Opus House Elm Farm Park Thurston Bury St Edmunds Suffolk IP31 3SH

T 01359 233663 Mr James Draper E [email protected] Programme Officer W evolution-planning.co.uk Rydale House Malton North Yorkshire YO17 &HH

Our ref: E266 C1/Let01 23rd August 2018

Dear James

RYDALE LOCAL PLAN EXAMINATION

We write with a Matter Statement for Matter 8 Visually Important Undeveloped Areas (VIUA). We object to this policy in respect of the Norton VIUA. This policy is not soundly based. It is not Justified by being an appropriate strategy based on proportionate evidence. The Norton VIUA does not accord with national policy as it does not allow the delivery of sustainable development. The analysis in this Matter Statement has been carried out by Penny Stephens who is a Landscape Architect. This shows that the Norton VIUA is not based on appropriate evidence and the landscape is no more remarkable than land that was approved for housing at appeal.

We therefore propose that the Norton VIUA is deleted from the plan.

Yours sincerely

DAVID BARKER MRTPI MRICS DIRECTOR EVOLUTION TOWN PLANNING LTD

Evolution Town Planning Limited

Registered Office: Opus House Elm Farm Park Thurston Bury St Edmunds Suffolk IP31 3SH Registered in England Number 10636748 E??? - PLANNING ADVICE – &JOB DESCRIPTION&

I/We accept the services offered herein and agree to be bound by the associated terms and conditions.

Signed by ......

Name and Position ...... the duly authorised representative of ...... (T he Client)

Date ......

E???/E1.Let01 Page 2 of 6 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ENGAGEMENT

CLIENT: &ClientTitle& &ClientFirstname& &ClientSurname& OUR REF: E??? &Company/Organisation&

PROJECT: Planning Advice – DATE: &Date&

Definition Meaning “Consultant” Means Evolution Town Planning Ltd.

“Instructing Client” “Instructing Client” means the first named Client in the definition of The “Client”

Is the person, company, authority, agency or other body or in the case of more than one Client means each of the following:

The “Client” &ClientTitle& &ClientFirstname& &ClientSurname& &Company/Organisation&

who instructs the Consultant to carry out the Services, the Agreement is between the Client and the Consultant.

The scope of works to be executed by each discipline as separately described in the fee letter or as The “Services” subsequently amended in writing.

The “Agreement” Means these Terms and Conditions of Engagement

The following Standard Terms and Conditions of Engagement (the Agreement) shall apply unless amended in writing by the Consultant prior to commencement of work.

1. The Consultant shall carry out its Services and obligations hereunder with reasonable skill and care. The Services are set out in the accompanying fee letter. The Services may be subsequently amended by written agreement between the Client and the Consultant.

2. In the event of any breach of the Consultant’s obligations and/or negligence, any proceedings (which for the purposes of this Agreement shall be deemed to include any form of alternative dispute resolution), may only be brought by the Instructing Client. In the event of a dispute the Client agrees that the Instructing Client will act as the intermediary for all communications.

3. Where fees are to be invoiced to a Client or in the case of more than one Client allotted to individual Clients non payment of fees by any Client will be deemed to be a breach of this agreement. Where the Consultant has made a claim for payment in accordance with the terms of clause 8 & 9 then if the Client or a member of the Client body intends to withhold payment of part or whole of the sum claimed they must serve a notice on the Consultant not less than five days prior to the date that the sum finally becomes due specifying the amount they propose to withhold and the ground for withholding payment, or if there is more than one ground, each ground and the amount attributable to it.

E???/E1.Let01 Page 3 of 6 4. The Client agrees that the Consultant may suspend the further performance of the whole or any part of the Services by notice in writing to the Client specifying, in the case of suspension of a part, the part to be suspended, such suspension to commence from the date of deemed receipt of such notice. The Consultant may exercise this right of suspension:- if any sums due to them under this Agreement have not been paid in full by the final due date for payment, no effective notice to withhold payment has been given by the Client or member of the Client body and the Consultant has given to the Client fourteen days prior written notice of the intention to suspend performance, stating the ground(s) on which it is intended to suspend performance.

5. All fee proposals exclude Planning Application, Building Regulation and Local Authority fees and survey costs. Such fees and costs shall be paid directly by the Client to the Local Authority concerned. Where a fee stage is related to a Local Authority decision, this is understood to be a Committee resolution rather than the issue of a decision notice which may be related to other legal agreements. The Client acknowledges that, by its very nature the Planning Permission process itself is beyond the Consultant’s control and no guarantee can be given that any permission shall be granted.

6. Budget cost guides for provision of the Services shall be provided on written request and shall be based on experience but as all schemes are unique the budget figure will be deemed to be indicative only. The Consultant shall endeavour to advise the Client when a budget guide figure is reached. All budget figures will be plus expenses and VAT unless otherwise agreed in writing.

7. In addition to fee charges, invoices shall include all reimbursable costs and reasonably incurred expenses arising in the course of providing the Services in respect of travel (mileage at 45 pence per mile), accommodation, subsistence, printing and other necessary expenses. Exceptional items of expenditure shall be agreed by the Client and the Consultant, and the Consultant reserves the right to require payment in advance for such items. VAT shall be applied at the prevailing standard rate on all invoices rendered.

8. Unless our fees are based on monthly payments or agreed otherwise in writing our fees become payable when the service or part thereof for which we were instructed have been completed, which will include the preparation of documentation for formal submission for whatever purpose but subsequently withheld by the Client for reasons unrelated to the service provided by the Consultant.

9. Payment of our fees is due on the date of the invoice and accounts should be settled in full within 14 days of that date. Any queries in respect of an invoice must be raised in writing within 5 days of the receipt of that invoice. If payment is not made by the settlement date, the Consultant reserves the right to charge interest on overdue invoices at 6% above Barclays Bank plc base rate. In addition, in the event that payment is not made by the settlement date, the Consultant retains the right to cease work on the project until such time as payment is made.

10. Completion of the Services shall be deemed to occur on the issue of the final fee invoice and no action or proceedings as a result of the Services provided or any breach of this Agreement shall be commenced against the Consultant after the expiry of 6 years from completion of the Services.

11. All fee proposals made by the Consultant exclude fees associated with copyright or licence fees relating to any material supplied by the Client. The Client shall be responsible for obtaining and paying all fees in respect of copyright approval licences and obtaining all other necessary permissions for all copyrighted materials provided to the Consultant for inclusion in the Services.

12. The Client hereby acknowledges the Consultant has drawn its attention to duties imposed on the Client by the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 as amended. Any comment or guidance provided by the Consultant with regard to scheme design by others is based on its reasonable interpretation of prevailing Government and Local Authority planning policies; responsibility for applying such advice to the scheme design remains that of the designer or architect appointed to design the scheme which may be a party other than the Consultant who shall be responsible for the application of any such comment or guidance to the scheme design.

E???/E1.Let01 Page 4 of 6 13. The Client hereby also acknowledges that it may have obligations and responsibilities under legislation relating to property transactions and the building and construction industries. The Consultant strongly recommends that the Client obtains appropriate advice from its property, legal and taxation and other professional advisers before proceeding with any development.

14. The Consultant’s obligations under this Agreement do not include the duties or responsibilities of a CDM Coordinator or the collation of Pre-Construction Information or preparation of a Health & Safety file (as defined in the 2007 Regulations).

15. The Consultant shall have no liability for the accuracy or content of data supplied by others when incorporated into the work and the Consultant shall have no liability for any errors or omissions which result from the information supplied by the Client and others including but not limited to planning histories, and site survey information by Local Authorities, statutory undertakers and any other third party.

