East Riding Local Plan

Draft Allocations Document Gypsy and Traveller Sites

Further Consultation Paper

March 2013

“Making It Happen”

Contents

Introduction ...... 3

Narrowing down the search ...... 5

Overview Assessment ...... 14

Detailed site assessments ...... 16

Summary and Recommendations ...... 26

Figures

Figure 1: Map of sites in the to area of need ...... 6

Figure 2: Map of sites in the Cottingham to area of need ...... 7

Figure 3: Summary Table ...... 17

2 Introduction

The consultation exercise

The Council is undertaking a complementary consultation exercise to look for sites for traveller pitches which will run alongside the Local Plan consultation. This is being done on the basis that during the potential & preferred sites stage of the Local Plan consultation, no Gypsy and Traveller sites were submitted to the Council for consideration. Therefore there has been no public consultation so far on how and where these sites should be located, this consultation exercise seeks to address this situation by:

1. Defining the approach to the search and assessment of Gypsy sites; 2. Putting forward a range of potential sites for assessment; and 3. Suggesting preferred options for allocating Gypsy sites in the Local Plan

The two sites at Carnaby, south of Moor Lane and Cottingham, Eppleworth Road, shown as preferred sites in the Allocations document, will be included in this exercise and comments will be invited on these sites.1 The response to this exercise (and any alternative sites proposed) will be considered in drawing up the next 'Publication' draft of the Local Plan.

Questions have been asked throughout this paper (shown in italics in the yellow boxes) which seek your views on how we have addressed the 3 main points above. Please could you register your responses to these questions, as well as any other comments you have at our website: http://consult.eastriding.gov.uk/portal

Alternatively you can send your comments to: Forward Planning East Riding of Council County Hall Beverley HU17 9BA Telephone: 01482 391739 Email: [email protected]

The consultation period will run 6 weeks from the 25th of March to the 6th of May 2013

Background to this assessment

The Council is required in preparing the Local Plan to have regard to meeting the needs of the gypsy and traveller community, this principally involves identifying a specific and suitable supply of sites to accommodate the need for pitches in the first 5 years of the plan period. Needs arising thereafter over the plan period also need to be addressed in the Local Plan but this can be done through a criteria based policy (as opposed to specific land allocations). A copy of the draft traveller policy is included in Appendix A of this paper.

Failure to identify a 5 year supply of specific and suitable sites in the Plan could seriously impact on the 'soundness' of the Plan i.e. whether or not it is approved by a Planning Inspector. In addition, it will undermine the Council's ability to enforce against unauthorised development with the

1 The site area of both of these draft allocations is now considered to be too large. The site area of these allocations and all other potential allocations included in this document have been reduced to 0.5ha.

3 associated risk of such development being granted approval on appeal - potentially in locations which would be considered entirely inappropriate for such use.

In order to identify a 5 year supply of specific and suitable sites the level of need has to be determined. The Council commissioned consultants to undertake a Gypsy and Traveller Needs Assessment (GTNA) in the autumn of 2012. The council already had a GTNA from 2008, the reason for undertaking a new needs assessment was based on recent evidence from other parts of the country highlighting the fact that out of date GTNA's (from around the same time period as 2008) being a cause of plans failing their soundness test.

The GTNA was reported to Cabinet on the 11th of December and outlined a need for 25 additional pitches over the initial 5 year period of the plan and 29 for the remainder of the plan period. The assessment also highlighted the broad locations where such new pitches should be provided, these being the Beverley to Cottingham area and the Driffield to Bridlington area. The assessment stated that 12-13 pitches were needed in each of these areas of need in the first 5 years of the plan (2014- 19).

Having identified the level of need and the broad areas where it was needed, the GTNA then gave three options for how to address this need:

1. Develop an approach based on sites that are known to be viable and deliverable for Gypsies and Travellers; 2. Utilising an approach which identifies sites that are within good proximity to services and facilities; and 3. Focusing on identifying sites in proximity to existing Gypsy and Traveller populations.

The first approach is focussed around finding land that was put forward by developers for Gypsy use or available land that is in the Council’s ownership. Having a willing land owner in place is likely to increase the chance of the site being brought forward within the required timescale to meet the Gypsy and Traveller needs. Potential sites would need to be judged against criteria to ensure that they have access to an appropriate range of services and amenities. If this is not the case this could raise challenges of sites not being in the right locations to meet the needs and demands of existing Gypsy and Traveller communities.

The second approach would focus provision into or near those larger settlements where there is a greater concentration of services and amenities. This would enable the communities to access these resources. This approach would be broadly consistent with the settlement network established in the draft Local Plan. Drawbacks of this approach may be that it may not focus the additional pitches where Gypsy and Traveller communities want them to be. There also may not be any deliverable land in these locations.

The third approach is predicated on the fact that the main driver of demand for additional pitches in the East Riding is concealed households resulting from overcrowding. Therefore within this approach additional pitches should be sought in proximity to existing Gypsy and Traveller communities in the district. This could include options to extend existing sites where it is practicable to do so. This approach would mean that additional pitches would be provided where these communities are already established. This could be beneficial for families and extended families by causing less disruption. It is recognised that there may be some opposition to this option on the basis that it would exacerbate existing problems in such areas and that future need should be addressed elsewhere. In relation to extending existing sites consideration would also have to be given to the Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide (2008) which suggests that a maximum of 15 pitches is conducive to providing a comfortable environment which is easy to manage. Expansion of any of the council’s 3 sites would exceed this number.

Taking the advantages and disadvantages of each approach into account, the council has decided to adopt a hybrid approach which incorporates positive aspects of all 3 of the approaches above. When

4 searching for new sites, land in the Council's ownership will be preferred wherever possible; this helps to ensure the deliverability of the sites proposed within the first 5 years of the plan period. Proximity to existing sites will be considered a positive factor when assessing sites, as this enables the travelling community to be close to relatives and ensures minimal disruption. The search and assessment of sites will also consider the proximity of services and facilities; this is an important consideration because traveller sites in remote areas are unlikely to be used by travellers if they are too far from essential services such as schools and healthcare.

Consideration has also been given to using land in appropriate locations in other ownerships. To date no such land has been offered to the Council for such use. The proposed approach does however allow for such land to be identified where other land in Council ownership is either not available or deemed suitable or deliverable. In such circumstances the council acknowledges that there will be a requirement to reach an agreement with the landowner over such a use and/or to acquire such land on a voluntary basis or through a Compulsory Purchase Order.

