach to the delivery of housing in the selected Market Villages. Clearly such a process would allow the Local Planning Authority to allocate land within each particular settlement up to 2021 so as to firmly indicate directions and levels of growth therein. Such allocation(s) would not necessarily be brought forward in one five year plan period, but on a subsequent phasing of land beyond the first five year release and linked to existing housing supply within that settlement and/or Sub Area that may or may not account for the first five years in any event. This consequently allows the Local Planning Authority to accurately determine the likely levels of affordable housing to be provided and would be of significant assistance in quantifying the levels of supporting infrastructure (utilities, open space and school places in particular) required in each location over any given period of time. The lack of a coordinated response, either in terms of the allocation of a number of individual parcels of ‘limited development’ or alternatively one single site to deliver the housing targets for a particular settlement, on a phased basis over the plan period would not afford these wide ranging benefits. Within this context it is recommended that the term ‘limited development’ be reconsidered to afford greater flexibility and to permit the Local Planning Authority the opportunity to accurately plan and deliver housing in accordance with the emerging RSS and other guidance. Mrs M. Barker (Swanland Support with Our agreement is conditional on the following proviso Parish Council) conditions (a) as to DS5 villages:- 426 1605 Any criteria based policies to guide other developments than these specified in Policy DS5 of the Joint Structure Plan should be the subject of consultation with the parish councils of DS5 villages. Name/ID Type/ID Representation (b) as to DS4 villages:- Definition of limited and need should be the result of Consultation when individual Development Plan Documents are prepared. It is noted that ERYC has agreed with house builders that a threshold of 5 houses per .6 acre be adopted for the identification of housing sites. This is opening the door for the redevelopment of land under the PPG3 definition of brownfield sites in parts of villages which are currently termed areas of common character. We believe that if the character of existing villages is to be protected, there has to be a means of protecting villages from over development. Sue Walters Thompson Object No. (Carter Jonas LLP) 1630 We contend that the existing size of a settlement is still an important factor when considering the scale 1509 of ‘limited development’, as is also a settlement’s character and form. All these attributes contribute to determining the ability of settlements to accommodate growth. It would not be appropriate to allocate land for development purposes where it would cause harm either to the built or natural environment. For example, in reference of conservation areas or flood risk areas. We consider that site threshold of 0.25 hectares or 5 houses should not be adopted for the identification of housing sites. This is overly restrictive and does not allow for any Flexibility. Traditionally only sites that can accommodate more than 10 dwellings are allocated and anything smaller is considered to be small scale and able to come forward as a windfall site. Only if there were not enough large scale sites would there be any need to identify small scale sites to accommodate development needs. Also it is not considered to be sensible to identify lots of small scale sites within settlements because of the cumulative impact of development. Large scale sites can be properly planned to provide for infrastructure and are generally preferable to lots of small scale developments. Furthermore, we do not consider that the Council has provided sufficient justification for applying this approach. The Council needs to provide a more robust evidence base as to why this approach is the best for the East Riding, especially in relation to alternative approaches in order to pass the tests of soundness. It is also considered inappropriate for developers to justify why developments over the size threshold should have to justify development. Development is either acceptable or it is not acceptable in principle. It is the role of the LDF to set out what development is acceptable and what development is deemed to be inappropriate. Name/ID Type/ID Representation We consider that the term ‘limited development’ in the JSP refers to there being a finite number of opportunities defined through the application of a development limit. We do not believe the term refers to a limitation on the scale of any one development. It is also considered that to limit the scale of development is an artificial measure that will be difficult to implement in practice. Paul Robinson Support To allow limited development in small communities to ensure their sustainability, contrary to the (Gilberdyke Parish 1650 present guidance offered by the ‘sustainability matrix’ Council) 1510 Mrs S. Wainwright Support Q20 - Strongly support this with the addition that Parish Councils should be offered a much greater (Burton Fleming Parish 1673 chance to put forward their ‘preferred scale of desired development’ within their villages. This does not Council) necessarily relate to the existing size of the settlement but to how local people want to see their 859 settlement develop. Where a ‘Parish Plan’ has been developed this must be fully taken into account in the construction of the local development framework. Kenny Dhillon (Barton Observations We would wish to reiterate the stance taken by PPS 7 in relation to the reuse of buildings within the Willmore (Ramsden 1689 countryside. Developments)) 1512 A Brown (Melrose Plc Object It is inappropriate to quantify limited development as a specific site area or number of dwellings. This (Colliers Cre)) (Mr Andy 1894 could potentially constrain the reuse of sustainable previously developed sites that would sustain local Brown MCP Planning and services in Market Villages. Limited development should not be defined rigidly but left as a general Development) principle for the consideration of development outside Market Villages. 1524/110 Exceptions should be made for sites in and around Market Villages where development would reuse large previously developed sites that are closely related to local services and contribute to sustaining facilities. Elstronwick Parish Object Feel that they should object to the policy for housing as they believe some development should take Council 2028 place in villages to maintain a balance of age groups within them. They feel if no development happens 442 in small vilages they will die and then all amenities will have to stop as there will be no trade for them Mr John Potts (John Object Do not agree that JSP Policy DS4 is limited only to ‘market villages’ or to the approach taken to identify Potts Limited) 2026 those where expansion is appropriate. Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1530

Question 21 – Do you agree with the Council’s preferred approach to the definition of development for local needs?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Neighbouring Authorities - Hull City Council

Town and Parish Councils - Seaton, Watton, Twin Rivers, Snaith and Cowick, Anlaby, Carnaby, Paull, Seaton Ross, Beeford, Mappleton, Foston, Bainton, Garton, Wetwang, Bugthorpe&Kirby Underdale, Sigglesthorne, Hollym, Patrington, Newton Upon Derwent, North Frodingham, Middleton, Hayton&Burnby, South Cave, Howden, Roos, Fridaythorpe, Stamford Bridge, Beverley, Melbourne, Easington (30)

Other Bodies - Ferriby Conservation Society, Hornsea Residents' Association, Bridlington & District Civic Society, Hornsea & District Chamber of Trade, South Cave Active Residents, Gateway Pathfinder, Hornsea & District Civic Society (7)

Agents and Individuals - CW&DC Hattee, O'Pray, Bovis Homes Ltd., Stamford Homes Ltd., W Clifford Watts Ltd., H Hook, R Bryan, R Hall, JF&KM Glew, JG Hatcliffe&Partners, JM Fielden, DJ Lord, Crown Estate, Persimmon Homes, Albanwise Ltd, EJ Sherwood, R Barnes, J Kitchen, GJ Perry(City Developments), M Glover, R Swailes, C Hill, JH Foreman, J Boat, MB Goodwin(Skipsea)Ltd, WC Watts Estate, B Brown&Son, P Robinson (28)

