Housing Land Selection Methodology and Assessments Background Paper Appendix N: Whitby Site Assessments

Proposed Allocations;

HA14 (35/12 & 16) NYCC Depot and SBC Council Yard, off Stakesby Road 3 HA15 (35/11) Land between ‘West Thorpe’ and The Nurseries 9 HA16 (35/04 & 52) Land at Stainsacre Lane, opposite Business Park, and south of Eskdale Park 15 HA17 (35/25 & 26) Land West of Stakesby Road 24 HA18 (35/50a) Land off Captain Cook Crescent 33 HA19 (35/53) Larpool Lane Residential Care Home 40

Other Sites;

35/03 Land to East of Ruswarp Lane 46 35/05 Land at Esk Leisure Centre, The Carrs, Ruswarp 53 35/08 Land to the rear of Mayfield Road, off Resolution Way 54 35/09 Land to West of Carr Hall Gardens, The Carrs, Ruswarp 61 35/10 Land at Stonegate Lodge Farm, Ruswarp 62 35/17 Land adjacent White Bridge Road 63 35/21 Land at Larpool Lane 64 35/22 Land adjacent No. 1 Links View, Love Lane 65 35/23 Land known as ‘Upper Baulbyes’, off Shackleton Close 66 35/24 Land at Prospect Farm, Mayfield Road 73 35/27 Land adjacent No. 2 Larpool Drive 80 35/30 Land at Folly Gardens, Green Lane 87 35/31 Land at Larpool Drive / Larpool Lane 88 35/41 Playing Fields between Helredale Road and Larpool Crescent 89 35/46 Land at Broomfield Cottage, Stainsacre Lane 96 35/47 Land to the North-East of The Avenue, Ruswarp 97 35/49 Land South of Lambert Hill Farm, The Carrs, Ruswarp 104 35/50b Land off Captain Cook Crescent 105

1

2

Site Assessment

Housing Allocation HA14 Reference: Site Ref: 35/12 & 35/16 Area (ha): 1.45ha Parish: Whitby Address: NYCC County Depot and SBC Council Yard, off Stakesby Road, Whitby Score: Stage A: Pass Stage B: 6-85-7 Stage C: 29 Concluding A suitable brownfield site that will improve the amenity of nearby Comments: residents through the relocation of the current depot to the Business Park. Indicative Yield: 60 dwellings

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

Stage A: Conformity with Settlement Strategy and Major Constraints

A(i) Conformity with the evolving Scarborough Borough settlement strategy:

Question 1a) Does the proposed site lie within or is well related to an existing settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 1b. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 1b) Does the settlement lie within or above the Service Village classification? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, proceed to Question 1c.

Question 1c) Are there any circumstances that would warrant an allocation of housing within the settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 2a) Is the site of an appropriate scale/size that reflects the role of the respective settlement as defined in the settlement hierarchy within the Local Plan? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, proceed to Question 2b.

Question 2b) Could a smaller portion of the site be in conformity with the settlement hierarchy? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, site is dismissed.

A(ii) Major Constraints (Environmental and Historic)

3

Question 3a) Is the site within the prescribed distance of any national or international site of biodiversity or geological value; e.g. RAMSAR, SSSI, SAC, SPA, National Nature Reserves ? YES / NO

Question 3b) If YES would the development have a negative impact on the associated area of protection? YES/NO

EXPLAIN…. The site lies within 5km of the North York Moors SAC and SPA, however, it is of such a scale that any impact from increased recreational pressure is therefore considered to be minor.

Question 4) Does the site lie within an area considered to be unsuitable due to its position within a flood risk zone (high risk)? YES / NO

Question 5) Does the site lie within an area considered to be at significant risk of coastal erosion zone, i.e. located within 100 year erosion zone? YES / NO

Question 6) Would the development of the site have an adverse negative impact upon nationally- important archaeology (including Scheduled Monuments) or other high-Grade historic assets or their settings? YES / NO

If No to all questions 3 to 6, proceed to Question 8 If Yes, proceed to Question 7

Question 7) Where one of the above questions may have answered ‘yes’, does the constraint prohibit development of the entire site with no possibility of amending the site area? YES / NO / N/A

If Yes, site is dismissed. If, as a result of amending site boundaries, a site can no longer yield 10 dwellings or more, it will be dismissed. Where 10 dwellings may be yielded, proceed to Question 8

Stage B: First Round Scoring

Question 8) Brownfield or Greenfield Land

Is the site classified as previously developed land (Brownfield), Greenfield or is it a mixture of both land types?

100% Brownfield 6 Majority Brownfield 4 Majority Greenfield 2 100% Greenfield 1 POINTS 6

Question 9a) Accessibility of site to ‘pre-determined’ areas by public transport

This question, along with Question 10, relate to accessibility. With the use of accessibility software, complex transport modelling is utilised to enable the relative accessibility of potential sites to pre- determined services and facilities by sustainable modes such as public transport, walking and cycling.

Journey time to Destination by Public Transport Destination Less than 15 to 30 30 to 45 45 to 60 More than 1 15 mins mins mins mins hour Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 1 0 neighbourhood centres. Major 6 4 2 1 0 employment

4 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 1 0 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 1 0 Secondary 6 4 2 1 0 Schools GP Surgeries 6 4 2 1 0 TOTAL 36

Question 9b) How accessible is the site to existing services and facilities?

Walking Distances within Cycling Distances within Destination 500m 1000m 2000m 1.5km 5km 8km Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 3 2 1 neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 3 2 1 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 3 2 1 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 3 2 1 Secondary 6 4 2 3 2 1 Schools Train Station 6 4 2 3 2 1 GP Surgeries 6 4 2 3 2 1 TOTAL 49

Question 10) Accessibility of site to pre-determined areas for leisure and recreation

Destination Within Pre-determined range 350m (5 mins) 700m (10 mins) 1000m (15 mins) Informal Open Space 1 0 0 for Recreation Outdoor Sports 3 2 1 Pitches and Facilities Local Children’s Play 1 0 0 Area Neighbourhood 2 1 0 Children’s Play Area Settlement Level 3 2 1 Children’s Play Area Total 7

Comparison Scores for Q8 to 10

Brownfield / Greenfield Accessibility to Services Accessibility to Recreation 6 85 7

Stage C: Detailed Site Implications

At any stage of this process, where a constraint to development may be so significant, the site could require dismissing.

Question 11) Regional and Local Biodiversity

5

Would the development of the proposed site affect a regional or local site of biodiversity or geological value or affect any protected species/habitats?

Assessment / Not within any designated areas. Score 1 Comments

Question 12) Trees and Hedgerows

Would the development of the site affect trees or hedgerows not covered by statutory protection or by the BAP?

Assessment / The area is a built up commercial premises Score 1 Comments with little or no tree and vegetation cover.

Question 13) Historic Environment

Would the proposed development affect the historic environment including the setting of an historic asset?

Assessment / The site does not lie within the Score 1 Comments conservation area and has no historic features which require retention.

Question 14) Character of Built Area

Would the development affect the built character of the town or village?

Assessment / The site lies adjacent to residential Score 3 Comments development and would enhance the residential environment of the area, minimising disturbance and subsequent amenity issues from relocating the Council’s Depot / Yard.

Question 15) Impact on the Landscape

What is the capacity of the landscape to accommodate development with respect to the conservation and enhancement of distinctive rural and coastal landscape character areas?

Assessment / In an urban area. Sco re 3 Comments

Question 16) Flood Risk

Is the proposal within an area at risk of flooding?

Note: Sites deemed at a high risk of flooding are likely to have been dismissed at Stage 1 of assessment process.

Assessment / Zone 1 Score 3 Comments

Question 17) Agricultural land

Would the development of the site result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land?

Assessment / Urban area. Score 2 Comments

Question 18) Water Supply and Groundwater Source Protection Zones

6

Would the development adversely affect a water supply?

Assessment / No impact Score 3 Comments

Question 19) Mineral Resources

Would the development of the land impact on mineral resources?

Assessment / No impact Score 2 Comments

Infrastructure

Question 20) School Capacity

What is the capacity of schools to cope with the development?

Assessment / There is sufficient capacity within both local Score 2 Comments Primary and Secondary schools to cope with the anticipated level of housing on this site.

Question 21) Capacity of Utility Providers

What is the capacity of existing utilities (Water, Sewage, etc) to cope with the development?

Assessment / There is sufficient capacity in the treatment Score 2 Comments works.

Question 22) Impact on Strategic Highway Network

Does the development have an adverse impact on the Strategic Road Network?

Assessment / None Score 2 Comments

Question 23) Impact on Local Highways Network

Is the highway network (local) able to safely and efficiently cope with this development?

Assessment / There are a number of access points off Score 2 Comments Stakesby Road, Station Avenue or through the adjacent County Council Depot (also considered for housing).

Amenity Issues

Question 24) Land Use Conflicts

Would the development of the site be compatible with adjoining land uses (now or in the future) or are there conflict / amenity issues?

Assessment / None Score 2 Comments

Question 25) Other Issues and Constraints

Are there any other constraints that prevent the site from being developed?

7

Assessment / No other constraints Comments

Availability and Deliverability

Question 26) Ownership

Are there any ownership constraints?

No Owner has submitted site and is willing to sell

Question 27) Timescale for Development

Is the site likely to be developed within the Local Plan period up to 2030?

Within 5 years Site can be developed within first 5 years and any constraints can be overcome.

Overall Assessment of Deliverability

Any comments on estimated yield; overarching constraints, justification or mitigation; revised site boundary where necessary for instance.

The site is considered a suitable brownfield site for housing and would provide a continuation of the improvements to this part of the town. Indicative Yield A high density scheme could yield about 60 dwellings.

8

Site Assessment

Housing Allocation HA15 Reference: Site Ref: 35/11 Area (ha): 0.31 ha Parish: Whitby Address: Land between ‘West Thorpe’ and The Nurseries, Whitby

Score: Stage A: Pass Stage B: 6-85-7 Stage C: 30 Concluding The site is considered a suitable site for housing in a similar ilk to the Comments: adjacent development. There are no constraints other than the initial relocation of the Nursery. For this reason it is suggested that the development will more likely happen beyond the initial 5 years. Estimated Yield: 10 dwellings

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

Stage A: Conformity with Settlement Strategy and Major Constraints

A(i) Conformity with the evolving Scarborough Borough settlement strategy:

Question 1a) Does the proposed site lie within or is well related to an existing settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 1b. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 1b) Does the settlement lie within or above the Service Village classification? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, proceed to Question 1c.

Question 1c) Are there any circumstances that would warrant an allocation of housing within the settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 2a) Is the site of an appropriate scale/size that reflects the role of the respective settlement as defined in the settlement hierarchy within the Local Plan? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, proceed to Question 2b.

Question 2b) Could a smaller portion of the site be in conformity with the settlement hierarchy? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, site is dismissed.

A(ii) Major Constraints (Environmental and Historic)

9

Question 3a) Is the site within the prescribed distance of any national or international site of biodiversity or geological value; e.g. RAMSAR, SSSI, SAC, SPA, National Nature Reserves ? YES / NO

Question 3b) If YES would the development have a negative impact on the associated area of protection? YES/NO

EXPLAIN…. The site lies within 5km of the North York Moors SAC and SPA, however, it is of such a scale that any impact from increased recreational pressure is therefore considered to be minor.

Question 4) Does the site lie within an area considered to be unsuitable due to its position within a flood risk zone (high risk)? YES / NO

Question 5) Does the site lie within an area considered to be at significant risk of coastal erosion zone, i.e. located within 100 year erosion zone? YES / NO

Question 6) Would the development of the site have an adverse negative impact upon nationally- important archaeology (including Scheduled Monuments) or other high-Grade historic assets or their settings? YES / NO

If No to all questions 3 to 6, proceed to Question 8 If Yes, proceed to Question 7

Question 7) Where one of the above questions may have answered ‘yes’, does the constraint prohibit development of the entire site with no possibility of amending the site area? YES / NO / N/A

If Yes, site is dismissed. If, as a result of amending site boundaries, a site can no longer yield 10 dwellings or more, it will be dismissed. Where 10 dwellings may be yielded, proceed to Question 8

Stage B: First Round Scoring

Question 8) Brownfield or Greenfield Land

Is the site classified as previously developed land (Brownfield), Greenfield or is it a mixture of both land types?

100% Brownfield 6 Majority Brownfield 4 Majority Greenfield 2 100% Greenfield 1 POINTS 6

Question 9a) Accessibility of site to ‘pre-determined’ areas by public transport

This question, along with Question 10, relate to accessibility. With the use of accessibility software, complex transport modelling is utilised to enable the relative accessibility of potential sites to pre- determined services and facilities by sustainable modes such as public transport, walking and cycling.

Journey time to Destination by Public Transport Destination Less than 15 to 30 30 to 45 45 to 60 More than 1 15 mins mins mins mins hour Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 1 0 neighbourhood centres. Major 6 4 2 1 0 employment

10 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 1 0 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 1 0 Secondary 6 4 2 1 0 Schools GP Surgeries 6 4 2 1 0 TOTAL 36

Question 9b) How accessible is the site to existing services and facilities?

Walking Distances within Cycling Distances within Destination 500m 1000m 2000m 1.5km 5km 8km Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 3 2 1 neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 3 2 1 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 3 2 1 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 3 2 1 Secondary 6 4 2 3 2 1 Schools Train Station 6 4 2 3 2 1 GP Surgeries 6 4 2 3 2 1 TOTAL 49

Question 10) Accessibility of site to pre-determined areas for leisure and recreation

Destination Within Pre-determined range 350m (5 mins) 700m (10 mins) 1000m (15 mins) Informal Open Space 1 0 0 for Recreation Outdoor Sports 3 2 1 Pitches and Facilities Local Children’s Play 1 0 0 Area Neighbourhood 2 1 0 Children’s Play Area Settlement Level 3 2 1 Children’s Play Area Total 7

Comparison Scores for Q8 to 10

Brownfield / Greenfield Accessibility to Services Accessibility to Recreation 6 85 7

Stage C: Detailed Site Implications

At any stage of this process, where a constraint to development may be so significant, the site could require dismissing.

Question 11) Regional and Local Biodiversity

11

Would the development of the proposed site affect a regional or local site of biodiversity or geological value or affect any protected species/habitats?

Assessment / Not within any designated areas. There Score 1 Comments are, however, protected species on site which are to be mitigated for.

Question 12) Trees and Hedgerows

Would the development of the site affect trees or hedgerows not covered by statutory protection or by the BAP?

Assessment / There is some screening to the northern Score 2 Comments side of the site, however, this could be retained if required and utilized as screening. There is not considered to be any constraints that would restrict development.

Question 13) Historic Environment

Would the proposed development affect the historic environment including the setting of an historic asset?

Assessment / The site does not lie within the Score 1 Comments conservation area and has no historic features which require retention.

Question 14) Character of Built Area

Would the development affect the built character of the town or village?

Assessment / The site lies adjacent to modern residential Score 3 Comments development and would enhance the residential environment of the area, minimising disturbance and subsequent amenity issues from relocating the Council’s Nurseries.

Question 15) Impact on the Landscape

What is the capacity of the landscape to accommodate development with respect to the conservation and enhancement of distinctive rural and coastal landscape character areas?

Assessment / In an urban area. Score 3 Comments

Question 16) Flood Risk

Is the proposal within an area at risk of flooding?

Note: Sites deemed at a high risk of flooding are likely to have been dismissed at Stage 1 of assessment process.

Assessment / Zone 1 Score 3 Comments

Question 17) Agricultural land

12

Would the development of the site result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land?

Assessment / Urban area. Score 2 Comments

Question 18) Water Supply and Source Protection Zones

Would the development adversely affect a water supply?

Assessment / No impact Score 3 Comments

Question 19) Mineral Resources

Would the development of the land impact on mineral resources?

Assessment / No impact Score 2 Comments

Infrastructure

Question 20) School Capacity

What is the capacity of schools to cope with the development?

Assessment / There is sufficient capacity within both local Score 2 Comments Primary and Secondary schools to cope with the anticipated small level of housing on this site.

Question 21) Capacity of Utility Providers

What is the capacity of existing utilities (Water, Sewage, etc) to cope with the development?

Assessment / There is sufficient capacity in the treatment Score 2 Comments works.

Question 22) Impact on Strategic Highway Network

Does the development have an adverse impact on the Strategic Road Network?

Assessment / None Score 2 Comments

Question 23) Impact on Local Highways Network

Is the highway network (local) able to safely and efficiently cope with this development?

Assessment / There is an existing access to the Nursery that Score 2 Comments can be improved and utilized.

Amenity Issues

Question 24) Land Use Conflicts

Would the development of the site be compatible with adjoining land uses (now or in the future) or are there conflict / amenity issues?

13

Assessment / None Score 2 Comments

Question 25) Other Issues and Constraints

Are there any other constraints that prevent the site from being developed?

Assessment / No other constraints Comments

Availability and Deliverability

Question 26) Ownership

Are there any ownership constraints?

No Owner has submitted site and is willing to sell

Question 27) Timescale for Development

Is the site likely to be developed within the Local Plan period up to 2030?

Within 5 years Site can be developed within first 5 years and any constraints can be overcome..

Overall Assessment of Deliverability

Any comments on estimated yield; overarching constraints, justification or mitigation; revised site boundary where necessary for instance.

The site is considered a suitable site for housing in a similar ilk to the adjacent development. There are no constraints other than the initial relocation of the Nursery which is progressing and its release is most likely within the first 5 year phasing period. Indicative Yield 10 dwellings

14

Site Assessment

Housing Allocation HA16 Reference: Site Ref: 35/04and 35/52 Area (ha): 26.7ha (reduced to 12.2ha) Parish: Whitby Address: Land at Stainsacre Lane, opposite Business Park and to the south of Eskdale Park, Whitby Score: Stage A: Pass Stage B: 1-65-1 Stage C: 27 Concluding These contiguous sites have been submitted separately but are Comments: assessed together. ( The sustainability assessment has been carried out from the eastern part of the site which would have the primary access to the site.)

Development here would represent expansion of the town beyond current built areas towards the National Park boundary. However, the site offers no insurmountable constraints and offers a potentially sustainable development as a result of the expanded retail offer and proposed Business Park expansion in the near locality, The site has been assessed together (eastern and western portions) and whilst the eastern part was not proposed as a preferred option at the previous stage of plan production, this was on the basis that other preferable sites existed within Whitby. This situation has evolved since that time with other sites showing no signs of being brought forward. Furthermore, the potential Potash Mine development, and associated jobs, is proposed within relative close proximity.

Across Whitby as a whole there is a lack of potential housing sites to deliver the required levels of housing, whilst the Potash and Wind Farm industries could have a considerable impact on demand.

Subject to successful mitigation of potential impacts from the nearby waste water treatment works and the provision of a suitable access, the site is considered an appropriate location for development and is recommended for allocation.

There are some limited highways issues (as mentioned in Question 23) and if these cannot be overcome will result in the land being reduced. Indicative Yield: 320 dwellings.