Question 1: Do you agree with the councils approach to the provision of gypsy and traveller sites?

Narrowing down the search The scope for the wider search for Gypsy sites has been shaped by three parameters. The first and foremost of these were the areas of need for traveller pitch provision outlined in the GTNA, these being the Beverley to Cottingham area and the Driffield to Bridlington area. Sites outside of these two broad areas were not considered. Given the clear message provided in the 2012 GTNA regarding most need being from within the area, the Council has also been keen to explore opportunities to extend existing authorised sites to meet needs arising.

The second important parameter relate to the sustainability of the site and planning considerations. The factors considered relate to the main points outlined in section 11 of the National Planning Policy for traveller sites (included as Appendix B in this paper). These include locating Gypsies and Travellers near to health and education services and areas of employment, avoiding areas of high flood risk and considering the environmental quality of the sites. Any sites which did not comply with the National Guidance were considered to be unviable and were not considered or were discounted at the overview assessment stage.

The third parameter was the ownership of the land, in order to show that a site is suitable it has to be deliverable, i.e. the owner of the land is willing to allow the land to be sold and or used for accommodating Gypsies and Travellers. No private sites have been submitted to the Council despite a call for sites in two rounds of public consultation for the local plan and a call for sites to the local Gypsy and Traveller community, in the first instance therefore the Council has had to consider land in its own ownership in the areas of need.

Question 2: Are these the correct parameters to use? Can you suggest any others?

Under these three parameters 16 sites (including the two sites shown as preferred options in the Allocations DPD) were chosen in a variety of locations within the two areas of search (shown in figures 1&2). Most of the sites are situated on agricultural fields and most are considered to be within a reasonable distance from essential services including healthcare, employment and education.

5 All the sites have been drawn up at around half a hectare in area, as this is considered to be the optimal size (according to current design standards) to accommodate the 12 to 13 pitches to be provided in each area of need.

Question 3: What are your views on the range of sites shown? Can you suggest any other potential Gypsy and Traveller sites to those shown?

Figure 1: Map of sites in the Driffield to Bridlington area of need

6

Figure 2: Map of sites in the Cottingham to Beverley area of need

7

The above key relates to the Draft Policies shown on the maps shown above and below.

8 BRID47 – Land at White Hill, Scarborough Road, Bridlington.

This site is owned by the Council, it comprises part of an agricultural field. The land slopes gently upwards to the west and there is an existing tree and hedgerow screening on the eastern edge of the site. Access can be taken from a track that leads to White Hill Close.

BRID48 – Land east of North Mount, Bempton Lane, Bridlington.

This site is owned by the Council, it comprises part of an agricultural field. The site is flat with long views of the surrounding area, there is little existing screening on site. Access can be obtained from Bempton Lane.

BRID49 – Land north of County Farm, Scarborough Road, Bridlington.

This site is owned by the Council, it comprises part of an agricultural field on the edge of Bridlington. The land slopes gently upwards to the west and there is an existing tree and hedgerow screening on the eastern edge of the site.

9 BRID50 – Land north of Woldgate, Bridlington.

This site is part of a wider area of land owned by the council to the north of Woldgate, all of which lies on top of a former land fill site. Part of this site was the location of a former gypsy site which was moved to the southern side of Woldgate. The reason for this relocation was directly related to contamination from the land fill site.

BRID51 – Land south of Woldgate, Bridlington.

This site is agricultural land which is in private ownership. It is adjacent to the existing site on Woldgate. The site has minimal screening and has an upward gradient to the south.

CAR20 – Land south of Moor Lane, Carnaby.

This site is owned by the Council, it comprises part of an agricultural field south of the Carnaby Industrial Estate. This site was chosen as a preferred site in the Draft Local Plan. The site is flat with some hedgerow screening on its western edge. Access can be obtained from the lane adjacent to the sites western edge.

10 CAR23 – Land east of Wilsthorpe Roundabout, Carnaby.

This site is owned by the Council, it comprises part of an agricultural field. The proposed site has been set back from the lane to avoid the flood risk area. The site is flat with substantial tree and hedgerow screening on its western edge. Access can be obtained from the lane on its northern boundary.

CAR24 – Land east of Sticks Farm, Carnaby

This site is owned by the Council, it comprises part of a flat agricultural field. There is some screening for the site from the trees along the main road. Access can be obtained from Kingsgate.

COT54 – Land at Eppleworth Road, Cottingham.

The land is owned by the Council and was chosen as a preferred site in the Draft Local Plan. It is located adjacent to an existing Gypsy site and access would have to be obtained through here. The site comprises an agricultural field which slopes upwards to the south. There is existing hedgerow screening on the northern edge of the site.

11 COT55 – Land west of Woodhill Way, Cottingham.

The land is owned by the Council and comprises part of an agricultural field which slopes upwards to the south. The site is in close proximity to an existing gypsy and traveller site to the east of Woodhill Way. Access can be obtained from Woodhill Way.

DRF41 – Land west of Green Lane, Driffield.

The land is owned by the Council and comprises part of an agricultural field. The site has long views of the surrounding area, there is no existing screening on site. Gaining an access directly from the A164 may prove difficult.

LISS1 – Depot at Mill Hill, New Cut, Lissett.

The land is owned by the Council and is comprised of an aggregates depot. Piles of aggregates are present on site, a patchy screening of trees is present around the edge of the site. Access can be obtained from New Court.

12 KIL17 – Land north of Back Lane, Kilham.

The land is owned by the Council and comprises part of an agricultural field which slopes upwards to the north. Access can be obtained from Back Lane. The site has existing hedgerow screening on its eastern and southern boundaries.

SKID7 – Land south of Westfield Road, .

The land is owned by the Council and comprises part of an agricultural field. The site is set back from the road to avoid an area of high flood risk. The site has little existing screening and slopes upwards to the south. Access can be obtained from Westfield Road.

SKR1 – Land at Meggison’s Turnpike, Skerne.

The land is owned by the Council and comprises part of an agricultural field. The site is flat and has a screening of mature trees on its northern boundary. Access can be obtained from Driffield Road.

13 WOOD29 – Land at Beverley Parks Crossing, Long Lane, Woodmansey.

The land is owned by the Council and comprises part of an agricultural field. The site is placed to avoid the area of high flood risk along the Beverley Parks Sewer. The site is flat with long views of the surrounding area, there is little existing screening on site. Access can be taken from Long Lane or Shepherds’ Lane.