66 respondents in total

No respondents answered 'No' without any further comment

Name/ID Type/ID Representation B Ryan (Frank Hill) Object It is too rigid. More flexibility is required. 1416 148 B Ryan (Frank Hill) Object Again, it is too rigid. More flexibility is required. 1416 480 Christine A Brown Object A less parochial view is necessary in areas wishing to attract tourism. 569 572 Mr Graham Lenton Object Local needs should be determined by locals without commercial input. Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1022 612 Mr J E Milner Object Growth is required or stagnation sets in. 1199 645 Mrs K. Roe (Langtoft Observations Individual cases should be examined and considered on their merits. Parish Council) 728 843 Mr John Wise (Sutton Support Though probably difficult to implement and enforce! upon Derwent Parish 1041 Council) 1420 Mr Greg Smith Object Should take into account emerging PPS3 draft. (Development Land & 1147 Planning) 1454 Mr J Tait (Planning Object The basic premise of the DPD is that development is needed to support local services and achieve the Prospects) 1207 aims of the DPD. To then restrict the development to other local needs is not acceptable. The term is 1476 too subjective. The tests set out in the DPD would be too difficult to meet and do not contribute to the aims of the document. Ashleigh Swan (St Support However, it should be acknowledged that some general need will need to be accommodated outside of Modwen Properties Plc 1235 the major settlements. (Indigo Planning)) 1477 Mr G E Wright Observations The Document needs to make it clear that housing need is not restricted to the provision of affordable 562 1305 housing. That issue is clearly identified in the JSP and will be clarified in the Submission RSS. The Council’s position needs to be clearly set out in the Document. NC Evans (Holme on Observations Section 2- the scale of the development should be limited for local people. Spalding Moor Parish 1369 Plan Advisory Committee) Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1489 Mrs Jean Mayland Support But Parish Councils should be offered a chance to put forward their preferred scale of development (Barmston & Fraisthorpe 1395 within their own villages. Parish Council) 484 Mrs M. Barker (Swanland Object As will be apparent from our reply to question 20 we agree completely with what is said in paragraphs Parish Council) 1606 5.22 and 5.23. We trust that individual Local Development Plan Documents will make this matter 426 crystal clear. Sue Walters Thompson Object We are concerned that the definition is very restrictive and is unlikely deliver sufficient development to (Carter Jonas LLP) 1631 meet local needs. The definition used implies that much, if not all, of the housing for local need will 1509 have to be for local people and meet need identified through documents such as a Housing Needs Survey. This creates concerns that the Council is only seeking to provide affordable housing for local people. As we have stated in earlier consultations, the District is home to a variety of people; all with different housing needs and needs that are likely to change through time. If in some locations East Riding Council only intends to permit new houses to be provided for local people, then ‘local need’ has to take account of the full range of types of need that will exist within any particular community. Such need is likely to range from first time buyers to single parents to the elderly. Given the range of personal circumstances that exist, it is considered impossible for the LDF to explicitly identify every type of ‘local need’, and therefore the LDF should not attempt to go into too much detail in identifying the scope of local need. ‘Local need’ does not necessarily require new housing to be affordable. There will be people within the District who wish to move, but can afford to pay market values. These may include once first time buyers, who having started a family and wish to move to a larger house. Another example might be the elderly who wish to downsize from a family home to a purpose built bungalow. It is accepted that an element of housing will need to be affordable to provide for first time buyers or those in social need, but this group is only a small proportion of the total population and of those in need of housing within the District. It is much more important to provide for those that have local connections and to ensure that there is a variety of types of houses to meet the full range of needs rather than to provide for just Name/ID Type/ID Representation one particular group that will then exclude the rest of the population. The rural service centres require sufficient population growth to sustain their new role identified in the settlement hierarchy. The rural service centres will play an important role in the District and will help to support the towns and sub-regional urban areas. Growth should therefore not be too heavily constrained, and should definitely not be constrained to just affordable housing. The criteria that have been drafted are considered to be inappropriate and not reflective of the true meaning of local need. The whole point of local need is that it is to meet a need arising within a local area. The Council’s requirement to demonstrate there are no alternatives is therefore ludicrous given that alternative sites in or around Development Strategy Settlements would not respond to a local need identified within market villages. The three criteria should be deleted and replaced with one of the following, which are considered to be succinct and more appropriate: • There is a demonstrable demand for the development arising from a particular locality, or • The development will meet the identified needs within a particular settlement. Kenny Dhillon (Barton Observations We would wish to reiterate the stance taken by PPS 7 in relation to the reuse of buildings within the Willmore (Ramsden 1690 countryside. Developments)) 1512 Mrs M. Barker (North Object Does not take into account the ageing population. Does not reflect the ageing demographics. Ferriby Parish Council) 1799 427 Julie Abraham Object Should also take account of changing demographic needs i.e. need for more dwellings suitable for 1523 1880 elderly people. A Brown (Melrose Plc Object General need is not distinct from ‘local need’. Development is required in both instances to satisfy (Colliers Cre)) 1895 demand and bring forward benefits to the local community. It is therefore inappropriate to attempt to 1524 define ‘local need’ in a prescriptive manner as a tool with which to restrict development outside Policy DS1-3 settlements. Local needs should remain undefined in the DPD and used as a guiding principle for development. Rudston Parish Council Object Local needs should also be assessed by consultation with local residents. Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1526 1990 John Potts Limited Object Again this denies the sub-regional function of settlements such as Woodmansey. For example it can 1530 2027 provide executive housing rather than social housing as the identified need is sub-regional rather than purely local.

Question 22 – Do you agree with the Council’s preferred approach to taking account of a development’s effect on the carbon footprint of a settlement?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Specific Consultation Bodies - Yorkshire Water

Neighbouring Authorities - Hull City Council

Town and Parish Councils - Seaton, Watton, Twin Rivers, Snaith and Cowick, Swanland, Anlaby, Carnaby, Paull, Seaton Ross, Beeford, Langtoft, Mappleton, Foston, Bainton, Garton, Wetwang, Sigglesthorne, Hollym, Patrington, Sutton Upon Derwent, Newton Upon Derwent, Barmston&Fraisthorpe, Middleton, Hayton&Burnby, South Cave, Howden, Roos, Fridaythorpe, Stamford Bridge, North Ferriby, Rudston, Melbourne (31)

Other Bodies - Ferriby Conservation Society, Hornsea Residents' Association, Humber & Wolds Rural Community Council, Bridlington & District Civic Society, Hornsea & District Chamber of Trade, South Cave Active Residents, Derwent Valley Conservation Group, Gateway Pathfinder, Hornsea & District Civic Society (9)

Agents and Individuals - BP Ryan, CW&DC Hattee, C.Brown, O'Pray, Bovis Homes Ltd., GS Lenton, Stamford Homes Ltd., W Clifford Watts Ltd., H Hook, R Bryan, R Hall, Smiths Gore, JF&KM Glew, JG Hatcliffe&Partners, JM Fielden, R Barnes, J Kitchen, GJ Perry(City Developments), P Robinson, Cllr Abraham, John Potts Ltd (22)