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

Stage A: Conformity with Settlement Strategy and Major Constraints

A(i) Conformity with the evolving Scarborough Borough settlement strategy:

Question 1a) Does the proposed site lie within or is well related to an existing settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 1b. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 1b) Does the settlement lie within or above the Service Village classification?

15

YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, proceed to Question 1c.

Question 1c) Are there any circumstances that would warrant an allocation of housing within the settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 2a) Is the site of an appropriate scale/size that reflects the role of the respective settlement as defined in the settlement hierarchy within the Local Plan? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, proceed to Question 2b.

Question 2b) Could a smaller portion of the site be in conformity with the settlement hierarchy? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, site is dismissed.

A(ii) Major Constraints (Environmental and Historic)

Question 3a) Is the site within the prescribed distance of any national or international site of biodiversity or geological value; e.g. RAMSAR, SSSI, SAC, SPA, National Nature Reserves ? YES / NO

Question 3b) If YES would the development have a negative impact on the associated area of protection? YES/NO

The site lies within 5km of the North York Moors SAC and SPA , a separate detailed HRA has been carried out in order to assess the impact of development of this site on Natura 2000 sites.

Question 4) Does the site lie within an area considered to be unsuitable due to its position within a flood risk zone (high risk)? YES / NO

Question 5) Does the site lie within an area considered to be at significant risk of coastal erosion zone, i.e. located within 100 year erosion zone? YES / NO

Question 6) Would the development of the site have an adverse negative impact upon nationally- important archaeology (including Scheduled Monuments) or other high-Grade historic assets or their settings? YES / NO

If No to all questions 3 to 6, proceed to Question 8 If Yes, proceed to Question 7

Question 7) Where one of the above questions may have answered ‘yes’, does the constraint prohibit development of the entire site with no possibility of amending the site area? YES / NO / N/A

If Yes, site is dismissed. If, as a result of amending site boundaries, a site can no longer yield 10 dwellings or more, it will be dismissed. Where 10 dwellings may be yielded, proceed to Question 8

Stage B: First Round Scoring

Question 8) Brownfield or Greenfield Land

16

Is the site classified as previously developed land (Brownfield), Greenfield or is it a mixture of both land types?

100% Brownfield 6 Majority Brownfield 4 Majority Greenfield 2 100% Greenfield 1 POINTS 1

Question 9a) Accessibility of site to ‘pre-determined’ areas by public transport

This question, along with Question 10, relate to accessibility. With the use of accessibility software, complex transport modelling is utilised to enable the relative accessibility of potential sites to pre- determined services and facilities by sustainable modes such as public transport, walking and cycling.

Journey time to Destination by Public Transport Destination Less than 15 to 30 30 to 45 45 to 60 More than 1 15 mins mins mins mins hour Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 1 0 neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 1 0 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 1 0 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 1 0 Secondary 6 4 2 1 0 Schools GP Surgeries 6 4 2 1 0 TOTAL 32

Question 9b) How accessible is the site to existing services and facilities?

Walking Distances within Cycling Distances within Destination 500m 1000m 2000m 1.5km 5km 8km Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 3 2 1 neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 3 2 1 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 3 2 1 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 3 2 1 Secondary 6 4 2 3 2 1 Schools Train Station 6 4 2 3 2 1 GP Surgeries 6 4 2 3 2 1 TOTAL 33

Question 10) Accessibility of site to pre-determined areas for leisure and recreation

Destination Within Pre-determined range

17

350m (5 mins) 700m (10 mins) 1000m (15 mins) Informal Open Space 1 0 0 for Recreation Outdoor Sports 3 2 1 Pitches and Facilities Local Children’s Play 1 0 0 Area Neighbourhood 2 1 0 Children’s Play Area Settlement Level 3 2 1 Children’s Play Area Total 1

Comparison Scores for Q8 to 10

Brownfield / Greenfield Accessibility to Services Accessibility to Recreation 1 65 1

Stage C: Detailed Site Implications

At any stage of this process, where a constraint to development may be so significant, the site could require dismissing.

Question 11) Regional and Local Biodiversity

Would the development of the proposed site affect a regional or local site of biodiversity or geological value or affect any protected species/habitats?

Assessment / There are no protected areas on or directly Score 1 Comments adjacent to the site. There is a SINC to the southern edge of the nearby Cinder Track (the former railway line), however, there is no direct access to the track from the site. Any detailed planning application would need to consider potential impacts and incorporate any necessary mitigation.

Question 12) Trees and Hedgerows

Would the development of the site affect trees or hedgerows not covered by statutory protection or by the BAP?

Assessment / Extensive hedgerows border the eastern Score 1 Comments part of the site. Much of this could be retained as part of any development.

The western site is in the form of a single farmed field with no trees contained within the centre of the site. There is some tree coverage on the southern boundary with the Cinder Track and a small area of trees/ hedgerows to the boundary with the school field. Boundary vegetation to the southern part of the site adjacent to the Cinder Track could be retained and enhanced in terms of its tree and planting coverage to protect this entrance to Whitby. As such it is not considered that this development would harm existing tree

18

or hedgerow coverage.

Question 13) Historic Environment

Would the proposed development affect the historic environment including the setting of an historic asset?

Assessment / Larpool Hall (Grade 2) is located to the Score 1 Comments west of this site, however, it is not considered that development would cause any harm to that property. Further development to the north is under construction which lies in closer proximity to that property. Furthermore, the fall of the land and its location at the fringe of the town means that longer range views of the historic core of Whitby and the Abbey should be unaffected although massing and heights of buildings should still take into account the wider setting of the town and key views.

Question 14) Character of Built Area

Would the development affect the built character of the town or village?

Assessment / Although the eastern part of the site is Score 1 Comments located at a ‘gateway’ position on a major entrance into the town from the south (A171), this area has seen considerable development in recent years in association with the Business Park. Furthermore, the Whitby Business Park Area Action Plan proposes the expansion of the Business Park.. The western part of the site offers scope to extend the recent development of Eskdale Park towards a well defined southern boundary provided by the former railway line.

This area is considered an appropriate area of expansion for the town, which in other locations is restricted significantly by a combination of site availability, topography, proximity to and relationship with the national park designation, and key constraints with regards to the town’s heritage assets..

Question 15) Impact on the Landscape

What is the capacity of the landscape to accommodate development with respect to the conservation and enhancement of distinctive rural and coastal landscape character areas?

Assessment / Little impact as the site is relatively low Score 1 Comments lying and well screened by established tress and hedgerows which could be retained as part of any development. The site borders the National Park at its

19

eastern end and is in close p roximity at its southern end. This requires careful consideration in terms of the treatement of the peripheral parts of the site, although the eastern part of the site has a visual relationship with the Business Park to the north and therefore its context is more developed / urban in form. In addition the western part of the site will increasingly be read against the backdrop of the ongoing housing development at Eskdale Park.

Long range views of the site from the south and east will therefore be in the context of an immediate developed background of both commercial and residential development.

The site lies within the landscape designation I1 ‘Whitby Settlement Fringe’ as defined in the latest Landscape Study. Landscape sensitivity testing has been completed for this area which found that the overall sensitivity was moderate to low for residential development.

Question 16) Flood Risk

Is the proposal within an area at risk of flooding?

Note: Sites deemed at a high risk of flooding are likely to have been dismissed at Stage 1 of assessment process.

Assessment / Zone 1 Score 3 Comments

Question 17) Agricultural land

Would the development of the site result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land?

Assessment / Grade 3 Score 2 Comments

Question 18) Water Supply and Source Protection Zones

Would the development adversely affect a water supply?

Assessment / No impact upon water supply. Score 3 Comments

Question 19) Mineral Resources

Would the development of the land impact on mineral resources?

Assessment / No impact upon mineral resources. Score 2 Comments

Infrastructure

Question 20) School Capacity

20

What is the capacity of schools to cope with the development?

Assessment / Sufficient school capacity at Primary and Score 2 Comments Secondary schools.

Question 21) Capacity of Utility Providers

What is the capacity of existing utilities (Water, Sewage, etc) to cope with the development?

Assessment / Sufficient Waste Water capacity. Score 2 Comments

Question 22) Impact on Strategic Highway Network

Does the development have an adverse impact on the Strategic Road Network?

Assessment / No impact upon strategic highway network. Score 2 Comments

Question 23) Impact on Local Highways Network

Is the highway network (local) able to safely and efficiently cope with this development?

Assessment / The Eastern part of the site can be accessed Sc ore 2 Comments from Stainsacre Lane with the road linking across to the western part of the site below Eskdale Park. There are no objections from NYCC Highways on the land opposite the Business Park, however, they have raised some concerns relating to what would in essence be Phase 2 of the Eskdale Park development.

There is some concern regarding the secondary access, and this needs to be resolved by the site promoter.

The site promoter for this part of the site is currently working on solutions to overcome these issues as is confident a resolution can be found.

Amenity Issues

Question 24) Land Use Conflicts

Would the development of the site be compatible with adjoining land uses (now or in the future) or are there conflict / amenity issues?

Assessment / The main issue in relation to this site is the Score 2 Comments proximity of the Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) and the potential for odour issues affecting the amenity of future residents. Comprehensive odour assessments have been submitted highlighting a potential exclusion zone in an arc around the WWTW. There is potential for the non-residential elements of any scheme to locate within this zone;

21

open space, recreation etc. The actual boundaries of residential development, if allocated, would be based on current and/or future odour assessments submitted with any proposal.

The Cinder Track (former Scarborough to Whitby railway line) runs below the site, more so to the south of the western part of the site. Whilst this offers an opportunity to provide sustainable linkages into Whitby and good recreational opportunities there is also the potential for the development to harm the character and integrity of the Cinder Track and adversely alter this rural entrance to the town. A substantial buffer will be required to the immediate north of the Cinder Track to ensure that this soft edge to Whitby is not harmed and the transition from the countryside to the town is not adversely affected. This buffer would protect the Cinder Track but could also be used as recreational open space with access on to the track.

There is a football pitch on part of the land in the centre of the site south of the school. The site is of such a scale that there will be the opportunity to relocate the pitch if necessary as, whilst this may not be used for residential development, this may be the area of land taken up by the access road into the eastern side of the site.

The eastern part of the site is of sufficient distance from the Business Park to not suffer from adverse amenity impacts. The western part is adjacent to (or will be) residential development and is considered compatible.

Question 25) Other Issues and Constraints

Are there any other constraints that prevent the site from being developed?

Assessment / No other issues. Comments

Availability and Deliverability

Question 26) Ownership

Are there any ownership constraints?

No Owners have submitted these site and are willing to sell

Question 27) Timescale for Development

22

Is the site likely to be developed within the Local Plan period up to 2030?

Within 5 years Site can be developed within first 5 years and any constraints can be overcome.

Overall Assessment of Deliverability

Any comments on estimated yield; overarching constraints, justification or mitigation; revised site boundary where necessary for instance.

This site is substantial and wraps around the south-eastern part of Whitby.

The main issues of consideration are the odour issues from the WWTW and the ability to access the full site. A large part of the area submitted would be inappropriate for development due to potential odour issues, however, the landowner is fully aware of this constraint and has submitted comprehensive details showing the developable part of the site. The part of the site within the odour zone could be used for non-residential uses to complement any residential scheme.

Access options have been submitted and show the linkages between the eastern and western parts of the site; in some ways this is two separate developments with a common access point and potentially shared open space, recreation and/or sports provision.

At present, the western side of the A171 is characterised by extensive hedgerows and trees before Eskdale School Playing Fields with residential development only starting approximately 0.2 km further up Stainsacre Lane. Opposite this site lies the Whitby Business Park which has seen recent retail development along its frontage. The proximity to the Business Park including the new supermarket increases the sustainability of this site and, notwithstanding the expansion of the town out into the countryside, this is one of only a few options for delivering relatively significant housing numbers in Whitby.

The site offers no insurmountable constraints to development, and is proposed for allocation. The exact boundaries of the residential development will be determined.

The yield of this development site is particularly difficult to estimate given the uncertainties over the degree to which constraints may render parts of the site inappropriate to develop, however, the landowner has suggested around 100-120 dwellings on the land to the immediate south of the Business Park. The land to the west has greater potential for numbers, however, this will have to be in the context of achieving an appropriate buffer with the Cinder Track and the presence of the odour zone. An approximate area of 9.7 hectares has been identified on this part of the development, which at a density rate of 30 dwellings per hectare and a developable area of 70% would result in approximately 200 dwellings. This could be higher if open space and recreational facilities were provided in the buffer, however, this figure will be used to give an indicative return; 320 dwellings in total. Indicative Yield 320 dwellings

23

Site Assessment

Housing Allocation HA17 Reference: Site Ref: 35/25 & 35/26 Area (ha): 6.9ha (originally submitted as 10ha) Parish: Whitby Address: Land West of Stakesby Road

Score: Stage A: Pass Stage B: 2-68-6 Stage C: 23 (excl Questions 13) Concluding This site is in the form of agricultural grazing land to the west of Comments: Stakesby Road. There is a substantial agricultural building in the north eastern corner of the site.

It is logical to consolidate these contiguous sites and assess them accordingly.

To the north and east of the site is residential development along Castle Road and High Stakesby Road respectively. To the south of the site is a Petrol Filling Station and associated retail unit and a ribbon of residential development along Guisborough Road. Open fields/tennis courts lay to the west of site, leading to Sneaton Castle.

The site was not recommended for inclusion in the 2009 Preferred Options Housing Allocations. Since that stage a number of potential development sites in Whitby have failed to come forward and are unlikely to do so in the short term. There is also the potential development of a Potash Mine within close proximity to the town, and the potential economic impacts of the off-shore wind industry which have required the re-assessment of sites and the quantum of development appropriate to Whitby.

As with all edge of settlement sites, development here would represent an extension of built form and would alter the setting/entrance to the town to some extent. However, in this regard the context of the site is important, and it is, to a greater or lesser degree, surrounded by residential development on its northern, eastern and southern sides. To the west the sense of ‘open’ countryside is reduced by the presence of Sneaton Castle itself, although there are views through the site towards the Abbey headland.

From a landscape perspective, the development of the site is considered to represent only a low to medium impact in terms of sensitivity.

This site is therefore considered to represent a deliverable option in the short term and represents one of the few available options for a relatively significant contribution to the housing supply of Whitby. Indicative Yield: 246 dwellings (based on early masterplanning work).

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

Stage A: Conformity with Settlement Strategy and Major Constraints

24

A(i) Conformity with the evolving Scarborough Borough settlement strategy:

Question 1a) Does the proposed site lie within or is well related to an existing settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 1b. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 1b) Does the settlement lie within or above the Service Village classification? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, proceed to Question 1c.

Question 1c) Are there any circumstances that would warrant an allocation of housing within the settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 2a) Is the site of an appropriate scale/size that reflects the role of the respective settlement as defined in the settlement hierarchy within the Local Plan? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, proceed to Question 2b.

Question 2b) Could a smaller portion of the site be in conformity with the settlement hierarchy? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, site is dismissed.

A(ii) Major Constraints (Environmental and Historic)

Question 3a) Is the site within the prescribed distance of any national or international site of biodiversity or geological value; e.g. RAMSAR, SSSI, SAC, SPA, National Nature Reserves ? YES / NO

Question 3b) If YES would the development have a negative impact on the associated area of protection? YES/NO

The site lies within 5km of the North York Moors SAC and SPA , a separate detailed HRA has been carried out in order to assess the impact of development of this site on Natura 2000 sites.

Question 4) Does the site lie within an area considered to be unsuitable due to its position within a flood risk zone (high risk)? YES / NO

Question 5) Does the site lie within an area considered to be at significant risk of coastal erosion zone, i.e. located within 100 year erosion zone? YES / NO

Question 6) Would the development of the site have an adverse negative impact upon nationally- important archaeology (including Scheduled Monuments) or other high-Grade historic assets or their settings? YES / NO

If No to all questions 3 to 6, proceed to Question 8 If Yes, proceed to Question 7

Question 7) Where one of the above questions may have answered ‘yes’, does the constraint prohibit development of the entire site with no possibility of amending the site area? YES / NO / N/A

25

If Yes, site is dismissed. If, as a result of amending site boundaries, a site can no longer yield 10 dwellings or more, it will be dismissed. Where 10 dwellings may be yielded, proceed to Question 8

Stage B: First Round Scoring

Question 8) Brownfield or Greenfield Land

Is the site classified as previously developed land (Brownfield), Greenfield or is it a mixture of both land types?

100% Brownfield 6 Majority Brownfield 4 Majority Greenfield 2 100% Greenfield 1 POINTS 2

Question 9a) Accessibility of site to ‘pre-determined’ areas by public transport

This question, along with Question 10, relate to accessibility. With the use of accessibility software, complex transport modelling is utilised to enable the relative accessibility of potential sites to pre- determined services and facilities by sustainable modes such as public transport, walking and cycling.

Journey time to Destination by Public Transport Destination Less than 15 to 30 30 to 45 45 to 60 More than 1 15 mins mins mins mins hour Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 1 0 neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 1 0 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 1 0 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 1 0 Secondary 6 4 2 1 0 Schools GP Surgeries 6 4 2 1 0 TOTAL 34

Question 9b) How accessible is the site to existing services and facilities?

Walking Distances within Cycling Distances within Destination 500m 1000m 2000m 1.5km 5km 8km Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 3 2 1 neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 3 2 1 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 3 2 1 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 3 2 1

26

Secondary 6 4 2 3 2 1 Schools Train Station 6 4 2 3 2 1 GP Surgeries 6 4 2 3 2 1 TOTAL 34

Question 10) Accessibility of site to pre-determined areas for leisure and recreation

Destination Within Pre-determined range 350m (5 mins) 700m (10 mins) 1000m (15 mins) Informal Open Space 1 0 0 for Recreation Outdoor Sports 3 2 1 Pitches and Facilities Local Children’s Play 1 0 0 Area Neighbourhood 2 1 0 Children’s Play Area Settlement Level 3 2 1 Children’s Play Area Total 6

Comparison Scores for Q8 to 10

Brownfield / Greenfield Accessibility to Services Accessibility to Recreation 2 68 6

Stage C: Detailed Site Implications

At any stage of this process, where a constraint to development may be so significant, the site could require dismissing.

Question 11) Regional and Local Biodiversity

Would the development of the proposed site affect a regional or local site of biodiversity or geological value or affect any protected species/habitats?

Assessment / No impact upon designated site. Score 1 Comments

Question 12) Trees and Hedgerows

Would the development of the site affect trees or hedgerows not covered by statutory protection or by the BAP?

Assessment / Sporadic light vegetation and some Score 1 Comments hedgerows within and bordering the site. A few mature trees in the north-east corner of the site bordering Castle Road and High Stakesby Road; these could be incorporated into a development scheme.

Light vegetation runs up the eastern boundary of this site with minor hedgerow coverage on the western and southern boundaries. These could be retained where deemed valuable.

Question 13) Historic Environment

27

Would the proposed development affect the historic environment including the setting of an historic asset?

Assessment / It is unknown if this site was historically Score -2 Comments related to Sneaton Castle although it does not have the appearance of formal curtilage or grounds.