16. Outline planning applications are normally required to be supported with indicative designs, layouts or illustrations of principles of development. Whilst the Consultant shall use its best endeavours to ensure accuracy, these drawings are intended to serve as a guide to the broad nature, density and composition of development and should not be regarded as definitive. Final development schemes may show more or less development than the original indicative layouts depending on the development control criteria prevailing at the time of implementation of the final scheme.

17. In the event that a planning permission is granted the Consultant shall have no responsibility for the ongoing implementation or non-implementation of the planning permission (including but not limited to clearance of conditions or other matters requiring clearance, for example including, matters relating to Section 106 Planning Obligation) unless agreed in writing.

18. No drawing or schedule produced and issued by the Consultant either as hard copy or in an electronic format shall be used by any party to define a boundary, area or areas to be included as part of the sale, lease, exchange or entitlement of either land or physical space unless specifically agreed in writing with the Consultant. In particular the Consultant expressly excludes all liability that might otherwise arise as a consequence of performing its Services and obligations by the operation and/or application of the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 the Property Misdescriptions (Specified Matters) Order 1992 the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and any subsequent re-enactments thereof.

19. When investigating and using innovative technologies in the development of schemes solutions the Consultant shall not be liable for any failure of such technologies to meet intended environmental or sustainability targets.

20. Where there is any exclusion, restriction, or limitation of liability in the Client's agreement with any consultant, contractor or sub-contractor by way of financial cap or relating to pollution or contamination, asbestos, terrorism, toxic mould, or resulting from the joint insurance of any such party with the Client, the Consultant's liability to the Client hereunder shall be similarly excluded, restricted or limited to the extent it shares liability (or would otherwise have shared liability) with such a party.

21. Copyright and all other intellectual property rights in all documents drawings and other media prepared by the Consultant and in any works executed from those documents drawings and other media shall, unless otherwise agreed in writing, remain with the Consultant.

22. If the work is to incorporate the Client’s corporate colours, font styles or any other corporate information full details are to be provided in an electronic form for agreement before commencement of the Services.

23. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Agreement confers or is intended to confer on any third party any benefit or the right to enforce any term of this Agreement pursuant to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

24. Neither the Client nor the Consultant may assign this Agreement without the written consent of the other.

E???/E1.Let01 Page 5 of 6 25. The Agreement may be terminated by either party on the expiry of reasonable prior written notice. Termination by the Client shall be subject to the payment of outstanding fees and expenses.

26. The Consultant shall give immediate notice in writing to the Client of any circumstances arising from force majeure which makes it impracticable for the Consultant to carry out any of the Services and the Consultant shall seek to agree an appropriate course of action with the Client.

27. The Client acknowledges that Evolution Town Planning Limited is a limited company (the company). Any reference the Consultant makes to members of the company as "Directors" is to their title as senior professionals. The Client agrees that all dealings with them will be as a Director of the company, including without limitation any appointment of any member, director or employee of the company to act as expert, adjudicator or in any other personal capacity. The Client acknowledges that Evolution Town Planning Limited is a limited company and agrees not to bring any claim personally against any individual employee, consultant, Director or member of the company for any loss incurred by the Client resulting from their acts or omissions in the performance of the obligations under this Agreement, save for in the circumstances where the court considers it appropriate to lift the veil of incorporation.

28. This Agreement shall be governed by English law and the parties hereby submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts.

29. The duplicate of the accompanying fee letter should be signed and returned to us as acceptance of our fee proposal and this Agreement within one week retaining the other for your records along with the Agreement. In the meantime, you will be deemed to be in agreement if you continue to instruct us on the scope of services described in the accompanying fee letter or any part thereof after receipt of this letter and that this Agreement will form the basis of our appointment unless agreed otherwise in writing between us.

E???/E1.Let01 Page 6 of 6 INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THE RYEDALE PLAN LOCAL PLAN SITES DOCUMENT INSPECTOR’S MATTERS, ISSUES AND QUESTIONS FOR EXAMINATION

MATTER 8 VISUALLY IMPORTANT UNDEVELOPED AREAS (POLICY SD16)

LANDOWNER REPRESENTATIONS ON LAND EAST OF WELHAM ROAD NORTON

August 2018

Landscape Architecture & Urban Design Introduction

1. Decimus Designs (a consultancy of Chartered Landscape Architects and Urban Designers) has been instructed to make representations on behalf of North Cotes Farm Limited to object to land (“the Site”) being included in a VIUA. The Site lies within the western part of one of the proposed new VIUA, identified as “Land between Welham Road and Langton Road, Norton”.

2. A report was written by Decimus Designs in November 2016 (refer to Appendix 1) in response to the Ryedale District Council’s consultation on Identification and Review of VIUAs. The report involved both desk and site-based work. A site visit was carried out on 27 October 2016 and involved walking public footpaths and local roads to help determine the landscape and visual context of the area.

Question 8.3 - Has the site selection process for including land within VIUAs been based on a sound process and the testing of reasonable alternatives?

3. We do not consider that the process meets the tests of ‘soundness’ set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the “Framework”). It is not ‘consistent with national policy’ and does not enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the Framework. Paragraph 11 of the Framework states there is “a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For plan-making this means that: a) plans should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area, and be sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change”. The proposed VIUA washes over an area from the southern edge of the existing settlement of Norton to Bazeley’s Lane on the edge of the Wolds. It is constrained by Welham Road to the west and Langton Road to the east. It is not clear why the VIUA has been specifically located here and why it does not extend to the west or to the east. As part of the consultation process, Ryedale District Council (“the Council”) has not provided any specific landscape or heritage appraisals for the VIUA sites on which to base the justification for their selection. It is therefore not ‘justified’ and not “the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives”, and not “based on proportionate evidence”. A suitable landscape character sensitivity study would include individual elements that contribute to character, their significance and their vulnerability to change; the overall quality and condition of the landscape in terms of its intactness, representation of typical character and condition or state of

Landowner Representations on 23 August 2018 1 Land East of Welham Road Norton repair or individual elements contributing to character. Landscape capacity is defined as a combination of landscape character sensitivity, visual sensitivity and landscape value (refer to Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland: Topic Paper 6 Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity; The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage 2004).

4. NPPF 2018 para 171 notes that “plans should distinguish between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites; allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework”. In the Consultation Statement Appendix (page 65) Natural England “notes in particular the new and extended VIUA’s associated with settlements within and in proximity to the Howardian Hills AONB and North York Moors National Park (six of the twelve proposed VIUAs) and welcomes the protection these VIUA’s offer to the setting and special qualities of the nationally designated landscapes”. It makes no specific mention of the Norton VIUA. It is not within the setting of a nationally designated landscape.

5. In the Consultation Statement Appendix, November 2017 (page 19) Historic England gave their reasons for supporting the identification of ten of the twelve proposed new VIUAs. It should be noted that this did not include “Land East of Welham Road, Norton”. Does this mean that Historic England did not consider the VIUA to be appropriate to the Norton Site?

6. Existing national and local planning policies and guidance already provide sufficient controls for protecting the character and amenity of settlements and important buildings. Therefore, the VIUA serves no benefit.

7. Initially the Council was consulting on the VIUA in two parts. The first part was land to the south of Mill Beck extending along to Welham Road. The second part was subject to a planning permission for up to 93 homes which was granted upon appeal in 2016 (the “Appeal Site”), ref: APP/Y2736/W/15/3136237 & APP/Y2736/W/15/3136233 (refer to Appendix 2). The VIUA designation would only become implemented subject to the planning permission expiring. This area has been removed from the VIUA designation on the 2017 Malton Norton large policies map and is highlighted as Policy SD1, Housing Committed.