64 respondents in total

No respondents answered 'No' without any further comment

Name/ID Type/ID Representation Government Office for Object In principle, this is in line with emerging national policy but you might need to support the proposal Yorkshire and the 1034 with stronger justification, including that it is realistically deliverable, particularly if it is going to require Humber a reduction in the carbon footprint (of a settlement) as opposed to lower carbon emissions or even Name/ID Type/ID Representation 694 carbon neutral development. You will need to set out the evidence underlying the proposed policy, eg have there been discussions or consultations with developers and other relevant stakeholders to ensure the policy proposal does not place an undue burden on developers? You will also need to be clear how the policy can be effectively implemented and enforced. It is stated that advice will be given about emissions credits. You will need to provide more detail about this, e.g. how, when and where this might be provided. Environment Agency Observations Section 5.25-29 - We strongly welcome the inclusion of a section relating to 'carbon footprint' as the 1480 1247 tackling of climate change is an important issue. We hope that this DPD will soon be supported by the inclusion of ambitious and forward-thinking policies on climate change in your Core Strategy. In the interim period before your Core Strategy is adopted, this DPD may provide a means of influencing the inclusion of sustainable building techniques and renewables in new development. English Heritage Observations There is considerable embodied energy within existing buildings (in terms of the materials which were Yorkshire Region 951 used for their construction and the energy involved in transporting those materials to the site). The 515 demolition of an existing building and the removal of the resultant waste materials would also consume large amounts of energy. We hope that, in calculating the carbon footprint of development proposals, full account will be taken of the embodied energy within existing buildings and that, particularly in historic areas, preference is given to the reuse and adaptation of existing buildings rather than simply permitting their demolition and the redevelopment of a cleared site. RSPB Northern England Support with We welcome the sustainability principle behind this proposal, provided it operates in concert with other Region conditions development control procedures to minimise harmful impacts on biodiversity. 970 1067 Mr J E Milner Object Very complicated for a one off development. 1199 646 Bugthorpe and Kirby Observations We agree with the principle of this policy but it must not prevent small scale development in rural Underdale Parish Council 845 villages desirable for other reasons. 603 Mr D J Lord Observations We agree with the principle of this policy but it must not prevent small scale development in rural 1194 860 villages desirable for other reasons. Crown Estate Object The Crown Estate is fully supportive of the planning objective to secure sustainable patterns of Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1467 979 development. In this context, no objection is made to the stated objective at para 5.24 of the Preferred Options document that all development should seek to minimise its impact on the area’s ‘carbon footprint’. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the assertion at paragraph 5.25 that a settlement’s carbon footprint must be reduced overall by a development is strongly objected to. To impose such a requirement could undermine the prospects of vacant, previously developed land or greenfield land, which is required to meet local requirements, coming forward for housing or other development. Persimmon Homes East Object Persimmon Homes is fully supportive of the planning objective to secure sustainable patterns of Yorkshire 1001 development. In this context, no objection is made to the stated objective at para 5.24 of the Preferred 1468 Options document that all development should seek to minimise its impact on the area’s ‘carbon footprint’. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the assertion at paragraph 5.25 that a settlement’s carbon footprint must be reduced overall by a development is strongly objected to. To impose such a requirement could undermine the prospects of vacant, previously developed land or greenfield land, which is required to meet local requirements, coming forward for housing or other development. Albanwise Ltd Object Although we support the concept in principle, we consider that the approach set out in paragraphs 5.25 1470 1018 – 5.29 could be more ambitious in its scope. Specifically, there could be merit in specifying (in broad terms) the range of measures which might be employed and/ or considered in determining planning applications, such as: • specifying that energy efficiency should be maximised in all new development including extensions and /or conversions; • specifying targets for renewable energy e.g. percentage targets for all development; • supporting opportunities to locate and harness renewable energy generation infrastructure at or near to where energy sources occur and importantly where they are needed; • supporting the integration of higher levels of self-sufficiency in service provision (e.g. local shops) which can contribute positively to reducing the carbon footprint of the settlement by reducing the need to travel; and Name/ID Type/ID Representation • supporting opportunities to achieve community benefits through renewable energy production (e.g. small scale [micro] CHP schemes serving both the development, whilst also helping meet some of the energy needs of the wider community) should be considered favourably in the determination of proposals. Development Land & Object To reduce carbon footprint larger developments needed to invest in 'green' and alternative energy. Planning 1148 1454 Ms J. Crowther Support with If this means an improved bus service, Easington Parish Council supports it. (Easington Parish conditions Council) 2055 596 Planning Prospects Object This proposal is premature pending clarification and guidance from central government that makes the 1476 1208 requirement measurable and deliverable. St Modwen Properties Support Sustainable development is broadly supported. Plc 1236 1477 Mr G E Wright Observations It is possible that the carbon footprint of settlements could be significantly improved by the clearance 562 1306 of old housing and replacement with new housing. Any such process is likely to also lead to increased densities and the link which is apparently made between the scale of redevelopment to secure a reduction in carbon footprint with that of the process of limited development appears to be in conflict with the objective of reducing carbon footprint or at least has the potential for such conflict. North Frodingham Object A carbon footprint is difficult to prove, cars and transport in rural locations and towns, due to Parish Council 1316 congestion, could have a higher footprint than villages. 1486 H Lount & Sons Object It is felt that more work on the appropriate basis for determining a carbon footprint is needed before 1487 1322 this should be considered a policy requirement. Yorkshire Forward Observations We welcome the commitment for all new developments to determine their carbon footprints in a 1433 1331 before and after scenario, to include the impact of any long distance commuting and additional car trips generated by the development. However, we would welcome a commitment towards setting an onsite Name/ID Type/ID Representation renewable target for all new developments; for example, the Draft RSS policy ENV5iii) sets a target for 10% of a sizeable new developments energy to be sourced from on-site renewables. Additionally, Yorkshire Forward would like a commitment so that all new build developments achieve a BREEAM or EcoHomes sustainability rating (or equivalent) of ‘very good’ as a minimum. R Swailes Support No objections are raised to the Council’s approach on this particular matter. Clearly the selection of the 1500 1461 Market Villages and then the allocation of sites must be responsive to this criterion. Mr C Hill Object No objections are raised to the Council’s approach on this particular matter. Clearly the selection of the 1391 1480 Market Villages and then the allocation of sites must be responsive to this criterion. Mr & Mrs JH Foreman Support No objections are raised to the Council’s approach on this particular matter. Clearly the selection of the 1503 1494 Market Villages and then the allocation of sites must be responsive to this criterion. J Boat Support No objections are raised to the Council’s approach on this particular matter. Clearly the selection of the 1504 1514 Market Villages and then the allocation of sites must be responsive to this criterion. MB Goodwin (Skipsea) Support No objections are raised to the Council’s approach on this particular matter. Clearly the selection of the Ltd. 1527 Market Villages and then the allocation of sites must be responsive to this criterion. 1505 D Watts (WC Watts Support No objections are raised to the Council’s approach on this particular matter. Clearly the selection of the Estate) 1545 Market Villages and then the allocation of sites must be responsive to this criterion. 1506 Bryan Brown & Son Support No objections are raised to the Council’s approach on this particular matter. Clearly the selection of the 1507 1571 Market Villages and then the allocation of sites must be responsive to this criterion. Carter Jonas LLP Observations The principle of this approach is honourable but we are concerned about its implementation and the 1509 1632 evidence basis on which the approach is being put forward. The explanation is very vague and is likely to cause confusion and inconsistency. If the Council is seriously considering the possibility of progressing this approach it needs to give more thought as to how the policy will be worded, how it might be implemented, and to provide more detailed advice for applicants in respect of what will be expected of them. Given the level of detail that may be required it would be more appropriate to include this within a separate SPD. It is considered that given this is the Preferred Options approach then the Council should have a clearer understanding of the various options and their implications. The SA identifies four options, yet these Name/ID Type/ID Representation are not fully discussed or set out as potential options in the DPD consultation document. Procedurally the consultation document falls short of the requirements set out in PPS12 and we believe that if the Council is to address the short comings of the document then the Preferred Options consultation will need to be undertaken again. The policy in the consultation document has not been sufficiently progressed to be deemed Preferred Options. Ramsden Developments Observations We would wish to reiterate the stance taken by PPS 7 in relation to the reuse of buildings within the 1512 1691 countryside. Beverley Town Council Object Neither of these two questions 22/23 are easily understood by a geography teacher with a lifelong 1499 1747 interest in planning and ecology. If they need to be that technical why do you expect a response from members of the public? And are they likely to be enforceable if they are so hard to understand? Melrose Plc Object The Council’s carbon footprint strategy should comply with appropriate guidance for the use of 1524 1896 planning conditions, legal agreements and commuted benefits. The DPD should not seek to impose onerous requirements on development that would otherwise sustain local services. The provision of local services is key to the reduction of the local populations carbon footprint, and bringing forward other sustainable and environmental benefits.

Question 23 – Do you agree with the Council’s proposed monitoring indicators for this Document?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Town and Parish Councils - Watton, Twin Rivers, Snaith and Cowick, Swanland, Anlaby, Carnaby, Paull, Seaton Ross, Beeford, Langtoft, Mappleton, Foston, Bainton, Garton, Bugthorpe&Kirby Underdale, Sigglesthorne, Hollym, Patrington, Newton Upon Derwent, North Frodingham, Barmston&Fraisthorpe, Middleton, Hayton&Burnby, South Cave, Howden, Roos, Fridaythorpe, Stamford Bridge, North Ferriby, Rudston, Melbourne, Easington (32)

Other Bodies - Ferriby Conservation Society, Hornsea Residents' Association, Bridlington & District Civic Society, Hornsea & District Chamber of Trade, Derwent Valley Conservation Group, Hornsea & District Civic Society (6)

Agents and Individuals - BP Ryan, CW&DC Hattee, O'Pray, Bovis Homes Ltd., GS Lenton, Stamford Homes Ltd., W Clifford Watts Ltd., H Hook, R Bryan, R Hall, Smiths Gore, JF&KM Glew, JG Hatcliffe&Partners, JM Fielden, DJ Lord, Crown Estate, Persimmon Homes, St Modwen Properties, Albanwise Ltd, R Barnes, J Kitchen, GJ Perry(City Developments), M Glover, P Robinson, Cllr Abraham, John Potts Ltd (26)