Notwithstanding this, the Council’s Conservation Officer has raised some concerns with regards to the development of the site. Without adequate mitigation or careful design development could cause substantial harm most notably in terms of the impact it would have upon the setting of Sneaton Castle.

Further Listed Buildings are located opposite the North-east corner of the site at the northern end of High Stakesby Road although it is not considered development would have an adverse impacted upon them.

There are some views of Whitby Abbey from Sneaton Castle. These are limited to the view across the eastern edge of the site, and primarily from upper floor windows from the existing building, although there are some (albeit restricted) views from ground level. These views should not be substantially altered and could be retained to appropriate building types, heights and positioning to retain these zones of vision.

There are limited views of Sneaton Castle from the east and south and careful planning of a housing scheme with an appropriate open space buffer and dwellings facing onto the castle could be beneficial in terms of enhanced public views of this Grade 2 Listed Building. The setting of Sneaton Castle itself has substantially changed both as a result of the alterations to the building and its curtilage and as a result of the residential development along Castle Road which runs westwards as far as the Castle itself. This has significantly changed the setting of the Castle and resulted in less ‘open’ feel to its context. Further development to the east of the Castle is not considered ‘in principle’ to have an unacceptable impact on the character of this heritage asset.

Development of the site would result in the removal of the large agricultural buildings in the north eastern corner of the site.

28

Whilst these buildings are relatively substantial their form and materials are such that they have a relatively neutral impact on the overall character of the locality.

Question 14) Character of Built Area

Would the development affect the built character of the town or village?

Assessment / Existing residential development to the Score -1 Comments east of this site, is comprised of relatively recent estate-type dwellings. They have however been set back from High Stakesby Road and as a consequence are somewhat divorced from the boundary of the site. Similarly to the south, the line of substantial post war dwellings is separated from the site by reasonably substantial front gardens and a relatively wide highway. The Petrol Filling Station, whilst offering a more utilitarian form of development, is shielded from direct impact on the Castle due to the topography in the south west corner of the fields around the Castle . Residential development to the north of the site is more immediate to the site.

In combination, surrounding development provides a tangible connection between the developed part of the town and to the land and buildings at Sneaton Castle, where once the Castle would have been distinctly separate and detached from Whitby in visual terms. Developing to the west of High Stakesby Road would extend the built area of Whitby, however, this would be in the context of the aforementioned development surrounding the site and the modern development along High Stakesby Road . The area is currently undeveloped land that extends into and makes a contribution to the character of this part of Whitby, the loss of which would have some impact upon the setting of the town, although this impact on is not considered significant, and with sensitive design could be further mitigated, potentially creating a definite ‘gateway’ into the town.

Question 15) Impact on the Landscape

What is the capacity of the landscape to accommodate development with respect to the conservation and enhancement of distinctive rural and coastal landscape character areas?

Assessment / The overall conclusion of a recent Score 1 Comments landscape assessment is that this site has low to medium landscape sensitivity for

29

residential development. The site is substantially influenced by the settlement edge and the busy adjacent roads which impact on the character of the landscape. It is also surrounded on most sides by relatively modern development. The landscape is also less sensitive due to its simple open landscape character and pattern. Development could be integrated into the site and still retain the definition between itself and the open countryside utilising natural topography and providing a well-integrated settlement edge.

Question 16) Flood Risk

Is the proposal within an area at risk of flooding?

Note: Sites deemed at a high risk of flooding are likely to have been dismissed at Stage 1 of assessment process.

Assessment / Zone 1 Score 3 Comments

Question 17) Agricultural land

Would the development of the site result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land?

Assessment / Grade 3 Score 2 Comments

Question 18) Water Supply and Source Protection Zones

Would the development adversely affect a water supply?

Assessment / No impact upon water supply. Score 3 Comments

Question 19) Mineral Resources

Would the development of the land impact on mineral resources?

Assessment / No impact upon mineral resources. Score 2 Comments

Infrastructure

Question 20) School Capacity

What is the capacity of schools to cope with the development?

Assessment / Sufficient school capacity at Primary and Score 2 Comments Secondary schools.

Question 21) Capacity of Utility Providers

What is the capacity of existing utilities (Water, Sewage, etc) to cope with the development?

30

Assessment / Sufficient Waste Water Capacity. Score 2 Comments

Question 22) Impact on Strategic Highway Network

Does the development have an adverse impact on the Strategic Road Network?

Assessment / No impact upon strategic highway network. Score 2 Comments

Question 23) Impact on Local Highways Network

Is the highway network (local) able to safely and efficiently cope with this development?

Assessment / North Yorkshire County Council Highways has Score 2 Comments confirmed access is acceptable onto Stakesby Road and any impact on the existing highway network and off site highway works would need to be determined by a traffic assessment at planning application stage.

Amenity Issues

Question 24) Land Use Conflicts

Would the development of the site be compatible with adjoining land uses (now or in the future) or are there conflict / amenity issues?

Assessment / Any scheme would be compatible with Score 2 Comments existing housing.

Question 25) Other Issues and Constraints

Are there any other constraints that prevent the site from being developed?

Assessment / Topography to the southern portion of the site is a factor as the land falls Comments away making the development of this part of the site more difficult. The recent masterplanning of this site by site promoters has excluded this part of the site from the development and this is considered an appropriate stance. As such, for the purposes of this assessment, if the site was to be taken forward to allocation it would be on the basis of excluding the southernmost part of the site and developing 6.9ha as opposed to the initially submitted 10ha.

Availability and Deliverability

Question 26) Ownership

Are there any ownership constraints?

No Owner has submitted site and is willing to sell

Question 27) Timescale for Development

Is the site likely to be developed within the Local Plan period up to 2030?

Within 5 years Site can be developed within first 5 years and any constraints can be overcome.

31

Overall Assessment of Deliverability

Any comments on estimated yield; overarching constraints, justification or mitigation; revised site boundary where necessary for instance.

This site is located on the western side of Whitby and is adjacent to existing residential development on 2 sides, petrol station and limited residential on a further side (albeit slightly detached due to reduced site size) and Sneaton Castle to the north. It is used for agricultural and recreational purposes and although within the same ownership it could not readily be classed as the curtilage or grounds associated with the Grade II Listed Sneaton Castle.

Previous development has taken place opposite this site along High Stakesby Road and Castle Road, and this has had the effect of connecting the built form of Whitby to Sneaton Castle.

With this in mind the site does have some constraints which would need to influence and inform the development of the site. This includes the impact on the historic environment and the castle itself. This is not considered a barrier to development and the site is considered to represent one of the better options for development. Within the Whitby area. Indicative Yield 246 dwellings.

32

Site Assessment

Housing Allocations HA18 Reference: Original Site Ref: 35/50a Area (ha): 2 ha Parish: Whitby Address: Land off Captain Cook Crescent

Score: Stage A: Pass Stage B: 1-76-4 Stage C: 25 Concluding This site is located off Captain Cooks Crescent in Whitby. It was Comments: originally submitted as a larger site, however, has been split in to two separate parcels – 35/50a and 35/50b. This assessment is for site 35/50a which is the western part of the site and is adjacent to the existing built form of Whitby at Captain Cooks Crescent.

The site is considered suitable for development as it would have a minimal impact on the setting of the landscape and English Heritage has confirmed there would be no adverse impact upon the setting of the Grade 1 Listed Whitby Abbey.

The site is considered suitable for allocation. Indicative Yield: 42 dwellings

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

Stage A: Conformity with Settlement Strategy and Major Constraints

A(i) Conformity with the evolving Scarborough Borough settlement strategy:

Question 1a) Does the proposed site lie within or is well related to an existing settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 1b. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 1b) Does the settlement lie within or above the Service Village classification? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, proceed to Question 1c.

Question 1c) Are there any circumstances that would warrant an allocation of housing within the settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 2a) Is the site of an appropriate scale/size that reflects the role of the respective settlement as defined in the settlement hierarchy within the Local Plan? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, proceed to Question 2b.

Question 2b) Could a smaller portion of the site be in conformity with the settlement hierarchy? YES / NO

33

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, site is dismissed.

A(ii) Major Constraints (Environmental and Historic)

Question 3a) Is the site within the prescribed distance of any national or international site of biodiversity or geological value; e.g. RAMSAR, SSSI, SAC, SPA, National Nature Reserves ? YES / NO

Question 3b) If YES would the development have a negative impact on the associated area of protection? YES/NO

EXPLAIN…. The site lies within 5km of the North York Moors SAC and SPA, however, it is of such a scale that any impact from increased recreational pressure is therefore considered to be minor.

Question 4) Does the site lie within an area considered to be unsuitable due to its position within a flood risk zone (high risk)? YES / NO

Question 5) Does the site lie within an area considered to be at significant risk of coastal erosion zone, i.e. located within 100 year erosion zone? YES / NO

Question 6) Would the development of the site have an adverse negative impact upon nationally- important archaeology (including Scheduled Monuments) or other high-Grade historic assets or their settings? YES / NO

If No to all questions 3 to 6, proceed to Question 8 If Yes, proceed to Question 7

Question 7) Where one of the above questions may have answered ‘yes’, does the constraint prohibit development of the entire site with no possibility of amending the site area? YES / NO / N/A

If Yes, site is dismissed. If, as a result of amending site boundaries, a site can no longer yield 10 dwellings or more, it will be dismissed. Where 10 dwellings may be yielded, proceed to Question 8

Stage B: First Round Scoring

Question 8) Brownfield or Greenfield Land

Is the site classified as previously developed land (Brownfield), Greenfield or is it a mixture of both land types?

100% Brownfield 6 Majority Brownfield 4 Majority Greenfield 2 100% Greenfield 1 POINTS 1

Question 9a) Accessibility of site to ‘pre-determined’ areas by public transport

This question, along with Question 10, relate to accessibility. With the use of accessibility software, complex transport modelling is utilised to enable the relative accessibility of potential sites to pre- determined services and facilities by sustainable modes such as public transport, walking and cycling.

Journey time to Destination by Public Transport Destination Less than 15 to 30 30 to 45 45 to 60 More than 1 15 mins mins mins mins hour Defined town 6 4 2 1 0

34 centres, service centres and neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 1 0 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 1 0 Centres / Pools To Primary 6 4 2 1 0 Schooling To Secondary 6 4 2 1 0 Schooling To GP Surgery 6 4 2 1 0 TOTAL 34

Question 9b) How accessible is the site to existing services and facilities?

Walking Distances within Cycling Distances within Destination 500m 1000m 2000m 1.5km 5km 8km Defined town centres, service centres 6 4 2 3 2 1 and neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 3 2 1 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 3 2 1 Centres / Pools Primary 6 4 2 3 2 1 Schools Secondary 6 4 2 3 2 1 Schools Train Station / Major Bus 6 4 2 3 2 1 Interchanges GP Surgeries 6 4 2 3 2 1 TOTAL 42

Question 10) Accessibility of site to pre-determined areas for leisure and recreation

Destination Within Pre-determined range 350m (5 mins) 700m (10 mins) 1000m (15 mins) Informal Open Space 1 0 0 for Recreation Outdoor Sports 3 2 1 Pitches and Facilities Local Children’s Play 1 0 0 Area Neighbourhood 2 1 0 Children’s Play Area Settlement Level 3 2 1 Children’s Play Area Total 4

Comparison Scores for Q8 to 10

35

Brownfield / Greenfield Accessibility to Services Accessibility to Recreation 1 76 4

Stage C: Detailed Site Implications

At any stage of this process, where a constraint to development may be so significant, the site could require dismissing.

Question 11) Regional and Local Biodiversity

Would the development of the proposed site affect a regional or local site of biodiversity or geological value or affect any protected species/habitats?

Assessment / No impact on a designated site. Score 1 Comments

Question 12) Trees and Hedgerows

Would the development of the site affect trees or hedgerows not covered by statutory protection or by the BAP?

Assessment / Minor hedgerows border site to the north Score 1 Comments where allotments adjoin site. This could be retained and integrated into development.

Question 13) Historic Environment

Would the proposed development affect the historic environment including the setting of an historic asset?

Assessment / A key consideration would be to consider Score 1 Comments any potential impact on Whitby Abbey as the site when viewed from the south / Stainsacre Lane part of the town. Development of the site would be set alongside existing properties at Captain Cook Crescent and allotments to the rear. The viewpoints of the Abbey from this location would not be obstructed as development would not be any higher than existing properties or Green Lane Leisure Centre.

English Heritage has confirmed they are satisfied that the development of this site “would be unlikely to harm any elements which contribute to the significance of Whitby Abbey.”

Development will, however, require careful planning in terms of building heights, massing and roofscapes.

Question 14) Character of Built Area

Would the development affect the built character of the town or village?

36

Assessment / The site sits alongside existing Score 1 Comments development at Captain Cook Crescent. Allotments are adjacent to the north. It is considered development would not adversely impact upon the character of the built area.

Question 15) Impact on the Landscape

What is the capacity of the landscape to accommodate development with respect to the conservation and enhancement of distinctive rural and coastal landscape character areas?

Assessment / The site would have little impact on the Score 1 Comments landscape. Development here would mean there would be no extension of the built form beyond its existing eastern boundary. This part of the town is characterised by the slope of the land rising up towards the north and east towards the Cliff top beyond Hawsker Lane towards the Cleveland Way and Saltwick Bay.

The site falls within Character Area D2: Whitby Abbey in the Landscape Study. This character area is described as having positive features including ‘the undeveloped, open and exposed, ‘wild’ character’ and ‘the iconic abbey ruins, which form a highly distinctive landmark and point of orientation.’

Developing this site would have a minimal impact upon this character.

Question 16) Flood Risk

Is the proposal within an area at risk of flooding?

Note: Sites deemed at a high risk of flooding are likely to have been dismissed at Stage 1 of assessment process.

Assessment / Site located in Flood Zone 1. Score 3 Comments

Question 17) Agricultural land

Would the development of the site result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land?

Assessment / Grade 3 agricultural land. Score 2 Comments

Question 18) Water Supply and Source Protection Zones

Would the development adversely affect a water supply?

Assessment / No impact upon water supply. Score 3 Comments

37

Question 19) Mineral Resources

Would the development of the land impact on mineral resources?

Assessment / No impact upon mineral resources. Score 2 Comments

Infrastructure

Question 20) School Capacity

What is the capacity of schools to cope with the development?

Assessment / Sufficient capacity at both local primary and Score 2 Comments secondary schools.

Question 21) Capacity of Utility Providers

What is the capacity of existing utilities (Water, Sewage, etc) to cope with the development?

Assessment / Sufficient Waste Water capacity within Whitby. Score 2 Comments

Question 22) Impact on Strategic Highway Network

Does the development have an adverse impact on the Strategic Road Network?

Assessment / No impact on strategic highway network. Score 2 Comments

Question 23) Impact on Local Highways Network

Is the highway network (local) able to safely and efficiently cope with this development?

Assessment / North Yorkshire County Council Highways has Score 2 Comments confirmed access could be achieved from Green Lane and there may be an alternative access off Captain Cooks Crescent.

Amenity Issues

Question 24) Land Use Conflicts

Would the development of the site be compatible with adjoining land uses (now or in the future) or are there conflict / amenity issues?

Assessment / Allotments located adjacent to the north, Score 2 Comments although site could be integrated with screening. Likely site would be compatible with existing dwellings adjacent to the west.

Question 25) Other Issues and Constraints

Are there any other constraints that prevent the site from being developed?

38

Assessment / No further issues. Comments

Availability and Deliverability

Question 26) Ownership

Are there any ownership constraints?

No Owner has submitted site and is willing to sell Yes Ownership constraints or little developer interest

Question 27) Timescale for Development

Is the site likely to be developed within the Local Plan period up to 2030?

Within 5 years Site can be developed within first 5 years and any constraints can be overcome.

Overall Assessment of Deliverability

Any comments on estimated yield; overarching constraints, justification or mitigation; revised site boundary where necessary for instance. This site is located off Captain Cooks Crescent, Whitby. The site was originally submitted on a larger scale, however, has been assessed under two distinct phases –this being ‘Phase 1’ with 35/50b being ‘Phase 2’. The development of this site is considered to form an appropriate expansion of the settlement in that it does not protrude past the eastern boundary of the built form in this part of Whitby – this is due to the allotments adjacent to the north. English Heritage has confirmed there would be no adverse impact upon the Grade I Listed Whitby Abbey. Indicative Yield 42 dwellings.

39

Site Assessment

Housing Allocations HA19 Reference: Original Site Ref: 35/53 Area (ha): 0.68 ha Parish: Whitby Address: Larpool Lane Residential Care Home, Whitby

Score: Stage A: Pass Stage B: 6 -83 -6 Stage C: 27 Concluding The site is an appropriate brownfield site for redevelopment Comments: subject to the re-provision of elderly care elsewhere in the locality.

There are issues associated with the impact of development on the adjacent SINC, however, considerate design would overcome any issues. The site is considered appropriate for redevelopment. Indicative Yield: 20 dwellings

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

Stage A: Conformity with Settlement Strategy and Major Constraints

A(i) Conformity with the evolving Scarborough Borough settlement strategy:

Question 1a) Does the proposed site lie within or is well related to an existing settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 1b. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 1b) Does the settlement lie within or above the Service Village classification? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, proceed to Question 1c.

Question 1c) Are there any circumstances that would warrant an allocation of housing within the settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 2a) Is the site of an appropriate scale/size that reflects the role of the respective settlement as defined in the settlement hierarchy within the Local Plan? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, proceed to Question 2b.

Question 2b) Could a smaller portion of the site be in conformity with the settlement hierarchy? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, site is dismissed.

A(ii) Major Constraints (Environmental and Historic)

40

Question 3a) Is the site within the prescribed distance of any national or international site of biodiversity or geological value; e.g. RAMSAR, SSSI, SAC, SPA, National Nature Reserves ? YES / NO

Question 3b) If YES would the development have a negative impact on the associated area of protection? YES/NO

EXPLAIN…. The site lies within 5km of the North York Moors SAC and SPA, however, it is of such a scale that any impact from increased recreational pressure is therefore considered to be minor.

Question 4) Does the site lie within an area considered to be unsuitable due to its position within a flood risk zone (high risk)? YES / NO

Question 5) Does the site lie within an area considered to be at significant risk of coastal erosion zone, i.e. located within 100 year erosion zone? YES / NO

Question 6) Would the development of the site have an adverse negative impact upon nationally- important archaeology (including Scheduled Monuments) or other high-Grade historic assets or their settings? YES / NO

If No to all questions 3 to 6, proceed to Question 8 If Yes, proceed to Question 7

Question 7) Where one of the above questions may have answered ‘yes’, does the constraint prohibit development of the entire site with no possibility of amending the site area? YES / NO / N/A

If Yes, site is dismissed. If, as a result of amending site boundaries, a site can no longer yield 10 dwellings or more, it will be dismissed. Where 10 dwellings may be yielded, proceed to Question 8

Stage B: First Round Scoring

Question 8) Brownfield or Greenfield Land

Is the site classified as previously developed land (Brownfield), Greenfield or is it a mixture of both land types?