Overview Assessment The above sites have been subjected to an overview assessment which considers the merits and negatives of each. The factors considered relate to the main points outlined in section 11 of the National Planning Policy, regarding guidance for planning for traveller sites (see appendix B). These include locating Gypsies and Travellers near to health and education services, avoiding areas of high flood risk and considering the environmental quality of the sites.

Unless otherwise stated, all sites are in the ownership of the Council and are considered as being available and deliverable for the proposed use. Due to the limited scale of development proposed, it is not considered that there will be any adverse effect on existing services or infrastructure in relation to any of the proposed allocations – to the extent that proposed allocations are discounted at this stage. Further consideration of this and other ‘site specific’ matters is included the detailed site assessment score.

Any sites which did not comply with the National Guidance were considered to be unviable and were discounted at stage one, those that had no major constraints were to be assessed in detail with the Council’s Site Assessment Methodology in stage two.

Stage One Overview Assessment Table

Site Merits Constraints Outcome

Very remote from services and Discounted BRID47 No known constraints on site. facilities

Very remote from services and Discounted BRID48 No known constraints on site. facilities

No known constraints on site. Through to BRID49 Close to services and facilities. stage 2

Close to services and facilities. Former landfill site, very high BRID50 Close proximity to existing Discounted contamination risk. Gypsy and Traveller site.

14 Close to services and facilities. Through to BRID51 Close proximity to existing Not council owned land stage 2 Gypsy and Traveller site.

No known constraints on site. Close to the employment Remote from some services and Through to CAR20 opportunities at the Carnaby facilities stage 2 Industrial Estate.

No known constraints on site. Close to the employment Remote from some services and Through to CAR23 opportunities at the Carnaby facilities stage 2 Industrial Estate.

Remote from some services and Through to CAR24 No known constraints on site. facilities. Possible access stage 2 constraints.

Close proximity to existing Through to COT54 Gypsy and Traveller site. stage 2 No known constraints on site.

Close proximity to existing Gypsy Through to COT55 No known constraints on site. and Traveller site. stage 2

Very remote from services and DRF41 No known constraints on site. facilities. Possible access Discounted constraints.

Very remote from services and KIL17 No known constraints on site. Discounted facilities.

Very remote from any services or LISS1 facilities. Former landfill site, high Discounted contamination risk.

Very remote from any services or SKR1 No known constraints on site. Discounted facilities

Very remote from any services or SKID7 No known constraints on site. Discounted facilities,

Remote from some services and Through to WOOD29 No known constraints on site. facilities stage 2

Question 4: Do you agree with the sites that have been discounted/taken through to stage 2?

15 Detailed site assessments

8 sites were assessed in detail by the Site Assessment Methodology (SAM), which has 33 questions designed to assess the impact of a proposed development site.

Question 5: Do you have any views on the ways the sites have been assessed in the SAM?

Figure 3 provides an overall summary of the assessment proposal for all of the potential sites. This results in 3 sites out of the 8 being considered as suitable for future use as a traveller site. The remaining 5 sites are not considered suitable for a range of reasons. Detailed site assessments for each site are set out after the summary table.

16 Figure 3: Summary Table

BRID49 BRID51 CAR20 CAR23 CAR24 COT54 COT55 WOOD29 Question STAGE 1 Initial Assessment & Site Exclusion Conformity with Settlement Network (1) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Biodiversity and Geological Value (2) No No No No No No No No Flood Risk & Coastal Change (3) No No No No No No No No Heritage Assets (4) No No No No No No No No STAGE 2 Initial Ranking Greenfield & Brownfield Land (5) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Accessibility by Public Transport (6) 4 6 3 3 3 5 4 4 Accessibility by Walking & Cycling (7) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Flood Risk (8) 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 STAGE 3 Detailed Site Specific Considerations Settlement Vision (9) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Biodiversity and Geological Value (10) (--) (--) (--) (--) (--) (--) (--) (--) Wildlife & Natural Environment (11) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Heritage Assets (12) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Built Character (13) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Landscape Character (14) (---) (-) (-) (-) (---) (-) (---) (---) Air Quality (15) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Agricultural Land (16) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) Groundwater (17) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (-) (0) (0) Compatibility with Neighbouring Uses (18) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Contaminated Land (19) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) +++ (0) (0) Mineral Resources (20) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Renewable and Low Carbon Energy (21) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Publicly Accessible Open Space (22) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) School Capacity (23) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (0) (0) (-) Utilities Infrastructure Capacity (24) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) Highway Network Capacity (25) (0) (0) (0) (-) (0) (0) (0) (0) Wider Non-Road Transport Network (26) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Community Facilities (27) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Town Centre Vitality and Viability (28) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Regeneration or Economic Benefits (29) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Affordable Housing (30) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A STAGE 4 Deliverability Insumountable Constraints (31) No No No No No No No No Ownership and Market Constraints (32) No No No No No No No No Deliverability (33) Not considered 0 - 5 years 0 - 5 years Not considered Not considered 0 - 5 years Not considered Not considered suitable for suitable for suitable for suitable for suitable for allocation allocation allocation allocation allocation

