BISHOP MONKTON ACTION GROUP (BMAG)

REPRESENTATION OF OBJECTION

to

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

By

Berkeley DeVeer/Alfa Homes

Case No.: 20/05181/FULMAJ

Site: Land Comprising Field At 432447 466225 Moor Road Bishop Monkton North Yorkshire

Proposal: Residential development of 98 dwellings

including access, landscaping and public open space.

1st March 2021 BMAG – Representation March 2021

Introduction

The Bishop Monkton Action Group (BMAG) represents an ever-growing number of residents in our village who have already expressed their objections to Alfa Homes planning application. At the time of writing, these number over 200, and all are united in the fear of the bad effects the application will bring upon us and on our village in perpetuity - if granted. Our members and patrons include 140 members on our Facebook group, in addition to residents who have signed up through emails.

The fact that the site is allocated within the Local Plan does not signify sound planning policy was exercised, particularly in the light of the NYCC LLFA report regarding Drainage and of recent announcements by the Secretary of State, who clearly wants to see a change in the system of consultation and the abandonment of national housing targets.

Several sites around our village have been allocated for high-density development which pay no regard to the essence of Bishop Monkton and its centuries-old organic growth and architecture. Furthermore, we fear the implications for the dreadful flooding we already suffer in heavy rain, our over-stretched sewerage infrastructure and the inadequacy of our narrow lanes which were laid out for horses around field boundaries and not for the burden of heavy traffic. We suggest that anyone can see that even contemplating increasing the risk of flooding in this particular village would verge on the irresponsible and be gravely unfair to those already affected.

We are confident that our councillors will see that, in the light of mass public opinion already expressed and a more detailed understanding of the implications of a bad decision for a village in their locality, common sense should be allowed to prevail and a permission to grant this application where there is already an acknowledged oversupply above housing provision, should be refused.

We object to the application.

2 BMAG – Representation March 2021

Policies & References

Policy Publishing Authority Acronym

National Planning policy framework (February Ministry of Housing, Communities & NPPF 2019) Local Government

Site Specific requirements for BM2 and BM4 - Harrogate Borough Council HBCDM part of Harrogate District Local plan adopted in March 2020

Development Limits policies- part of Harrogate Harrogate Borough Council HBCDL District Local plan adopted in March 2020

Housing mix and Density - part of Harrogate Harrogate Borough Council HBCHD District Local plan adopted in March 2020

Bishop Monkton Conservation Character Harrogate Borough Council BMCCA Appraisal 2008

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2016 Harrogate Borough Council SFRA

Executive Summary of Policy Noncompliance

Policy Reasons Details NPPF (155) Inappropriate development in areas at risk Plan proposes surface water draining into Appendix A of flooding should be avoided by directing existing sewers confirmed to be operating development away from areas at highest risk (whether at full capacity by Yorkshire Water. existing or future). Where development is necessary in The SFRA section 5.6, table 5.4 references such areas, the development should be made safe for Bishop Monkton village (River flooding) as its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere one location where there have been NPPF (156) Strategic policies should be informed by a significant flooding incidents in the past. strategic flood risk assessment, and should manage The plan as submitted if approved will end flood risk from all sources. They should consider up adding Surface Water to that table. cumulative impacts in, or affecting, local areas susceptible to flooding, and take account of advice from the Environment Agency and other relevant flood risk management authorities, such as lead local flood authorities and internal drainage boards

3 BMAG – Representation March 2021

NPPF (170e) preventing new and existing development Additional foul water (25% more) from Appendix B from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk development entering existing sewerage from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable which at times of rains leads to sewage levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land surcharge increasing pollution for Bishop instability. Development should, wherever possible, Monkton Beck onto River Ure and North Sea help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans NPPF (108c) any significant impacts from the It is clear that the proximity of the site to Appendix C development on the transport network (in terms of dangerous crossroads along with the capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be narrow often flooded roads into the village cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree impacts the highway safety. NPPF (102a) the potential impacts of development on The entire ITP has been shown to be flawed Appendix D transport networks can be addressed analysis with irrelevant TRICS data, using NPPF (104a) Planning policies should support an MSOA area instead of LSOA to model traffic appropriate mix of uses across an area, and within flows. Many proposals such as encouraging larger scale sites, to minimise the number and length working from Home are impractical unless of journeys needed for employment, shopping, Alfa Homes adopts discriminatory policies leisure, education and other activities to sell homes only to individuals and families who are employed by organisations that allow working from home. NPPF 8 Achieving sustainable development means that The development increases water pollution Appendix E the planning system has three overarching objectives, by about 25% by introducing foul water which are interdependent and need to be pursued in which surcharges downstream. mutually supportive ways (so that opportunities can be The local needs are for sympathetic taken to secure net gains across each of the different developments that preserve the natural objectives)” and defines an environmental objective (c) landscapes and in line with character. stating “an environmental objective–to contribute to The development at 2.5 storey spoils the protecting and enhancing our natural, built and natural and historic environment historic environment; including making effective use landscapes. Views of Ripon Cathedral and of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural Hambleton Hills from Burton Leonard and resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, views of the village from walking paths are and mitigating and adapting to climate change, all lost forever. including moving to a low carbon economy The high-density development with a NPPF 77 In rural areas, planning policies and decisions suburban metropolitan design at 2/2.5 should be responsive to local circumstances and storey located at the edge of the village support housing developments that reflect local needs. close to the accident blackspot will destroy the vitality of the rural communities NPPF 78 To promote sustainable development in rural through loss of views, loss of landscaping areas, housing should be located where it will and loss of biodiversity. enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities HBCDM The design and layout of development should The existing village settlement across the Appendix F integrate the new housing across the site with the site is 65% bungalows. Alfa Home’s plan existing village proposals for 2/2.5 storey on an elevated HBCDL The proposal is of a scale and nature that is in plot are overbearing, out of character and keeping with the core shape and form of the do not integrate.