64 respondents in total

No respondents answered 'No' without any further comment

Name/ID Type/ID Representation Ms Nicola Salvidge Object I do not believe that this is fair judgement each new development needs to be looked at as an individual, (Seaton Parish Council) 541 this LDF will finally close down many smaller settlements. 1413 Christine A Brown Object I don’t feel monitoring indicators are comprehensive enough. 569 549 Mr J E Milner Support Agree with reservations. 1199 647 Miss M. Hudson Support with yes, but again local views should be taken into consideration. (Wetwang Parish conditions Name/ID Type/ID Representation Council) 805 230 Mr Roger Jones (Humber Object Not allowing identified needs in DS6 settlements. & Wolds Rural 944 Community Council) 318 Mr A McIntyre Observations Monitoring Indicators – Apart from the SA indicators – which are particularly relevant – two specific (Government Office for 1035 others are identified. Are these exhaustive or will you be proposing more? You could be clearer about Yorkshire and the the relationship of the proposed performance measures to the AMR core output indicators, eg by Humber) clarifying which are additional and specific to the Smaller Settlements DPD? 694 Mr A McIntyre Observations You may also need to consider setting out a broader approach to monitoring and implementation. (See (Government Office for 1036 soundness test viii). For example, delivery mechanisms and timescales (including high level timescales Yorkshire and the for the principal elements of the plan and for implementation for the policies) should be identified and Humber) built in where possible. It also should be clear who is intended to implement each policy. Where 694 possible (and appropriate), there should be evidence of buy-in of the policies by other stakeholders or authority departments. It may be that some of these will have to be expressed by reference to more detailed implementation and delivery plans in other DPDs. In this context, it is important also that that you have an up to date and reliable LDS (soundness test is also relevant in this respect). Nevertheless, where possible policies should be drafted to enable their delivery to be measured in the above terms. Mr John Wise (Sutton Support Needs to be a rigorous appraisal process. upon Derwent Parish 1042 Council) 1420 Mrs E J Sherwood Object No. Agree with councils approach apart from 5.27 “We will not promote one form of carbon or energy 594 1096 saving device (or method) over another. This is a commercial decision made at the time of the application by the promoter of the development”. Here is a perfect opportunity to introduce mandatory solar Hot water installation or other energy saving devices at the new build stage – much more cost effective. East Riding would be setting the way Name/ID Type/ID Representation forward (look at the Borough of Kirklees). R J Kingdom (South Object Need to add monitoring of limited developments in Market villages by development type both Cave Active Residents) 1109 individually and aggregated and comparison against Development strategy settlements should be 1000 undertaken Mr Greg Smith Object Should be monitored as part of wider housing requirements. (Development Land & 1149 Planning) 1454 Mr J Tait (Planning Object The monitoring needs to be linked to the aims. Are the shops and services being retained and Prospects) 1209 encouraged. Are facilities closing. Are travel patterns sustainable. Is a range of housing being provided. 1476 Is the countryside and special character of settlements being protected. Mr James Durham (Hull Support with Yes, but suggest that a target level for these indicators should be set that will inform whether individual City Council) conditions proposals coming forward would undermine the development strategy. 1482 1265 Laura Carr (The Gateway Support We suggest that a target level for these indicators should be set that will inform whether individual Pathfinder) 1313 proposals coming forward will undermine the development strategy. 943 R Swailes (R Swailes (Mr Support with In general the monitoring indicators are acceptable, but it is strongly recommended that consideration Chris Calvert - Pegasus conditions be given to the inclusion of mechanisms to account for revised housing targets and the need to Planning Group)) 1463 plan/allocate land beyond the first five years. 1500/81 Mr C Hill Observations In general the monitoring indicators are acceptable, but it is strongly recommended that consideration 1391 1481 be given to the inclusion of mechanisms to account for revised housing targets and the need to plan/allocate land beyond the first five years. Mr & Mrs JH Foreman Support In general the monitoring indicators are acceptable, but it is strongly recommended that consideration (Mr Chris Calvert - 1495 be given to the inclusion of mechanisms to account for revised housing targets and the need to Pegasus Planning Group) plan/allocate land beyond the first five years. 1503/81 J Boat Observations In general the monitoring indicators are acceptable, but it is strongly recommended that consideration Name/ID Type/ID Representation 1504 1515 be given to the inclusion of mechanisms to account for revised housing targets and the need to plan/allocate land beyond the first five years. MB Goodwin (MB Observations In general the monitoring indicators are acceptable, but it is strongly recommended that consideration Goodwin (Skipsea) Ltd.) 1528 be given to the inclusion of mechanisms to account for revised housing targets and the need to (Mr Chris Calvert - plan/allocate land beyond the first five years. Pegasus Planning Group) 1505/81 D Watts (WC Watts Observations In general the monitoring indicators are acceptable, but it is strongly recommended that consideration Estate (Mr Chris Calvert 1546 be given to the inclusion of mechanisms to account for revised housing targets and the need to - Pegasus Planning plan/allocate land beyond the first five years. Group)) 1506/81 Bryan Brown ((Bryan Observations In general the monitoring indicators are acceptable, but it is strongly recommended that consideration Brown & Son) Mr Chris 1573 be given to the inclusion of mechanisms to account for revised housing targets and the need to Calvert - Pegasus plan/allocate land beyond the first five years. Planning Group)) 1507/81 Sue Walters Thompson Observations Whilst we do not necessarily disagree with the Monitoring Indicators highlighted under paragraph 5.30 (Carter Jonas LLP) 1633 we consider that these need a fuller explanation in terms of why they have been chosen, and how and 1509 why they will be implemented, measured and reviewed. The supporting text is very ‘thin’ and as a result it is very difficult to envisage exactly what the Council has in mind in terms of the processes it has suggested. It is considered that they are not fit for purpose in the current form. Beverley Town Council Object Neither of these two questions 22/23 are easily understood by a geography teacher with a lifelong 1499 1748 interest in planning and ecology. If they need to be that technical why do you expect a response from members of the public? And are they likely to be enforceable if they are so hard to understand? Hook Parish Council Support with Any monitoring indicators will need firm controls to ensure their effectiveness/purpose. 838 conditions 2044 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Melrose Plc (Mr Andy Object Monitoring indicators should also include the monitoring of the reuse of previously developed land Brown - MCP Planning 1897 against development on Greenfield sites. The reuse of previously developed land should be prioritised and Development) in all instances. 1524/110

Question 24 – Do you think there are any omissions in the proposed content of the Smaller Settlements Document?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Town and Parish Councils - Foston, Patrington, Aldbrough (3)

3 respondents in total

The following respondent answered 'No' without any further comment:

Neighbouring Authorities - Hull City Council

Town and Parish Councils - Anlaby, Seaton Ross, Langtoft, Mappleton, Bainton, Wetwang, Hollym, Sutton Upon Derwent, Middleton, Hayton&Burnby, Roos, Fridaythorpe, Stamford Bridge, Melbourne (14)

Other Bodies - Hornsea Residents' Association, Bridlington & District Civic Society, Hornsea & District Chamber of Trade (3)

Agents and Individuals - CW&DC Hattee, Bovis Homes Ltd., GS Lenton, W Clifford Watts Ltd., R Hall, JF&KM Glew, JG Hatcliffe&Partners, JM Fielden, Crown Estate, Persimmon Homes, R Barnes, John Potts Ltd (12)