17 BRID49 Question Outcome Reasoning Basic Information Land bid number Site area (ha) 0.47 Proposed use Gypsy and Traveller Site Date received Additional information STAGE 1 Initial Assessment & Site Exclusion Conformity with Settlement Network (1) Yes Located within the Driffield to Bridlington Area of Search identified in Strategy Document Policy H3 Biodiversity and Geological Value (2) No No effect on International or National site of biological or geological interest (subject confirmation as a result of Habitats Regulations Screening Report). Flood Risk & Coastal Change (3) No Not in functional floodplain or affected by coastal erosion. Heritage Assets (4) No No substantial harm to any nationally designated asset. STAGE 2 Initial Ranking Greenfield & Brownfield Land (5) 1 100% Greenfield land Accessibility by Public Transport (6) 4 Accessibility by Walking & Cycling (7) 0 Flood Risk (8) 6 Highly vulnerable use within flood zone 1 STAGE 3 Detailed Site Specific Considerations Settlement Vision (9) (0) Little impact on vision or sub-area policy. Biodiversity and Geological Value (10) (--) Legally protected species recorded within 500m of this site. Wildlife & Natural Environment (11) (0) No significant effect. Low hedgerow and indiviual trees on road frontage but these are capable of being Heritage Assets (12) (0) No harm to any heritage assets. Built Character (13) (0) The site is remote from the main built form of the settlement and therefore has little impact on it. Landscape Character (14) (---) Located within the highest quality Yorkshire Wolds Important Landscape Area which is extremely sensitive to development. The site is detached from the settlement and likely to have a significant impact on landscape Air Quality (15) (0) Air quality acceptable. Proposed use is not likely to adversely affect this. Agricultural Land (16) (-) Minor loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 3a) Groundwater (17) (0) Development would not affect public drinking water supply. Compatibility with Neighbouring Uses (18) (0) Housing would be compatible with surrounding agricultural land uses. Contaminated Land (19) (0) Development is not on land likely to be contaminated. Mineral Resources (20) (0) Not within a relevant safeguarding or preferred area or area of search. Renewable and Low Carbon Energy (21) (0) No information submitted to demonstrate use of renewable, very low carbon energy or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions above that required by the Strategy policies. Publicly Accessible Open Space (22) (0) No effect on existing publicly accessible open space or PROW or any obvious potential/opportunity for provision of new open space above that required by the Strategy Document. School Capacity (23) (-) The Infrastructure Delivery Plan identifies there may be a need to increase the capacity of the primary Utilities Infrastructure Capacity (24) (-) Additional investment in the extra high voltage electricity distribution network will be required to serve developments in the area. The existing waste water treatment works has sufficient capacity to accommodate Highway Network Capacity (25) (0) No highway issues anticipated Wider Non-Road Transport Network (26) N/A Not relevant for Gypsy and Traveller use. Community Facilities (27) (0) No proposed new or loss of existing facilities. Town Centre Vitality and Viability (28) N/A Not relevant for Gypsy and Traveller use. Regeneration or Economic Benefits (29) (0) No effect on a recognised regeneration strategy or a deprived area. Affordable Housing (30) N/A Not relevant for Gypsy and Traveller use. STAGE 4 Deliverability Insurmountable Constraints (31) No No known constraints Ownership and Market Constraints (32) No No known constraints. Deliverability (33) Not The site is within the Yorkshire Wolds Important Landscape Area and the proposed development would have considered a significantly detrimental effect on the highly sensitive and very open and rural character of the area. suitable for allocation 18 BRID51 Question Outcome Reasoning Basic Information Land bid number Site area (ha) 0.53 Proposed use Gypsy and Traveller Site Date received Additional information STAGE 1 Initial Assessment & Site Exclusion Conformity with Settlement Network (1) Yes Located within the Driffield to Bridlington Area of Search identified in Strategy Document Policy H3 Biodiversity and Geological Value (2) No No effect on International or National site of biological or geological interest (subject confirmation as a result of Habitats Regulations Screening Report).

Flood Risk & Coastal Change (3) No Not in functional floodplain or affected by coastal erosion. Heritage Assets (4) No No substantial harm to any nationally designated asset. STAGE 2 Initial Ranking Greenfield & Brownfield Land (5) 1 100% Greenfield land Accessibility by Public Transport (6) 6 - Accessibility by Walking & Cycling (7) 1 - Flood Risk (8) 6 Highly vulnerable use within flood zone 1 STAGE 3 Detailed Site Specific Considerations Settlement Vision (9) (0) Little impact on vision or sub-area policy. Biodiversity and Geological Value (10) (--) Legally protected species recorded within 500m of this site. Within 1km of a Local Wildlife Site. Wildlife & Natural Environment (11) (0) No significant effect or existing features can be retained Heritage Assets (12) (0) Unlikely to result in harm to any heritage assets Built Character (13) (0) The site is remote from the main built form of the settlement and therefore has little impact on it. Landscape Character (14) (-) LCA assesses area as ordinary landscape quality. It is decribed as having a relatively high capacity for outdoor recretional activities that would provide opportunities to better integrate the urban edge with the rural landscape. It is also adjacent to t Air Quality (15) (0) Air quality acceptable and not adversely effected. Agricultural Land (16) (-) Loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 2/3a) Groundwater (17) (0) Development would not affect public drinking water supply Compatibility with Neighbouring Uses (18) (0) Development would be compatible with adjacent uses Contaminated Land (19) (0) Development is not on land likely to be contaminated. Mineral Resources (20) (0) Not within a relevant safeguarding or preferred area or area of search. Renewable and Low Carbon Energy (21) (0) No information submitted to demonstrate use of renewable, very low carbon energy or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions above that required by the Strategy policies. Publicly Accessible Open Space (22) (0) No effect on existing publicly accessible open space or PROW or any obvious potential/opportunity for provision of new open space above that required by the Strategy Document. School Capacity (23) (-) The Infrastructure Delivery Plan identifies there may be a need to increase the capacity of the primary school(s) serving this settlement. Utilities Infrastructure Capacity (24) (-) Additional investment in the extra high voltage electricity distribution network will be required to serve developments in the area. The existing waste water treatment works has sufficient capacity to accommodate proposed growth. Bridlington is connected Highway Network Capacity (25) (0) No highway issues anticipated Wider Non-Road Transport Network (26) N/A Not relevant for Gypsy and Traveller use. Community Facilities (27) (0) No proposed new or loss of existing facilities. Town Centre Vitality and Viability (28) N/A Not relevant for Gypsy and Traveller use. Regeneration or Economic Benefits (29) (0) No effect on a recognised regeneration strategy or a deprived area. Affordable Housing (30) N/A Not relevant for Gypsy and Traveller use. STAGE 4 Deliverability Insurmountable Constraints (31) No No known constraints Ownership and Market Constraints (32) No No known constraints. Deliverability (33) 0 - 5 years Location adjacent to exisitng site is logical and less prominent than other options