4 BMAG – Representation March 2021

settlement and will not significantly harm its With no front gardens to 65% dwellings and character, appearance, and setting no side/border shrubs for 85% dwellings in NPPF 122(d) the desirability of maintaining an area’s the Alfa Home’s plan, this is a metropolitan prevailing character and setting (including residential suburban design that is out of character gardens), or of promoting regeneration and change with existing village BMCCA New buildings will only be permitted where With a 25% increase of homes at twice the they respect, rather than compete with the historic average density of the neighbouring parts of skyline, respect landform and landscape pattern and the village this will significantly harm the are accompanied by a comprehensive landscape existing village character, appearance and scheme that is integral to the design. setting HBCDM: The design and layout of development should integrate the new housing across the site with the existing village

Planning Context of the Harrogate District Local plan We would like to highlight the historical planning context of the HBC District plan for Bishop Monkton Village.

The Past

The original 2016/2017 Local Plan draft consultative proposal was to build 82 new houses in Bishop Monkton three sites: BM2(40), BM4(16), and BM3(26). In 2017 at the additional sites consultation stage, this was increased to 112; achieved by extending the BM4 area along with density increases.

The final breakdown was: BM2 + BM4 - 94, and BM3 - 32, a total of 126 houses.

At the 2019 Local Plan Enquiry, Harrogate Borough Council admitted to the inspector that the estimated number of houses for the District for the period 2019-2035 had been overstated.

It agreed with the Inspector to reduce the number of houses by 2096 units, which was a 30% reduction in the District estimates.

Why therefore, has the District oversupply of house units, as agreed with the Inspector in 2019, not been applied to and adjusted for Bishop Monkton by the Harrogate Planning Department?

There is already an oversupply of houses planned for the Harrogate District as agreed with the inspector in 2019.

The Present

We recognise that at the stage when sites were allocated in the District Plan, preliminary evaluations were undertaken for each of the site allocations with additional evaluations and detailed analysis planned at the later stage during submission of an application to develop the sites. We understand the detailed Technical analysis required at submission were identified in HBCDM, site specific requirements for BM2 & BM4.

We would like to draw your attention to SFRA appendix B with the list of all sites assessed for allocation in District plan. Appendix B states:

5 BMAG – Representation March 2021

1. BM2 – Could be submitted subject to FRA 2. BM4 – Should be allocated on flood risk grounds The development plan submitted for BM2 & BM4 should hence be evaluated on the basis of recommendation E of SFRA which states ‘Further investigation may be required by the developer and an FRA is required to assess further or new information that may not have been included within this SFRA.’

In that context, the planning application that is now submitted appears to identify new information that increases flooding risks for Bishop Monkton village with the lack of appropriate draining mechanism for Surface Water from the sites BM2 and BM4.

So, in the present we primarily have to consider the ‘changed circumstances’:

1. Oversupply of homes in District plan 2. New information that has come to light with Flood Risk Assessment of the planning application 3. Major problems with noncompliance of planning policies with the submitted planning application

In these ‘changed circumstances’ we question if this site development submitted by Alfa is required at all.

The Future

What are the future ‘changed circumstances’?

We reference the Secretary of State Robert Jenrick’s announcement on January 30th of the major changes to be made to the 1947 Planning Act to strengthen National Planning Guidance. This will empower Local Authorities, with local communities, to set up a ‘Local Design Code’ and to have increased local responsibility for making planning decisions.

The new government priority is to integrate new developments into the character of existing settlements using a ‘local planning code’ created by local people.

It is designed to stop developers, such as Alfa Homes, forcing ‘identity kit’ housing estates on local people using housing targets as the only consideration, as is the case here in Bishop Monkton at the moment.

To date, this has been the situation the village has experienced with this planning proposal; Alfa Homes have avoided contact with the Parish Council and local people. The Parish Council have referenced this in their objections commenting that between December 2019 and August 2020 no contact or outline site plan was received from Alfa Homes until the scheme was released for public consultation. The objections and comments made by the Parish Council since, appear to have been ignored.

Whilst this application has been made under existing planning rules, in our view it breaches Planning Guidance NPPF128. The approach of the developer towards the local community has been unacceptable. Over 215 objections have been submitted and none in support.

During the transition period now started since the Secretary of State’s announcement, we understand Local Authorities have been tasked with drawing up a ‘Local Design Code’ for planning purposes, incorporating the views of local people. We note this has to be completed by March 27th at which time this application will still be ongoing.

6 BMAG – Representation March 2021

As such it is unreasonable in our view for a rigid application of a soon-to-be defunct planning policy, based on housing numbers only to be applied to this application. The new ‘Local Design Code’ now under consultation by Local Authorities, under government direction, must have impact on these major planning decisions for the future of Bishop Monkton.

Robert Jenrick said, ‘we should aspire to pass on our unique built environment not depleted but enhanced’. The heritage of Bishop Monkton is at serious risk for future generations now and it must not be allowed to happen just as new legislation to protect it is being introduced by the Government.

This Planning application must be REFUSED. Conclusion

We believe that this application has arisen from a poorly handled draft local plan consultative process over the past few years and this has culminated in the present application by Alfa Homes, who appear to have little interest in having regard to the character of the existing settlement, or the probable consequences for the community of what they propose.

They have put forward an urban ‘identikit’ and visually offensive high-density estate which makes no effort whatsoever to blend with the existing architecture of this ancient village, and which will be dominated by too many cars parked on hard standing forecourts. No thought has been given to how people will access their jobs in terms of transport opportunities, road safety for both cars, cyclists or pedestrians, and the impact on the environment.

Worst of all, the proposed housing estate will generate massive surface run-off into a village on lower ground, which has a long-documented history of severe flooding and a sewerage system which has been cobbled together over two centuries, and is acknowledged to be unfit for purpose and already over-capacity.