Landowner Representations on 23 August 2018 2 Land East of Welham Road Norton 8. The Inspector’s comments on the Appeal Site will be discussed in Question 8.6 below. Has the appeal decision led to the Council being overly cautious and trying to protect the remaining area of the VIUA? We do not consider this action to be appropriate and it contradicts the Framework, as discussed at paragraph 3 above. Land should not be covered by a VIUA designation if an appeal inspector considers it to be appropriate for a large housing site.

Question 8.4 - What were the key factors taken into account when deciding to include or exclude land from the VIUAs?

9. Areas of land were designated as VIUAs for one or more of the following reasons:

 The site makes a significant contribution to the character or setting of the settlement

 The site provides an attractive setting for buildings within it;

 The site is of importance in terms of the historical form and layout of the settlement”

However, no comparative evidence has been provided by the Council to make a sound judgement on which areas should be covered by the VIUA.

Question 8.5 - How were the detailed site boundaries determined?

10. The Council should provide justification for the extent of the boundary. The Local Plan Sites Document (the “Document”) at page 5 paragraph 6, points out that “it is important to be aware that the VIUA designation is not concerned with protecting areas surrounding settlements en block”. At page 18 it states that “the designation is not in itself, a landscape protection policy or a policy designed to provide ‘blanket’ protection to all/the majority of undeveloped land around settlements”. However, it would appear that this is exactly what the Council has done. An area of potentially sustainable development has been covered by the VIUA, which is in conflict with the core principles of the Framework.

Landowner Representations on 23 August 2018 3 Land East of Welham Road Norton Question 8.6 - Against which criteria would a proposal within a VIUA be assessed?

11. Six criteria have been used to identify VIUAs and the following five criteria relate to the Norton VIUA:

 “Contribution the space makes to the settlement viewed either from publicly accessible view points within the settlement or from approach roads or paths

 Contribution the space makes to the setting of a building or groups of buildings either listed or of historical or architectural interest

 Extent to which the space provides a vista/viewpoint into the surrounding countryside

 Extent to which trees, boundary hedges or walls contribute to the character of the space”.

The Council also provided additional text to explain their justification. “The collection of fields allow the ability of both Malton and Norton to be viewed. They provide a buffer between the built edge of Norton, with an aligned use of horse grazing with the Listed “Whitewall” and Whitewall Cottages. The field patterns are more diverse than those which surround the rest of Norton. The fields afford views of Norton and Malton, and the important area of Mill Beck”.

12. The Document at page 5 states that the site must “contribute to the form and character of a settlement, including its setting, because of its undeveloped nature, and provide some form of public benefit – i.e. be viewable from public vantage points”.

13. We believe that there are flaws in all four of the criteria listed above, which were used to identify the Norton VIUA and our comments are summarised below. The Norton VIUA is therefore not sound as it is not an appropriate strategy and is therefore not justified.

14. “Contribution the space makes to the settlement viewed either from publicly accessible view points within the settlement or from approach roads or paths”. At present the Site makes little contribution to the settlement viewed either from publicly accessible viewpoints within the settlement or from approach roads or paths.

Landowner Representations on 23 August 2018 4 Land East of Welham Road Norton There are no outstanding views. The main view into the Site from Whitewall is already marred by suburban development and domestic clutter of the rear gardens of properties along Welham Road.

15. The Site is less suitable for a VIUA than the Appeal Site on Langton Road that has been granted planning permission. The Site is well screened from Welham Road, a local approach road to Norton, by existing built development and this edge is more robust than the approach road from Langton Road which is more rural in character. In spite of this, the Appeal Inspector concluded at point 35 that “the straight alignment of Langton Road means that the sites are peripheral to the experience of arriving into Norton ... and the development would have little or no effect on the setting of the town”. This reinforces that the Site should not be designated a VIUA.

16. “Contribution the space makes to the setting of a building or groups of buildings either listed or of historical or architectural interest”. The fields “provide a buffer between the built edge of Norton, with an aligned use of horse grazing with the Listed “Whitewall” and Whitewall Cottages”. There have been no heritage assessments produced by the Council or Historic England to suggest that the Site contributes to the setting of the listed buildings Whitewall House and Whitewall Cottages. In the Consultation Statement, Historic England did not include “Land East of Welham Road, Norton” when they gave their reasons for supporting the identification of ten of the twelve proposed new VIUAs. The connection between the listed buildings and the Site is severed by Whitewall lane. There are no public views across the Site or from within the Site which link to the listed buildings. The horse racing industry, paddocks and stables are a common feature in the surrounding countryside and the overall landscape character would not be changed by the loss of fields on the Site. Modern development immediately east of Whitehall has affected the setting of the listed buildings.

17. “Extent to which the space provides a vista/viewpoint into the surrounding countryside”. In the wider landscape, the Site is generally well contained to the north by the urban edge of Norton, to the west by existing housing along Welham Road and to the south by the rising wooded slopes of Scott’s Hill. The Site does not provide a public vista/viewpoint into the surrounding countryside.

18. “Extent to which trees, boundary hedges or walls contribute to the character of the space”. The Site comprises three fields which are used for grazing and there are

Landowner Representations on 23 August 2018 5 Land East of Welham Road Norton

no distinctive landscape features that contribute to the character of the space. The rural character of Bazeley’s Lane (hedgerows, woodland on Scott’s Hill and individual hedgerow trees) lies further east from the Site.

19. “The collection of fields allow the ability of both Malton and Norton to be viewed. The fields afford views of Norton and Malton, and the important area of Mill Beck”. The Site lies in the least visually sensitive part of Norton VIUA; views from public rights of way and permissive paths are from Bazeley’s Lane and the eastern side of Scott’s Hill, which are located east of the Site and nearer to the Appeal Site. Views from Whitewall across the Site towards Malton and Norton are mostly screened by built development and vegetation, due the flat, low lying topography. Only part of the mature trees along Mill Beck can be viewed from Whitewall across the Site. Vantage points to Malton and Norton are from higher ground to the south and the Site does not contribute to these views.

20. “The field patterns are more diverse than those which surround the rest of Norton”. The field patterns within the VIUA are angular and irregular in size and shape, reflecting the patterns of the surrounding landscape. It is considered that the field patterns are not more diverse than those which surround the rest of Norton.

Conclusion

21. The proposed VIUA designation on Land between Welham Road and Langton Road, Norton, should not be implemented. The proposal is not sound as it is not the most appropriate strategy and is therefore not justified. The Site, in the west of the VIUA, is located on flat, low lying land and adjacent to existing residential development on three sides. Scott’s Hill provides a clearly defined, defensible edge to the countryside beyond. At page 95 of The Landscapes of Northern Ryedale, published in 1999 on behalf of the District Council, the assessment provides advice for development around Malton/Norton: “From a landscape perspective, urban expansion would best be accommodated on the flat, low lying land to the south and east of the towns”, i.e. the area covered by the Norton VIUA. In allowing the appeal for up to 93 homes the Inspector gave weight to this statement. In our view the Site has a better relationship with the urban edge of Norton than other areas in the proposed Norton VIUA, in particular the Appeal Site. Its character has more suburban influences than the central and eastern areas of Norton VIUA.