30 respondents in total

Name/ID Type/ID Representation B Ryan (Frank Hill) Object There must be allowance for 'other types' of development if a local need can be identifiedPlanning 1416 482 officers need to be able to recognise when something is good for a settlement that is outside the norm. Ms Nicola Salvidge Object As I have said all the way through this form, you need to look into a fairer way to include a wider (Seaton Parish Council) 542 variation of towns, villages, etc. 1413 Christine A Brown Object I feel the omission is the awareness that consultation is made too difficult for ordinary members of the 569 550 public. The document should be more succinct with branching links to detail at several levels. This Name/ID Type/ID Representation would avoid putting off the general public as this does. Ms J. Crowther Object Councillors consider that your reserch as it regards their village is superficial. (Easington Parish 2056 Council) 596 Mrs R. Hague (Watton Object More consultation on the small rural villages Parish Council) 556 902 Michael & Wendy O'Pray Object Make sure Ghettos do not form as in the past with in breeding of communities. 1105 581 Mrs. Plumb (Twin Rivers Object Omission- Main drainage for larger villages. Parish Council) 594 1444 Mrs C. Hird (Snaith and Object As well as using the criteria of the smaller settlements document consideration should always be given Cowick Parish Council) 622 to local opinion particularly from town and parish councils. 248 Mr J E Milner Object A higher limit of population to stop villages becoming towns. A compulsion on larger developments to 1199 648 improve local and surrounding infrastructure. Mr Paul Jackson Object Local autonomy. (Carnaby Parish Council) 674 1451 Mr John Deakin Object The content of the document needs to clearly emphasise the need to provide stronger focus to (Stamford Homes Ltd) 682 development in Principal Towns and above. There also needs to be a more restrained approach to 478 development in smaller centres which has delivered an unsustainable development pattern. Mrs D. E. Franks (Paull Object More consultations with Parish Councils. Parish Council) 693 Regular updating of information. 845 Site visits and local input to planning committee. Miss K. E. Laister Object Market Villages need to be accessible from surrounding areas. See additional notes on North Ferriby (Ferriby Conservation 710 para 4.42. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Society) 1019 Mr Matthew Naylor Observations It is essential that infrastructure provision is co-ordinated with development in the smaller selltements. (Yorkshire Water) 722 405 Mr Paul Jackson Object Carnaby should be added- it could serve as a good centre to put good quality two up two down to serve 1456 760 the local industrial estate so that couples would be able to buy property and only have one car as they can walk to work. Mrs H Hook Object More consideration given to agriculture. 1435 762 Mr Richard Bryan Object More plans for affordable housing in conjunction with Housing Association. 1153 764 Mr Cliff Wilson (Garton- Object Policy H7 in its broadest context is sound but it appears that Planning Officers need further guidance in on-the-Wolds Parish 774 the exercise of this policy. Consistency is the keywordand this seems to be lacking in some Council) decisions/recommendations. Local views should carry more weight in the decision making process. 1457 Mr D. J. Lord (Bugthorpe Object Too little account is taken of where people in the East Riding would like to live and the problems that and Kirby Underdale 847 the proposed concentration of development in a small number of Market Villages will generate for the Parish Council) settlements that have not been identified as Market Villages. 603 Mr D J Lord Object Too little account is taken of where people in the East Riding would like to live and the problems that 1194 861 the proposed concentration of development in a small number of Market Villages will generate for the settlements that have not been identified as Market Villages. Ms Sarah Watson Object More consideration given to agriculture. (Sigglesthorne Parish 864 Council) 1443 Mr Roger Jones (Humber Object Demand Responsive Transport & Wolds Rural 945 Smaller settlements can be effectively served by public transport. However, the type of service will be Name/ID Type/ID Representation Community Council) different from larger settlements, where the numbers are greater. Eg. Fixed route, registered bus 318 services – appropriate for inter urban corridors and to serve areas of reasonable population density are not appropriate. A lot of work has been ( and is being ) done to pilot better ways of delivering rural services (eg. Humber Rural Pathfinder). Although there will be less demand from smaller settlements, they still need to access key services. Demand responsive transport is proving to be the answer. This could be operated by commercial bus/taxi firms or by Community Transport. MiBus in the East Riding has already demonstrated that the cost of subsidy required to deliver this type of service to even the most remote areas of the county (eg. South Holderness / High Wolds) is within the level proposed as acceptable by the Regional Rural Transport Strategy. R J Kingdom (South Object Of the Market villages proposed as priority 1, which we would say are the only ones where a case could Cave Active Residents) 1111 be made, a sustainability impact assessment should be undertaken. Such a study could assess the impact 1000 of reduced private car journeys that may take place due to the local catchment area using facilities with the village rather than going elsewhere. It could also attempt to quantify the additional facilities that such a village could sustain/attract ( bearing in mind as pointed out in para 3.17 that there is a general decline of services despite the exponential housing development growth of the latter stages of the Humberside plan period). If this cannot be done there is little point in identifying Market villages as the only development that will take place is housing. It should also be remembered that during the EIP for the JSP the inspector was at some pains in his report to reiterate the failure of the then structure plan, selected settlement policies in attracting facilities and economic development in to villages, even those with major housing developments. Mr Greg Smith Object A wider range of settlements. (Development Land & 1150 Planning) 1454 Jean Kitchen Object I would just like to see residents consulted not just Parish Councils. 1475 1188 GJ Perry (City Object There are farm building clusters in several villages including Full Sutton (see attached) with Developments) 1245 diversification these buildings in some circumstances can be converted to provide a mix of residential 1479 properties without imparcing on the rural nature of the village. Name/ID Type/ID Representation David Jackson Object Carnaby should be added. 1485 1281 Mr J Kilby (Hornsea and Observations Broadly no, but this consultation is a desk job. contact the local population to establish movement District Civic Society) 1325 patterns and patterns of use for shops and services e.g. travel, shops, schools, surgeries. 756 Roy Hunt Observations I have formed the view that the study which forms the basis of the proposed LDF has been far too 1490 1385 simplistic in its approach. If recommendations made over a year ago relating to the Sustainability Threshold Analysis (which were the same then as I have outlined above) were accepted, then a far more realistic appraisal of sustainable development could I believe have been made. I have only considered a small area within the East Riding, but I would be very surprised if similar observations couldn’t be made in many other areas of the county. The overall conclusion that I have come to is that the LDF falls down in a number of critical areas as follows: It fails to differentiate between settlement areas which have already outgrown their facilities, services and infrastructure and those which have ample scope for growth. There is scarce evidence that the views of people living in these settlements have been taken into account, except in Eastrington, where there seems to be an acceptance in the report that they are “out of scope”. Much of the data is of dubious quality because it focuses exclusively on services and facilities which are within the settlements, as opposed to whether those facilities and services are within reasonable distance. Some of the data is also wrong and some of it out of date. There is insufficient grading of quality of a service or facility available within or close to a settlement. There is no differentiation between large and small scale housing and industrial development potential within settlement areas. Factors of a transient nature which, by definition, could change almost overnight have been used to determine a long term plan. Mrs Jean Mayland Object Clearly defined strategies relating to the development of smaller settlements not included in the Market (Barmston & Fraisthorpe 1396 Villages list. Parish Council) Name/ID Type/ID Representation 484 Mrs K. Richmond (South Object Carbon footprint - a broader range of environmental issues should be part of the document. Cave Parish Council) 1423 465 Ridley & Roberts Object Omission of settlements not included above (Barnny, Asselby, Airmyn). (Howden Town Council) 1432 1497 R Swailes (Mr Chris Observations At this stage and consistent with other responses made on behalf of my client to the emerging LDF it Calvert - Pegasus 1465 must be stressed of the need to ensure that this element, along with others comprising the LDF will Planning Group) accord with the Development Plan and that appropriate mechanisms are in place to ensure that it will 1500/81 accord with the need to plan up to 2021. At present I am not convinced that the emerging LDF makes adequate provision for the implications of the emerging RSS and the content of PPS3 in particular. On this basis I refer you to the reports published by the Planning Inspectorate with regards to the Core Strategies for Lichfield District Council and Stafford Borough Council. In both instances the binding Inspectors report concluded that the strategies did not pass the ‘tests of soundness’ in that they failed to adequately plan within the plan period up to 2021. Similarly the JSP (acting as Core Strategy) only accounts for a plan period up to 2016. As you will be aware the Inspector concluded that both Authority’s must completely reassess their LDF documentation and has subsequently resulted in void of up to date planning policy. R Swailes (Mr Chris Observations In summary, the inclusion of Kilham as a Market Village and the methodology of its selection is Calvert - Pegasus 1468 supported. Nonetheless it is recommended that further consideration is given to the need to provide a Planning Group) progressive plan that accounts for future housing needs beyond the current and adopted provisions of 1500/81 the Development Plan. Mr C Hill Observations At this stage and consistent with other responses made on behalf of my client to the emerging LDF it 1391 1482 must be stressed of the need to ensure that this element, along with others comprising the LDF will accord with the Development Plan and that appropriate mechanisms are in place to ensure that it will accord with the need to plan up to 2021. At present I am not convinced that the emerging LDF makes adequate provision for the implications of the emerging RSS and the content of PPS3 in particular. On this basis I refer you to the reports published by the Planning Inspectorate with regards to the Core Name/ID Type/ID Representation Strategies for Lichfield District Council and Stafford Borough Council. In both instances the binding Inspectors report concluded that the strategies did not pass the ‘tests of soundness’ in that they failed to adequately plan within the plan period up to 2021. Similarly the JSP (acting as Core Strategy) only accounts for a plan period up to 2016. As you will be aware the Inspector concluded that both Authority’s must completely reassess their LDF documentation and has subsequently resulted in void of up to date planning policy. Mr C Hill Observations In summary, the inclusion of Nafferton as a Market Village and the methodology of its selection is 1391 1483 supported. Nonetheless it is recommended that further consideration is given to the need to provide a progressive plan that accounts for future housing needs beyond the current and adopted provisions of the Development Plan. Mr & Mrs JH Foreman Observations At this stage and consistent with other responses made on behalf of my client to the emerging LDF it (Mr Chris Calvert - 1496 must be stressed of the need to ensure that this element, along with others comprising the LDF will Pegasus Planning Group) accord with the Development Plan and that appropriate mechanisms are in place to ensure that it will 1503/81 accord with the need to plan up to 2021. At present I am not convinced that the emerging LDF makes adequate provision for the implications of the emerging RSS and the content of PPS3 in particular. On this basis I refer you to the reports published by the Planning Inspectorate with regards to the Core Strategies for Lichfield District Council and Stafford Borough Council. In both instances the binding Inspectors report concluded that the strategies did not pass the ‘tests of soundness’ in that they failed to adequately plan within the plan period up to 2021. Similarly the JSP (acting as Core Strategy) only accounts for a plan period up to 2016. As you will be aware the Inspector concluded that both Authority’s must completely reassess their LDF documentation and has subsequently resulted in void of up to date planning policy. In summary, the inclusion of Hutton Cranswick as a Market Village and the methodology of its selection is supported. Nonetheless it is recommended that further consideration is given to the need to provide a progressive plan that accounts for future housing needs beyond the current and adopted provisions of the Development Plan. J Boat Observations At this stage and consistent with other responses made on behalf of my client to the emerging LDF it 1504 1516 must be stressed of the need to ensure that this element, along with others comprising the LDF will accord with the Development Plan and that appropriate mechanisms are in place to ensure that it will Name/ID Type/ID Representation accord with the need to plan up to 2021. At present I am not convinced that the emerging LDF makes adequate provision for the implications of the emerging RSS and the content of PPS3 in particular. On this basis I refer you to the reports published by the Planning Inspectorate with regards to the Core Strategies for Lichfield District Council and Stafford Borough Council. In both instances the binding Inspectors report concluded that the strategies did not pass the ‘tests of soundness’ in that they failed to adequately plan within the plan period up to 2021. Similarly the JSP (acting as Core Strategy) only accounts for a plan period up to 2016. As you will be aware the Inspector concluded that both Authority’s must completely reassess their LDF documentation and has subsequently resulted in void of up to date planning policy. In summary, the inclusion of Beeford as a Market Village and the methodology of its selection is supported. Nonetheless it is recommended that further consideration is given to the need to provide a progressive plan that accounts for future housing needs beyond the current and adopted provisions of the Development Plan. MB Goodwin (MB Observations At this stage and consistent with other responses made on behalf of my client to the emerging LDF it Goodwin (Skipsea) Ltd.) 1529 must be stressed of the need to ensure that this element, along with others comprising the LDF will (Mr Chris Calvert - accord with the Development Plan and that appropriate mechanisms are in place to ensure that it will Pegasus Planning Group) accord with the need to plan up to 2021. At present I am not convinced that the emerging LDF makes 1505/81 adequate provision for the implications of the emerging RSS and the content of PPS3 in particular. On this basis I refer you to the reports published by the Planning Inspectorate with regards to the Core Strategies for Lichfield District Council and Stafford Borough Council. In both instances the binding Inspectors report concluded that the strategies did not pass the ‘tests of soundness’ in that they failed to adequately plan within the plan period up to 2021. Similarly the JSP (acting as Core Strategy) only accounts for a plan period up to 2016. As you will be aware the Inspector concluded that both Authority’s must completely reassess their LDF documentation and has subsequently resulted in void of up to date planning policy. In summary, the inclusion of Skipsea as a Market Village and the methodology of its selection is supported. Nonetheless it is recommended that further consideration is given to the need to provide a progressive plan that accounts for future housing needs beyond the current and adopted provisions of the Development Plan. Name/ID Type/ID Representation D Watts(WC Watts Observations At this stage and consistent with other responses made on behalf of my client to the emerging LDF it Estate) (Mr Chris Calvert 1547 must be stressed of the need to ensure that this element, along with others comprising the LDF will - Pegasus Planning accord with the Development Plan and that appropriate mechanisms are in place to ensure that it will Group) accord with the need to plan up to 2021. At present I am not convinced that the emerging LDF makes 1506/81 adequate provision for the implications of the emerging RSS and the content of PPS3 in particular. On this basis I refer you to the reports published by the Planning Inspectorate with regards to the Core Strategies for Lichfield District Council and Stafford Borough Council. In both instances the binding Inspectors report concluded that the strategies did not pass the ‘tests of soundness’ in that they failed to adequately plan within the plan period up to 2021. Similarly the JSP (acting as Core Strategy) only accounts for a plan period up to 2016. As you will be aware the Inspector concluded that both Authority’s must completely reassess their LDF documentation and has subsequently resulted in void of up to date planning policy. In summary, the inclusion of South Cave, Leven and North Frodingham as a Market Villages along with the methodology of their selection is supported. Nonetheless it is recommended that further consideration is given to the need to provide a progressive plan that accounts for future housing needs beyond the current and adopted provisions of the Development Plan. Bryan Brown (Bryan Observations Attention is drawn to the detailed comments that have already been raised toward the omission of Brown & Son) (Mr Chris 1575 Flamborough. Calvert - Pegasus At this stage and consistent with other responses made on behalf of my client to the emerging LDF it Planning Group) must be stressed of the need to ensure that this element, along with others comprising the LDF will 1507/81 accord with the Development Plan and that appropriate mechanisms are in place to ensure that it will accord with the need to plan up to 2021. At present I am not convinced that the emerging LDF makes adequate provision for the implications of the emerging RSS and the content of PPS3 in particular. On this basis I refer you to the reports published by the Planning Inspectorate with regards to the Core Strategies for Lichfield District Council and Stafford Borough Council. In both instances the binding Inspectors report concluded that the strategies did not pass the ‘tests of soundness’ in that they failed to adequately plan within the plan period up to 2021. Similarly the JSP (acting as Core Strategy) only accounts for a plan period up to 2016. As you will be aware the Inspector concluded that both Authority’s must completely reassess their LDF documentation and has subsequently resulted in void of Name/ID Type/ID Representation up to date planning policy. In summary, the omission of Flamborough as a Market Village is not supported. Whilst the fundamental methodology of the selection of Market Villages is supported, it fails to recognise the need to provide a progressive plan that accounts for future housing needs beyond the current and adopted provisions of the Development Plan. Within this context and in addition to the clear sustainable development attributes of the village, it is recommended that Flamborough is added to the current selection of Market Villages. Sue Walters Thompson Object Yes. However, we consider that these have been highlighted in our responses above. We trust that the (Carter Jonas LLP) 1634 Council will give full consideration to our comments and take the appropriate action to ensure the DPD 1509 is made sound. Kenny Dhillon (Barton Object We would wish to see the review of the existing development limit boundaries for villages which have Willmore (Ramsden 1692 been designated as Market Villages. Developments)) 1512 Mrs M. Barker (North Object No flexibility to community choice. Ferriby Parish Council) 1800 427 Julie Abraham Object No flexibility for community choice. 1523 1881 A Brown (Melrose Plc Object The DPD should also include a comprehensive review of settlement boundaries/development limits. In (Colliers Cre)) (MCP 1898 particular, the proposed development limits for Stamford Bridge should be expanded to include the Planning and extensively developed area to the north of the existing settlement boundary. In addition, the Development) development limit should also be expanded to the north east to include that land safeguarded for the 1524/110 proposed York to Hull railway line and associated station. This would provide a more supportive framework for the enhancement of public transport services to this part of the East Riding. The enclosed plan illustrates the proposed amended settlement boundary. In addition, other smaller settlements should have their development limits removed entirely, or reduced to omit peripheral Greenfield land. Christine Gatenby Object More emphasis on local consultation. Name/ID Type/ID Representation (Rudston Parish Council) 1991 In conclusion we would like to see a limited amount of appropriate development within our village, 1526 with local views taken strongly into account.