It is difficult to understand how this site was considered suitable for the new Local Development Plan, given the detailed analysis which should have been applied at the consultation stages, when the existing infrastructural shortcomings of Bishop Monkton are so clearly understood and documented by Harrogate Borough Council and the relevant Statutory Authorities.

The design and density of this proposed development, coupled with the major issues of inadequate infrastructure, road safety and drainage, indicate that Bishop Monkton and its residents will forever suffer the consequences unless permission for this application is rejected.

This Planning application must be REFUSED.

On behalf of members of BMAG

Kenneth Barker, Jonathan Beer, Harvey Bigg, Martin Minett, Raj Selvarajan & Bob Upton

7 BMAG – Representation March 2021

Appendix A - Drainage and Flooding

There is very strong evidence of an increased occurrence of the Beck overflowing and causing flooding on Boroughbridge Road, Main Street and St. John's Road, correlated with an increase in the number of properties within the village. In 1961 there were c. 220 properties and in 2021 there were c. 390 properties: an increase of c.75%.

● Between 1961 and 1980 there was 1 day when road(s) were flooded. ● Between 1981 and 2000 there were 3 days when road(s) were flooded. ● Between 2001 and 2020 there were 13 days when road(s) were flooded.

Despite the Environment Agency and NYCC spending over £200k in 2011 on upgrading the flow system of the Beck, in an attempt to reduce the risk of flooding, there were still 9 days when the Beck overflowed and road(s) were flooded between the installation and 2020.

The Beck overflowing has resulted in properties being flooded with very serious damage and traffic disruption.

‘We have had our property flooded’ (doc ref 9994544)

‘Sandbags in front of houses is a bleak sight on any rainy day’ (doc ref 9995253)

8 BMAG – Representation March 2021

The Alfa Homes planning application indicates an increase in the village housing of 25% on sites at a higher elevation than 95% of existing properties within the village. Hence, the Beck overflowing and causing an increase in the number of days of flooding, is inevitable with the given proposals for drainage.

‘The Lead Local Flood Authority has concluded that the local public sewer network does not have the capacity to accept any further surface water from the proposed site’ (doc ref 9999425)

‘The drainage system along Knaresborough Road cannot take the surface water in periods of heavy rain, resulting in flooding on Meadowcroft Drive’ (doc ref 9989277)

‘We regularly see water and sewage flowing up from manhole covers as the existing drainage cannot cope with the current demands on it’ (doc ref 1000136)

In conclusion, since the current drainage system is unable to cope, all excess water ends up in the Beck, resulting in regular incidents of flooding. The development will be in direct contravention of Policy NPPF 155 and NPPF 156.

More new buildings will result in more flooding. This should not be permitted.

9 BMAG – Representation March 2021

Appendix B - Sewerage

Our village has long suffered from an overloaded sewerage system. It has evolved over two centuries and has never been modernised to meet the demands of new housing. Bits have just been added on….. and on. Yorkshire Water acknowledge this and are frequently seen trying to unblock drains and resolve backed-up toilets and related issues. Residents, justifiably, are totally fed up because essential upgrades are never forthcoming. Our sewerage system is in urgent need of analysis and modernisation by YW and the Environment Agency before any planning application is considered.

And now it is proposed that our over-capacity system accommodates the additional burden of a new housing estate. This will be in direct contravention of Policy NPPF(170e). This will not work!

A disgusting sight, this one outside the Primary School gates – where the effluent immediately runs into the Beck which can be seen a few feet away. This is totally unacceptable in the 21st Century. To fail to remedy it is bad enough, but to add to the problem would be an act of immense stupidity.

Peter Smith of Albion House, Boroughbridge Road (5/Feb/2021 HBC website) writes:

‘Foul water/sewage capacity is also over-capacity leading to frequent blockages and substantial sewage leakage into the stream. The part of the system running through our property is on a regular jetting programme by Yorkshire Water but despite this, is regularly overwhelmed. The system would require substantial upgrade ahead of any significant development.’

Peter sent this photo of the inspection cover in his garden to Kate Broadbank, Case Officer at HBC, saying ‘the current sewerage system in our garden as we know and love it’. What a disgrace. Why should families tolerate this? And yes, that is our village Beck…..

10 BMAG – Representation March 2021

Chris Procter of Sarnia, Mains Street (29/Jan/2021 HBC website) writes:

‘……..in times of extreme rainfall ……… the drain covers in St. John’s Road spout up with water which then pours into the road and thence into the beck with presumably seriously polluted water.’

Ken and Jennifer Barker of Hall Farm Boroughbridge Road (Bishop Monkton Today) write:

‘Effluent comes out of manholes on St John's Road and Boroughbridge Road (near the ford) during prolonged and/or heavy rainfall. Hence the existing system cannot function properly now at critical times.’

Margaret Lodge of Beckside Cottage, Main St (HBC website) writes:

‘The present sewerage system is inadequate, after heavy rain drains cannot cope with the extra volume …. and sewerage can be seen on roads in the village.’

Leslie and John Taylor of Briardene, Hungate (5/Feb/2021 HBC website) write:

‘We understand that Yorkshire Water have stated that the sewerage system in Bishop Monkton is at full capacity and we have seen sewerage coming out of manholes in the centre of the village.’

Kathryn Binns of 10 Melrose Road (8/Feb/2021 HBC website) writes:

‘WHO IN THE 21ST CENTURY WOULD BELIEVE THAT A VILLAGE IN ENGLAND WOULD HAVE RAW SEWERAGE IN ITS STREETS’ (capitals are hers)

Peter Garside of Roselea, Hungate (2/Feb/2021 HBC website) writes:

‘Sewerage - I note Yorkshire Water has confirmed that the current sewerage system is already at full capacity. I am aware that effluent comes out of manholes in St Johns Road, Main Street and on Boroughbridge Road during prolonged and/or heavy rainfall which shows that the existing system does not function properly at critical times.’