100% Brownfield 6 Majority Brownfield 4 Majority Greenfield 2 100% Greenfield 1 POINTS 6

Question 9a) Accessibility of site to ‘pre-determined’ areas by public transport

This question, along with Question 10, relate to accessibility. With the use of accessibility software, complex transport modelling is utilised to enable the relative accessibility of potential sites to pre- determined services and facilities by sustainable modes such as public transport, walking and cycling.

Journey time to Destination by Public Transport Destination Less than 15 to 30 30 to 45 45 to 60 More than 1 15 mins mins mins mins hour Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 1 0 neighbourhood centres. Major 6 4 2 1 0 employment

41 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 1 0 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 1 0 Secondary 6 4 2 1 0 Schools GP Surgeries 6 4 2 1 0 TOTAL 36

Question 9b) How accessible is the site to existing services and facilities?

Walking Distances within Cycling Distances within Destination 500m 1000m 2000m 1.5km 5km 8km Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 3 2 1 neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 3 2 1 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 3 2 1 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 3 2 1 Secondary 6 4 2 3 2 1 Schools Train Station 6 4 2 3 2 1 GP Surgeries 6 4 2 3 2 1 TOTAL 47

Question 10) Accessibility of site to pre-determined areas for leisure and recreation

Destination Within Pre-determined range 350m (5 mins) 700m (10 mins) 1000m (15 mins) Informal Open Space 1 0 0 for Recreation Outdoor Sports 3 2 1 Pitches and Facilities Local Children’s Play 1 0 0 Area Neighbourhood 2 1 0 Children’s Play Area Settlement Level 3 2 1 Children’s Play Area Total 6

Comparison Scores for Q8 to 10

Brownfield / Greenfield Accessibility to Services Accessibility to Recreation 6 83 6

Stage C: Detailed Site Implications

At any stage of this process, where a constraint to development may be so significant, the site could require dismissing.

Question 11) Regional and Local Biodiversity

42

Would the development of the proposed site affect a regional or local site of biodiversity or geological value or affect any protected species/habitats?

Assessment / The site is adjacent to a SINC: Larpool and Score 1 Comments Whitehall Woods – Esk Valley. This is an area of woodland extending into Whitby. It does not extend into this site and any development should ensure that there is no adverse impact on this protected area. This should be feasible as there is already an existing building on site.

Question 12) Trees and Hedgerows

Would the development of the site affect trees or hedgerows not covered by statutory protection or by the BAP?

Assessment / Most of trees are on adjacent land, Score 1 Comments however, some trees within site that could be retained if appropriate.

Question 13) Historic Environment

Would the proposed development affect the historic environment including the setting of an historic asset?

Assessment / A building on the adjacent site is a Grade 2 Score 1 Comments Listed Building, however, further development has recently occurred between the sites minimising any direct visual impact this site would have.

Question 14) Character of Built Area

Would the development affect the built character of the town or village?

Assessment / The surrounding area has no obvious Score 1 Comments special characteristics and redevelopment would have no adverse impact.

Question 15) Impact on the Landscape

What is the capacity of the landscape to accommodate development with respect to the conservation and enhancement of distinctive rural and coastal landscape character areas?

Assessment / No impact as the site is entirely within the Score 3 Comments urban area.

Question 16) Flood Risk

Is the proposal within an area at risk of flooding?

Note: Sites deemed at a high risk of flooding are likely to have been dismissed at Stage 1 of assessment process.

43

Assessment / Zone 1. Score 3 Comments

Question 17) Agricultural land

Would the development of the site result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land?

Assessment / Urban area Score 2 Comments

Question 18) Water Supply and Source Protection Zones

Would the development adversely affect a water supply?

Assessment / No impact on water supply. Score 3 Comments

Question 19) Mineral Resources

Would the development of the land impact on mineral resources?

Assessment / No impact on mineral resources. Score 2 Comments

Infrastructure

Question 20) School Capacity

What is the capacity of schools to cope with the development?

Assessment / Sufficient school capacity. Score 2 Comments

Question 21) Capacity of Utility Providers

What is the capacity of existing utilities (Water, Sewage, etc) to cope with the development?

Assessment / Sufficient Waste Water capacity within Whitby. Score 2 Comments

Question 22) Impact on Strategic Highway Network

Does the development have an adverse impact on the Strategic Road Network?

Assessment / No impact upon strategic highway network. Score 2 Comments

Question 23) Impact on Local Highways Network

Is the highway network (local) able to safely and efficiently cope with this development?

Assessment / There are access opportunities off Spital Score 2 Comments Bridge.

44

Amenity Issues

Question 24) Land Use Conflicts

Would the development of the site be compatible with adjoining land uses (now or in the future) or are there conflict / amenity issues?

Assessment / No conflicts Score 2 Comments

Question 25) Other Issues and Constraints

Are there any other constraints that prevent the site from being developed?

Assessment / The site can only be developed subject to the successful relocation of the Comments provision of extra-care. The site will not be available without appropriate re-provision of suitable accommodation for existing residents.

Availability and Deliverability

Question 26) Ownership

Are there any ownership constraints?

No Owner has submitted site and is willing to sell Yes Ownership constraints or little developer interest

Question 27) Timescale for Development

Is the site likely to be developed within the Local Plan period up to 2030?

Within 5 years Subject to the successful provision of extra-care accommodation this should come forward in the first 5 years.

Overall Assessment of Deliverability

Any comments on estimated yield; overarching constraints, justification or mitigation; revised site boundary where necessary for instance.

Subject to having no impact on the SINC there are not considered to be any substantial issues or constraints other than the need to replace the existing use elsewhere in the locality (extra care). Subject to this, the site is considered an appropriate brownfield redevelopment opportunity. Indicative Yield 20 dwellings.

45

Site Assessment

Housing Allocation Not Applicable (Site Dismissed) Reference: Site Ref: 35/03 Area (ha): 1.18 ha Parish: Whitby Address: Land to East of Ruswarp Lane, Whitby

Score: Stage A: Pass Stage B: 2-62-1 Stage C: 10 Concluding Mature vegetation which characterises this area and the loss of this is Comments: considered unacceptable in terms of the impact on the immediate and wider landscape. Whilst the reduction of the number of units could minimise the loss of tree cover, it would not fully overcome this constraint, as considerable cover would still need to be removed to allow the development and associated infrastructure.

There are also concerns over access and in particular the gradient of any road into and down to this site.

The site is therefore considered inappropriate both as an allocation and as a development limit alteration. Indicative Yield: Not Applicable (Site Dismissed)

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

Stage A: Conformity with Settlement Strategy and Major Constraints

A(i) Conformity with the evolving Scarborough Borough settlement strategy:

Question 1a) Does the proposed site lie within or is well related to an existing settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 1b. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 1b) Does the settlement lie within or above the Service Village classification? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, proceed to Question 1c.

Question 1c) Are there any circumstances that would warrant an allocation of housing within the settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 2a) Is the site of an appropriate scale/size that reflects the role of the respective settlement as defined in the settlement hierarchy within the Local Plan? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, proceed to Question 2b.

46

Question 2b) Could a smaller portion of the site be in conformity with the settlement hierarchy? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, site is dismissed.

A(ii) Major Constraints (Environmental and Historic)

Question 3a) Is the site within the prescribed distance of any national or international site of biodiversity or geological value; e.g. RAMSAR, SSSI, SAC, SPA, National Nature Reserves ? YES / NO

Question 3b) If YES would the development have a negative impact on the associated area of protection? YES/NO

EXPLAIN…. The site lies within 5km of the North York Moors SAC and SPA, however, it is of such a scale that any impact from increased recreational pressure is therefore considered to be minor.

Question 4) Does the site lie within an area considered to be unsuitable due to its position within a flood risk zone (high risk)? YES / NO

Question 5) Does the site lie within an area considered to be at significant risk of coastal erosion zone, i.e. located within 100 year erosion zone? YES / NO

Question 6) Would the development of the site have an adverse negative impact upon nationally- important archaeology (including Scheduled Monuments) or other high-Grade historic assets or their settings? YES / NO

If No to all questions 3 to 6, proceed to Question 8 If Yes, proceed to Question 7

Question 7) Where one of the above questions may have answered ‘yes’, does the constraint prohibit development of the entire site with no possibility of amending the site area? YES / NO / N/A

If Yes, site is dismissed. If, as a result of amending site boundaries, a site can no longer yield 10 dwellings or more, it will be dismissed. Where 10 dwellings may be yielded, proceed to Question 8

Stage B: First Round Scoring

Question 8) Brownfield or Greenfield Land

Is the site classified as previously developed land (Brownfield), Greenfield or is it a mixture of both land types?

100% Brownfield 6 Majority Brownfield 4 Majority Greenfield 2 100% Greenfield 1 POINTS 2

Question 9a) Accessibility of site to ‘pre-determined’ areas by public transport

This question, along with Question 10, relate to accessibility. With the use of accessibility software, complex transport modelling is utilised to enable the relative accessibility of potential sites to pre- determined services and facilities by sustainable modes such as public transport, walking and cycling.

Destination Journey time to Destination by Public Transport

47

Less than 15 to 30 30 to 45 45 to 60 More than 1 15 mins mins mins mins hour Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 1 0 neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 1 0 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 1 0 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 1 0 Secondary 6 4 2 1 0 Schools GP Surgeries 6 4 2 1 0 TOTAL 36

Question 9b) How accessible is the site to existing services and facilities?

Walking Distances within Cycling Distances within Destination 500m 1000m 2000m 1.5km 5km 8km Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 3 2 1 neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 3 2 1 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 3 2 1 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 3 2 1 Secondary 6 4 2 3 2 1 Schools Train Station 6 4 2 3 2 1 GP Surgeries 6 4 2 3 2 1 TOTAL 26

Question 10) Accessibility of site to pre-determined areas for leisure and recreation

Destination Within Pre-determined range 350m (5 mins) 700m (10 mins) 1000m (15 mins) Informal Open Space 1 0 0 for Recreation Outdoor Sports 3 2 1 Pitches and Facilities Local Children’s Play 1 0 0 Area Neighbourhood 2 1 0 Children’s Play Area Settlement Level 3 2 1 Children’s Play Area Total 1

Comparison Scores for Q8 to 10

Brownfield / Greenfield Accessibility to Services Accessibility to Recreation 2 62 1

48

Stage C: Detailed Site Implications

At any stage of this process, where a constraint to development may be so significant, the site could require dismissing.

Question 11) Regional and Local Biodiversity

Would the development of the proposed site affect a regional or local site of biodiversity or geological value or affect any protected species/habitats?

Assessment / Not within any designated areas. Score 1 Comments

Question 12) Trees and Hedgerows

Would the development of the site affect trees or hedgerows not covered by statutory protection or by the BAP?

Assessment / The development of the site and access to it Score -2 Comments would require the substantial removal of trees within the site, both of a coniferous and deciduous type. The species present are of a mature nature (varying heights up to approx 100ft) and the development of the site could not be achieved without the loss of the majority of trees and vegetation. For these reasons the site is considered inappropriate.

Question 13) Historic Environment

Would the proposed development affect the historic environment including the setting of an historic asset?

Assessment / The site does not lie within the Score 1 Comments conservation area and has no historic features which require retention.

Question 14) Character of Built Area

Would the development affect the built character of the town or village?

Assessment / The site lies adjacent to residential Score -3 Comments development along Ruswarp Lane. The character of development is of a linear fashion leading down to Ruswarp village. The extension beyond the road frontage (i.e. backland development) would be out of character with the historic pattern of development and disrupt the built form of the settlement.

Question 15) Impact on the Landscape

What is the capacity of the landscape to accommodate development with respect to the conservation and enhancement of distinctive rural and coastal landscape character areas?

49

Assessment / The site itself is at the base of a significant Score -3 Comments gradient from the existing house. The site would become more prominent from the east although the scale of this is dependent on the level of tree cover that can be retained and any appropriate landscaping. Notwithstanding this, the likely loss of vegetation would have a significant impact on the landscape which cannot be wholly mitigated against, especially if the site accommodated a significant number of dwellings.

Small development with little or no vegetation would have a lesser impact, however, if this was less than 10 units it would be dismissed on the grounds of being under the minimum threshold for allocation. As such this is scored on a more substantial development and thus a greater impact on the vegetation and landscape.

The Landscape Study confirms the site (with the exception of the road frontage) is within designated area F1; Esk.

Question 16) Flood Risk

Is the proposal within an area at risk of flooding?

Note: Sites deemed at a high risk of flooding are likely to have been dismissed at Stage 1 of assessment process.

Assessment / Zone 1 Score 3 Comments

Question 17) Agricultural land

Would the development of the site result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land?

Assessment / Grade 3 Score 2 Comments

Question 18) Water Supply and Source Protection Zones

Would the development adversely affect a water supply?

Assessment / No impact Score 3 Comments

Question 19) Mineral Resources

Would the development of the land impact on mineral resources?

Assessment / No impact Score 2 Comments

50

Infrastructure

Question 20) School Capacity

What is the capacity of schools to cope with the development?

Assessment / There is sufficient capacity within both local Score 2 Comments Primary and Secondary schools to cope with the anticipated small level of housing on this site.

Question 21) Capacity of Utility Providers

What is the capacity of existing utilities (Water, Sewage, etc) to cope with the development?

Assessment / There is sufficient capacity in the treatment Score 2 Comments works.

Question 22) Impact on Strategic Highway Network

Does the development have an adverse impact on the Strategic Road Network?

Assessment / None Score 2 Comments

Question 23) Impact on Local Highways Network

Is the highway network (local) able to safely and efficiently cope with this development?

Assessment / The access point would have to be through the Score -2 Comments existing property; no. 70 Ruswarp Lane and via a steep road down to the gentler slopes at the base of the hill. Early discussions with Engineers have questioned the gradient of any access road into and through this site. In addition County Highways has commented that an adequate visibility splay cannot be accommodated to serve such a development in line with the Manual for Streets which would require 43m (N) and 59m (S).

Amenity Issues

Question 24) Land Use Conflicts

Would the development of the site be compatible with adjoining land uses (now or in the future) or are there conflict / amenity issues?

Assessment / None Score 2 Comments

Question 25) Other Issues and Constraints

Are there any other constraints that prevent the site from being developed?

Assessment / No further identified constraints of note. Comments

Availability and Deliverability

51

Question 26) Ownership

Are there any ownership constraints?

No Owner has submitted site and is willing to sell

Question 27) Timescale for Development

Is the site likely to be developed within the Local Plan period up to 2030?

Not likely to be developed prior Constraints exist and mitigation unlikely before 2030. Not to 2030 allocated but re-considered at a future date.

Overall Assessment of Deliverability

Any comments on estimated yield; overarching constraints, justification or mitigation; revised site boundary where necessary for instance.

The site is considered unsuitable for housing development owing to the loss of mature vegetation, both of a deciduous and coniferous nature. The impact on the immediate landscape and further afield from the loss of tree cover cannot be satisfactorily mitigated against if the development incorporated a significant number of dwellings.

There are also significant concerns over access with County Highways commenting that a suitable access cannot be accommodated and the proposal should be rejected. There are also concerns on the gradient of any road into and down to this site.

Using an indicative yield of 30dph the site could accommodate approximately 35 dwellings. Indicative Yield Not Applicable (Site Dismissed)

52

Site Assessment

Housing Allocation Not Applicable (Dismissed Site) Reference: Site Ref: 35/05 Area (ha): 0.09 ha Parish: Whitby Address: Land at Esk Leisure Centre, The Carrs, Ruswarp.

Score: Stage A: Fail Stage B: Stage C: Concluding The site is of a size that would not deliver at least 10 dwellings. Comments: Furthermore, the site lies unrelated to existing residential development and is not considered appropriate for any development limit alteration.

There have been a previous applications for holiday chalet style development (refused) and the site has therefore been added to the list of sites up for consideration for alternative uses to housing. This will be considered separately. Indicative Yield: N/A

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

53

Site Assessment

Housing Allocation Not Applicable (Site Dismissed) Reference: Site Ref: 35/08 Area (ha): 2.6 ha Parish: Whitby Address: Land to the rear of Mayfield Road, off Resolution Way

Score: Stage A: Pass Stage B: 1-72-3 Stage C: 25 Concluding This site is located to the east of Ruswarp Lane and the south of Comments: Mayfield Road with existing dwellings located to the north, west and east of the site. This site is also located within the existing defined Development Limits which, in essence, suggests that development has been accepted in principal at a previous Local Plan review. Development of the site could be seen as a ‘rounding-off’ of the settlement in this locality with access readily available connecting Resolution Way to the west and Pembroke Way to the east.

Although the site is prominent from the south and east, any development would be set against the backdrop of existing dwellings and would not see the further intruding of the settlement beyond its existing limits into the countryside. The site contributes little to the rural aspect of the surroundings of Whitby and offers an opportunity for Greenfield development with minimal impact upon the landscape.

Notwithstanding the above, a huge question remains over the deliverability of the site as a result of the numerous covenants that would need to be lifted prior to the commencement of any development. Whilst this is not a planning issue in terms of determining a planning application it is a consideration when establishing the level of housing that can be delivered during the plan period. For this reason it is not proposed to allocate the site but to leave it as is, within the development limits. This would allow the site to come forward should the covenants be lifted whilst housing delivery or local targets would not be reliant on this site coming forward. Indicative Yield: Not Applicable (Site Dismissed)

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

Stage A: Conformity with Settlement Strategy and Major Constraints

A(i) Conformity with the evolving Scarborough Borough settlement strategy:

Question 1a) Does the proposed site lie within or is well related to an existing settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 1b. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 1b) Does the settlement lie within or above the Service Village classification? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, proceed to Question 1c.

54

Question 1c) Are there any circumstances that would warrant an allocation of housing within the settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 2a) Is the site of an appropriate scale/size that reflects the role of the respective settlement as defined in the settlement hierarchy within the Local Plan? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, proceed to Question 2b.

Question 2b) Could a smaller portion of the site be in conformity with the settlement hierarchy? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, site is dismissed.

A(ii) Major Constraints (Environmental and Historic)

Question 3a) Is the site within the prescribed distance of any national or international site of biodiversity or geological value; e.g. RAMSAR, SSSI, SAC, SPA, National Nature Reserves ? YES / NO

Question 3b) If YES would the development have a negative impact on the associated area of protection? YES/NO

EXPLAIN…. The site lies within 5km of the North York Moors SAC and SPA, however, it is of such a scale that any impact from increased recreational pressure is therefore considered to be minor.

Question 4) Does the site lie within an area considered to be unsuitable due to its position within a flood risk zone (high risk)? YES / NO

Question 5) Does the site lie within an area considered to be at significant risk of coastal erosion zone, i.e. located within 100 year erosion zone? YES / NO

Question 6) Would the development of the site have an adverse negative impact upon nationally- important archaeology (including Scheduled Monuments) or other high-Grade historic assets or their settings? YES / NO

If No to all questions 3 to 6, proceed to Question 8 If Yes, proceed to Question 7

Question 7) Where one of the above questions may have answered ‘yes’, does the constraint prohibit development of the entire site with no possibility of amending the site area? YES / NO / N/A

If Yes, site is dismissed. If, as a result of amending site boundaries, a site can no longer yield 10 dwellings or more, it will be dismissed. Where 10 dwellings may be yielded, proceed to Question 8

Stage B: First Round Scoring

Question 8) Brownfield or Greenfield Land

Is the site classified as previously developed land (Brownfield), Greenfield or is it a mixture of both land types?