Landowner Representations on 23 August 2018 6 Land East of Welham Road Norton APPENDIX 1 Landowner Representations on Land East of Welham Road Norton By Decimus Designs 01.11.16 THE RYEDALE PLAN LOCAL PLAN SITES DOCUMENT CONSULTATION

IDENTIFICATION AND REVIEW OF VISUALLY IMPORTANT UNDEVELOPED AREAS

LANDOWNER REPRESENTATIONS ON LAND EAST OF WELHAM ROAD NORTON

November 2016 Landscape Architecture & Urban Design

Tel: 01233 861199/ 07930 844660 Email: [email protected]

COPYRIGHT

The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Decimus Designs. CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. RYEDALE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION AND REVIEW OF VIUAs 3

3. SITE CONTEXT 5

4. REPONSE TO RYEDALE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT 9

5. APPEAL SITE - LAND TO THE WEST OF LANGTON ROAD 12

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 14

Figure 1: Site Context Plan Figure 2: Aerial Photograph Figures 3-7: Photographic Viewpoints 1-12

Appendix A: Extract from Ryedale District Council, Identification & Review of Visually Important Undeveloped Areas Appendix B: Extract Landscapes of Northern Ryedale, published in 1999 on behalf of the District Council 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Decimus Designs (a consultancy of Chartered Landscape Architects and Urban Designers) has been instructed to make representations on behalf of North Cotes Farm Limited who own Fields 1 and 2 shown on Figure 1 (Local Plan Site No. 319). The representations also cover Field 3 which is owned by the Carr family (Local Plan Site No. 103). The two landowners will co-operate to bring the two areas of land forward for development and for the purposes of this report the term ‘The Site’ will refer to Fields 1, 2 and 3 (outlined in red on Figures 1 and 2). The land is proposed for housing development via a Local Plan allocation.

1.2 The purpose of this report is to respond to the Ryedale District Council’s (‘The Council’) consultation on Identification and Review of Visually Important Undeveloped Areas (‘VIUA’) as part of the Ryedale Plan – Local Plan Sites Document. The consultation document (the ‘Document’) is seeking to obtain feedback on the designation of 12 proposed new VIUAs; the revised extent of some existing VIUAs; and the proposed rescinding of VIUA designation on particular sites. The Site lies within one of the proposed new VIUAs; Norton: Land between Welham Road and Langton Road, north of Whitewall and Bazeley’s Lane (‘Norton VIUA’).

1.3 The report has involved both desk and site based work. A site visit was carried out on 27 October 2016 and involved walking public footpaths and local roads to help determine the landscape and visual context of the area. The deciduous vegetation was still predominantly in leaf, therefore it is anticipated that during the winter there would be more visibility across the surrounding landscape towards the Site, depending on the density of vegetation. The short time frame of six weeks for the consultation period did not allow the assessment of winter views.

1.4 The following reports have been used for reference:

 Landscapes of Northern Ryedale, published in 1999 on behalf of the District Council.

 The Setting of Heritage Assets, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 3, by Historic England July 2015.

1.5 This report concludes that there are flaws in all four of the criteria which were used to identify the Norton VIUA and therefore it should not be implemented. The VIUA is situated in low lying flat land on the southern edge of Norton which, from a landscape perspective, was previously identified by the Council as an area suitable for urban expansion. Scott’s Hill provides a clearly defined, defensible edge to the countryside beyond. The Site, in the west of the VIUA, is eminently suitable for housing development, located adjacent to existing residential development on three sides. Land within Norton VIAU East has been found to be suitable for housing development following a recent planning inquiry at which landscape

Landowner Representations on 1 November 2016 1 Land East of Welham Road Norton impact was carefully considered. The VIUA designation would only become implemented in the unlikely scenario of the permission expiring.

Landowner Representations on 1 November 2016 2 Land East of Welham Road Norton 2.0 RYEDALE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT – IDENTIFICATION AND REVIEW OF VIUAs

2.1 Policy SP16 of the Ryedale Local Plan Strategy states that:

"The character and appearance of open space and green spaces including existing Visually Important Undeveloped Areas (VIUAs) or further VIUAs which may be designated in the Local Plan Sites Document or in a Neighbourhood Plan. Development proposals on land designated as a VIUA will only be permitted where the benefits of the development proposed significantly outweigh the loss or damage to the character of the settlement."

2.2 Twelve new VIUA areas have been proposed in the Document. It points out that “it is important to be aware that the VIUA designation is not concerned with protecting areas surrounding settlements en block” (p5 of the Document). It involves looking at discrete areas of open space which contribute to one or more of the six identifying criteria used to assess VIUAs. The site must “contribute to the form and character of a settlement, including its setting, because of its undeveloped nature, and provide some form of public benefit – i.e. be viewable from public vantage points”.

2.3 The purpose of the VIUA policy has been to:

 Protect the character and amenity of settlements

 Protect the setting of Listed Buildings and other historic and architecturally important buildings and the character of Conservation Area

 To prevent town and village cramming

 To retain green areas, open space and trees

2.4 Areas of land were designated as VIUAs for one or more of the following reasons:

 The site makes a significant contribution to the character or setting of the settlement

 The site provides an attractive setting for buildings within it;

 The site is of importance in terms of the historical form and layout of the settlement

2.5 The Site lies within the proposed new VIUA, Norton: Land between Welham Road and Langton Road, north of Whitewall and Bazeley’s Lane (‘Norton VIUA’). Six criteria have been used to identify VIUAs and the following criteria relate to the Norton VIUA:

Landowner Representations on 1 November 2016 3 Land East of Welham Road Norton  Contribution the space makes to the settlement viewed either from publicly accessible view points within the settlement or from approach roads or paths

 Contribution the space makes to the setting of a building or groups of buildings either listed or of historical or architectural interest

 Extent to which the space provides a vista/viewpoint into the surrounding countryside

 Extent to which trees, boundary hedges or walls contribute to the character of the space

“The collection of fields allow the ability of both Malton and Norton to be viewed. They provide a buffer between the built edge of Norton, with an aligned use of horse grazing with the Listed “Whitewall” and Whitewall Cottages. The field patterns are more diverse than those which surround the rest of Norton. The fields afford views of Norton and Malton, and the important area of Mill Beck.

The Council is consulting on this proposed new VIUA in two parts. The first part is the land to the south of Mill Beck extending along to Welham Road. The second part is subject to a planning permission which was granted in 2016. This permission was granted upon appeal. The VIUA designation would only become implemented subject to the planning permission expiring”.

2.6 In the Document it was noted at page 2 that “the use of Google Street View allows a better representation of the visual experience of the VIUA and its setting, and this is why it has been used over photographs in a number of cases”. However, Google Street View cameras are mounted on top of vehicles at approximately 2.4m above ground level, much higher than the view experienced by the average human eye (1.5m above ground). Therefore it is not a true representation of a public view on roads and footpaths and does not correspond with established methodologies practised by the landscape profession in accordance with Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Edition published by the Landscape Institute and Institute for Environmental Management & Assessment (April 2013). An exception to this would of course be a horse rider on a bridleway whose viewpoint would be approximately 2.2m high. It should also be noted that photographs should be used as an ‘aide memoire’ and cannot capture or reflect the complexity of the true visual experience that an observed would receive in the field.

Landowner Representations on 1 November 2016 4 Land East of Welham Road Norton 3.0 SITE CONTEXT

Site Location and Immediate Surroundings

3.1 Norton and Malton are twin towns either side of the River Derwent in North Yorkshire. Norton VIUA is located on the southern edge of Norton within the flat, low lying terrain of the river valley between 25-30m AOD (Above Ordnance Datum). Land immediately south of Norton VIUA rises to a high point of 100m AOD along the ridge lying in an east/west orientation. Norton VIUA is located west of Langton Road, east of Welham Road and north of a rural lane known as Whitewall in the west and Bazeley’s Lane in the east. The main approach road into Norton from the south is the B1248 Beverley Road, 1km east of the Norton VIUA. Welham Road and Langton Road are local approach roads into Norton. Welham Road is lined with ribbon development along its eastern boundary whereas the western edge of Langton Road is more rural with fields abutting the boundary and a few houses (refer to Figure 2).