At the time of writing, over 215 letters of objection have been submitted by residents to HBC website, raising their fears about this application, and of these over 140 specifically reference the defective sewerage system in addition to their other comments. The extracts above from a small selection give evidence to this.

This application should be REFUSED

11 BMAG – Representation March 2021

Appendix C - Infrastructure - Accidents, Danger and Narrow Winding Country Lanes

Bishop Monkton, a picturesque, rural country village with about 390 houses and around 850 residents, is far too often in the news because of the variety of ‘incidents’, mainly serious and damaging. For example, in recent years we have had over 25 road accidents with some being life changing, all caused by vehicles and inadequate roads and junctions. The number of unrecorded ‘near misses’ must be huge. HBC and North Yorkshire Traffic and Police and Fire (plus the Yorkshire Air Ambulance) must be fully aware of the very considerable dangers at the notorious X-roads in the village, since they often have to attend. Traffic levels, vehicle sizes and speeds are already increasing, making this junction more hazardous as well as at the junction onto the A61 for Harrogate.

Our country lanes also form part of the National Cycle Route but the width and state of them do not endear one to get on a bike. We are let down by planned safety improvements which do not happen or, if they do, are several years too late. We are often cut off in some directions because of flooding - the Boroughbridge road, for example, closed on at least 4 occasions (6 days) in the last 12 months with drivers having to be rescued by the Fire Services. All of our ‘roads’ are country lanes, C classified, narrow and winding, with long stretches of single track. Where wider, they are just as dangerous, since involving anything wider than a normal car usually cannot pass without mounting the verge. Consequently, increased hazards due to mud (regardless of the many tractors and large loads), the road edges become destroyed, huge pot holes and puddles appear (no drainage) which drivers, sensibly, try to avoid but their manoeuvers place themselves and oncoming vehicle at risk. Most have no central white line. An unsatisfactory situation at present – and that is without the prospect of a badly thought out additional 94 homes and nearly 200 vehicles.

At least 220 of the 240 or more villagers, who have registered with HBC their objections to this planning application, have highlighted road safety as at least one of their concerns.

Accidents:

At least a dozen in recent years at the Knaresborough Road / Moor Road /Hungate X-roads, some resulting in life changing injuries.

3rd July 2014: Police from North Yorkshire attended. The accident at 6pm, serious with 1 casualty involving 2 vehicles. The weather fine, road dry, daylight and the speed limit was 30 mph. POLICE are searching for a crucial witness to a crash that left a 15 year old girl with life changing injuries. She was knocked off her bike at Bishop Monkton crossroads while commuting from a shift at her summer job at Cascade Garden Centre to her home in Burton Leonard. The accident severed her spine, leaving her paralysed from the chest down. Her initial rehabilitation was undertaken in a specialist spinal unit at Pinderfields Hospital, Wakefield

and she returned home just before Christmas.

12 BMAG – Representation March 2021

Police Report - Vehicle Driver Manouvre

Ref Type Gender Age Band Manouvre Location 1st Impact 1 Pedal cycle Female 11 - 15 Turning right On main cway - not in restricted lane Offside 2 Car Male 46 - 55 Going ahead other On main cway - not in restricted lane Front Vehicle Ref Casualty Ref Gender Age Severity Class Type 1 1 Female 11 - 15 Serious Driver or rider Cyclist

Other accidents at these dangerous crossroads (with extracts from published reports) –

21/09/2020 It happened today at the crossroads of Moor Road/Hungate & Knaresborough Road just before 14:00. A local resident had driven down Moor Road and was turning right onto Knaresborough Road and was in collision with a van coming from Ripon. Lack of visibility towards Ripon was the main problem.

12/04/2019 Pictures were taken after the crash but shows the residue on the road and traffic appearing from neighbouring drives as well as to/from the slope down the Knaresborough Road from Ripon. Visibility from Moor Road, left towards Ripon, is ‘negligible’, made worse by the recently extended white garage.

On the roads (lanes) servicing the village there have also been at least a dozen accidents in the last few years

The C3777 from Ripon where at least six have been reported, including - 07/11/2019 Knaresborough Road (C3777), Ripon side NORTH YORKSHIRE FIRE & RESCUE Incident summary - Nightshift RTC – Knaresborough Road, Bishop Monkton - Time of call: 17:40 hours Ripon appliances responded to a 2 car RTC. No persons trapped, though x3 elderly females in one of the cars given first aid by fire crews, then taken to hospital by ambulance as precaution only.

The C3777 from Burton Leonard (Knaresborough) with at least four including – 03/02/2017 Serious 2 vehicles 1 casualty Car and cyclist 15/07/2014 Slight 2 vehicles 1 casualty Cyclist and car Extra worrying as the National Cycle Route 688 comes through the village

The C263 to Roecliffe and Boroughbridge, twisty and narrow and floods, often to over 6ft – At least 3 incidents though fortunately no collisions were serious though several times drivers get stuck in the floods have to be rescued, rarely recorded, occasionally photographed.

13 BMAG – Representation March 2021

The C263 Moor Road up to the A61 with only a couple or so recorded accidents – The widest of our 4 lanes but certainly not without dangers, at both ends (A61 junction and village X-roads), the hump back bridge over the old railway line is a blind summit where about 6 years ago a car leaving the village (on the wrong side of the road) collided head on with the milkman’s vehicle on his daily trip delivering to the village. The injuries sustained were nasty. The road surface also has some dangerous drop edges which have to be used for passing if the vehicles are wide - not good for the driver or the vehicle.