Question 25 – Do you have any comments on the initial Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment report that accompanies the Smaller Settlements Document?

The following respondents have answered 'Yes' without any further comment:

Individual - Cllr Abraham

1 respondent in total

The following respondent answered 'No' without any further comment:

Town and Parish Councils - Seaton, Watton, Twin Rivers, Snaith and Cowick, Anlaby, Carnaby, Paull, Seaton Ross, Langtoft, Mappleton, Foston, Bainton, Bugthorpe&Kirby Underdale, Sigglesthorne, Aldbrough, Sutton Upon Derwent, Newton Upon Derwent, North Frodingham, Barmston&Fraisthorpe, Middleton, Hayton&Burnby, South Cave, Stamford Bridge, North Ferriby, Melbourne (25)

Other Bodies - Hornsea Residents' Association, Bridlington & District Civic Society, Hornsea & District Chamber of Trade, Hornsea & District Civic Society (4)

Agents and Individuals - BP Ryan, Bovis Homes Ltd., GS Lenton, Stamford Homes Ltd., W Clifford Watts Ltd., H Hook, R Bryan, R Hall, Smiths Gore, JF&KM Glew, JG Hatcliffe&Partners, JM Fielden, DJ Lord, St Modwen Properties, R Barnes, J Kitchen, GJ Perry(City Developments), R Swailes, C Hill, JH Foreman, J Boat, MB Goodwin(Skipsea)Ltd, WC Watts Estate, Melrose Plc, John Potts Ltd (25)