3.2 The Mill Beck comprises a stream, ponds, fish hatchery and a belt of mature trees. It dissects Norton VIUA into two areas. Page 37 of the Document highlights the western, larger part in green (‘Norton VIUA West’) and the eastern, smaller part in light green (‘Norton VIUA East’). The Council is consulting on the Norton VIUA in two parts.

3.3 The Site lies in the western half of Norton VIUA West and comprises three fields which are used for grazing. The remaining half of Norton VIUA West comprises one larger arable field (Field 4). Norton VIUA East comprises a mixture of arable fields and pasture. The field patterns within the VIUA are angular and irregular in size and shape, reflecting the patterns of the surrounding landscape. Fields boundaries are defined by hedgerows with few hedgerow trees.

3.4 The most suburban edge of the VIUA is along its northern and western boundaries where the Site backs onto rear gardens of residential development along Welham Road, Leat Close and Hunters Way. There is also built development to the south on the opposite side of Whitewall, comprising a mixture of styles and ages; Grade II listed Whitewall House, stables and Whitewall Cottages, a terrace of cottages as well as some more modern bungalows and semi-detached homes. The listed buildings have no front gardens and create a strong, continuous built edge against the road. Further east of the Site, Bazeley’s Lane becomes more rural with no housing and is designated as a bridleway. Immediately south lies Scott’s Hill, whose flanks are covered in woodland and there is a parking layby and permissive paths linking around fields to the south, generally used for recreational use by local residents. Field 4, a large arable field, lies to the north of Bazeley’s Lane.

3.5 Norton VIUA East is not contained by built development on its boundaries. The eastern edge abuts Langton Road, to the north is Sutton Farm (Grade II listed) and Sutton Grange, to the

Landowner Representations on 1 November 2016 5 Land East of Welham Road Norton south along Bazeley’s Lane are Spring Cottage Stables, some cottages and a small care home. Part of Norton VIUA East is subject to a planning permission which was granted at appeal in 2016 for up to 93 residential dwellings (APP/Y2736/W/15/313627 & 3136233). Details of the application are provided in section 5 of this report.

3.6 Norton VIUA lies on the southern edge of Norton and the surrounding countryside character is a mixture of arable farming, pasture and horse paddocks/stables. The horse racing industry is a common feature in the local and wider area, comprising stables, training gallops and training courses. Norton VIUA lies within landscape character ‘Area J, Wooded Open Vale’ of the Landscapes of Northern Ryedale, published in 1999 on behalf of the District Council. At page 95 (refer to Appendix B) the assessment provides advice for development around Malton/Norton: “From a landscape perspective, urban expansion would best be accommodated on the flat, low lying land to the south and east of the towns”, i.e. the area covered by the Norton VIUA.

Views

3.7 A visual appraisal of the area surrounding Norton VIUA was undertaken from publicly accessible viewpoints within the surrounding landscape, such as from roads, footpaths and public open space. A series of photographs were taken, some of which have been selected for inclusion in this report. The locations of these photographic viewpoints are illustrated on Figures 1 and 2. There is a hierarchy when assessing visual sensitivity from public vantage points; at the top are national trails/recreational routes (eg. Centenary Way), then public rights of way (eg. footpaths, bridleways, open access land). Permissive paths are not PROWs but the public is granted access by private landowners (eg. paths on Scott’s Hill). The lease sensitive are views from public roads.

3.8 There are no public rights of way across Norton VIUA. The nearest public footpath is the bridleway along Bazeley’s Lane and a public footpath adjacent to Spring Cottage Stables which leads due south and connects to a bridleway. There are permissive footpaths through Scott’s Hill, including walking routes around the fields to the south.

3.9 In the wider landscape, Norton VIUA is generally well contained to the north by the urban edge of Norton, to the west by existing housing along Welham Road and to the south by the rising wooded slopes of Scott’s Hill. The eastern edge along Langton Road is more open, with partial screening from intervening vegetation.

3.10 Views of Norton VIUA from public vantage points are mainly restricted to near distance views along its southern and eastern boundaries. From the north views into the Site from Hunters Way are screened by the boundary hedgerow of Field 1 (Viewpoint 1) and by built development in Leats Close. Viewpoint 3 illustrates the overall screening effect of the houses along Welham Road. There is one narrow view into the Site at the field access point

Landowner Representations on 1 November 2016 6 Land East of Welham Road Norton on Welham Road (Viewpoint 2) but this is only a glimpsed oblique view when travelling along the road. Views from Whitewall cottages and attached stable building (Grade II listed buildings) to the Site are mainly screened by buildings on Welham Road and vegetation (Viewpoint 4). There is an open view from Whitewall House across Field 3 within the Site towards the built edge of Norton (Viewpoint 7). However, the view is dominated by suburban development, a discordant view of domestic clutter in rear gardens of properties on Welham Road (outbuildings, sheds, play equipment, fencing, green houses etc.). Immediately to the east of Whitewall House are two non-listed modern bungalows and a pair of semi-detached homes (Viewpoints 5 and 6). The setting of the listed buildings has therefore already changed significantly over time. Travelling east from here, the lane is fairly well contained by hedgerow and trees. There is a gap at the entrance to Field 2 (Viewpoint 8), opposite some cottages on Whitehall lane.

3.11 Immediately east of Field 2 and the Site, the lane becomes Bazeley’s Lane (a bridleway) and the character becomes more rural with the steep, wooded backdrop of Scott’s Hill on the south. The separate path on the south side of the lane is elevated on an embankment (approx. 1.5-2m high) and there are views across Field 4 within Norton VIUA West (Viewpoints 9 and 10). Views from here towards the Site are partially screened by vegetation and boundary hedgerows on the Site and there is a strong backdrop of existing housing along Welham Road, Hunters Way, Leat Close and built development at Malton on rising land.

3.12 At Scott’s Hill there is a parking layby used by locals using the conservation walk which loops around high ground to the south via permissive paths. The dense woodland planting screens views of the Site from the field (Viewpoint 12). The best vantage point to view across Norton and the Yorkshire Wolds is from the more open eastern side of Scott’s Hill (Viewpoint 11) where there are also views across VIUA East and the Appeal Site which has planning consent for up to 93 homes. There are no views of the Site from here.

Setting of Listed Buildings

3.13 The listed buildings at Whitewall, near to the junction with Welham Road, have their frontages set right up against the road and this is the only public vantage point from which the listed buildings can be viewed, i.e. in close proximity. The connection between the listed buildings and the Site is severed by Whitewall lane. Views from Whitewall House across the Site are dominated by the domestic clutter of suburban rear gardens and it is considered that the current view does not contribute to nor enhance the setting of the listed buildings. The loss of the field to development would cause little or no harm to the significance of the heritage asset. Modern development immediately east of Whitehall has affected the setting of the listed buildings.

3.14 In summary, the Site has a better relationship with the urban edge of Norton than other areas in the Norton VIUA. Its character has more suburban influences than the central and eastern Landowner Representations on 1 November 2016 7 Land East of Welham Road Norton areas of Norton VIUA. In the wider landscape, the Site is generally well contained to the north by the urban edge of Norton, to the west by existing housing along Welham Road and to the south by the rising wooded slopes of Scott’s Hill. The Site is well screened from Welham Road, a local approach road to Norton, by existing built development. The eastern edge of Norton VIUA along Langton Road is more rural in character yet has been granted planning permission. We believe that the Site lies in the least visually sensitive part of Norton VIUA; views from public rights of way and permissive paths are from Bazeley’s Lane and the eastern side of Scott’s Hill, not from Whitewall adjacent to the Site.