Can you see what’s coming towards you from the other side of the bridge? It’s also pretty narrow on the bridge, 2 normal cars can pass, just, but anything wider then ‘look out’ and ‘keep your fingers crossed’

Moor Road is our main route into Harrogate

Moor Road C263 / A61 Junction At least 6 accidents in recent times at and by this junction. The village uses it for Harrogate (left), Markington and the Dales (across) and Ripon (right). Visibility, particularly of traffic coming from Harrogate is not good, the refuge areas are inadequate and traffic on the A61 will be travelling fast (much of it above 60mph). There are no slip lanes on/off. The extra 200 or so cars from the proposed development will increase the problems here, with resulting accidents, possibly even deaths.

Also in the Village

The roads are narrow and winding, with the Beck running alongside, particularly on the Boroughbridge Road. Some rows of roadside terrace cottages result in road edge vehicle parking, thus increasing the danger.

14 BMAG – Representation March 2021

What should be remembered is that Moor Road and the Knaresborough Road towards Ripon form part of the re-routing of the A61 when it gets closed towards Ripon, as sometimes is the case, particularly at ‘daffodil bends’.

Clearly, if there is an increase in the number of vehicles, which there would be of around 200, about a 25% rise, plus all of the associated traffic associated with the extra homes, then without some major improvements to the infrastructure, there will be many more accidents. This will be in direct contravention of Policy NPPF(108c).

Danger:

At present danger presents itself in a number of locations. The X-roads area, mainly because of visibility and speed, the Moor Road / A61 junction again with limited visibility, very high speeds and no slip lanes, the Boroughbridge Road because of regular very deep flooding, all of our lanes due to their narrowness, bends, verges, potholes and huge puddles together with the ‘blind summit’ bridge along the straight on Moor Road.

X-roads area:

This has become considerably more dangerous over the last 25 years or so. In that time there has been a big increase in traffic volumes, some of which stems from additional housing together with the general increases in rural transport. It’s made additionally dangerous by increasing speeds, despite the village installing Vehicle Activated Signs (VAS) some 10 years ago. However, a major factor, regarding the rise in danger levels here, comes from the negligence shown towards the problem by Harrogate Planning and North Yorkshire Highways. The original requirement for approval of the 2002 planning application, on the eventual ‘Kebbell’ site on Knaresborough Road (Ripon side), was that, on safety grounds, there should be no drive access directly onto the ‘main’ carriageway, with the required feeder road, at the safest location, providing access to the houses. In 2012, the Kebbell planning application adhered to this but with various resubmissions between 2013 and 2015, two drives servicing 5 houses appeared (directly on to Knaresborough Road) and despite objections, this was approved. What in 13 years made it less dangerous? The opposite has been the case. More recently, plans were submitted for extensive work on the Crossways bungalow (directly on the X-roads) and these were approved, despite the work planned on the protruding garage being obvious to all in the village that it would curtail vision when arriving at the junction on Moor Road and looking left towards Ripon.

Just two examples of how planning agreement has resulted in additional danger. We do not see the very minor widening and re-alignment being proposed by Alfa Homes as anywhere near an adequate safety solution. Additionally, the road calming requirement placed on Kebbell as part of their 2015 application approval (whatever they might have been) has still not been implemented, some 5 years later and with the last of the 18 homes ‘sold’ more than 12 months ago. That is just daft – safety measures like these must be in place at the start of a development and before any occupation, surely that’s obvious.

15 BMAG – Representation March 2021

X-roads just after an accident (sand on the road) with traffic around and the ‘new’ white garage, restricting the view

Looking up Hungate and straight across the X-roads, up the start of Moor Road

Moor Road / A61 Junction:

Traffic flows very fast along the A61 straight with undulations towards Harrogate masking some of the traffic. Road markings, in the last 15 or so years, have outlined a refuge for traffic turning off the A61 it offers no real protection to turning traffic from direct oncoming or rear arriving vehicles. There are no slip lanes for Bishop Monkton traffic, coming on or off the A61 and similarly for Markington traffic. This results in less traffic that is joining/crossing the A61 being able to so swiftly once a gap appears – that would be increasingly important with at least 25% extra traffic, particularly at 9am and 5pm. Similarly, joining or leaving fast moving traffic is far safer if slip lanes are available. Alfa Homes make no reference to this junction. North Yorkshire Police in their 2017 ‘Make Roads Safer’ survey report, observed “over a violation on every visit to this junction”.

Lanes – Flooding and in Poor Repair:

All lanes in and out of the village, with perhaps the slight exception of Moor Road, have flooding and flood damage failings. All the lanes have large dangerous potholes on a regular basis and damaged edges and verges – bad enough for cars let alone cyclists. Because there is no drainage, these lanes very frequently have large puddles, some across the road and sometimes closing the road. These often linger well past the rainfall.

Boroughbridge Road is closed several times a year – it’s a long detour and several drivers have been trapped, requiring the rescue services.

16 BMAG – Representation March 2021

Large puddles/lakes often last for weeks and result in vehicles driving through them (with consequential danger say due to possible hidden potholes) or avoid them by moving across the road and into the path of any oncoming traffic.

Ripon Road, a mile out – an example

This bend, looking towards the village, is frequently flooded. Particularly so wintertime when it lingers, with a huge puddle from water draining off the field. No road drain for a mile or more. Travelling from the village, because of the bend, there is little or no warning,

It’s clear to all villagers, that our infrastructure, in terms of the standards and safety of our roads, which are all Class C, so effectively (and in reality) just country lanes, is inadequate at present. Numerous times and through numerous correspondences and representations, we have been pressing for improvements, mainly to reduce the dangers at the most vulnerable points.

In the last 50 years there have been no obvious improvements to this infrastructure but in that time consider the changes in traffic – cars ownership in rural areas (in 2008 it was 1.6 per household -Bishop Monkton Parish Plan, above even local levels). It’s certainly higher now and way above 1970 levels. In that time our housing stock will be about 50% higher so together leading to probably a doubling in traffic levels. Journeys are also more frequent – take deliveries for example as well as the consequences of the demise of village shops. Farm vehicles travel further and have doubled in size with resulting danger in and damage to our lanes and verges, let alone the increased mud. Car and vehicle sizes, particularly in widths, have also increased noticeably, which together with all of the other increases, now make our lanes far more dangerous than they used to be. The higher the level of traffic then the higher the level of danger – unless there are very major infrastructure improvements but, importantly, without losing the character and charm of the locality.