100% Brownfield 6

55

Majority Brownfield 4 Majority Greenfield 2 100% Greenfield 1 POINTS 1

Question 9a) Accessibility of site to ‘pre-determined’ areas by public transport

This question, along with Question 10, relate to accessibility. With the use of accessibility software, complex transport modelling is utilised to enable the relative accessibility of potential sites to pre- determined services and facilities by sustainable modes such as public transport, walking and cycling.

Journey time to Destination by Public Transport Destination Less than 15 to 30 30 to 45 45 to 60 More than 1 15 mins mins mins mins hour Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 1 0 neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 1 0 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 1 0 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 1 0 Secondary 6 4 2 1 0 Schools GP Surgeries 6 4 2 1 0 TOTAL 36

Question 9b) How accessible is the site to existing services and facilities?

Walking Distances within Cycling Distances within Destination 500m 1000m 2000m 1.5km 5km 8km Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 3 2 1 neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 3 2 1 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 3 2 1 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 3 2 1 Secondary 6 4 2 3 2 1 Schools Train Station 6 4 2 3 2 1 GP Surgeries 6 4 2 3 2 1 TOTAL 36

Question 10) Accessibility of site to pre-determined areas for leisure and recreation

Destination Within Pre-determined range 350m (5 mins) 700m (10 mins) 1000m (15 mins) Informal Open Space 1 0 0 for Recreation Outdoor Sports 3 2 1 Pitches and Facilities

56

Local Children’s Play 1 0 0 Area Neighbourhood 2 1 0 Children’s Play Area Settlement Level 3 2 1 Children’s Play Area Total 3

Comparison Scores for Q8 to 10

Brownfield / Greenfield Accessibility to Services Accessibility to Recreation 1 72 3

Stage C: Detailed Site Implications

At any stage of this process, where a constraint to development may be so significant, the site could require dismissing.

Question 11) Regional and Local Biodiversity

Would the development of the proposed site affect a regional or local site of biodiversity or geological value or affect any protected species/habitats?

Assessment / No impact upon designated site. Score 1 Comments

Question 12) Trees and Hedgerows

Would the development of the site affect trees or hedgerows not covered by statutory protection or by the BAP?

Assessment / Light vegetation dotted around the site, Score 1 Comments more established to the south of the site. Where required, vegetation could be easily retained and incorporated into development.

Question 13) Historic Environment

Would the proposed development affect the historic environment including the setting of an historic asset?

Assessment / No impact upon an historic setting. Score 1 Comments

Question 14) Character of Built Area

Would the development affect the built character of the town or village?

Assessment / Previous developments in close proximity Score 1 Comments appear to have been well integrated into the landscape setting; this site offers an opportunity to replicate this and ‘round- off’ the settlement in this proximity. Similar style to those recent developments would ensure the existing character is maintained.

Question 15) Impact on the Landscape

57

What is the capacity of the landscape to accommodate development with respect to the conservation and enhancement of distinctive rural and coastal landscape character areas?

Assessment / Site in a prominent location when viewed Score 1 Comments from south and east although this could have been said for adjacent developments – these have been well integrated; with design and adequate screening the site could be developed with limited intrusion into the open countryside.

Question 16) Flood Risk

Is the proposal within an area at risk of flooding?

Note: Sites deemed at a high risk of flooding are likely to have been dismissed at Stage 1 of assessment process.

Assessment / Zone 1 Score 3 Comments

Question 17) Agricultural land

Would the development of the site result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land?

Assessment / Grade 3 Score 2 Comments

Question 18) Water Supply and Source Protection Zones

Would the development adversely affect a water supply?

Assessment / No impact upon water supply. Score 3 Comments

Question 19) Mineral Resources

Would the development of the land impact on mineral resources?

Assessment / No impact upon mineral resources. Score 2 Comments

Infrastructure

Question 20) School Capacity

What is the capacity of schools to cope with the development?

Assessment / Sufficient school capacity at both primary and Score 2 Comments secondary school level.

Question 21) Capacity of Utility Providers

What is the capacity of existing utilities (Water, Sewage, etc) to cope with the development?

Assessment / Sufficient Waste Water capacity within Whitby. Score 2 Comments

Question 22) Impact on Strategic Highway Network

58

Does the development have an adverse impact on the Strategic Road Network?

Assessment / No impact upon strategic highway network. Score 2 Comments

Question 23) Impact on Local Highways Network

Is the highway network (local) able to safely and efficiently cope with this development?

Assessment / Little anticipated impact upon local highways Score 2 Comments network. Access points are readily available from both Resolution Way and Pembroke Way.

NYCC Highways have confirmed “access acceptable onto Resolution Way and Ruswarp Lane. The impact on the existing highway network and off site highway works will need to be determined by a traffic assessment. As part of the Transport Assessment work the impact of the development on the existing residential streets must be considered. The impact on the existing roundabout A171 and Ruswarp Lane must also be considered. With regards rat running, there are 2 existing accesses – Resolution Way and Pembroke Way. Pembroke Way could be considered as emergency access only, however this would need to be considered further as part of the TA.

Amenity Issues

Question 24) Land Use Conflicts

Would the development of the site be compatible with adjoining land uses (now or in the future) or are there conflict / amenity issues?

Assessment / Design would mitigate any issues Score 2 Comments concerning compatibility with adjacent existing dwellings.

Question 25) Other Issues and Constraints

Are there any other constraints that prevent the site from being developed?

Assessment / Slight topographical issues in extreme south -east corner of the site; Comments design would mitigate any such impact.

There is a restrictive covenant on the site; however, the developer suggests this is likely to be able to be lifted in the medium-term.

Availability and Deliverability

Question 26) Ownership

Are there any ownership constraints?

No Owner has submitted site and is willing to sell

59

Question 27) Timescale for Development

Is the site likely to be developed within the Local Plan period up to 2030?

Beyond 5 years Constraints exist but the unknown work involved with the release of the covenants makes it difficult to predict when this could realistically come forward.

Overall Assessment of Deliverability

Any comments on estimated yield; overarching constraints, justification or mitigation; revised site boundary where necessary for instance.

This site is located to the east of Ruswarp Lane and the south of Mayfield Road with existing dwellings located to the north, west and east of the site. This site is also located within the existing defined Development Limits which, in essence, suggests that development has been accepted in principal at a previous Local Plan review. Development of the site could be seen as a ‘rounding-off’ of the settlement in this locality with access readily available connecting Resolution Way to the west and Pembroke Way to the east.

Although the site is prominent from the south and east, any development would be set against the backdrop of existing dwellings and would not see the further intruding of the settlement beyond its existing limits into the countryside. The site contributes little to the rural aspect of the surroundings of Whitby and offers an opportunity for Greenfield development with minimal impact upon the landscape.

Notwithstanding the above, a huge question remains over the deliverability of the site as a result of the numerous covenants that would need to be lifted prior to the commencement of any development. Whilst this is not a planning issue in terms of determining a planning application it is a consideration when establishing the level of housing that can be delivered during the plan period. For this reason it is not proposed to allocate the site but to leave it as is, within the development limits. This would allow the site to come forward should the covenants be lifted whilst housing delivery or local targets would not be reliant on this site coming forward. Using an indicative yield of 30dph the site could accommodate approximately 55 dwellings. Indicative Yield Not Applicable (Site Dismissed)

60

Site Assessment

Housing Allocation Not Applicable (Site Dismissed) Reference: Site Ref: 35/09 Area (ha): 0.81 ha Parish: Whitby Address: Land to West of Carr Hall Gardens, The Carrs, Ruswarp

Score: Stage A: Fail Stage B: Stage C: Concluding The site is located at Carr Hall Gardens to the west of Ruswarp Comments: toward the settlement of Sleights.

The site, although adjacent to Carr hall, is unrelated to any established settlement and therefore fails the first test of the housing methodology and is dismissed from the process. Indicative Yield: Not Applicable (Site Dismissed)

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

Stage A: Conformity with Settlement Strategy and Major Constraints

A(i) Conformity with the evolving Scarborough Borough settlement strategy:

Question 1a) Does the proposed site lie within or is well related to an existing settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 1b. If No, site is dismissed.

61

Site Assessment

Housing Allocation Not Applicable (Site Dismissed) Reference: Site Ref: 35/10 Area (ha): 2.9ha Parish: Whitby Address: Land at Stonegate Lodge Farm, Ruswarp

Score: Stage A: Fail Stage B: Stage C: Concluding The site lies up a track off the Ruswarp to Sleights Road, although the Comments: applicant has proposed a number of alternative options. The site is unconnected to residential development of any significance and is unrelated to the settlement of Ruswarp.

Notwithstanding the physical separation there are major constraints with the proposed access arrangements, the impact on the wider landscape and the scale of the site in relation to Ruswarp.

The site is therefore considered inappropriate for allocation. Indicative Yield: Not Applicable (Site Dismissed)

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

Stage A: Conformity with Settlement Strategy and Major Constraints

A(i) Conformity with the evolving Scarborough Borough settlement strategy:

Question 1a) Does the proposed site lie within or is well related to an existing settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 1b. If No, site is dismissed.

62

Site Assessment

Housing Allocation Not Applicable (Site Dismissed) Reference: Site Ref: 35/17a & b Area (ha): 0.13 ha and 0.06 ha respectively Parish: Whitby Address: Land adjacent to White Bridge Road (north and south), Whitby

Score: Stage A: Fail Stage B: Stage C: Concluding The site is of a size that would not deliver at least 10 dwellings. Comments: The site also lies within the development limits of Whitby and can be pursued independently of the Local Plan process, however, the site is heavily constrained due to access and the proximity to the bridge. Additionally this forms part of the former railway line and now represents an important amenity green space / green corridor which also improves the setting of nearby residential development.

The site is not considered appropriate for development. Indicative Yield: Not Applicable (Site Dismissed)

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

63

Site Assessment

Housing Allocation Not Applicable (Site Dismissed) Reference: Site Ref: 35/21 Area (ha): 1.71 ha Parish: Whitby Address: Land at Larpool Lane, Whitby

Score: Stage A: Fail Stage B: Stage C: Concluding The site lies a significant distance along Larpool Lane near to the Comments: entrance of the isolated developments (holiday accommodation) of Riverside View, Resolution Way and Endeavour Court. It is unrelated to the main settlement of Whitby and fails the first test.

In addition there would need to be substantive highways works to allow access along Larpool Lane which, on top of affordable provision, would affect the viability of the scheme. Indicative Yield: Not Applicable (Site Dismissed)

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

Stage A: Conformity with Settlement Strategy and Major Constraints

A(i) Conformity with the evolving Scarborough Borough settlement strategy:

Question 1a) Does the proposed site lie within or is well related to an existing settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 1b. If No, site is dismissed.

64

Site Assessment

Housing Allocation Not Applicable (Site Dismissed) Reference: Site Ref: 35/22 Area (ha): 0.08ha Parish: Whitby Address: Land adjacent No.1 Links View, Love Lane

Score: Stage A: Fail Stage B: Stage C: Concluding The site is of a size that would not deliver at least 10 dwellings. Comments: The site lies on the edge of Whitby, adjacent the Golf Course with development continuing north along Love Lane. It was initially considered that this site had some potential for a single dwelling. However, following further assessments it is considered that insufficient weight was attributed to the importance of the former railway line which was understandable when viewing this plot of land in isolation. The site also provides a visual link from the former railway line to the open countryside beyond.

Although it is unlikely that this line will be brought back into use there is a presumption in favour of retaining the line in situ. The site is therefore considered unsuitable for development and is dismissed. Indicative Yield: Not Applicable (Site Dismissed)

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

65

Site Assessment

Housing Allocation Not Applicable (Site Dismissed) Reference: Site Ref: 35/23 Area (ha): 2.39 ha Parish: Whitby Address: Land known as ‘Upper Baulbyes’, off Shackleton Close Score: Stage A: Pass Stage B: 1-74-6 Stage C: 23 Concluding On plan form the site forms a logical expansion of this area of Whitby Comments: that could be successfully integrated alongside existing dwellings, however, there are constraints in relation to the historic environment and the impact such a development would have on existing features that would require addressing. These are not now seen as show stoppers following further work on the archaeology and an assessment of this work by the Council’s Conservation Officer. There was also the complication of a village green application and although developer interest was shown this has since dissipated. Whilst the site has potential for development the deliverability at the moment is unknown and as such, rather than allocate, the site will remain within the development limits as it currently is. Indicative Yield: Not Applicable (Site Dismissed)

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

Stage A: Conformity with Settlement Strategy and Major Constraints

A(i) Conformity with the evolving Scarborough Borough settlement strategy:

Question 1a) Does the proposed site lie within or is well related to an existing settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 1b. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 1b) Does the settlement lie within or above the Service Village classification? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, proceed to Question 1c.

Question 1c) Are there any circumstances that would warrant an allocation of housing within the settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 2a) Is the site of an appropriate scale/size that reflects the role of the respective settlement as defined in the settlement hierarchy within the Local Plan? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, proceed to Question 2b.

Question 2b) Could a smaller portion of the site be in conformity with the settlement hierarchy? YES / NO

66

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, site is dismissed.

A(ii) Major Constraints (Environmental and Historic)

Question 3a) Is the site within the prescribed distance of any national or international site of biodiversity or geological value; e.g. RAMSAR, SSSI, SAC, SPA, National Nature Reserves ? YES / NO

Question 3b) If YES would the development have a negative impact on the associated area of protection? YES/NO

EXPLAIN…. The site lies within 5km of the North York Moors SAC and SPA, however, it is of such a scale that any impact from increased recreational pressure is therefore considered to be minor.

Question 4) Does the site lie within an area considered to be unsuitable due to its position within a flood risk zone (high risk)? YES / NO

Question 5) Does the site lie within an area considered to be at significant risk of coastal erosion zone, i.e. located within 100 year erosion zone? YES / NO

Question 6) Would the development of the site have an adverse negative impact upon nationally- important archaeology (including Scheduled Monuments) or other high-Grade historic assets or their settings? YES / NO

If No to all questions 3 to 6, proceed to Question 8 If Yes, proceed to Question 7

Question 7) Where one of the above questions may have answered ‘yes’, does the constraint prohibit development of the entire site with no possibility of amending the site area? YES / NO / N/A

If Yes, site is dismissed. If, as a result of amending site boundaries, a site can no longer yield 10 dwellings or more, it will be dismissed. Where 10 dwellings may be yielded, proceed to Question 8

Stage B: First Round Scoring

Question 8) Brownfield or Greenfield Land

Is the site classified as previously developed land (Brownfield), Greenfield or is it a mixture of both land types?

100% Brownfield 6 Majority Brownfield 4 Majority Greenfield 2 100% Greenfield 1 POINTS 1

Question 9a) Accessibility of site to ‘pre-determined’ areas by public transport

This question, along with Question 10, relate to accessibility. With the use of accessibility software, complex transport modelling is utilised to enable the relative accessibility of potential sites to pre- determined services and facilities by sustainable modes such as public transport, walking and cycling.

Journey time to Destination by Public Transport Destination Less than 15 to 30 30 to 45 45 to 60 More than 1 15 mins mins mins mins hour Defined town 6 4 2 1 0

67 centres, service centres and neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 1 0 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 1 0 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 1 0 Secondary 6 4 2 1 0 Schools GP Surgeries 6 4 2 1 0 TOTAL 36

Question 9b) How accessible is the site to existing services and facilities?

Walking Distances within Cycling Distances within Destination 500m 1000m 2000m 1.5km 5km 8km Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 3 2 1 neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 3 2 1 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 3 2 1 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 3 2 1 Secondary 6 4 2 3 2 1 Schools Train Station 6 4 2 3 2 1 GP Surgeries 6 4 2 3 2 1 TOTAL 40

Question 10) Accessibility of site to pre-determined areas for leisure and recreation

Destination Within Pre-determined range 350m (5 mins) 700m (10 mins) 1000m (15 mins) Informal Open Space 1 0 0 for Recreation Outdoor Sports 3 2 1 Pitches and Facilities Local Children’s Play 1 0 0 Area Neighbourhood 2 1 0 Children’s Play Area Settlement Level 3 2 1 Children’s Play Area Total 6

Comparison Scores for Q8 to 10

Brownfield / Greenfield Accessibility to Services Accessibility to Recreation 1 76 6

Stage C: Detailed Site Implications

68

At any stage of this process, where a constraint to development may be so significant, the site could require dismissing.

Question 11) Regional and Local Biodiversity

Would the development of the proposed site affect a regional or local site of biodiversity or geological value or affect any protected species/habitats?

Assessment / Disused railway adjacent to the site at its Score 1 Comments eastern boundary is no longer designated as a SINC. As such, there would be no impact on any designated site.

Question 12) Trees and Hedgerows

Would the development of the site affect trees or hedgerows not covered by statutory protection or by the BAP?

Assessment / Trees to east of site which should be Score -1 Comments retained due to the contribution they make to the setting of this part of Whitby along the disused railway. Significant hedgerow network bordering site. Further hedgerow intersects the site. All features should be retained and integrated into development wherever possible. It may be likely at least some vegetation would be lost.

Question 13) Historic Environment

Would the proposed development affect the historic environment including the setting of an historic asset?

Assessment / There were thought to be a number of Score 1 Comments historic assets impacted by this development and these had been echoed in a previous planning appeal decision and by many of the objectors to the development of the site.

Following the Preferred Options stage the agent has sought to address many of these issues and has submitted a desk- based archaeological assessment/report which has subsequently been considered by the Council’s Conservation Officer.

Notwithstanding the previous refusal at appeal, the Conservation Officer has concluded that the assets appear to be post-Medieval and to some extent fragmentary. Provided that the following can be addressed, the desk based survey has not raised any issues that would warrant a refusal on their own right;

- Mitigation of any impact upon the paved trod; - Mitigation of any impact on the foiled boundaries;

69

- Mitigation of any impact upon the tanning pit; - Detailed topographic survey of the rigg and furrow; - Investigation into any sub-surface archaeology.

One of the main issues raised related to the ‘trod’. Whilst the origins of the ‘trod’ are old, a desk based survey and the assessment of the Conservation Officer have concluded that the degree of wear on the ‘trod’ is not conducive with a 16 th Century ‘trod’ and it would be hard to argue that any crossing of it would be unacceptable if such a crossing was well detailed and designed in appropriate materials. For this reason the previous low score has been re-evaluated up as it would appear that this could be mitigated against.

Such issues can be addressed at application stage and should not prevent the site from being allocated, or at least, remaining in the development limits as it is at present.

Question 14) Character of Built Area

Would the development affect the built character of the town or village?