54 respondents in total

Name/ID Type/ID Representation Mr Colin Hattee Support A well thought out consultancy document. 547 497 Christine A Brown Object As in all the new planning documents, a summary would be more digestible than the long and wordy 569 551 documents currently on the web. One A4 page of summary per section and one page of further detail would improve access for everyone. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Michael & Wendy O'Pray Observations As a whole it is not too bad. As above, people need to move about so they do not get stagnant and can 1105 582 develop to improve all round. Mr Henryk Peterson Observations The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) acknowledges that new development should be in serviced locations (Sport England) 585 as it helps general accessibility. Social facilities play a key role in a communities life style and quality of 539 life - factors that are fundamental to the future planning of this area, particularly as the base line data shows high indices of deprivation in parts of the district. The SA objectives of reducing health inequalities/ social exclusion and improving equality of opportunity requires good access to these type of facilities if communities are to be truly sustainable. Providing opportunities for the increased physical activity of communities is also an essential element in achieving improvement in public health. Mr J E Milner Object Not flexible enough. 1199 649 Miss K. E. Laister Observations All the criteria used seem appropriate. (Ferriby Conservation 714 As a society we would emphasise the importance of protecting and enhancing biodiversity and wildlife Society) habitats and the countryside and landscape quality. Also, the importance of reducing the growth of road 1019 traffic. Mr Cliff Wilson (Garton- Observations Smaller communities still have a distinctive role and should not be written off in terms of their lack of on-the-Wolds Parish 775 some facilities. It appears that they are almost a 'nuisance' and that County Councils are bending to Council) Government views that everyone should live in a large community or city. 1457 Ms H. Harvatt (Hollym Observations Villages suvh as Hollym will not have the opportunity to regenerate. This will cause house prices to Parish Council) 873 either plummet as local ammenities evaporate or escalate and families will no longer be able to afford to 833 live in the area, making the village a dying community with no youth to take over village activities etc. Mr Roger Jones (Humber Observations We already have a structure of dispersed settlements. Refusing all development in smaller settlements & Wolds Rural 946 will not make them go away! (or will it?). There will still be expensive services to provide unless a whole Community Council) village is vacated! Clustering of elderly v individual telecare? 4.1.4 See Demand Responsive Transport. 318 (Q24). 4.1.5p.14 Agree with Planning Impacts paragraph, but SSDPD does not permit this in rural villages (DS5). 4.1.8 p.16 Don’t see how variety and affordability equates with moving people to the towns, 4.1.9 Only 32% homes on PDL. Regional average 72%! 4.1.12/14 Flooding. ERYC are not Name/ID Type/ID Representation accepting Environment Agency advice on FRAs. Should more areas be excluded from development? 6.1.1 SSDPD objectives.a) There should be limlted development for local needs in all villages. b) OK c) The private car is vital in very rural areas. Flexible rural bus services can reduce the need, but alternative fuels development will reduce CO2 more effectively and still retain independence. d) OK 1 c. See c) above for access to health services. P42 2.a & b OK. c. rural car crime can be caused by lack of transport? However busy urban streets experience more car crime! (SBD conf Oct ’06) d. pleasant built environment character and SBD quality standards can reduce crime. 3.a Only if this is allowed to happen in < DS4 settlements. b. Ditto. p.43 4. Many DS4 settlements already have good public transport. We should be improving transport to DS5s as well. 5a. Planning need to back this policy. Some small settlements are being refused AH only when local needs have been proven. b) AH will only be viable if policies are revised and implementation supervised. c) What about parking standards on AH schemes? 1.5/d now shelved by PPS3? d) Quality of the built environment can be greatly enhanced by AH that is ‘sensitive and appropriate’ (see HRH publications) Also makes AH more acceptable to small parishes and can improve fringe character and first impressions for tourists. (See p47.17.d and p48. 19.d) p.44. 7c See previous comments on alternative fuels. 9a) PDL in DS5 should be earmarked for AH only or cross-subsidy on village farmsteads. c)More efficient use of land in DS4s will reduce nos of cars needed in DS5s. d)OK p.45 11a) Does not necessarily apply to all DS4 eg. Leconfield sewers overloaded. 12a) Has flood risk been taken into account at this stage? 13a) See comments on greener fuel – eg. Bio-diesel. p. 46 13d) Should be encouraged. 14a) What about coastal erosion? Skipsea, Aldbrough at risk settlements. 15c) See comments on greener fuels. 15d) Applies equally to new build in DS5s p.48 20a) & c) Will inhibit small / home working businesses in DS5 settlements. 21a) DS5 settlements will go into decline and become more unsustainable. p.51 7.1.1/3 Will be detrimental to social inclusion in DS5s. /5 These are factors resulting from MRHL policies, not dispersed pattern. p.54 14 Some of RSCs are in high risk coastal zones. p.58 table 8.2 Affordable Housing column has no ticks! Mr John Mackenzie Observations The Crown Estate notes that the Sustainability Appraisal / Strategic Environmental Assessment (Crown Estate) 980 (SA/SEA) report aims to help deliver the wider planning objective of securing sustainable development. 1467 This is broadly supported. However, it is considered that the proposed approach to identifying Market Villages, in particular the low rating of settlements that lie in close proximity to Development Strategy Settlements, runs contrary to wider sustainability objectives. Name/ID Type/ID Representation Section 4 of the SA/SEA Scoping Report identifies accessibility and high levels of car usage as key sustainability issues. Furthermore, it states that the implications of the issues for the LDF are that linkages should be exploited between new development and services, facilities and public transport. In this context, it is illogical to give Market Villages that lie in close proximity to Development Strategy Settlements, such as Patrington, a low ranking. Mr J Mackenzie (Dunlop Observations Persimmon Homes notes that the Sustainability Appraisal / Strategic Environmental Assessment Haywards (Persimmon 1002 (SA/SEA) report aims to help deliver the wider planning objective of securing sustainable development. Homes East Yorkshire)) This is broadly supported. However, it is considered that the proposed approach to identifying Market 1468 Villages, in particular the low rating of settlements that lie in close proximity to Development Strategy Settlements, runs contrary to wider sustainability objectives. Section 4 of the SA/SEA Scoping Report identifies accessibility and high levels of car usage as key sustainability issues. Furthermore, it states that the implications of the issues for the LDF are that linkages should be exploited between new development and services, facilities and public transport. In this context, it is illogical to give potential Market Villages that lie in close proximity to Development Strategy Settlements a low ranking. M O'Connell (Albanwise Observations The SA/SEA appears to be thorough, with intelligent and helpful appraisal of proposed options and Ltd) (Mr Michael 1019 suggested list of monitoring indicators. O'Connell - Entec UK Ltd) 1470/1436 Mr Martin Kerby (RSPB Observations The SA/SEA of the Preferred Options will need to undertake a rigorous analysis of the sustainability of Northern England 1068 each settlement brought forward as a Market Village, in particular with respect to impacts on Region) biodiversity and the sustainable use of natural resources. In particular, the potential impacts of each 970 selection on internationally, nationally and locally designated wildlife sites should be assessed, with careful reference to robust baseline information regarding the interest features and condition of these sites. Mr Martin Kerby (RSPB Observations We would like to draw the Council’s attention to the following: Northern England 1069 Appropriate assessment of development plans Region) A recent European Court of Justice decision that found against the UK Government on the Name/ID Type/ID Representation 970 transposition of the Habitats Directive has significant implications for the preparation of Local Development Frameworks. The judgement made it clear that under Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, land use plans must be subject to Appropriate Assessment if their policies or proposals are likely to have a significant effect on the Natura 2000 network i.e. Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). A key aim of an Appropriate Assessment, confirmed by European case law, is to avoid any adverse effect on a Natura 2000 site. Where the Appropriate Assessment cannot conclude that there will be no adverse effect on an SPA or SAC, the Inspector can only agree to the plan if: a. Satisfied there are no (less damaging) alternative solutions; and b. There are imperative reasons of overriding public interest (i.e. those that justify the damage); and c. All compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network is protected are secured. Given this legal context, and the potential impacts on a number of SPA and SACs identified in our response above, we strongly encourage the County Council to obtain a screening opinion from Natural England on whether the Smaller Settlements DPD will require an Appropriate Assessment. An Appropriate Assessment would need to consider the impacts of the DPD in the light of other plans and programmes potentially affecting these Natura 2000 sites, such as relevant existing projects, registered planning applications, and local plans/forthcoming Local Development Frameworks in the relevant local authorities. This would be to determine the potential for cumulative impacts, as required by the step-wise tests set out in Articles 6 (3) and 6 (4) of the Directive. Ian Smith (English Observations P6 Section 2.2 Heritage Yorkshire 1072 Since this document has been derived from the Scoping Report which the Council produced in March Region) 2006. It would be helpful to users of this Report to clarify this point within Section 2.2 (and to detail 515 what the Statutory Environmental bodies’ responses were to that earlier consultation). Ian Smith (English Observations P6 Section 2.2 Heritage Yorkshire 1073 In Section 2.2 it is stated that this Report only comprises Stages B and C of the SA/SEA process. Region) However, given that this document is accompanying the Preferred Option consultation, presumably it is 515 also undertaking Stage D1. Ian Smith (English Observations P3 Table 1.1 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Heritage Yorkshire 1074 Whilst we support the thrust of the final Objective, it would benefit from a number of changes to Region) address the following:-(a) The intention should be to minimise the ”adverse” impacts of development - 515 after all this is what the Sustainability Appraisal is seeking to achieve. There may be “positive” impacts which the DPD should be seeking to promote (such as environmental enhancement).(b) The potential adverse impacts are not simply limited to the character and appearance of the countryside. In view of the SA Objectives to protect and enhance heritage assets and their settings, and the protection and enhancement of the landscape (which must also include the built landscapes of the area) the Objective should also include mention of the protection of the character of the settlement itself.