We have highlighted here some of the recorded accidents (and the damage done) but there will have been numerous unrecorded over the last few years plus an incredible number of ‘near misses’. Next time one might not be so lucky and by agreeing to this number of extra houses and the resulting increase in the number of cars and all of the associated traffic, commensurate with this proposed development, you

17 BMAG – Representation March 2021 would be party to placing us at far greater risk to body and property. This would be in direct contravention of Policy NPPF(108c).

Narrow Winding Country Lanes – C263 and C3777:

Knaresborough Road (from Burton Leonard)

Stretches of single track and blind bends.

Approaching the drop into the village – Church and BM3/BM6 either side!

Ripon Road (to and from Ripon)

Narrow, passing difficult, much surface damage and flooding, often closed. Approaching X- roads, visibility poor of traffic from Moor Rd. (pre Harvest View)

Moor Road (from the A61)

Hump back bridge over old railway –a blind summit.

Approaching X- roads, poor vision, BM2 on the right

18 BMAG – Representation March 2021

Boroughbridge Road (from Roecliffe)

Much winding single track from Roecliffe and narrow bridge, regularly floods 6ft plus, particularly along the straight stretch and beyond. .

Part of the National Cycle (Route 688) – for those who dare!

Let’s keep it as safe as possible for all villagers, visitors and road users, including the cyclists – even though that already requires improvements to our infrastructure. Let’s not make it worse and so retain the characteristics of our attractive, peaceful North Yorkshire village, one of the assets of the District. Let’s look after our prize.

Looking at matters objectively, the dangers at our crossroads have not been addressed, even before this application. Our country lanes have not been improved in over 50 years – remember the increased level of traffic, size of vehicles plus delivery and farm traffic in that time. We cannot take anymore without increased danger and inconvenience to our current residents and visitors.

This application should be refused

19 BMAG – Representation March 2021

Appendix D - Public Transport.

The Interim Travel Plan (ITP) suggests ‘the site is situated within an acceptable distance of bus services.’ However, it doesn’t mention the inadequate nature of the village bus service, which only provides slow and infrequent journeys to Ripon or Knaresborough. There is no direct connection to Harrogate. To catch the 36 bus between Harrogate/Ripon requires villagers to walk 2 km up Moor Road to the A61 junction, which the ITP includes as within the 2km Pedestrian Catchment Plan. In fact, this is a dangerous walk, as Moor Road is fast, thin and unlit, with no footpaths, and is obscured by bends and the hump bridge over the old railway line. If the A61/Moor Road junction is to be included within a Travel Plan, this plan must include the building of footpaths for the full 2 km from the Knaresborough Road/Moor Road/Hungate (henceforth KR/MR/HN) junction to the bus stop on the A61. Finally, the ITP lists Morrisons supermarket being accessible by bus, despite the village bus route not passing anywhere close to Morrisons.

Traffic.

Considering the lack of public transport, and the limited places at the local village school, each household is likely to require 2 cars to enable families to commute to work and schools – approximately 200 extra vehicles, all being channelled through a single access point and a known and evidenced dangerous junction. The development will therefore make this section of road significantly busier and more dangerous.

Alfa Homes have attempted to gloss over the impact of this increase within the Interim Travel Plan. However, their traffic data is taken from ‘edge of town locations’ within the suburbs of the cities of Aberdeen, Lincoln, Cardiff and Ipswich, with the data mostly collected in 2007. No consideration is given to these areas’ access to extensive facilities within walking distance that might mitigate the requirement for car journeys, or to the comparative access to public transport. The fact that our primary school is at full capacity already, means that additional local children would be obliged to travel to Ripon or Harrogate for their education.

This data is then cross-referenced against Harrogate MSOA 007 Annual Travel to Work data to establish how many people will use their cars to commute. The MSOA 007 geographic area includes the edges of Knaresborough and stretches of the A61 which are well-served by the 36 bus. Its conclusion that 6% of Bishop Monkton residents will walk to their place of work, and 7% will use public transport, is therefore based on broad area data rather than a study of the village. Considering the distances involved, and the poor provision of public transport, these figures are not likely to be realistic.

False Affordability.

There is an enormous difference between a cheap house, and an affordable home. The effectiveness of building affordable housing in areas where reduced infrastructure support makes the cost of living more expensive is highly questionable. The limited school places and ineffective public transport in the village, undermines the developer’s aim of providing ‘40% genuinely affordable homes’ – they will not be affordable if living there requires a family to own 2 cars, drive 24km a day to Ripon and back to get their children to

20 BMAG – Representation March 2021 school, and commute outside the village for employment. Affordable housing in areas with inadequate infrastructure and transport is simply not ‘affordable’.

Conclusion.

Were this development to be allowed to go ahead, the Knaresborough Road which passes through the village will become even busier. It is already a busy commuter route for journeys from Harrogate and Knaresborough leading to Ripon, Thirsk and Teesside, and the rapid development of new estates in Ripon and Knaresborough will only exacerbate the problem. The prospect of an additional 150 - 200 cars from the proposed development would only make the situation far more dangerous.

No traffic calming measures for the full length of Knaresborough Road within the village have been put in place despite being promised following the building by Kebbell Homes at Harvest View.

Residents have highlighted the ineffective bus service. The vast majority of people do not use this service. It is not unusual to see buses passing through the village empty or with only one or two passengers.

Most couples of working age have two cars. It is just not possible to live their lives without them for reasons explained above.