Assessment / New development adjacent to the north Score 1 Comments which could be easily replicated. Design could also ensure any development would be in keeping with those dwellings at Anchorage Way.

Question 15) Impact on the Landscape

What is the capacity of the landscape to accommodate development with respect to the conservation and enhancement of distinctive rural and coastal landscape character areas?

Assessment / Site well screened, particularly by Score 1 Comments allotments from the south and therefore, offers little to the landscape. More consideration should be placed on the east of the site where heavily vegetated area and should be successfully integrated into design.

The Landscape Study classifies the site as I1: Whitby Settlement Fringe which is an urban fringe landscape.

Question 16) Flood Risk

Is the proposal within an area at risk of flooding?

70

Note: Sites deemed at a high risk of flooding are likely to have been dismissed at Stage 1 of assessment process.

Assessment / Zone 1 Score 3 Comments

Question 17) Agricultural land

Would the development of the site result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land?

Assessment / Grade 3 Score 2 Comments

Question 18) Water Supply and Source Protection Zones

Would the development adversely affect a water supply?

Assessment / No impact on water supply Score 3 Comments

Question 19) Mineral Resources

Would the development of the land impact on mineral resources?

Assessment / No impact on mineral resources. Score 2 Comments

Infrastructure

Question 20) School Capacity

What is the capacity of schools to cope with the development?

Assessment / Sufficient school capacity at both local Score 2 Comments primary and secondary schools.

Question 21) Capacity of Utility Providers

What is the capacity of existing utilities (Water, Sewage, etc) to cope with the development?

Assessment / Sufficient Waste Water capacity within Whitby. Score 2 Comments

Question 22) Impact on Strategic Highway Network

Does the development have an adverse impact on the Strategic Road Network?

Assessment / No impact on strategic highway network. Score 2 Comments

Question 23) Impact on Local Highways Network

Is the highway network (local) able to safely and efficiently cope with this development?

Assessment / NYCC Highways have confirmed “access is Score 2 Comments acceptable onto Shackleton Close. The impact on the existing highway network and off site highway works will need to be determined by a traffic assessment. In addition, as part of the

71

Transport Assessment work the impact of the development on the existing residential streets must be considered. The assessments must also take into consideration the affect on the existing junction arrangement at A171 Mayfield Road/Pembroke Way.”

Amenity Issues

Question 24) Land Use Conflicts

Would the development of the site be compatible with adjoining land uses (now or in the future) or are there conflict / amenity issues?

Assessment / Allotments located adjacent to the south, Score 2 Comments although site well screened at present and this would likely be maintained. Likely site would be compatible with existing dwellings adjacent to the north and west. Heavily vegetated area to the east of the site should ensure considerate design.

Question 25) Other Issues and Constraints

Are there any other constraints that prevent the site from being developed?

Assessment / May be informal footpath located at north of site, although could be easily Comments retained with development.

The site was subject to a village green application, however, this was refused on all counts.

Availability and Deliverability

Question 26) Ownership

Are there any ownership constraints?

No Owner has submitted site and is willing to sell Yes Ownership constraints or little developer interest

Question 27) Timescale for Development

Is the site likely to be developed within the Local Plan period up to 2030?

Not likely to be developed prior Constraints exist and mitigation unlikely before 2030. Not to 2030 allocated but re-considered at a future date.

Overall Assessment of Deliverability

Any comments on estimated yield; overarching constraints, justification or mitigation; revised site boundary where necessary for instance.

On plan form the site forms a logical expansion of this area of Whitby that could be successfully integrated alongside existing dwellings, however, there are constraints in relation to the historic environment and the impact such a development would have on existing features that would require addressing. These are not now seen as show stoppers following further work on the archaeology and an assessment of this work by the Council’s Conservation Officer. The site is suggested as having potential for allocation.

72

Using an indicative yield of 30dph the site could accommodate approximately 50 dwellings. Indicative Yield Not Applicable (Site Dismissed)

Site Assessment

Housing Allocation Not Applicable (Site Dismissed) Reference: Site Ref: 35/24 Area (ha): 0.54 ha Parish: Whitby Address: Land at Prospect Farm, Mayfield Road

Score: Stage A: Pass Stage B: 1-75-4 Stage C: 15 Concluding Development of this site would represent a further intrusion into the Comments: open countryside and form development beyond the existing built form at Anchorage Way. This land begins the significant sloping to the south into the Esk Valley and would likely impact upon the balance and character of the settlement when viewed from the south.

Issues regarding the lack of available access, loss of vegetation, and potential conflicts with adjoining land uses would also render the site unsuitable for development.

In addition the site would have similar constraints to 35/23 and the potential impact on the historic features such as the 'Monks Trod' with access harming the integrity of this important local feature. Indicative Yield: Not Applicable (Site Dismissed)

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

Stage A: Conformity with Settlement Strategy and Major Constraints

A(i) Conformity with the evolving Scarborough Borough settlement strategy:

Question 1a) Does the proposed site lie within or is well related to an existing settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 1b. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 1b) Does the settlement lie within or above the Service Village classification? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, proceed to Question 1c.

Question 1c) Are there any circumstances that would warrant an allocation of housing within the settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 2a) Is the site of an appropriate scale/size that reflects the role of the respective settlement as defined in the settlement hierarchy within the Local Plan? YES / NO

73

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, proceed to Question 2b.

Question 2b) Could a smaller portion of the site be in conformity with the settlement hierarchy? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, site is dismissed.

A(ii) Major Constraints (Environmental and Historic)

Question 3a) Is the site within the prescribed distance of any national or international site of biodiversity or geological value; e.g. RAMSAR, SSSI, SAC, SPA, National Nature Reserves ? YES / NO

Question 3b) If YES would the development have a negative impact on the associated area of protection? YES/NO

EXPLAIN…. The site lies within 5km of the North York Moors SAC and SPA, however, it is of such a scale that any impact from increased recreational pressure is therefore considered to be minor.

Question 4) Does the site lie within an area considered to be unsuitable due to its position within a flood risk zone (high risk)? YES / NO

Question 5) Does the site lie within an area considered to be at significant risk of coastal erosion zone, i.e. located within 100 year erosion zone? YES / NO

Question 6) Would the development of the site have an adverse negative impact upon nationally- important archaeology (including Scheduled Monuments) or other high-Grade historic assets or their settings? YES / NO

If No to all questions 3 to 6, proceed to Question 8 If Yes, proceed to Question 7

Question 7) Where one of the above questions may have answered ‘yes’, does the constraint prohibit development of the entire site with no possibility of amending the site area? YES / NO / N/A

If Yes, site is dismissed. If, as a result of amending site boundaries, a site can no longer yield 10 dwellings or more, it will be dismissed. Where 10 dwellings may be yielded, proceed to Question 8

Stage B: First Round Scoring

Question 8) Brownfield or Greenfield Land

Is the site classified as previously developed land (Brownfield), Greenfield or is it a mixture of both land types?

100% Brownfield 6 Majority Brownfield 4 Majority Greenfield 2 100% Greenfield 1 POINTS 1

Question 9a) Accessibility of site to ‘pre-determined’ areas by public transport

74

This question, along with Question 10, relate to accessibility. With the use of accessibility software, complex transport modelling is utilised to enable the relative accessibility of potential sites to pre- determined services and facilities by sustainable modes such as public transport, walking and cycling.

Journey time to Destination by Public Transport Destination Less than 15 to 30 30 to 45 45 to 60 More than 1 15 mins mins mins mins hour Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 1 0 neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 1 0 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 1 0 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 1 0 Secondary 6 4 2 1 0 Schools GP Surgeries 6 4 2 1 0 TOTAL 36

Question 9b) How accessible is the site to existing services and facilities?

Walking Distances within Cycling Distances within Destination 500m 1000m 2000m 1.5km 5km 8km Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 3 2 1 neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 3 2 1 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 3 2 1 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 3 2 1 Secondary 6 4 2 3 2 1 Schools Train Station 6 4 2 3 2 1 GP Surgeries 6 4 2 3 2 1 TOTAL 39

Question 10) Accessibility of site to pre-determined areas for leisure and recreation

Destination Within Pre-determined range 350m (5 mins) 700m (10 mins) 1000m (15 mins) Informal Open Space 1 0 0 for Recreation Outdoor Sports 3 2 1 Pitches and Facilities Local Children’s Play 1 0 0 Area Neighbourhood 2 1 0 Children’s Play Area Settlement Level 3 2 1 Children’s Play Area Total 4

75

Comparison Scores for Q8 to 10

Brownfield / Greenfield Accessibility to Services Accessibility to Recreation 1 75 4

Stage C: Detailed Site Implications

At any stage of this process, where a constraint to development may be so significant, the site could require dismissing.

Question 11) Regional and Local Biodiversity

Would the development of the proposed site affect a regional or local site of biodiversity or geological value or affect any protected species/habitats?

Assessment / No impact upon designated site. Score 1 Comments

Question 12) Trees and Hedgerows

Would the development of the site affect trees or hedgerows not covered by statutory protection or by the BAP?

Assessment / Hedgerows border site at east, south and Score -1 Comments western boundaries. These would be retained with development.

At present there are no readily available access points, the only option could be to the north-east of the site down a track from Anchorage Way; this has substantial vegetation at its eastern side and the widening of this for access would result in the loss of this.

Question 13) Historic Environment

Would the proposed development affect the historic environment including the setting of an historic asset?

Assessment / In addition the site would have similar Score 1 Comments constraints to 35/23 and the potential impact on the historic 'Monks Trod' with access potentially harming the integrity of this important local feature. However, the Council’s Conservation Officer has carried out further assessments of this feature in line with 35/23 and the comments are still relevant for this site. Whilst the origins of the ‘trod’ are old, a desk based survey and the assessment of the Conservation Officer have concluded that the degree of wear on the ‘trod’ is not conducive with a 16 th Century ‘trod’ and it would be hard to argue that any crossing of it would be unacceptable if such a crossing was well detailed and designed in appropriate materials. For this reason the previous low score has been re-evaluated up as it would

76

appear that this could be mitigated against.

Question 14) Character of Built Area

Would the development affect the built character of the town or village?

Assessment / This location of Whitby characterised by Score 1 Comments recent developments, integration with which would not be an issue.

Question 15) Impact on the Landscape

What is the capacity of the landscape to accommodate development with respect to the conservation and enhancement of distinctive rural and coastal landscape character areas?

Assessment / The site is increasingly prominent from the Score -3 Comments south of the Esk Valley with little screening protection and may significantly alter the form of Whitby from this viewpoint. At present the existing boundary of the built form runs at Resolution Way / Pembroke Way / Anchorage Way and developing beyond this current limit would see a significant intrusion into the countryside.

The site slopes significantly to the south.

Question 16) Flood Risk

Is the proposal within an area at risk of flooding?

Note: Sites deemed at a high risk of flooding are likely to have been dismissed at Stage 1 of assessment process.

Assessment / Zone 1 Score 3 Comments

Question 17) Agricultural land

Would the development of the site result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land?

Assessment / Grade 3 Score 2 Comments

Question 18) Water Supply and Source Protection Zones

Would the development adversely affect a water supply?

Assessment / No impact upon water supply. Score 3 Comments

Question 19) Mineral Resources

Would the development of the land impact on mineral resources?

Assessment / No impact upon mineral resources. Score 2 Comments

77

Infrastructure

Question 20) School Capacity

What is the capacity of schools to cope with the development?

Assessment / Sufficient school capacity at Primary and Score 2 Comments Secondary schools.

Question 21) Capacity of Utility Providers

What is the capacity of existing utilities (Water, Sewage, etc) to cope with the development?

Assessment / Sufficient Waste Water capacity. Score 2 Comments

Question 22) Impact on Strategic Highway Network

Does the development have an adverse impact on the Strategic Road Network?

Assessment / No impact upon strategic highway network. Score 2 Comments

Question 23) Impact on Local Highways Network

Is the highway network (local) able to safely and efficiently cope with this development?

Assessment / The site is landlocked with no apparent means Score -2 Comments of road access. The footpath emanating from Anchorage Way currently serves the site and the adjacent allotments, and this would require significant works to bring it up to the standard of an adoptable road. This would, however, be at the expense of the loss of vegetation and would have to take in further land currently within site 35/23. Access is therefore considered to prevent the development of this site.

Amenity Issues

Question 24) Land Use Conflicts

Would the development of the site be compatible with adjoining land uses (now or in the future) or are there conflict / amenity issues?

Assessment / Allotments adjacent to the east, these have Score 2 Comments been recently relocated and offer a valuable community resource. Existing dwellings to the north. With design both issues could be mitigated against.

Question 25) Other Issues and Constraints

Are there any other constraints that prevent the site from being developed?

Assessment / No further identified constraints of note. Comments

78

Availability and Deliverability

Question 26) Ownership

Are there any ownership constraints?

No Owner has submitted site and is willing to sell

Question 27) Timescale for Development

Is the site likely to be developed within the Local Plan period up to 2030?

Not likely to be developed prior Constraints exist and mitigation unlikely before 2030. Not to 2030 allocated but re-considered at a future date.

Overall Assessment of Deliverability

Any comments on estimated yield; overarching constraints, justification or mitigation; revised site boundary where necessary for instance.

Although recent developments adjoining this site to the north have been well integrated with development, this site would be more likely rendered less favourable due to the intrusion into open countryside; the existing built form of this area of Whitby lies at Resolution Way / Pembroke Way / Anchorage Way and developing beyond this line would see the loss of open countryside further into the Esk Valley and may set further precedent.

The land forms an open meadow at the rear of Anchorage Way, sloping to the south toward the Esk Valley. Adjacent to the east lies the recently relocated allotments whilst the area is also well characterised by light vegetation contributing to the wider valley setting. There is also no readily available access point to the site.

Using an indicative yield of 30dph the site could accommodate approximately 11 dwellings. Indicative Yield Not Applicable (Site Dismissed)

79

Site Assessment

Housing Allocation Not Applicable (Site Dismissed) Reference: Site Ref: 35/27 Area (ha): 0.66 ha Parish: Whitby Address: Land adjacent to No. 2 Larpool Drive

Score: Stage A: Pass Stage B: 1-65-6 Stage C: 20 Concluding There are a number of constraints associated with this site; the first of Comments: which has been overcome with the approval of planning permission for the adjacent site (35/02). The site can now be classed as being related to the existing settlement by virtue of the expansion of the Larpool Lane site.

Notwithstanding this, the main issue is the impact on the listed Hall by virtue of the associated lane improvements required and the impact this would have on the tree-lined drive to the Hall. Larpool Drive is characterised by mature trees and hedgerows forming an attractive setting at the entrance to Larpool Hall. It would be unlikely developing this site would be possible without the substantial loss of much of this vegetation and the subsequent impact on the setting (entrance) to the Hall renders this site inappropriate for development. Indicative Yield: Not Applicable (Site Dismissed)

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

Stage A: Conformity with Settlement Strategy and Major Constraints

A(i) Conformity with the evolving Scarborough Borough settlement strategy:

Question 1a) Does the proposed site lie within or is well related to an existing settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 1b. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 1b) Does the settlement lie within or above the Service Village classification? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, proceed to Question 1c.

Question 1c) Are there any circumstances that would warrant an allocation of housing within the settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 2a) Is the site of an appropriate scale/size that reflects the role of the respective settlement as defined in the settlement hierarchy within the Local Plan? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, proceed to Question 2b.

80

Question 2b) Could a smaller portion of the site be in conformity with the settlement hierarchy? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, site is dismissed.

A(ii) Major Constraints (Environmental and Historic)

Question 3a) Is the site within the prescribed distance of any national or international site of biodiversity or geological value; e.g. RAMSAR, SSSI, SAC, SPA, National Nature Reserves ? YES / NO

Question 3b) If YES would the development have a negative impact on the associated area of protection? YES/NO

EXPLAIN…. The site lies within 5km of the North York Moors SAC and SPA, however, it is of such a scale that any impact from increased recreational pressure is therefore considered to be minor.

Question 4) Does the site lie within an area considered to be unsuitable due to its position within a flood risk zone (high risk)? YES / NO

Question 5) Does the site lie within an area considered to be at significant risk of coastal erosion zone, i.e. located within 100 year erosion zone? YES / NO

Question 6) Would the development of the site have an adverse negative impact upon nationally- important archaeology (including Scheduled Monuments) or other high-Grade historic assets or their settings? YES / NO

If No to all questions 3 to 6, proceed to Question 8 If Yes, proceed to Question 7

Question 7) Where one of the above questions may have answered ‘yes’, does the constraint prohibit development of the entire site with no possibility of amending the site area? YES / NO / N/A

If Yes, site is dismissed. If, as a result of amending site boundaries, a site can no longer yield 10 dwellings or more, it will be dismissed. Where 10 dwellings may be yielded, proceed to Question 8

Stage B: First Round Scoring

Question 8) Brownfield or Greenfield Land

Is the site classified as previously developed land (Brownfield), Greenfield or is it a mixture of both land types?

100% Brownfield 6 Majority Brownfield 4 Majority Greenfield 2 100% Greenfield 1 POINTS 1

Question 9a) Accessibility of site to ‘pre-determined’ areas by public transport

This question, along with Question 10, relate to accessibility. With the use of accessibility software, complex transport modelling is utilised to enable the relative accessibility of potential sites to pre- determined services and facilities by sustainable modes such as public transport, walking and cycling.

Destination Journey time to Destination by Public Transport

81

Less than 15 to 30 30 to 45 45 to 60 More than 1 15 mins mins mins mins hour Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 1 0 neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 1 0 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 1 0 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 1 0 Secondary 6 4 2 1 0 Schools GP Surgeries 6 4 2 1 0 TOTAL 32

Question 9b) How accessible is the site to existing services and facilities?

Walking Distances within Cycling Distances within Destination 500m 1000m 2000m 1.5km 5km 8km Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 3 2 1 neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 3 2 1 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 3 2 1 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 3 2 1 Secondary 6 4 2 3 2 1 Schools Train Station 6 4 2 3 2 1 GP Surgeries 6 4 2 3 2 1 TOTAL 33

Question 10) Accessibility of site to pre-determined areas for leisure and recreation

Destination Within Pre-determined range 350m (5 mins) 700m (10 mins) 1000m (15 mins) Informal Open Space 1 0 0 for Recreation Outdoor Sports 3 2 1 Pitches and Facilities Local Children’s Play 1 0 0 Area Neighbourhood 2 1 0 Children’s Play Area Settlement Level 3 2 1 Children’s Play Area Total 6

Comparison Scores for Q8 to 10

Brownfield / Greenfield Accessibility to Services Accessibility to Recreation 1 65 6

82

Stage C: Detailed Site Implications

At any stage of this process, where a constraint to development may be so significant, the site could require dismissing.

Question 11) Regional and Local Biodiversity

Would the development of the proposed site affect a regional or local site of biodiversity or geological value or affect any protected species/habitats?

Assessment / No impact upon designated site. Score 1 Comments

Question 12) Trees and Hedgerows

Would the development of the site affect trees or hedgerows not covered by statutory protection or by the BAP?