19 CAR20 Question Outcome Reasoning Basic Information Land bid number Site area (ha) 0.50 Proposed use Gypsy and Traveller Site Date received 20/11/2012 Additional information STAGE 1 Initial Assessment & Site Exclusion Conformity with Settlement Network (1) Yes Located within the Driffield to Bridlington Area of Search identified in Strategy Document Policy H3 Biodiversity and Geological Value (2) No No effect on International or National site of biological or geological interest (subject confirmation as a result of Habitats Regulations Screening Report) Flood Risk & Coastal Change (3) No Not in functional floodplain or affected by coastal erosion Heritage Assets (4) No No substantial harm to any nationally designated asset STAGE 2 Initial Ranking Greenfield & Brownfield Land (5) 1 100% Greenfield land Accessibility by Public Transport (6) 3 Accessibility by Walking & Cycling (7) 0 Flood Risk (8) 6 Highly vulnerable use in Flood Zone 1. STAGE 3 Detailed Site Specific Considerations Settlement Vision (9) (0) Little impact on vision or sub-area policy Biodiversity and Geological Value (10) (--) Site is within 1KM of Carnaby Covert Local Wildlife Site. 1 Legally protected species, Whiskered Bat (Myotis mystacinus) recorded within 500m of this site. Wildlife & Natural Environment (11) (0) No significant effect- no features important to wildlife on site. Heritage Assets (12) (0) No harm to any heritage assets Built Character (13) (0) The site is remote from the main built form of the settlement and therefore has little impact on it. Landscape Character (14) (-) Not within the Yorkshire Wolds Important Landscape Area. Currently very open and rural site where develoment would significantly affect character. However the site could be screened from the main road A165 with substantial planting/mounding. Air Quality (15) (0) Air quality acceptable. Proposed use is not likely to adversely affect this. Agricultural Land (16) (-) Minor loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 2/3a) Groundwater (17) (0) Development would not affect public drinking water supply Compatibility with Neighbouring Uses (18) (0) Development would be generally compatible with adjacent uses. Site is seperated from nearby uses by open fields. Contaminated Land (19) (0) No contamination on site Mineral Resources (20) (0) Not within a relevant safeguarding or preferred area or area of search. Renewable and Low Carbon Energy (21) (0) No information submitted to demonstrate use of renewable, very low carbon energy or to reduce greehouse gas emissions Publicly Accessible Open Space (22) (0) No effect on existing publicly accessible open space or PROW or any obvious potential/opportunity for provision of new open space above that required by the Core Strategy policy. School Capacity (23) (-) The Infrastructure Delivery Plan identifies there may be a need to increase the capacity of the primary school(s) serving this Utilities Infrastructure Capacity (24) (-) Additional investment in the extra high voltage electricity distribution network will be required to serve developments in the area. The existing waste water treatment works has sufficient capacity to accommodate proposed growth. Carnaby parish is not con Highway Network Capacity (25) (0) No significant highways issues anticipated. Wider Non-Road Transport Network (26) N/A Not relevant for Gypsy and Traveller use. Community Facilities (27) (0) No proposed new or loss of existing facilites Town Centre Vitality and Viability (28) N/A Not relevant for Gypsy and Traveller use. Regeneration or Economic Benefits (29) (0) No effect on a recognised regeneration strategy or a deprived area Affordable Housing (30) N/A Not relevant for Gypsy and Traveller use. STAGE 4 Deliverability Insurmountable Constraints (31) No No known constraints Ownership and Market Constraints (32) No No known constraints. Deliverability (33) 0 - 5 years Less vialually prominent than other sites subject to suitable additional screening from A165.

20 CAR23 Question Outcome Reasoning Basic Information Land bid number Site area (ha) 0.48 Proposed use Gypsy and Traveller Site Date received 20/11/2012 Additional information STAGE 1 Initial Assessment & Site Exclusion Conformity with Settlement Network (1) Yes Located within the Driffield to Bridlington Area of Search identified in Strategy Document Policy H3 Biodiversity and Geological Value (2) No No effect on International or National site of biological or geological interest (subject confirmation as a result of Habitats Regulations Screening Report) Flood Risk & Coastal Change (3) No Not in functional floodplain or affected by coastal erosion Heritage Assets (4) No No substantial harm to any nationally designated asset STAGE 2 Initial Ranking Greenfield & Brownfield Land (5) 1 100% Greenfield land Accessibility by Public Transport (6) 3 Accessibility by Walking & Cycling (7) 0 Flood Risk (8) 6 Highly vulnerable use in Flood Zone 1. (site access would be across Flood Zone 3a) STAGE 3 Detailed Site Specific Considerations Settlement Vision (9) (0) Little impact on vision or sub-area policy Biodiversity and Geological Value (10) (--) Site is within 1km of Carnaby Covert Local Wildlife Site. 1 Legally protected species, Whiskered Bat (Myotis mystacinus) recorded within 500m of this site. Wildlife & Natural Environment (11) (0) No significant effect - no wildlife features effected. Heritage Assets (12) (0) No harm to any heritage assets Built Character (13) (0) The site is remote from the main built form of the settlement and therefore has little impact on it. Landscape Character (14) (-) Not within the Yorkshire Wolds Important Landscape Area. However, very open, flat and rural site and in a prominent position on a main entrance road to the town where development would significantly affect landscape character. No existing natural Air Quality (15) (0) Air quality acceptable. Proposed use is not likely to adversely affect this. Agricultural Land (16) (-) Minor loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 2/3a) Groundwater (17) (0) Development would not affect public drinking water supply Compatibility with Neighbouring Uses (18) (0) Development would be generally compatible with adjacent uses. Site is seperated from nearby uses by open fields. Contaminated Land (19) (0) No contamination on site Mineral Resources (20) (0) Not within a relevant safeguarding or preferred area or area of search. Renewable and Low Carbon Energy (21) (0) No information submitted to demonstrate use of renewable, very low carbon energy or to reduce greehouse gas emissions Publicly Accessible Open Space (22) (0) No effect on existing publicly accessible open space or PROW or any obvious potential/opportunity for provision of new open space above that required by the Core Strategy policy. School Capacity (23) (-) The Infrastructure Delivery Plan identifies there may be a need to increase the capacity of the primary school(s) serving this Utilities Infrastructure Capacity (24) (-) Additional investment in the extra high voltage electricity distribution network will be required to serve developments in the area. The existing waste water treatment works has sufficient capacity to accommodate proposed growth. Carnaby parish is not con Highway Network Capacity (25) (-) Access along relatively long and narrow track. Wider Non-Road Transport Network (26) N/A Not relevant for Gypsy and Traveller use. Community Facilities (27) (0) No proposed new or loss of existing facilites Town Centre Vitality and Viability (28) N/A Not relevant for Gypsy and Traveller use. Regeneration or Economic Benefits (29) (0) No effect on a recognised regeneration strategy or a deprived area Affordable Housing (30) N/A Not relevant for Gypsy and Traveller use. STAGE 4 Deliverability Insurmountable Constraints (31) No No known constraints Ownership and Market Constraints (32) No No known constraints. Deliverability (33) Not The site is in a sensitive area of very open and flat farmland and close to an important entrance route to the town. Development considered would be very prominent and detrimental to the otherwise very open and rural aspect and character. Access along single width t suitable for allocation