Landowner Representations on 1 November 2016 8 Land East of Welham Road Norton 4.0 RESPONSE TO THE RYEDALE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

4.1 The report will now discuss the four criteria which have been identified as reasons for proposing the Norton VIUA (highlighted in bold). It will also consider the more detailed accompanying text (as set out on page 37 of the Document) and any relevant responses from the 2009 consultation (page 72 of the Document).

4.2 “Contribution the space makes to the settlement viewed either from publicly accessible view points within the settlement or from approach roads or paths”. If ‘within the settlement’ means the main urban development of Norton to the north of the Site, then there are no publicly accessible viewpoints to the Site. However, if this includes development along Whitewall, then there is one view across Field 3 within the Site (Viewpoint 7). At present we consider that the space makes little contribution to the settlement other than being a monoculture of grazing land with a view which is already marred by suburban development and domestic clutter of the rear gardens of properties along Welham Road. There are no outstanding views or special landscape features, apart from boundary hedges and trees along Mill Beck, which would be retained as part of a development. With a sensitively designed layout and robust landscape strategy plan the development would bring about enhancements to the landscape, biodiversity and character of Whitewall lane. The development would be set back from Whitewall, providing a landscape buffer and open space along the southern boundary. Lower density housing would be located on the south of the development, set back behind the open space and buffer planting. The unattractive rear boundaries of Welham Road would be absorbed into the proposed development (back to back housing) and screened by the landscape buffer and open space.

4.3 The main approach road from the south into Norton is along the B1248 Beverley Road from which the Site is not visible. Welham Road is a local approach road into Norton but views into the Site are screened by houses along this road and the space therefore makes no contribution to the settlement. The Site lies in the least visually sensitive part of Norton VIUA; views from public rights of way and permissive paths are from Bazeley’s Lane and the eastern side of Scott’s Hill, not from Whitewall lane. Any views from public rights of way are filtered or glimpsed views, with a backdrop of existing development along Welham Road, Hunters Way, Leat Close and Malton/Norton (Viewpoints 9 and 10). Publicly accessible viewpoints only allow one view which is dominated by the domestic clutter of suburban rear gardens of houses fronting onto Welham Road.

4.4 “The collection of fields allow the ability of both Malton and Norton to be viewed. The fields afford views of Norton and Malton, and the important area of Mill Beck”. Views from Whitewall lane across the Site (Viewpoint 7) are from flat, low lying land and the backdrop of Malton and Norton sits low in the landscape, partially screened by intervening built form and vegetation. Only part of the mature trees along Mill Beck can viewed from Whitewall and

Landowner Representations on 1 November 2016 9 Land East of Welham Road Norton these would be retained and protected as part of any development. Further east on Bazeley’s Lane, away from the Site, the footpath is elevated and there are more open views across Field 4 to Norton and a more extensive wide view of Mill Beck (Viewpoint 10). The best vantage point across Norton is from the eastern side of Scott’s Hill (Viewpoint 11) at 50m AOD, but the Site is not visible from here. Therefore we consider that the Site does not provide important views to Malton and Norton.

4.5 “Contribution the space makes to the setting of a building or groups of buildings either listed or of historical or architectural interest”. The fields “provide a buffer between the built edge of Norton, with an aligned use of horse grazing with the Listed “Whitewall” and Whitewall Cottages”. The listed buildings at Whitewall lane, near to the junction with Welham Road, have their frontages set right up against the road and this is the only public vantage point from which the listed buildings can be viewed, i.e. in close proximity. The connection between the listed buildings and the fields is severed by Whitewall lane and the setting of the listed buildings does not rely on the existence of fields on the opposite side of the road. There is no view across the field, or from within the field linking Whitewall House. Views from Whitewall House across the Site are dominated by the domestic clutter of suburban rear gardens and it is considered that the current view does not contribute to nor enhance the setting of the listed buildings. Modern development immediately east of Whitewall House has affected the setting of the listed buildings. As discussed earlier in the report, the horse racing industry, paddocks and stables are a common feature in the surrounding countryside and the overall character would not be changed by the loss of fields on the Site. It is considered that the proposed development on the Site would bring about enhancements to the setting of the listed buildings as discussed in 4.2 above. It would also be possible to create public vistas from the proposed development towards the listed buildings across the proposed open space, thus opening up the view from a new public vantage point. We consider that loss of the fields to development would cause little or no harm to the significance of the heritage asset.

4.6 “Extent to which the space provides a vista/viewpoint into the surrounding countryside”. This report has established that the Site is well contained in the wider landscape on its northern, western and southern boundaries. The main public view across the Site is from the south, on Whitewall lane, where there are views back towards the settlement of Norton, not the surrounding countryside.

4.7 “Extent to which trees, boundary hedges or walls contribute to the character of the space”. There are few landscape features within the Site apart from boundary hedges which contribute to the character of the space. These would be retained and enhanced as part of a development. The mature trees along Mill Beck contribute to the character of the space but lie outside of the Site and would be retained and protected as part of any proposed

Landowner Representations on 1 November 2016 10 Land East of Welham Road Norton development. The rural character of Bazeley’s Lane (hedgerows, woodland on Scott’s Hill and individual hedgerow trees) lies further east from the Site.

4.8 “The field patterns are more diverse than those which surround the rest of Norton”. The field patterns within the VIUA are angular and irregular in size and shape, reflecting the patterns of the surrounding landscape. It is considered that the field patterns are not more diverse than those which surround the rest of Norton.

4.9 “The Council is consulting on this proposed new VIUA in two parts. The first part is the land to the south of Mill Beck extending along to Welham Road. The second part is subject to a planning permission which was granted in 2016. This permission was granted upon appeal. The VIUA designation would only become implemented subject to the planning permission expiring”. This report considers that the Site has a better relationship with the urban edge of Norton than other areas in the Norton VIUA. Its character has more suburban influences than the central and eastern areas of Norton VIUA. In the wider landscape, the Site is well contained to the north by the urban edge of Norton, to the west by existing housing along Welham Road and to the south by the rising wooded slopes of Scott’s Hill. The Site is well screened from Welham Road, a local approach road to Norton, by existing built development. The eastern edge of Norton VIUA along Langton Road is more rural in character and is not contained by built development yet has been granted planning permission. The Site lies in the least visually sensitive part of Norton VIUA; views from public rights of way and permissive paths are from Bazeley’s Lane and the eastern side of Scott’s Hill towards the Appeal Site and Field 4.

Landowner Representations on 1 November 2016 11 Land East of Welham Road Norton

5.0 APPEAL SITE – LAND TO THE WEST OF LANGTON ROAD

5.1 There were five reasons for refusal on the decision notice dated 22 July 2015 and the key elements are listed below:

01. “The proposed development by reason of its proximity to Sutton Grange Barn will result in an unacceptable level of harm to the setting and significance of the listed building. The public benefits do not outweigh the harm to the designated asset.

02. It would also result in significant harm to the setting of the un-designated heritage asset of Sutton Grange, by subsuming the house with urban development.

03. The development would result in the loss of this open area of undeveloped land which has significant intrinsic landscape value and character and which is atypical of the area. Furthermore it would harm the setting of this attractive approach to Norton and breach the strong woodland setting which currently provides a significant visual end stop at the approach to the town.

04. By virtue of the separation of the application site from the built up area of Norton, the proposed development would be detrimental to the form and character of the town. Furthermore it would result in the development of a site in an unsustainable location.

05. The development is not in accordance with the development plan and it is not considered that the benefits of the development would outweigh the harm to the setting and character of the listed building, the adjacent un-designated heritage asset nor the loss if this important landscape setting to Norton.”