Assessment / Significant mature trees and hedgerows at Score -1 Comments the western boundary of the site; these adjoin Larpool Drive and contribute to the setting of Larpool Hall and further dwellings. Further hedgerow located at the western and northern boundaries, preference would be towards retention of these, however, the likely widening of the road would mean the loss of trees to the detriment of the area.

Question 13) Historic Environment

Would the proposed development affect the historic environment including the setting of an historic asset?

Assessment / Whilst the development itself would Score -2 Comments unlikely impact directly on the listed Hall it would, in essence, simply extend the number of residential properties on the lane towards the Hall. Notwithstanding this it is considered that there would be an indirect impact as a result of the development with the need for significant improvements to the access road. The Hall is characterised by the narrow tree lined drive which contribute to the significance of this heritage asset. The development of additional housing would necessitate substantial improvements to this lane to allow a free-flow of traffic which would result in the loss of trees and hedgerow which, as stated, contribute to the wider setting and character of the Hall. There is therefore considered to be a substantial possibility of adversely impacting upon the setting of Larpool Hall with development of this site.

Question 14) Character of Built Area

83

Would the development affect the built character of the town or village?

Assessment / As suggested in previous comments the Score 1 Comments buildings themselves would not necessarily detract from character of the built areas, however, the associated infrastructure would impact on the wider environment. There may be little impact upon the remainder of the settlement as site well screened from north by Larpool Wood.

Question 15) Impact on the Landscape

What is the capacity of the landscape to accommodate development with respect to the conservation and enhancement of distinctive rural and coastal landscape character areas?

Assessment / With the approval of the larger Larpool Score 1 Comments Lane site it would be difficult to argue that this smaller development adjacent would have an impact on the wider landscape as it would simply be seen in context of sporadic development along the drive to the Hall and the Larpool Lane expansion.

Question 16) Flood Risk

Is the proposal within an area at risk of flooding?

Note: Sites deemed at a high risk of flooding are likely to have been dismissed at Stage 1 of assessment process.

Assessment / Zone 1 Score 3 Comments

Question 17) Agricultural land

Would the development of the site result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land?

Assessment / Grade 3 Score 2 Comments

Question 18) Water Supply and Source Protection Zones

Would the development adversely affect a water supply?

Assessment / No impact upon water supply. Score 3 Comments

Question 19) Mineral Resources

Would the development of the land impact on mineral resources?

Assessment / No impact upon mineral resources. Score 2 Comments

Infrastructure

Question 20) School Capacity

84

What is the capacity of schools to cope with the development?

Assessment / Sufficient school capacity at Primary and Score 2 Comments Secondary schools.

Question 21) Capacity of Utility Providers

What is the capacity of existing utilities (Water, Sewage, etc) to cope with the development?

Assessment / Sufficient Waste Water capacity within Whitby. Score 2 Comments

Question 22) Impact on Strategic Highway Network

Does the development have an adverse impact on the Strategic Road Network?

Assessment / No impact upon strategic highway network. Score 2 Comments

Question 23) Impact on Local Highways Network

Is the highway network (local) able to safely and efficiently cope with this development?

Assessment / It is likely that an access can be formed Score 2 Comments although the road widening would result in the loss of vegetation, however, this is the subject of earlier assessment questions. As such it is scored 2pts as an access can be formed without significant difficulty.

Amenity Issues

Question 24) Land Use Conflicts

Would the development of the site be compatible with adjoining land uses (now or in the future) or are there conflict / amenity issues?

Assessment / No land use conflicts not already referred Score 2 Comments to in previous considerations.

Question 25) Other Issues and Constraints

Are there any other constraints that prevent the site from being developed?

Assessment / None. Comments

Availability and Deliverability

Question 26) Ownership

Are there any ownership constraints?

No Owner has submitted site and is willing to sell

Question 27) Timescale for Development

Is the site likely to be developed within the Local Plan period up to 2030?

85

Not likely to be developed prior Constr aints exist and mitigation unlikely before 2030. Not to 2030 allocated but re-considered at a future date.

Overall Assessment of Deliverability

Any comments on estimated yield; overarching constraints, justification or mitigation; revised site boundary where necessary for instance.

There are a number of constraints associated with this site; the first of which has been overcome with the approval of planning permission for the adjacent site (35/02). The site can now be classed as being related to the existing settlement by virtue of the expansion of the Larpool Lane site.

Notwithstanding this, the main issue is the impact on the listed Hall by virtue of the associated lane improvements required and the impact this would have on the tree-lined drive to the Hall. Larpool Drive is characterised by mature trees and hedgerows forming an attractive setting at the entrance to Larpool Hall. It would be unlikely developing this site would be possible without the substantial loss of much of this vegetation and the subsequent impact on the setting (entrance) to the Hall renders this site inappropriate for development.

Using an indicative yield of 30dph the site could accommodate approximately 20 dwellings. Indicative Yield Not Applicable (Site Dismissed)

86

Site Assessment

Housing Allocation Not Applicable (Within Development Limits) Reference: Site Ref: 35/30 Area (ha): 1.13 ha Parish: Whitby Address: Land at Folly Gardens, Green Lane

Score: Stage A: Fail Stage B: Stage C: Concluding Owing to the topography of this site in addition to existing buildings on Comments: the site and the lack of an adequate access, it is unlikely this site would yield 10 dwellings.

The site is located within the existing development limits of Whitby, as such could be pursued through the planning application process rather than through the Local Plan. Indicative Yield: Not Applicable (Within Development Limits)

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

87

Site Assessment

Housing Allocation Not Applicable (Site Dismissed) Reference: Site Ref: 35/31 Area (ha): 1.74 ha Parish: Whitby Address: Land at Larpool Drive / Larpool Lane, Whitby

Score: Stage A: Fail Stage B: Stage C: Concluding The site lies significantly beyond the existing built form of Whitby Comments: although there are dwellings at the southern end of Larpool Drive, these have been sporadic in nature and development of this site would represent a significant intrusion into the open countryside at this point. Indicative Yield: Not Applicable (Site Dismissed)

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

Stage A: Conformity with Settlement Strategy and Major Constraints

A(i) Conformity with the evolving Scarborough Borough settlement strategy:

Question 1a) Does the proposed site lie within or is well related to an existing settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 1b. If No, site is dismissed.

88

Site Assessment

Housing Allocation Not Applicable (Within Development Limits and Not Allocated) Reference: Site Ref: 35/41 Area (ha): 1.63 ha Parish: Whitby Address: Playing Fields between Helredale Road and Larpool Crescent

Score: Stage A: Pass Stage B: 2-71-7 Stage C: 27 Concluding This site was identified through the Council’s Land Group which is Comments: tasked to look to release Council owned land to help meet the high affordable housing requirement in the Borough. Preliminary work was carried out on this site together with an area off St Peter’s Road. Early discussions suggest that Helredale could be successfully redeveloped for housing with the proceeds of the site funding the demolition and rebuilding of social housing at St Peter’s Road (an existing housing scheme which has been found not to be ‘fit for purpose’). It could also fund the relocation of the sports pitch with improved facilities.

The site was considered to represent a suitable opportunity to accommodate housing subject to the acceptable relocation of existing sports and recreation facilities and an application was submitted. This has been tied up in issues relating to highways and a ‘village green’ application by local residents. It is considered that this site will likely come forward, however, the delivery timetable is unknown and is therefore not included as an allocation. It will remain as a SHELAA site until such time it receives a full consent. Indicative Yield: Not Applicable (Within Development Limits and Not Allocated)

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

Stage A: Conformity with Settlement Strategy and Major Constraints

A(i) Conformity with the evolving Scarborough Borough settlement strategy:

Question 1a) Does the proposed site lie within or is well related to an existing settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 1b. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 1b) Does the settlement lie within or above the Service Village classification? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, proceed to Question 1c.

Question 1c) Are there any circumstances that would warrant an allocation of housing within the settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, site is dismissed.

89

Question 2a) Is the site of an appropriate scale/size that reflects the role of the respective settlement as defined in the settlement hierarchy within the Local Plan? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, proceed to Question 2b.

Question 2b) Could a smaller portion of the site be in conformity with the settlement hierarchy? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, site is dismissed.

A(ii) Major Constraints (Environmental and Historic)

Question 3a) Is the site within the prescribed distance of any national or international site of biodiversity or geological value; e.g. RAMSAR, SSSI, SAC, SPA, National Nature Reserves ? YES / NO

Question 3b) If YES would the development have a negative impact on the associated area of protection? YES/NO

EXPLAIN…. The site lies within 5km of the North York Moors SAC and SPA, however, it is of such a scale that any impact from increased recreational pressure is therefore considered to be minor.

Question 4) Does the site lie within an area considered to be unsuitable due to its position within a flood risk zone (high risk)? YES / NO

Question 5) Does the site lie within an area considered to be at significant risk of coastal erosion zone, i.e. located within 100 year erosion zone? YES / NO

Question 6) Would the development of the site have an adverse negative impact upon nationally- important archaeology (including Scheduled Monuments) or other high-Grade historic assets or their settings? YES / NO

If No to all questions 3 to 6, proceed to Question 8 If Yes, proceed to Question 7

Question 7) Where one of the above questions may have answered ‘yes’, does the constraint prohibit development of the entire site with no possibility of amending the site area? YES / NO / N/A

If Yes, site is dismissed. If, as a result of amending site boundaries, a site can no longer yield 10 dwellings or more, it will be dismissed. Where 10 dwellings may be yielded, proceed to Question 8

Stage B: First Round Scoring

Question 8) Brownfield or Greenfield Land

Is the site classified as previously developed land (Brownfield), Greenfield or is it a mixture of both land types?

100% Brownfield 6 Majority Brownfield 4 Majority Greenfield 2 100% Greenfield 1 POINTS 2

Question 9a) Accessibility of site to ‘pre-determined’ areas by public transport

90

This question, along with Question 10, relate to accessibility. With the use of accessibility software, complex transport modelling is utilised to enable the relative accessibility of potential sites to pre- determined services and facilities by sustainable modes such as public transport, walking and cycling.

Journey time to Destination by Public Transport Destination Less than 15 to 30 30 to 45 45 to 60 More than 1 15 mins mins mins mins hour Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 1 0 neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 1 0 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 1 0 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 1 0 Secondary 6 4 2 1 0 Schools GP Surgeries 6 4 2 1 0 TOTAL 34

Question 9b) How accessible is the site to existing services and facilities?

Walking Distances within Cycling Distances within Destination 500m 1000m 2000m 1.5km 5km 8km Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 3 2 1 neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 3 2 1 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 3 2 1 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 3 2 1 Secondary 6 4 2 3 2 1 Schools Train Station 6 4 2 3 2 1 GP Surgeries 6 4 2 3 2 1 TOTAL 37

Question 10) Accessibility of site to pre-determined areas for leisure and recreation

Destination Within Pre-determined range 350m (5 mins) 700m (10 mins) 1000m (15 mins) Informal Open Space 1 0 0 for Recreation Outdoor Sports 3 2 1 Pitches and Facilities Local Children’s Play 1 0 0 Area Neighbourhood 2 1 0 Children’s Play Area Settlement Level 3 2 1 Children’s Play Area Total 7

91

Comparison Scores for Q8 to 10

Brownfield / Greenfield Accessibility to Services Accessibility to Recreation 2 71 7

Stage C: Detailed Site Implications

At any stage of this process, where a constraint to development may be so significant, the site could require dismissing.

Question 11) Regional and Local Biodiversity

Would the development of the proposed site affect a regional or local site of biodiversity or geological value or affect any protected species/habitats?

Assessment / No impact on a designated area. Score 1 Comments

Question 12) Trees and Hedgerows

Would the development of the site affect trees or hedgerows not covered by statutory protection or by the BAP?

Assessment / There are no significant trees or Score 1 Comments hedgerows.

Question 13) Historic Environment

Would the proposed development affect the historic environment including the setting of an historic asset?

Assessment / No impact on the historic environment. Score 1 Comments

Question 14) Character of Built Area

Would the development affect the built character of the town or village?

Assessment / This is currently open space and a football Score 1 Comments pitch which has been used by a local team on a regular basis. The development of the site, although it would result in the loss of green space, is not considered to have an adverse impact on the setting of this part of the town as the current layout is not particular attractive.

Question 15) Impact on the Landscape

What is the capacity of the landscape to accommodate development with respect to the conservation and enhancement of distinctive rural and coastal landscape character areas?

Assessment / No impact as an urban environment. Score 3 Comments

Question 16) Flood Risk

Is the proposal within an area at risk of flooding?

92

Note: Sites deemed at a high risk of flooding (Flood Zone 3 as identified by EA) are dismissed at Stage 1 of assessment process.

Assessment / Zone 1 Score 3 Comments

Question 17) Agricultural land

Would the development of the site result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land?

Assessment / Urban classification Score 2 Comments

Question 18) Water Supply and Source Protection Zones

Would the development adversely affect a water supply?

Assessment / No impact Score 3 Comments

Question 19) Mineral Resources

Would the development of the land impact on mineral resources?

Assessment / No impact Score 2 Comments

Infrastructure

Question 20) School Capacity

What is the capacity of schools to cope with the development?

Assessment / There is capacity in local schools. Score 2 Comments

Question 21) Capacity of Utility Providers

What is the capacity of existing utilities (Water, Sewage, etc) to cope with the development?

Assessment / Sufficient capacity Score 2 Comments

Question 22) Impact on Strategic Highway Network

Does the development have an adverse impact on the Strategic Road Network?

Assessment / No impact Score 2 Comments

Question 23) Impact on Local Highways Network

Is the highway network (local) able to safely and efficiently cope with this development?

Assessment / Access could be achieved off Helredale Road Score 2 Comments and / or Helredale Gardens. There is an issue in relation to a crossing raised through the planning application, however, this is not fundamental to this development but relates to

93

providing access to relocated sports facilities.

Amenity Issues

Question 24) Land Use Conflicts

Would the development of the site be compatible with adjoining land uses (now or in the future) or are there conflict / amenity issues?

Assessment / The site is surrounded by residential Score 2 Comments development which is compatible subject to an acceptable layout. The development would obviously result in the loss of the existing sports pitch, however, this is proposed to be replaced within the locality (this is explained under Question 25).

Question 25) Other Issues and Constraints

Are there any other constraints that prevent the site from being developed?

Assessment / The development would result in the loss of open space and sports / Comments recreational facilities considered important by the community. It is proposed that the development of this site could fund the relocation and improvement of such facilities and this would be a condition of any allocation and would have to receive the agreement of Sport England.

The other major constraint is the ‘village green’ application made by local residents which was initially refused but has escalated up the levels of appeal.

Availability and Deliverability

Question 26) Ownership

Are there any ownership constraints?

No Owner has submitted site and is willing to sell

Question 27) Timescale for Development

Is the site likely to be developed within 15 years of the adoption of the Housing DPD?

Unkown Due to village green and highways issues so cannot categorically be confirmed as contributing.

Overall Assessment of Deliverability

Any comments on estimated yield; overarching constraints, justification or mitigation; revised site boundary where necessary for instance.

This site was identified through the Council’s Land Group which is tasked to look to release Council owned land to help meet the high affordable housing requirement in the Borough. Preliminary work has been carried out on this site together with an area of St John’s Road. Early discussions suggest that Helredale could be successfully redeveloped for housing with the proceeds of the site funding the demolition and rebuilding of social housing at St Peter’s Road (an existing housing scheme which has been found not to be ‘fit for purpose’). It could also fund the relocation of the sports pitch with improved facilities; locations to the rear of Abbots Road and off Larpool Lane have been suggested.

94

The site is therefore considered to represent a suitable opportunity to accommodate housing subject to the acceptable relocation of existing sports and recreation facilities.

The other issues which are unresolved relate to highways (a crossing) and the ‘village green’ application by local residents.

Using early discussions with developers an indicative yield of 80 dwellings is considered appropriate. Indicative Yield Not Applicable (Within Development Limits and Not Allocated)

95

Site Assessment

Housing Allocation Not Applicable (Site Dismissed) Reference: Site Ref: 35/46 Area (ha): 2.47 ha Parish: Whitby Address: Land at Broomfield Cottage, Stainsacre Lane

Score: Stage A: Fail Stage B: Stage C: Concluding This site is located to the south and east of Broomfield Cottage and is Comments: at the boundary with the National Park. It is detached from the existing built settlement thus fails to progress from the first stage of this process. Additionally, it lies within only a few metres of the Waste Water Treatment Plant and amenity issues due to smell would be a major concern. Indicative Yield: Not Applicable (Site Dismissed)

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

Stage A: Conformity with Settlement Strategy and Major Constraints

A(i) Conformity with the evolving Scarborough Borough settlement strategy:

Question 1a) Does the proposed site lie within or is well related to an existing settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 1b. If No, site is dismissed.

96

Site Assessment

Housing Allocation Not applicable (Site Dismissed) Reference: Site Ref: 35/47 Area (ha): 16.24 ha Parish: Whitby Address: Land to the North-East of The Avenue, Ruswarp Score: Stage A: Pass Stage B: 1-67-3 Stage C: 15 Concluding This site is located off The Avenue, Ruswarp and was originally Comments: submitted on such a scale that would see Ruswarp grow to the north towards Whitby. The scale of the site was considered too large for the area. Furthermore, the majority of the site, with an exception of the south-west, is located within high risk flood zone 3.

The remainder of the site that lies outside those areas at risk of flooding has been assessed but is considered inappropriate for development because of the impact on the character of the existing built form of Ruswarp and the landscape setting in which it is located. In addition to this, the site cannot be accessed satisfactorily in terms of the arrangements and the fact that this is a private road over which further access rights are unlikely to be permitted. Indicative Yield: Not applicable (Site Dismissed)

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

Stage A: Conformity with Settlement Strategy and Major Constraints

A(i) Conformity with the evolving Scarborough Borough settlement strategy:

Question 1a) Does the proposed site lie within or is well related to an existing settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 1b. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 1b) Does the settlement lie within or above the Service Village classification? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, proceed to Question 1c.

Question 1c) Are there any circumstances that would warrant an allocation of housing within the settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 2a) Is the site of an appropriate scale/size that reflects the role of the respective settlement as defined in the settlement hierarchy within the Local Plan? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, proceed to Question 2b.

97

Question 2b) Could a smaller portion of the site be in conformity with the settlement hierarchy? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, site is dismissed.

*The site as a whole is considered too large for Ruswarp (and within the Floodzone), however, a smaller site along the road frontage has been considered.

A(ii) Major Constraints (Environmental and Historic)

Question 3a) Is the site within the prescribed distance of any national or international site of biodiversity or geological value; e.g. RAMSAR, SSSI, SAC, SPA, National Nature Reserves ? YES / NO

Question 3b) If YES would the development have a negative impact on the associated area of protection? YES/NO

EXPLAIN…. This site lies within 5km of the North York Moors SAC and SPA and has the potential to impact, from a recreational focus, the protected site. The actual impact will be assessed through the Appropriate Assessment under the EU Habitats Directive if the site is selected as a potential allocation.