21 CAR24 Question Outcome Reasoning Basic Information Land bid number Site area (ha) 0.50 Proposed use Gypsy and Traveller Site Date received 20/11/2012 Additional information STAGE 1 Initial Assessment & Site Exclusion Conformity with Settlement Network (1) Yes Located within the Driffield to Bridlington Area of Search identified in Strategy Document Policy H3 Biodiversity and Geological Value (2) No No effect on International or National site of biological or geological interest (subject confirmation as a result of Habitats Regulations Screening Report) Flood Risk & Coastal Change (3) No Not in functional floodplain or affected by coastal erosion Heritage Assets (4) No No substantial harm to any nationally designated asset STAGE 2 Initial Ranking Greenfield & Brownfield Land (5) 1 100% Greenfield land Accessibility by Public Transport (6) 3 Accessibility by Walking & Cycling (7) 0 Flood Risk (8) 6 Highly vulnerable use in Flood Zone 1. STAGE 3 Detailed Site Specific Considerations Settlement Vision (9) (0) Little impact on vision or sub-area policy Biodiversity and Geological Value (10) (--) Site is within 1KM of Carnaby Covert Local Wildlife Site. 1 Legally protected species, Whiskered Bat (Myotis mystacinus) recorded within 500m of this site. Wildlife & Natural Environment (11) (0) No significant effect- no features important to wildlife on site. Heritage Assets (12) (0) No harm to any heritage assets Built Character (13) (0) The site is remote from the main built form of the settlement and therefore has little impact on it. Landscape Character (14) (---) Whilst the site is not located within the Yorkshire Wolds Important Landscape Area, the site is close to the road within a very flat and relatively open situation. The site is partially screened from the main road A165 by some tree planting along the road Air Quality (15) (0) Air quality acceptable. Proposed use is not likely to adversely affect this. Agricultural Land (16) (-) Minor loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 2) Groundwater (17) (0) Development would not affect public drinking water supply Compatibility with Neighbouring Uses (18) (0) Development would be generally compatible with adjacent uses. Site is seperated from nearby uses by open fields. Contaminated Land (19) (0) No contamination on site Mineral Resources (20) (0) Not within a relevant safeguarding or preferred area or area of search. Renewable and Low Carbon Energy (21) (0) No information submitted to demonstrate use of renewable, very low carbon energy or to reduce greehouse gas emissions Publicly Accessible Open Space (22) (0) No effect on existing publicly accessible open space or PROW or any obvious potential/opportunity for provision of new open space above that required by the Core Strategy policy. School Capacity (23) (-) The Infrastructure Delivery Plan identifies there may be a need to increase the capacity of the primary school(s) serving this Utilities Infrastructure Capacity (24) (-) Additional investment in the extra high voltage electricity distribution network will be required to serve developments in the area. The existing waste water treatment works has sufficient capacity to accommodate proposed growth. Carnaby parish is not con Highway Network Capacity (25) (0) No significant highways issues anticipated. Access would have to be taken straight from the A165. Wider Non-Road Transport Network (26) N/A Not relevant for Gypsy and Traveller use. Community Facilities (27) (0) No proposed new or loss of existing facilites Town Centre Vitality and Viability (28) N/A Not relevant for Gypsy and Traveller use. Regeneration or Economic Benefits (29) (0) No effect on a recognised regeneration strategy or a deprived area Affordable Housing (30) N/A Not relevant for Gypsy and Traveller use. STAGE 4 Deliverability Insurmountable Constraints (31) No No known constraints Ownership and Market Constraints (32) No No known constraints. Deliverability (33) Not The site is in a very sensitive and highly visible situation and on an important entrance route to the town. Any development considered would be very prominent and detrimental to the otherwise very open and rural aspect and character. suitable for allocation 22 COT 54 Question Outcome Reasoning Basic Information Land bid number Site area (ha) 0.5 Proposed use Gypsy and Traveller Site Date received Additional information STAGE 1 Initial Assessment & Site Exclusion Conformity with Settlement Network (1) Yes Located within the Cottingham to Beverley Area of Search identified in Strategy Document Policy H3 Biodiversity and Geological Value (2) No No effect on International or National site of biological or geological interest (subject confirmation as a result of Habitats Regulations Screening Report) Flood Risk & Coastal Change (3) No Not in functional floodplain or affected by coastal erosion Heritage Assets (4) No No substantial harm to any nationally designated asset STAGE 2 Initial Ranking Greenfield & Brownfield Land (5) 1 100% Greenfield land Accessibility by Public Transport (6) 5 Accessibility by Walking & Cycling (7) 0 Flood Risk (8) 6 Highly vulnerable use in Flood Zone 1. STAGE 3 Detailed Site Specific Considerations Settlement Vision (9) (0) Little impact on vision or sub-area policy Biodiversity and Geological Value (10) (--) Legally protected species recorded within 500m of this site. Site is adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site. Wildlife & Natural Environment (11) (0) No significant effect or existing features can be retained. Heritage Assets (12) (0) No heritage assets effected. Built Character (13) (0) The site is remote from the main built form of the settlement and therefore has little impact on it. Landscape Character (14) (-) Site is located in the Wolds Area of High Landscape Value and is assessed to have a high sensitivity to development. The site is on a steep slope and substantial excavation of the chalk escarpment would be required in order to avoid excessive Air Quality (15) (0) Air quality acceptable and not degraded by development. Agricultural Land (16) (-) Minor loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land Groundwater (17) (-) SPZ Zone 3 impacts can be mitigated. Compatibility with Neighbouring Uses (18) (0) Compatible with adjoining uses. Contaminated Land (19) +++ Possible landfill in the centre of the site. The potentially contaminated land is likely to be remediated through appropriate planning conditions and/or suitable design/layout. Mineral Resources (20) (0) Not within a relevant safeguarding or preferred area or area of search. Renewable and Low Carbon Energy (21) (0) No information submitted to demonstrate use of renewable, very low carbon energy or to reduce greehouse gas emissions Publicly Accessible Open Space (22) (0) No effect on existing publicly accessible open space or PROW or any obvious potential/opportunity for provision of new open space above that required by the Core Strategy policy. School Capacity (23) (0) The Infrastructure Delivery Plan does not identify a need to increase the capacity of the schools serving this settlement. Utilities Infrastructure Capacity (24) (-) Additional investment in the extra high voltage electricity distribution network will be required to serve developments in the area. The existing waste water treatment works has sufficient capacity to accommodate proposed growth. Cottingham is connected t Highway Network Capacity (25) (0) No significant highways issues anticipated Wider Non-Road Transport Network (26) N/A Not relevant for housing use. Community Facilities (27) (0) No community facility lost or proposed. Town Centre Vitality and Viability (28) N/A Not relevant for housing use. Regeneration or Economic Benefits (29) (0) No effect on a recognised regeneration strategy or a deprived area Affordable Housing (30) N/A Not relevant for a Gypsy and Traveller site. STAGE 4 Deliverability Insurmountable Constraints (31) No No known constraints. Ownership and Market Constraints (32) No No known constraints. Deliverability (33) 0 - 5 years Depends on the site being excavated in order to to reduce landscape impact on sensitive landscpe but extension to exsiting site would be logical and less prominent than other options.