5.2 The appeal decision dated 22 July 2016 granted planning permission for Site A (residential development of up to 8 dwellings) and Site B (residential development of up to 85 dwellings). The Inspector concluded at points 79 and 80 that “harm to the significance of the nearby listed building Sutton Grange Barn to be effectively non-existent. The development would considerably reduce the contribution which the open setting of Grange House makes to its modern significance as a prestigious country residence, but, having regard to the scale of any harm and the significance of the heritage asset, the matter would not be of great consequence”.

5.3 Regarding harm to the setting of the approach to Norton, the Inspector concluded at point 35 that “the straight alignment of Langton Road means that the sites are peripheral to the experience of arriving into Norton … and the development of the sites would have little or no effect on the setting of the town”.

5.4 The appeal decision noted that the appeal sites do not sit within any nationally or locally protected or designated landscape. Both physical effects and visual effects are largely Landowner Representations on 1 November 2016 12 Land East of Welham Road Norton

confined to the site itself, resulting from the transformational change from undeveloped land to developed land. At point 81 the Inspector concluded that “development would compromise Policy SP13 which required the quality, character and value of Ryedale’s diverse landscapes to be protected and enhanced and which requires new development proposals to contribute to the protection and enhancement of distinctive elements of landscape character. It would also compromise those parts of policy SP20 which deal with Character, requiring new development to respect the character and context of the immediate locality and the wider landscape and townscape character”. However, the Inspector concluded that “on balance these would be sustainable developments and can therefore be said to comply with the development plan when read as a whole. So, subject to conditions, the appeals should be allowed and permission should granted”.

Landowner Representations on 1 November 2016 13 Land East of Welham Road Norton 6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1 We conclude that the designation of the Norton VIUA should not be implemented. The Site, in the west of the VIUA, is eminently suitable for housing development, located on flat, low lying land and adjacent to existing residential development on three sides. Scott’s Hill provides a clearly defined, defensible edge to the countryside beyond. The Appeal Site within Norton VIAU East has already been granted planning permission for up to 93 homes and the VIUA designation would only become implemented in the unlikely scenario of the permission expiring. At page 95 of The Landscapes of Northern Ryedale, published in 1999 on behalf of the District Council, the assessment provides advice for development around Malton/Norton: “From a landscape perspective, urban expansion would best be accommodated on the flat, low lying land to the south and east of the towns”, i.e. the area covered by the Norton VIUA. In allowing the appeal for up to 93 homes the Inspector gave weight to this statement. In our view the Site has a better relationship with the urban edge of Norton than other areas in the proposed Norton VIUA, in particular the Appeal Site. Its character has more suburban influences than the central and eastern areas of Norton VIUA.

6.2 We believe that there are flaws in all four of the criteria which were used to identify the Norton VIUA and our comments are summarised below.

6.3 At present we consider that the Site makes little contribution to the settlement viewed either from publicly accessible viewpoints within the settlement or from approach roads or paths. The main view into the Site from Whitewall is already marred by suburban development and domestic clutter of the rear gardens of properties along Welham Road. There are no outstanding views or special landscape features, apart from boundary hedges and trees along Mill Beck, which would be retained if the Site were to be developed.

6.4 In our opinion the Site is more suitable for housing development than the Appeal Site on Langton Road that has been granted planning permission. The Site is well screened from Welham Road, a local approach road to Norton, by existing built development and we consider that this edge is more robust than the approach road from Langton Road which is more rural in character. In spite of this, the Appeal Inspector considered the site “peripheral to the experience of arriving into Norton ... and the development would have little or no effect on the setting of the town”. This reinforces that the Site should also be allocated for housing, not designated a VIUA.

6.5 The Site lies in the least visually sensitive part of Norton VIUA; views from public rights of way and permissive paths are from Bazeley’s Lane and the eastern side of Scott’s Hill, which are located east of the Site and nearer to the Appeal Site. Views from Whitewall across the Site towards Malton and Norton are mostly screened by built development and vegetation, due the flat, low lying topography. Only part of the mature trees along Mill Beck can be

Landowner Representations on 1 November 2016 14 Land East of Welham Road Norton viewed from Whitewall across the Site. Vantage points to Malton and Norton are from higher ground to the south and the Site does not contribute to these views.

6.6 The Site does not contribute to the setting of the listed buildings Whitewall House and Whitewall Cottages. The connection between the listed buildings and the Site is severed by Whitewall lane. There are no public views across the Site or from within the Site which link to the listed buildings. The loss of the fields to development would cause little or no harm to the significance of the heritage asset. Modern development immediately east of Whitehall has affected the setting of the listed buildings. We believe that development of the Site would bring about enhancements to the setting of the listed buildings.

6.7 In the wider landscape, the Site is generally well contained to the north by the urban edge of Norton, to the west by existing housing along Welham Road and to the south by the rising wooded slopes of Scott’s Hill. The Site does not provide a vista/viewpoint into the surrounding countryside.

6.8 There are few landscape features within the Site that contribute to the character of the space apart from boundary hedges, which would be retained as part of a development.

Landowner Representations on 1 November 2016 15 Land East of Welham Road Norton The scaling of this drawing cannot be assured

KEY N

Proposed New VIUA * (‘Norton VIUA West’)

Proposed Extension to New VIUA * (‘Norton VIUA East’)

The Site

Land to the west of Langton Road with planning consent for up to 93 homes National Trail/Recreational Route (Centenary Way) **

Public right of way Footpath **

Public right of way Bridleway **

Permissive footpath (agreed by landowner)

Listed Building ***

12 Photographic viewpoint Refer to Figure 2: Aerial Photograph for location of viewpoints 1-11 and Figures 3-7 for photographs.

Source * The Ryedale Plan, Identifi cation and RevReviewiew of Mill Beck Visually Important Undeveloped Areas ** http://maps.northyorks.gov.uk/connect/ analyst/?mapcfg=Out_and_About

*** http://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx Welham Road Welham

Bazeley’s Lane Whitewall Langton Road Scott’s Hill project NORTON VIUA

title FIGURE 1 SITE CONTEXT PLAN date scale drawn by 01.11.16 NTS PJS 12 project no. drawing no. revision 22 01 -

60

landscape architecture - urban design 0 1 km © Crown copyright and database rights 2016 Ordnance Survey 01001000316730031673 01233 861199 07930 844660 [email protected] The scaling of this drawing cannot be assured

KEY N Hunters Way

Leat Close Extent of Proposed New VIUA (‘Norton VIUA West’) and Proposed Extension to New VIUA 1 Fish Hatchery (‘Norton VIUA East’) *

The Site

Land to the west of Langton Road with planning consent for up to 93 homes

Photographic viewpoint Sutton Grange 1 Langton Road Refer to Figure 1: Site Context Plan for location of viewpoint 12 and Figures 3-7 for photographs. Field 1

Source * The Ryedale Plan, Identifi cation and Review of Visually Important Undeveloped Areas

NORTON VIUA EAST Mill Beck

Paddock House

2

Field 2 NORTON VIUA WEST

Welham Road

Field 3 Field 4

Bazeley’s Lane 9 project 10 NORTON VIUA 3 7 6 8 5 Scott’s Hill 4 Whitewall title FIGURE 2 11 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH date scale drawn by 01.11.16 NTS PJS project no. drawing no. revision 22 02 -

landscape architecture - urban design (c) Getmapping plc 01233 861199 07930 844660 [email protected] approx. extent of Site approx. extent of Site

hedgrow along northern boundary mature trees along Mill Beck hedgerow between Field 2 of Site (Field 1) and Field 3

Viewpoint 1 - From Hunters Way looking south (approx. 24m AOD) Viewpoint 2 - From Welham Road at access to Field 3 looking east (approx. 28m AOD)

approx. extent of Site houses on Welham Road backing onto the Site junction with Whitewall