The assertions of the Interim Travel Plan have been exposed as a myth as they are not relevant to the situation in this village.

The distinction between affordable and cheap homes has been eloquently expressed on more than one occasion.

This development application should be refused.

21 BMAG – Representation March 2021

Appendix E - Landscape sensitivity

Landscape sensitivity is important to the surrounding area of Bishop Monkton. The proposed development seriously impacts the Northern Views across the Vale from Mill Lane, Burton Leonard towards Ripon Cathedral and the Hambleton Hills. It is a magnificent vista of the Greenbelt which will be destroyed by the roofscape of the houses of this development.

22 BMAG – Representation March 2021

Another view below over the proposed site. Once again, the primary concern is the roofscape here. At 2 and 2.5 storey, these views would be permanently lost for the enjoyment of residents and tourists, who come to the village for the unspoilt landscape.

Appendix B clearly illustrates the issues of Sewerage in our village. By adding 98 homes using existing sewers, this will lead to a 25% increase in water pollution to the Beck. The polluted water then reaches the River Ure and the North Sea. We do not know if any rivers downstream are used for drinking water abstraction, in which case this could cause a Public Health Hazard.

The increase in car usage with this new development will impact the air quality and increase air pollution for the village.

The development is in direct contravention of NPPF8 and fails on one of the core objectives of sustainable development. A high-density development with a suburban metropolitan design at 2/2.5 storey located at the edge of the village close to an accident blackspot, would destroy the vitality of the rural communities and contravene NPPF77 and NPPF78

This development application should be refused.

23 BMAG – Representation March 2021

Appendix F Village Character

Alfa Homes have submitted the Design and Access Statement laying out the detailed analysis of policy context, immediate and wider context, sustainability etc. to support key decisions and principles to formulate the development plan. The table below summarizes the flawed analysis which forms the basis of the overall design itself and the essence of our objections. This is by no means an exhaustive list. Where possible we have provided a planning context for the grounds of objection.

Figure A – Approximate Alfa site Figure B – Neighbouring Area east from Knaresborough Road

24 BMAG – Representation March 2021

No Alfa Homes Alfa Homes plan statements or Missing details/pictures/comments Reasons for objections Submission pictures reference 1 Section 3.4 – Alfa Homes have submitted pictures of some HBCDM: The design and layout of development Immediate of the 2 storeys, some of the semidetached should integrate the new housing across the site Context and one example of single storey house in with the existing village. immediate context. The picture looking South BMCCA: New buildings will only be permitted from Alfa’s site boundary on Knaresborough where they respect, rather than compete with Road and another looking East opposite the historic skyline, respect landform and attached to give the full perspective. It is all landscape pattern and are accompanied by a single storey. comprehensive landscape scheme that is integral Also, please note how driveways are branching to the design. from Knaresborough Road to individual HBCDL: The proposal is of a scale and nature that homes. Alfa Home’s proposals for one road is in keeping with the core shape and form of the into site and the driveways for 5 homes settlement and will not significantly harm its branching off. It is the same with homes on character, appearance, and setting. Moor Road. Worse still, a number of homes in Alfa’s plan have their gardens backing onto Figure A – Alfa plan – 39 2.5 storey & 59 2 Storey Moor Road. The linear character of the village homes is spoiled by this development. Inexcusable to Figure B – Existing neighbouring area – 30 2/2.5 design a plan for a massive development of storey homes & 55 1/1.5 storey. So, 35% of 2/2.5 this size. storey homes.

The primary elevation of homes on Moor Road should match with homes across North on Moor Road. They must have driveways from Moor Road into plots. Similarly, for homes on Knaresborough Road, driveways for individual homes must flow from Knaresborough Road. The current design

25 BMAG – Representation March 2021

does not integrate with neighbouring homes. Additionally, this also benefits by creating a traditional village street with options to place benches on the side of roads and will also prompt drivers to drive slowly

The plan does not meet all the 3 policies stated above. To blend with neighbouring areas of village, the plan should have no more than 30% of 2/2.5 storey homes. At an elevated level compared to neighbouring areas this is overbearing and will significantly harm the appearance.

26 BMAG – Representation March 2021

2 Section 3.5 – The picture of Lindley Close being used as an NPPF policy 122(d) ‘the desirability of Key Frontages example of the character of the village in Alfa maintaining an area’s prevailing character and submission, is an insult to Harrogate Borough setting (including residential gardens), or of Council’s Bishop Monkton Conservation promoting regeneration and change’ Character appraisal. Lindley Close comes for criticism in the character appraisal. It is a bad Alfa Homes’ Plan – No front gardens for 64 of the example to draw inspiration from. The worst 98 homes and no side border or shrubs for 84 of part of this is the lack of awareness of the the 98 homes Conservation Character Appraisal document and that clearly indicates the severe lack of The examples highlighted in Frontages are not interest in understanding village character just about space but also the presence of gardens through research of latest published to highlight the character of this rural village. Alfa information. Homes’ plans fail the policy requirements by not Harvest View picture - Misses the wider following the prevailing character of front analysis of that development which has car residential gardens and border shrubs between parks to the rear and a central green spine. homes. Alfa Homes must note the frontage is laid to lawn and not filled by concreted car parks as This is a massive development relative to the proposed in their current plan. size of the existing settlement of the village. The approach to ‘soften’ impacts by tweaking and tinkering around edges for 10% of properties will not prevent the destruction to the character of the village. This needs a complete rethink. The promotion of regeneration and change is not suitable for a village with 100’s of years of history and character preserved over the years.