23 COT 55 Question Outcome Reasoning Basic Information Land bid number Site area (ha) 0.47 Proposed use Gypsy and Traveller Site Date received Additional information STAGE 1 Initial Assessment & Site Exclusion Conformity with Settlement Network (1) Yes Located within the Cottingham to Beverley Area of Search identified in Strategy Document Policy H3 Biodiversity and Geological Value (2) No No effect on International or National site of biological or geological interest (subject confirmation as a result of Habitats Regulations Screening Report)

Flood Risk & Coastal Change (3) No Not in functional floodplain or affected by coastal erosion Heritage Assets (4) No No substantial harm to any nationally designated asset STAGE 2 Initial Ranking Greenfield & Brownfield Land (5) 1 100% Greenfield land Accessibility by Public Transport (6) 4 Accessibility by Walking & Cycling (7) 0 Flood Risk (8) 6 Highly vulnerable use in Flood Zone 1. STAGE 3 Detailed Site Specific Considerations Settlement Vision (9) (0) Little impact on vision or sub-area policy Biodiversity and Geological Value (10) (--) Legally protected species recorded within 500m of this site. Site adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site. Wildlife & Natural Environment (11) (0) No significant effect or existing features can be retained. Heritage Assets (12) (0) No harm to any heritage assets Built Character (13) (0) The site is remote from the main built form of the settlement and therefore has little impact on it. Landscape Character (14) (---) Whilst not within the Imprtant Landscape Area, the site is part of a very open and gently sloping agricultural field which is highly visible from the A164 and therefore extremely sensitive to development. Development of the site would significantly impact Air Quality (15) (0) Air quality acceptable and not degraded by development. Agricultural Land (16) (-) Minor loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 2) Groundwater (17) (0) Site within Zone II (outer protection). Mitigation measures may be needed to protect groundwater supply. Compatibility with Neighbouring Uses (18) (0) Compatible with adjacent land uses Contaminated Land (19) (0) Development is not located on land that is likely to be contaminated. Mineral Resources (20) (0) Site falls within a sand and gravel safeguarding area. Can be pre-extracted - not withing a preferred area or area of search. Renewable and Low Carbon Energy (21) (0) No information submitted to demonstrate use of renewable, very low carbon energy or to reduce greehouse gas emissions Publicly Accessible Open Space (22) (0) No effect on existing publicly accessible open space or PROW or any obvious potential/opportunity for provision of new open space above that required by the Strategy policy. School Capacity (23) (0) The Infrastructure Delivery Plan does not identify a need to increase the capacity of the schools serving this settlement. Utilities Infrastructure Capacity (24) (-) Additional investment in the extra high voltage electricity distribution network will be required to serve developments in the area. The existing waste water treatment works has sufficient capacity to accommodate proposed growth. Cottingham is connected t Highway Network Capacity (25) (0) No junction/highway improvements would be required Wider Non-Road Transport Network (26) N/A Not relevant to proposed use. Community Facilities (27) (0) No community facility lost or proposed. Town Centre Vitality and Viability (28) N/A Not relevant for housing use. Regeneration or Economic Benefits (29) (0) No effect on a recognised regeneration strategy or a deprived area Affordable Housing (30) N/A Within area where ratio of average house price is under 8 times the average income. STAGE 4 Deliverability Insurmountable Constraints (31) No No known constraints. Ownership and Market Constraints (32) No No known constraints. Deliverability (33) Not Whilst not within the Imprtant Landscape Area, the site is part of a very open and gently sloping agricultural field which is highly visible from the A164 and considered therefore extremely sensitive to development. Development of the site would significantly impact suitable for allocation

24 WOOD29 Question Outcome Reasoning Basic Information Land bid number Site area (ha) 0.5 Proposed use Gypsy and Traveller Site Date received Additional information STAGE 1 Initial Assessment & Site Exclusion Conformity with Settlement Network (1) Yes Located within the Cottingham to Beverley Area of Search identified in Strategy Document Policy H3 Biodiversity and Geological Value (2) No No effect on International or National site of biological or geological interest (subject confirmation as a result of Habitats Regulations Screening Report) Flood Risk & Coastal Change (3) No Not in functional floodplain or affected by coastal erosion Heritage Assets (4) No No substantial harm to any nationally designated asset STAGE 2 Initial Ranking Greenfield & Brownfield Land (5) 1 100% Greenfield land Accessibility by Public Transport (6) 4 Accessibility by Walking & Cycling (7) 0 Flood Risk (8) 6 Highly vulnerable use in Flood Zone 1. STAGE 3 Detailed Site Specific Considerations Settlement Vision (9) (0) Little impact on vision or sub-area policy Biodiversity and Geological Value (10) (--) Legally protected species recorded within 500m of this site. Site within 500m of a Local Wildlife Site (Beverley Parks). Wildlife & Natural Environment (11) (0) No significant effect or existing features can be retained. Heritage Assets (12) (0) No harm to any heritage assets Built Character (13) (0) The site is remote from the main built form of the settlement and therefore has little impact on it. Placement of caravan pitches would fit the existing dispersed pattern of land use (Farms, garden centres caravan parks) to the south of Beverley. Landscape Character (14) (---) The site is not within the Yorkshire Wolds Important Lanscape Area. However, the proposed site comprises very open and flat agricultural land with little existing landscape features. The site is highly visible from the surrounding and is therefore sensiti Air Quality (15) (0) Air quality acceptable and not degraded by development. Agricultural Land (16) (-) Minor loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 3a) Groundwater (17) (0) Site within Zone II (outer protection). Mitigation measures may be needed to protect groundwater supply. Compatibility with Neighbouring Uses (18) (0) Compatible with adjacent land uses Contaminated Land (19) (0) Development is not located on land that is likely to be contaminated. Mineral Resources (20) (0) Site falls within a sand and gravel safeguarding area. Can be pre-extracted - not withing a preferred area or area of search. Renewable and Low Carbon Energy (21) (0) No information submitted to demonstrate use of renewable, very low carbon energy or to reduce greehouse gas emissions Publicly Accessible Open Space (22) (0) No effect on existing publicly accessible open space or PROW or any obvious potential/opportunity for provision of new open space above that required by the Strategy policy. School Capacity (23) (-) The Infrastructure Delivery Plan identifies there may be a need to increase the capacity of the secondary school serving this Utilities Infrastructure Capacity (24) (-) Additional investment in the extra high voltage electricity distribution network will be required to serve developments in the area. There is limited capacity at the receiving Wast Water Treatment Works prior to the release of the Yorkshire Water AMP6 inv Highway Network Capacity (25) (0) No junction/highway improvements would be required Wider Non-Road Transport Network (26) N/A Not relevant for housing use. Community Facilities (27) (0) No community facility lost or proposed. Town Centre Vitality and Viability (28) N/A Not relevant for housing use. Regeneration or Economic Benefits (29) (0) No effect on a recognised regeneration strategy or a deprived area Affordable Housing (30) N/A Within area where ratio of average house price is over 8 times the average income. STAGE 4 Deliverability Insurmountable Constraints (31) No No known constraints. Ownership and Market Constraints (32) No No known constraints. Deliverability (33) Not The site lies within a very open, flat and featureless landscape and would be highly visible and detrimental to the otherwise very considered open and rural aspect and character of the area. suitable for allocation