Viewpoint 3 - From Welham Road, a local approach road to Norton, looking north-east (approx. 30m AOD)

project 01.11.16 NORTON VIUA title FIGURE 3 PHOTOGRAPHIC VIEWPOINTS 1-3 For location of photographs refer to Figure 1: Site Context Plan and FIgure 2: Aerial Photograph landscape architecture - urban design Photographs taken on 27 October 2016 07930 844660 [email protected] Whitewall House bungalows and semi-detached homes (Grade II listed) Whitewall cottages/stables approx. extent of Site (Grade II listed) adjacent to Whitewall House

Viewpoint 4 - From Welham Road at junction with Whitewall Viewpoint 5 - From Whitewall looking south-east (approx. 30m AOD) looking east (approx. 30m AOD)

bungalows and semi- Whitewall House Whitewall stables detached homes (Grade II listed) (Grade II listed)

project 01.11.16 NORTON VIUA title FIGURE 4 PHOTOGRAPHIC VIEWPOINTS 4-6 For location of photographs refer to Figure 1: Site Context Plan and Viewpoint 6 - From Whitewall looking south-east (approx. 30m AOD) FIgure 2: Aerial Photograph landscape architecture - urban design Photographs taken on 27 October 2016 07930 844660 [email protected] approx. extent of Site

rear gardens of houses houses on Hunters Way boundary between along Welham Road Field 3 and Leat Close Field 1 and Field 3

Viewpoint 7 - From Whitewall House (Grade II listed building) looking north across Site (approx. 30m AOD)

approx. extent of Site lay-by parking Field 2 mature trees along for Scott’s Hill walks Mill Beck access to cottages

Viewpoint 8 - From Whithall at entrance to Field 2 on Site, looking north-east (approx. 30m AOD)

project 01.11.16 NORTON VIUA title FIGURE 5 PHOTOGRAPHIC VIEWPOINTS 7-8 For location of photographs refer to Figure 1: Site Context Plan and FIgure 2: Aerial Photograph landscape architecture - urban design Photographs taken on 27 October 2016 07930 844660 [email protected] approx. extent of Site mature trees along Malton Mill Beck houses on hedges on eitherside houses on Hunters Way Field 4 within Welham Road of Field 2 and Leat Close Norton VIUA West

Viewpoint 9 - From elevated path along Bazeley’s Lane looking north-west (approx. 31m AOD)

approx. extent of Site Malton fi eld within Norton VIUA East houses on houses on Hunters Field 4 within mature trees along (planning consent for up to 93 homes) Welham Road Way and Leat Close Norton VIUA West Mill Beck

Viewpoint 10 - From elevated path along Bazeley’s Lane looking north-west (approx. 31m AOD)

project 01.11.16 NORTON VIUA title FIGURE 6 PHOTOGRAPHIC VIEWPOINTS 9-10 For location of photographs refer to Figure 1: Site Context Plan and FIgure 2: Aerial Photograph landscape architecture - urban design Photographs taken on 27 October 2016 07930 844660 [email protected] fi eld within Norton VIUA East Norton Paddock House on mature trees along Langton Road (planning consent for up to 93 homes) Langton Road Mill Beck

Viewpoint 11 - From Scott’s Hill on permissive footpath looking north (approx. 50m AOD)

approx. extent of Site mature trees on houses on Hunters Malton Scott’s Hill Way and Leat Close

Viewpoint 12 - From fi eld south of Scott’s Hill on permissive footpath looking north (approx. 62m AOD)

project 01.11.16 NORTON VIUA title FIGURE 7 PHOTOGRAPHIC VIEWPOINTS 11-12 For location of photographs refer to Figure 1: Site Context Plan and FIgure 2: Aerial Photograph landscape architecture - urban design Photographs taken on 27 October 2016 07930 844660 [email protected] APPENDIX A Extract from Ryedale District Council, Identification & Review of Visually Important Undeveloped Areas Pages 37 & 72 37

Norton: Land between Welham Road and Langton Road, north of Whitewall and Bazeley's Lane

 Contribution the space makes to the setting of the settlement viewed either from publicly accessible view points within the settlement or from approach roads or paths  Contribution the space makes to the setting of a building or groups of buildings either listed or of historical or architectural interest  Extent to which the space provides a vista/viewpoint into the surrounding countryside  Extent to which trees, boundary hedges or walls contribute to the character of the space

The collection of fields allow the ability of both Malton and Norton to be viewed. They provide a buffer between the built edge of Norton, with an aligned use of horse grazing with the Listed 'Whitewall' and Whitewall Cottages. The field patterns are more diverse that those which surround the rest of Norton. The fields afford views of Norton and Malton, and the important area of Mill Beck.

The Council is consulting on this proposed new VIUA in two parts. The first part is the land to the south of Mill Beck extending along to Welham Road.

The second part is subject to a planning permission which was granted in 2016. This permission was granted upon appeal. The VIUA designation would only become implemented subject to the planning permission expiring. 72

 “Toft land is an important distinguishing feature of many Ryedale villages. The pattern of narrow plots contributes to the village’s visual amenity and should be a protected VIUA where it is still undeveloped”

Response Regarding such an approach, allotments are considered under their own policy, and would not necessarily fit within the assessment criteria. River Corridors are also unlikely to be area where there is significant pressure for development. Toft land is land which is associated with historic farming practices, where there is land associated with specific farms, could be considered, but not on the sole basis of it being toft land.

Malton / Norton

 Keep a greenbelt between Malton and Old Malton (J Ingham)  Whitewall and Scots Hill. Sites103, 187,302,319,320,321,322 to be VIUA (M Bates and C Knott)  Sites around Whitewall, Welham Rd. Norton to be VIUA (D Cartman)  Norton – Propose that Whitewall Corner/Whitewall/Bazleys Lane should be a VIUA. Scotts Hill (which is a designated dog-walking area and very popular) overlooks it and there are always people walking along the lane admiring the view. Many of the buildings and Listed and have historic interest, at both ends, and it should be preserved. Whitewall Stables was one of the first public racing stables in the country and is part of racing history. (F Campion)  Releasing the land within site 184 is a VIUA, which is not as visible, for development will ensure a sustainable location is released while retaining more VIUA to the southwest and northeast. (The Land and Development Practice)  VIUAs should be extended to include areas such as Site 372 for the reasons given above. Site 372 may not have a grand vista, but it affords light and amenity space to many homes, very efficiently. (P Shipley)  Sites 103, 187, 302, 319, 320 to be considered as a VIUA. It could be argued that these fields are as much a part of the character of the area as the listed buildings associated with Whitewall Stables and as such should be protected in the similar manner.(D Cartman)  136 should be added to VIUA (E Blyth)  We would like to support the allocation of Site 184. The northern part of the site 184, located in close proximity to the river and the north of the railway line, is designated as a VIUA. This land is designated as a VIUA as it forms a finger of open space which is close to the town centre of Malton and is visible when driving into the town on the B1257. However the area of land which forms part of the allocation 184 is not visible due to the banks of the river as it meanders directly adjacent the B1257. Views from the south are also blocked by the railway line and its embankment. Releasing this land for development will ensure a sustainable location is released while retaining more VIUA to the southwest and northeast. (The Land and Development Practice)  VIUAs should be extended to include areas such as Site 372 (P Shipley) APPENDIX B

Extract Landscapes of Northern Ryedale, published in 1999 on behalf of the District Council

APPENDIX 2 Appeal Decision 22 July 2016 Appeal A Ref: APP/Y2736/W/15/3136233 Appeal B Ref: APP/Y2736/W/15/3136237