Question 4) Does the site lie within an area considered to be unsuitable due to its position within a flood risk zone (high risk)? YES / NO

Question 5) Does the site lie within an area considered to be at significant risk of coastal erosion zone, i.e. located within 100 year erosion zone? YES / NO

Question 6) Would the development of the site have an adverse negative impact upon nationally- important archaeology (including Scheduled Monuments) or other high-Grade historic assets or their settings? YES / NO

If No to all questions 3 to 6, proceed to Question 8 If Yes, proceed to Question 7

Question 7) Where one of the above questions may have answered ‘yes’, does the constraint prohibit development of the entire site with no possibility of amending the site area? YES / NO / N/A *Much of the eastern portion of the site is within flood zone 3, this is therefore dismissed. The remainder at the south-western corner is to be considered.

If Yes, site is dismissed. If, as a result of amending site boundaries, a site can no longer yield 10 dwellings or more, it will be dismissed. Where 10 dwellings may be yielded, proceed to Question 8

Stage B: First Round Scoring

Question 8) Brownfield or Greenfield Land

Is the site classified as previously developed land (Brownfield), Greenfield or is it a mixture of both land types?

100% Brownfield 6 Majority Brownfield 4 Majority Greenfield 2 100% Greenfield 1 POINTS 1

Question 9a) Accessibility of site to ‘pre-determined’ areas by public transport

98

This question, along with Question 10, relate to accessibility. With the use of accessibility software, complex transport modelling is utilised to enable the relative accessibility of potential sites to pre- determined services and facilities by sustainable modes such as public transport, walking and cycling.

Journey time to Destination by Public Transport Destination Less than 15 to 30 30 to 45 45 to 60 More than 1 15 mins mins mins mins hour Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 1 0 neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 1 0 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 1 0 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 1 0 Secondary 6 4 2 1 0 Schools GP Surgeries 6 4 2 1 0 TOTAL 34

Question 9b) How accessible is the site to existing services and facilities?

Walking Distances within Cycling Distances within Destination 500m 1000m 2000m 1.5km 5km 8km Defined town centres, service centres and 6 4 2 3 2 1 neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 3 2 1 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 3 2 1 Centres / Pools Primary Schools 6 4 2 3 2 1 Secondary 6 4 2 3 2 1 Schools Train Station 6 4 2 3 2 1 GP Surgeries 6 4 2 3 2 1 TOTAL 33

Question 10) Accessibility of site to pre-determined areas for leisure and recreation

Destination Within Pre-determined range 350m (5 mins) 700m (10 mins) 1000m (15 mins) Informal Open Space 1 0 0 for Recreation Outdoor Sports 3 2 1 Pitches and Facilities Local Children’s Play 1 0 0 Area Neighbourhood 2 1 0 Children’s Play Area Settlement Level 3 2 1 Children’s Play Area

99

Total 3

Comparison Scores for Q8 to 10

Brownfield / Greenfield Accessibility to Services Accessibility to Recreation 1 67 3

Stage C: Detailed Site Implications

At any stage of this process, where a constraint to development may be so significant, the site could require dismissing.

Question 11) Regional and Local Biodiversity

Would the development of the proposed site affect a regional or local site of biodiversity or geological value or affect any protected species/habitats?

Assessment / SINC located to the east of originally Score 1 Comments submitted site. It is unlikely any development at the western part of site would impact upon this.

Question 12) Trees and Hedgerows

Would the development of the site affect trees or hedgerows not covered by statutory protection or by the BAP?

Assessment / Various areas of light vegetation in and Score 1 Comments around the site. If considered worthy of retention, this could be integrated into a scheme.

Question 13) Historic Environment

Would the proposed development affect the historic environment including the setting of an historic asset?

Assessment / No impact on the setting of an historic Score 1 Comments asset.

Question 14) Character of Built Area

Would the development affect the built character of the town or village?

Assessment / Site located to the north -east of Ruswarp, Score -1 Comments accessed via The Avenue which fronts onto High Street at the centre of the village. Here, the site borders the Conservation Area. The Council’s Conservation Officer view is that the site would form an intrusion into the important gap between Ruswarp and Whitby to the north and development would be inappropriate.

Question 15) Impact on the Landscape

What is the capacity of the landscape to accommodate development with respect to the conservation and enhancement of distinctive rural and coastal landscape character areas?

100

Assessment / The site forms a key attractive landscape Score -3 Comments setting at the floor of the valley that is distinctive within the wider setting of Ruswarp and Whitby. Development of this site in any configuration would have a significant adverse impact upon the landscape setting of the area.

Question 16) Flood Risk

Is the proposal within an area at risk of flooding?

Note: Sites deemed at a high risk of flooding are likely to have been dismissed at Stage 1 of assessment process.

Assessment / The majority of the originally submitted Score 3 Comments site is located within flood zones 2 or 3. This assessment has considered an amended site area that excludes this area.

Question 17) Agricultural land

Would the development of the site result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land?

Assessment / Grade 3 Score 2 Comments

Question 18) Water Supply and Source Protection Zones

Would the development adversely affect a water supply?

Assessment / No impact Score 3 Comments

Question 19) Mineral Resources

Would the development of the land impact on mineral resources?

Assessment / No impact on mineral resources Score 2 Comments

Infrastructure

Question 20) School Capacity

What is the capacity of schools to cope with the development?

Assessment / Sufficient capacity at Primary and Secondary Score 2 Comments schools

Question 21) Capacity of Utility Providers

What is the capacity of existing utilities (Water, Sewage, etc) to cope with the development?

Assessment / There is sufficient capacity in the treatment Score 2 Comments works

Question 22) Impact on Strategic Highway Network

Does the development have an adverse impact on the Strategic Road Network?

101

Assessment / No impact Score 2 Comments Question 23) Impact on Local Highways Network

Is the highway network (local) able to safely and efficiently cope with this development?

Assessment / Site would be accessed from The Avenue. The Score -2 Comments entrance into The Avenue from High Street can not accommodate increased use. Additionally The Avenue is a private access and it is understood further access rights would not be permitted.

Amenity Issues

Question 24) Land Use Conflicts

Would the development of the site be compatible with adjoining land uses (now or in the future) or are there conflict / amenity issues?

Assessment / Site adjacent to existing dwellings also Score 2 Comments surrounded by open countryside. Likely compatible.

Question 25) Other Issues and Constraints

Are there any other constraints that prevent the site from being developed?

Assessment / No further constraints. Comments

Availability and Deliverability

Question 26) Ownership

Are there any ownership constraints?

No Owner has submitted site and is willing to sell

Question 27) Timescale for Development

Is the site likely to be developed within the Local Plan period up to 2030?

Not likely to be developed prior Constraints exist and mitigation unlikely before 2030. Not to 2030 allocated but re-considered at a future date.

Overall Assessment of Deliverability

Any comments on estimated yield; overarching constraints, justification or mitigation; revised site boundary where necessary for instance.

This site is located off The Avenue, Ruswarp and was originally submitted on such a scale that would see Ruswarp grow to the north towards Whitby. The scale of the site was considered too large for the area. Furthermore, the majority of the site, with an exception of the south-west, is located within high risk flood zone 3.

The remainder of the site that lies outside those areas at risk of flooding has been assessed but is considered inappropriate for development because of the impact on the character of the existing built form of Ruswarp and the landscape setting in which it is located. In addition to this,

102 the site cannot be accessed satisfactorily in terms of the arrangements and the fact that this is a private road over which further access rights are unlikely to be permitted. Using an indicative yield of 30dph the site could accommodate approximately 341 dwellings. Indicative Yield Not Applicable (Site Dismissed)

103

Site Assessment

Housing Allocation Not Applicable (Site Dismissed) Reference: Site Ref: 35/49 Area (ha): 2.37 ha Parish: Whitby Address: Land south of Lambert Hill Farm, The Carrs, Ruswarp

Score: Stage A: Fail Stage B: Stage C: Concluding This site is located to the west of Ruswarp. It is detached from the Comments: existing built settlement thus fails to progress from the first stage of this process. Indicative Yield: Not Applicable

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

Stage A: Conformity with Settlement Strategy and Major Constraints

A(i) Conformity with the evolving Scarborough Borough settlement strategy:

Question 1a) Does the proposed site lie within or is well related to an existing settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 1b. If No, site is dismissed.

104

Site Assessment

Housing Allocations Not Applicable (Site Dismissed) Reference: Original Site Ref: 35/50 Area (ha): 2.49 ha Parish: Whitby Address: Land off Captain Cook Crescent

Score: Stage A: Passed Stage B: 17 Stage C: 17 Concluding This site is suggested as a second phase to development off Comments: Captain Cook’s Crescent in Whitby. The ‘first phase’ is considered as site 35/50a. This option is considered to have a much greater impact upon the setting of Whitby, its impact on the landscape and the setting of the Grade I Listed Whitby Abbey. This has been confirmed by English Heritage and is not recommended for allocation on these grounds. Indicative Yield: N/A

Prior to Stage A, all sites that cannot accommodate 10 or more dwellings will be dismissed from the formal allocation process in the Local Plan but will be considered to determine if the development limits can be amended to allow small scale housing or have the potential to be suitable as an exceptions site in the rural area.

Stage A: Conformity with Settlement Strategy and Major Constraints

A(i) Conformity with the evolving Scarborough Borough settlement strategy:

Question 1a) Does the proposed site lie within or is well related to an existing settlement? YES / NO

*Although the site is physically separated from Whitby, the adjoining parcel of land has been submitted for consideration through the Local Plan process.

If Yes, proceed to Question 1b. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 1b) Does the settlement lie within or above the Service Village classification? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, proceed to Question 1c.

Question 1c) Are there any circumstances that would warrant an allocation of housing within the settlement? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 2a. If No, site is dismissed.

Question 2a) Is the site of an appropriate scale/size that reflects the role of the respective settlement as defined in the settlement hierarchy within the Local Plan? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3. If No, proceed to Question 2b.

Question 2b) Could a smaller portion of the site be in conformity with the settlement hierarchy? YES / NO

If Yes, proceed to Question 3.

105

If No, site is dismissed.

A(ii) Major Constraints (Environmental and Historic)

Question 3a) Is the site within the prescribed distance of any national or international site of biodiversity or geological value; e.g. RAMSAR, SSSI, SAC, SPA, National Nature Reserves ? YES / NO

Question 3b) If YES would the development have a negative impact on the associated area of protection? YES/NO

EXPLAIN…. The site lies within 5km of the North York Moors SAC and SPA, however, it is of such a scale that any impact from increased recreational pressure is therefore considered to be minor.

Question 4) Does the site lie within an area considered to be unsuitable due to its position within a flood risk zone (high risk)? YES / NO

Question 5) Does the site lie within an area considered to be at significant risk of coastal erosion zone, i.e. located within 100 year erosion zone? YES / NO

Question 6) Would the development of the site have an adverse negative impact upon nationally- important archaeology (including Scheduled Monuments) or other high-Grade historic assets or their settings? YES / NO

If No to all questions 3 to 6, proceed to Question 8 If Yes, proceed to Question 7

Question 7) Where one of the above questions may have answered ‘yes’, does the constraint prohibit development of the entire site with no possibility of amending the site area? YES / NO / N/A

If Yes, site is dismissed. If, as a result of amending site boundaries, a site can no longer yield 10 dwellings or more, it will be dismissed. Where 10 dwellings may be yielded, proceed to Question 8

Stage B: First Round Scoring

Question 8) Brownfield or Greenfield Land

Is the site classified as previously developed land (Brownfield), Greenfield or is it a mixture of both land types?

100% Brownfield 6 Majority Brownfield 4 Majority Greenfield 2 100% Greenfield 1 POINTS 1

Question 9a) Accessibility of site to ‘pre-determined’ areas by public transport

This question, along with Question 10, relate to accessibility. With the use of accessibility software, complex transport modelling is utilised to enable the relative accessibility of potential sites to pre- determined services and facilities by sustainable modes such as public transport, walking and cycling.

Journey time to Destination by Public Transport Destination Less than 15 to 30 30 to 45 45 to 60 More than 1 15 mins mins mins mins hour Defined town centres, service 6 4 2 1 0 centres and

106 neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 1 0 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 1 0 Centres / Pools To Primary 6 4 2 1 0 Schooling To Secondary 6 4 2 1 0 Schooling To GP Surgery 6 4 2 1 0 TOTAL 34

Question 9b) How accessible is the site to existing services and facilities?

Walking Distances within Cycling Distances within Destination 500m 1000m 2000m 1.5km 5km 8km Defined town centres, service centres 6 4 2 3 2 1 and neighbourhood centres. Major employment 6 4 2 3 2 1 centres Indoor Sports 6 4 2 3 2 1 Centres / Pools Primary 6 4 2 3 2 1 Schools Secondary 6 4 2 3 2 1 Schools Train Station / Major Bus 6 4 2 3 2 1 Interchanges GP Surgeries 6 4 2 3 2 1 TOTAL 42

Question 10) Accessibility of site to pre-determined areas for leisure and recreation

Destination Within Pre-determined range 350m (5 mins) 700m (10 mins) 1000m (15 mins) Informal Open Space 1 0 0 for Recreation Outdoor Sports 3 2 1 Pitches and Facilities Local Children’s Play 1 0 0 Area Neighbourhood 2 1 0 Children’s Play Area Settlement Level 3 2 1 Children’s Play Area Total 4

Comparison Scores for Q8 to 10

Brownfield / Greenfield Accessibility to Services Accessibility to Recreation 1 76 4

107

Stage C: Detailed Site Implications

At any stage of this process, where a constraint to development may be so significant, the site could require dismissing.

Question 11) Regional and Local Biodiversity

Would the development of the proposed site affect a regional or local site of biodiversity or geological value or affect any protected species/habitats?

Assessment / No impact on a designated site. Score 1 Comments

Question 12) Trees and Hedgerows

Would the development of the site affect trees or hedgerows not covered by statutory protection or by the BAP?

Assessment / Minor hedgerows border site to the north Score 1 Comments where allotments adjoin site. This could be retained and integrated into development.

Question 13) Historic Environment

Would the proposed development affect the historic environment including the setting of an historic asset?

Assessment / A key consideration would be to consider Score -3 Comments any potential impact on Whitby Abbey as the site when viewed from the south / Stainsacre Lane part of the town.

As part of their submission, the agents have submitted a Landscape Sensitivity Assessment that includes an assessment of the impact on Whitby Abbey. This assesses the site has having a medium impact overall but that reducing the site to the southern half would limit the impact on the setting of the Abbey. English Heritage commented on the assessment and confirmed that “we consider that the development of [this site] would result in the urbanisation of the south-eastern approach to the Abbey which would harm its landscape setting and the experience of those approaching it from this direction. We do not consider that the development of [this site] provides any public benefits which would outweigh this harm.”

With this in mind, the site is considered to have significant adverse impacts on the setting of Whitby Abbey.

108

Question 14) Character of Built Area

Would the development affect the built character of the town or village?

Assessment / Although currently separated from the Score -1 Comments built form of Whitby, development of the adjacent site (also submitted through the Local Plan process) would mean the site would be attached to the built form and development would be a further extension to sit alongside existing development at Captain Cook Crescent. However, further expansion of the settlement to the east, would break the eastern edge of the settlement and impact more on the setting of Whitby towards the National Park.

Question 15) Impact on the Landscape

What is the capacity of the landscape to accommodate development with respect to the conservation and enhancement of distinctive rural and coastal landscape character areas?

Assessment / A landscape sensitivity assessment has Score -1 Comments been submitted as supporting evidence for this site. This considers a range of criteria against which the site is assessed resulting in an overall landscape sensitivity of medium. It considers the impact would be lessened by limiting development to the southern half of this site. Notwithstanding the comments on Question 13 from English Heritage, the site is still considered to impact on the landscape as it protrudes significantly in to the open fields to the east of Whitby.

The site falls within Character Area D2: Whitby Abbey in the Landscape Study. This character area is described as having positive features including ‘the undeveloped, open and exposed, ‘wild’ character’ and ‘the iconic abbey ruins, which form a highly distinctive landmark and point of orientation.’

Development of this site – even in the reduced form as recommended by the submitted Landscape Sensitivity Assessment would impact upon the setting of Whitby and its landscape setting.

Question 16) Flood Risk

Is the proposal within an area at risk of flooding?

Note: Sites deemed at a high risk of flooding are likely to have been dismissed at Stage 1 of assessment process.

109

Assessment / Site located in Flood Zone 1. Score 3 Comments

Question 17) Agricultural land

Would the development of the site result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land?

Assessment / Grade 3 agricultural land. Score 2 Comments

Question 18) Water Supply and Groundwater Source Protection Zones

Would the development adversely affect a water supply?

Assessment / No impact upon water supply. Score 3 Comments

Question 19) Mineral Resources

Would the development of the land impact on mineral resources?

Assessment / No impact upon mineral resources. Score 2 Comments

Infrastructure

Question 20) School Capacity

What is the capacity of schools to cope with the development?

Assessment / Sufficient capacity at both local primary and Score 2 Comments secondary schools.

Question 21) Capacity of Utility Providers

What is the capacity of existing utilities (Water, Sewage, etc) to cope with the development?

Assessment / Sufficient Waste Water capacity within Whitby. Score 2 Comments

Question 22) Impact on Strategic Highway Network

Does the development have an adverse impact on the Strategic Road Network?

Assessment / No impact on strategic highway network. Score 2 Comments

Question 23) Impact on Local Highways Network

Is the highway network (local) able to safely and efficiently cope with this development?

Assessment / North Yorkshire County Council Highways Score 2 Comments have confirmed access could be achieved from Green Lane and there may be an

110

alternative access off Captain Cooks Crescent that would serve the adjacent site. Access could then be achieved through that site to serve this one.

Amenity Issues

Question 24) Land Use Conflicts

Would the development of the site be compatible with adjoining land uses (now or in the future) or are there conflict / amenity issues?

Assessment / Development would only happen if the Score 2 Comments adjacent site to the west was developed prior to this one. If this was the case, it would be likely any development would be compatible with this.

Question 25) Other Issues and Constraints

Are there any other constraints that prevent the site from being developed?

Assessment / No further issues. Comments

Availability and Deliverability

Question 26) Ownership

Are there any ownership constraints?

No Owner has submitted site and is willing to sell Yes Ownership constraints or little developer interest

Question 27) Timescale for Development

Is the site likely to be developed within the Local Plan period up to 2030?

Not likely to be developed prior Constraints exist and mitigation unlikely before 2030. Not to 2030 allocated but re-considered at a future date.

Overall Assessment of Deliverability

Any comments on estimated yield; overarching constraints, justification or mitigation; revised site boundary where necessary for instance. This site is suggested as a second phase to development off Captain Cook’s Crescent in Whitby. The ‘first phase’ is considered as site 35/50a. This option is considered to have a much greater impact upon the setting of Whitby, its impact on the landscape and the setting of the Grade I Listed Whitby Abbey. This has been confirmed by English Heritage and is not recommended for allocation on these grounds. Indicative Yield N/A

111