(c) The intention should be to reinforce the distinctive character of the settlement. It is suggested, therefore, that the final Objective be amended to read:- “To minimise the adverse impacts of development upon the character of the settlement and its landscape setting and to reinforce local distinctiveness, including where appropriate, the enhancement of the built and natural environment of the settlement” Ian Smith (English Observations P28 Section 4.1.17 Heritage Yorkshire 1075 Second and third Paragraphs Listed Buildings are graded I, II* and II. Within the Eat Riding there are Region) 103 Grade I buildings and 158 Grade II* Listed Buildings. 515 Ian Smith (English Observations P28 Section 4.1.17 Heritage Yorkshire 1076 Fourth Paragraph It would be more appropriate to state “…which are designated by the Council for Region) their architectural or historic interest”. 515 Ian Smith (English Observations P29 Section 4.1.17 Heritage Yorkshire 1077 Penultimate Paragraph The Schedule of Monuments represents only a selective example of nationally- Region) important archaeological sites in England. Many areas of national importance (such as large areas of the 515 Wolds) are not scheduled but, as PPG16 makes clear, there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation. There are, in fact, only 350 or so scheduled sites in the Plan area. Therefore, it would be better if this Paragraph was amended to read “ with 350 or so Scheduled Monuments. In addition, there are many other “unscheduled” archaeological remains (some of which his likely to be of national importance) The Humber Sites and Monuments record…”. Ian Smith (English Observations P29 Section 4.1.17 Name/ID Type/ID Representation Heritage Yorkshire 1078 Mention should also be made in this Section of the 7 Historic Parks and Gardens in the LDF area Region) (which includes the internationally-important Grade I Landscape at Sledmere) and the Registered 515 Battlefield at Stamford Bridge (one of only seven Battlefields on the Register in the Yorkshire Region). Ian Smith (English Observations P29 Section 4.1.17 Heritage Yorkshire 1079 Planning impacts As discussed above, it is considered that the final Objective of the SSDPD should be Region) amended to better reflect the need to safeguard the character and setting of the Market Villages. The 515 SSDPD should seek to ensure that settlements which might adversely affect the historic assets of the area (or their “settings” - in preference to “locations”) are not selected as a Market Village unless adequate safeguards are put in place (through the development control Policies of the Local Development Framework). Ian Smith (English Observations P49 Section 7 Heritage Yorkshire 1080 Paragraph 4.75 of the SSDPD Preferred Options details three Options for selecting Market Villages. Region) Given that the purpose of the Sustainability Appraisal is to appraise the likely significant effects of the 515 various Options being put forward put forward, one might have expected the merits of each of these to have been tested. Ian Smith (English Observations P49 Section 7 Heritage Yorkshire 1081 In terms of evaluating the effects of the DPD, it is not clear whether the Sustainability Appraisal Report Region) has, in fact, identified and evaluated the range of effects required under task B4 (as detailed in Paragraph 515 3.3.15 of the ODPM guidance “Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents”). Ian Smith (English Observations P57 Section 8 Heritage Yorkshire 1082 Whilst the consideration of environmental constraints would undoubtedly support the SA/SEA Region) Objectives, as we have made clear in our representations on the DPD itself, the actual assessment which 515 the Council has undertaken of what environmental constraints there might be to further growth within each of the settlements is extremely limited. The absence of any robust assessment of the potential environment constraints must seriously question whether or not the Council’s strategy will actually satisfy the SA/SEA Objectives relating to the environment. It may well be argued that this is something which can only be determined at a more detailed level. If that is the case, then the SA/SEA should be putting forward appropriate mitigation measures to help ensure that the environmental assets of the Name/ID Type/ID Representation area are appropriately protected. Ian Smith (English Observations Appendix 1 National plans/programmes – for completeness, this section should include reference to Heritage Yorkshire 1083 the Government statement The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future (DCMS 2001). Region) 515 Ian Smith (English Observations Appendix 1 The purpose of Stage A1 is to identify what elements of these plans and programmes are Heritage Yorkshire 1084 relevant to the production of the DPD. Whilst this Appendix might have identified the plans, it has Region) provided no information to indicate which aspects of the documents are of relevance to the production 515 of this particular DPD or how the DPD might need to take account of them. Ian Smith (English Observations Appendix 2 This Baseline data should, as a minimum, also include the number of designated historic Heritage Yorkshire 1085 assets in the DPD area - i.e.:-2389 Listed Buildings of which 103 are Grade I, 158 Grade II*, and 2128 Region) Grade II80 Conservation Areas 346 Scheduled Monuments7 Historic Parks and Gardens 1 Registered 515 Battlefield English Heritage can provide comparators with national figures and trends if required.From the two Indicators proposed for the historic environment, we have considerable reservations about whether they will actually be able to identify whether the Policies and proposals of this particular DPD are having any significant effect upon the historic environment. For example, using the English Heritage “Building at Risk Register” will only monitor the condition of the Grade I and II* Listed Buildings in East Yorkshire (about 10% of the total number of Listed Buildings in the East Riding). Leaving aside the fact that this is unlikely to be a particularly good proxy for the overall state of the remaining 2000 or so Listed Buildings in the area, this Indicator does not, for example, show whether a Listed Building has been demolished as a result of a proposal or that the character or setting of a Conservation Area or Scheduled Monument has been adversely affected.Therefore, we would suggest that the current Indicators are expanded to include an assessment along the following lines:-· The number of historic buildings, sites, areas (or their settings) affected by development proposals · Impact of change on the character or appearance of conservation areas· % residents content with character and appearance of local area Ian Smith (English Observations English Heritage strongly advises that the Council’s Conservation Section and the archaeological staff Heritage Yorkshire 1086 of the Humber Archaeology Partnership are closely involved throughout the preparation of the SA of Region) the plan. They are best placed to advise on; local historic environment issues and priorities, including Name/ID Type/ID Representation 515 access to data held in the HER (formerly SMR); how the policy or proposal can be tailored to minimise potential adverse impacts on the historic environment; the nature and design of any required mitigation measures; and opportunities for securing wider benefits for the future conservation and management of historic assets. Finally, we should like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by you with your letter dated 11 October, 2006. To avoid any doubt, this does not reflect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals which may subsequently arise (either as a result of this consultation or in later versions of the Plan) where we consider that, despite the SA/SEA, these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment. R J Kingdom (South Object This lengthy document appears to be mainly irrelevant and certainly is not lay person friendly. However Cave Active Residents) 1112 our comments such as they are follow; 1000 Table 7.1 Not sure if the consultants writing this understand the contents of the SSDPD. No correlation of reduction of crime/fear of crime to Market village no indication of more police presence. Ditto climate change. We would have though no development would be positive for river flooding as development concentrated in larger DS3 settlements? In fact this table is pretty poor all round. Table 8.1 Again confusing and includes potential to accommodate PDL and conversions which is not part of the SSDPD. Also appears to correlate some high level and some lower level criteria but not all. Again very poor Mrs D. Falcon (Lower Observations All new building and refurbishment / re-use of existing should in future incorporate sound ecological Derwent Valley 1173 design having regard for the local context and every consideration in order to promote sustainability Conservation Group) and help reduce the overall carbon footprint of the East Riding. 903 Laura Carr (The Gateway Observations The appraisal does not seem to assess the impact of the options on the urban renaissance of the core Pathfinder) 1314 city within the sub regional urban area, although it does consider the impact on supporting rural 943 renaissance. Annie Hadfield (East Observations The ERY RP has not yet considered the Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Riding of Yorkshire Rural 1351 Assessment that has been prepared alongside the LDF. This assesses the suitability of choices judged Name/ID Type/ID Representation Partnership) against social, economic and environmental factors. The ERY RP needs to ensure that this document 1488 has given enough weight to rural proofing. A consideration of this will be provided in due course. Ridley & Roberts Observations These weren't included. However, my concern of the sustainability matrix is it doesn't recognise the (Howden Town Council) 1433 need to sustain existing facilities within the defined settlements. 1497 Mrs M. Barker (Swanland Object We would like to see the principles set out in the Smaller Settlements Documents together with our Parish Council) 1607 suggestions applied to all planning applications received in the interim period up to the adoption of the 426 new Local Development Framework. We are particularly concerned about the effect of existing cumulative development acceptances and the weight given to the Sustainability Matrix which we consider is incorrect for Swanland in so far as travel to Employment and Retail and Leisure are concerned. Sue Walters Thompson Observations We commend the fact that the document is presented in a user friendly way, which is enhanced by the (Carter Jonas LLP) 1635 use of graphical information. However, we are concerned that the document is not sufficiently focussed 1509 on appraising the sustainability of the Smaller Settlements DPD. Instead it appears to concentrate on providing a more general overview of the characteristics of the District as a whole. The SA/SEA objectives contained in Table 7-1 Page 49 SSDPD POLICY OPTIONS AND THE APPRAISAL OF THEIR EFFECTS, against which the DPD is assessed, include very few issues that are specifically relevant to the Smaller Settlements. We also consider that 7.1.1 ‘The reasoning behind appraisal of the effects of the options’ needs to include fuller explanations in order to ensure that it is sufficiently robust to withstand scrutiny. Some of the information from the Options and the Appraisal of their Effects tables should have appeared in the main consultation document to make it clear what the Options were before the Preferred Option was chosen. We have also made a number of other comments within this representation concerning the SA and we would ask that these comments are taken into consideration too. Mr David Horsley Object We have not seen this document. (Beverley Town Council) 1749 1499