25 Summary and Recommendations This section gives a summary of the detailed site assessments and recommends options for preferred sites in the Local Plan. The sites that have been recommended have been done so on the basis of a few important factors (in most cases), these being: impact on the surrounding landscape, access to services and the availability of an access road. The impact on the built environment was not an important consideration because all of the sites were outside of the built area. None of the sites assessed had insurmountable constraints because such sites were discounted during the initial search.

Driffield to Bridlington area of need

LISS1, SKR1, BRID50, BRID47, BRID48, KIL17 and DRF41 were dismissed in the overview assessment mainly due to distance from facilities, lack of access and major constraints such as contamination. This left 5 sites in the Driffield to Bridlington area of search to be assessed in detail by the SAM.

CAR24 was discounted because it was very prominent from the main road, adding a landscaped screening to the site would not be enough to mitigate this factor. Obtaining an access straight onto Kingsgate would be very difficult; the site is also very remote from services and facilities.

CAR23 has good accesses into the site and is less visually prominent from the surrounding landscape, however it is too remote from essential services such as schooling and healthcare. The site to the north of Bridlington, BRID49, is prominently situated in the Wolds Area of High Landscape Value and as such had a negative impact upon it.

BRID51 and CAR20 are the preferred options, but only one of these sites is required in the Driffield to Bridlington area of need. BRID51 has good access to the services and facilities in Bridlington as it is close to the Bridlington Hospital, the Secondary School, as well as employment opportunities in the town centre. The site is located next to an existing traveller site; this is beneficial for families and extended families by causing less disruption for them. The sites visibility from the surrounding landscape is minimal because there is existing screening on the northern edge of the site and an upwards slope to the south. The proposed site is in private ownership and this is clearly a factor that would need to be addressed in bringing it forward for development. CAR20 has existing access into the site, is close to employment opportunities and has no constraints on the site.

If, as a result of this consultation exercise and consultation on the draft local plan itself, site BRID51 is chosen as an allocated Gypsy and Traveller site, it will require a planning policy to be written for it, as is the case for sites CAR20, COT54 and all the other sites in the Draft Allocations Document.

Policy BRID51 – Land south of Woldgate (0.5ha)

This site is allocated for the provision of new Gypsy and Traveller pitches. Proposals will be required to:

a. Provide for additional landscaping to the western and northern boundaries

The landscaping is required in the policy to help soften the impact of the development and integrate it into the surrounding landscape.

26 Question 6: What are your views on the proposed policy? Can you think of any other planning considerations that should apply to the site?

Cottingham to Beverley area of need

SKID7 was dismissed in the overview assessment because it was too remote from the Cottingham to Beverley area of need, leaving 3 sites to be assessed in detail in by the SAM in the Cottingham to Beverley area of search.

COT55 was discounted at the detailed stage of the assessment due to its prominent position in the surrounding landscape and due to its high visibility from the A164. WOOD29 was discounted because of its prominence in the surrounding landscape and due to its remoteness from services and facilities by walking and cycling.

COT54 is the preferred option in the Cottingham to Beverley area of need, the site is located next to an existing traveller site; this is beneficial for families and extended families by causing less disruption for them. The site has better access to services and facilities compared to the other sites in the area, being in close proximity to the Castle Hill hospital and Cottingham High School. The sites visibility from the surrounding landscape is reduced because there is an upwards slope to the south of the site, the proximity of an existing traveller site also reduces visibility.

Conclusion

Following detailed assessment of the various sites identified, three preferred sites have been selected. Two of these relate to sites already included in the Draft Local Plan, namely: CAR20 – Land south of Moor Lane Carnaby and COT54 – Land at Eppleworth Road, Cottingham. A third site (Brid 51 – Land south of Woldgate, Bridlington) has also now been selected.

Views on each of these proposed allocations are sought alongside other sites set out in this document which have been rejected. The Council is also keen to hear views on alternative ways of meeting the needs of the traveller community and in particular, we are keen to receive views on alternative sites. Please note, the two proposed sites at Carnaby (CAR20) and Bridlington (BRID51) are seen as ‘options’. Only one of these sites would be required to meet the identified needs in the area.

Question 7: What are your views on the sites recommended? Would you recommend any other preferred sites for the local plan?

27

Appendix B: Planning policy for traveller sites Policy B: Planning for traveller sites

11. Local planning authorities should ensure that traveller sites are sustainable economically, socially and environmentally. Local planning authorities should, therefore, ensure that their policies:

• promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community • promote, in collaboration with commissioners of health services, access to appropriate health services • ensure that children can attend school on a regular basis • provide a settled base that reduces the need for long-distance travelling and possible environmental damage caused by unauthorised encampment • provide for proper consideration of the effect of local environmental quality (such as noise and air quality) on the health and well-being of any travellers that may locate there or on others as a result of new development • avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services • do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans • reflect the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some travellers live and work from the same location thereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability.

28

East Riding of Yorkshire Council will, on request, provide this document in Braille, audio or large print format.

If English is not your first language and you would like a translation of this document into any other language, please telephone (01482) 393939.