27 BMAG – Representation March 2021

3 Section 3.5 - The parts of village South of BM2/BM4 are Reasons in point 1 above Storey Heights completely missed from picture library. Some pictures for context

4 Section 3.5 In summary it can be determined that Alfa Homes have not adopted elements widely Reasons in point 1 and point 2 above, but to Summary there is no one architectural style to found in the village like frontages with highlight in bold sections statement draw inspiration from for this new gardens, softened height of homes with single

28 BMAG – Representation March 2021

development but that the rural storey to keep historic skyline, border shrubs BMCCA: New buildings will only be permitted character that runs through the village between homes etc. However, Alfa have where they respect, rather than compete with should be reinforced with careful carefully chosen elements/parts of specific the historic skyline, respect landform and consideration of architectural detailing, developments in the village without wider landscape pattern and are accompanied by a massing and density. The development context analysis of those developments that comprehensive landscape scheme that is integral proposals for this site therefore should suit their “metropolitan suburban” design. Alfa to the design. be inspired by the use of materials and ‘believes’ it is inappropriate to copy previous proportionality which are in keeping styles, it however does exactly that when it The plan disrespects the existing landscape with the local character rather than any suits their purpose. patterns of the village with 65% homes with no architectural period. We believe that it We would also like to understand on what front gardens and 85% homes without border would be inappropriate simply to copy basis of research, planning policy or context shrubs. previous architectural styles Alfa concluded ‘We believe that it would be inappropriate to simply copy previous We request the planning department to carefully architectural styles’. There are so many things consider the building materials, styles to match like stone frontage for homes in neighbouring with the existing village (good examples from and immediate vicinity which is completely BMCCA, not ones submitted by Alfa Homes) using ignored. examples of single storey/two storey proportion While we applaud Alfa for stating ‘the rural etc. The village which is home to 13 Grade II listed character that runs through the village should buildings would have its character destroyed at a be reinforced with careful consideration of stroke by the approval of this plan. architectural detailing, massing and density’, the words in the statement are not reflected by their own design. 5 Section 5.2 – Alfa Homes statement ‘Given the sites Again, no reason as to why 32 dph is Alfa and Cater Jonas state BM2/BM4 are outside Amount of location and the application mix appropriate. For perspective neighbouring development limits. HBCDL states development development proposed it is considered that 32 density on average is 16 dph in Figure B above, proposals “does not result in a disproportionate dwellings per hectare is an appropriate removing the area of the school. Building at level of development compared to the existing density for this site.’ twice the density of neighbouring areas is not settlement” Alfa Homes statement ‘The proposed ‘appropriate’ but ‘disproportionate’ scheme takes into careful consideration

29 BMAG – Representation March 2021 the complex array of comments Counter argument to Alfa statement, reducing At 98 homes, this development at 25% of existing received from the community and Local number of homes can also increase space for village settlement is disproportionate. The Authority through pre-application front gardens, border shrubs and amenity development is also more than 3 times the size of discussions. It also considers local and space. Reducing the number of homes will lead historically larger developments at Renton Close national planning policy, alongside the to bigger homes when the intention is to and Melrose, reinforcing that this development is existing pre-determined site ‘carpet bomb’ every inch of green space. That disproportionate. constraints. This scheme now totals 98 approach is untenable for a village/rural HBCHD 5.10 Lower density schemes will only be units achieving a density of 29dph setting. acceptable where the character or amenity of (gross) and 32 dph (nett)’ the locality would be clearly harmed or where Alfa Homes statement ‘Providing 94 site constraints, for example, ecological or dwellings at a density of 30dph would heritage interest, ground conditions, result in a disproportionate number of contamination or access problems dictate a larger and ultimately more expensive reduced developable area or capacity. dwellings which would be direct conflict with the needs and demands of HBC policy 5.10 must take precedence here for different groups of the community as two reasons: outlined within the Council’s latest 1. 100% increase of density compared to HEDNA ‘ neighbouring settlement is ‘disproportionate’ 2. At 25% increase to houses through this development even minor deviations from existing character will alter the character of the entire village. The above conclusion is also supported by NPPF policy 122(d) ‘the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting (including residential gardens), or of promoting regeneration and change’ Note: An England housing report published by Government references 22% as disproportionate,

30 BMAG – Representation March 2021

so at 25% this is disproportionate beyond any reasonable doubt. 6 Section 5.3 – Alfa Homes statement ‘The existing Distance from nearest detached & semi-HBCDM: The design and layout of development Scale of residential development adjacent to the detached (2, 2.5 & single storey) home from should integrate the new housing across the site development site comprises single, 2-storey and 2.5- Alfa Homes site – Under 15m with the existing village storey dwellings with a variety of Distance from nearest Terraced home (StJohns detached, semi-detached and terraced Road) from Alfa Homes site – 300m + With 65% homes at 1/1.5 storeys in the existing houses.‘ Terraced homes are NOT adjacent. neighbouring settlement (Melrose and Alfa Homes statement ‘As the plan Reasons for objections for point 1 establishes Meadowcroft Roads) the plan is not consistent identifies the scheme proposes the only 35% of homes in neighbouring settlement with the prevailing height and form of the erection of 2-storey and 2.5-storey are 2/2.5 storey. neighbouring properties. dwellings. The properties have been The site is elevated from the neighbouring Terraced homes must be discouraged in the positioned carefully to protect the settlement. With all homes at 2/2.5 storey the proposed site as they would be inconsistent with amenity of existing residents.’ entire development is overbearing and the neighbouring homes. scale disproportionately impacts the neighbouring single storey homes. The impacts are so widely spread to almost the entire village East of Knaresborough Road.

31 BMAG – Representation March 2021 We have included the following photographs of a range of houses, in the immediate context of the development and from the wider village, to illustrate how unsympathetic and out of character this development would be.

These are all very local houses, in Moor Road, Knaresborough Road, Melrose Road and Meadowcroft

The Howarth (25) Layout showing proximity and all car parking at the front The Bilborough (8)

32 BMAG – Representation March 2021

These shows the variety of house styles, particularly from across other parts of the village

The Baildon (13) Layout with proximity and front parking (det. and semi’s) The Oakwood (14)

This development application should be refused. 33