General Comments Name/ID Type/ID Representation The Theatres Trust Observations As this DPD is not directly relevant to the Trust's work, we have no particular comment to make. 315 336 East Yorkshire RIGS Observations We had to conclude that the Smaller Settlements Document was hardly within our remit and any Group 595 comment would be purely personal; we therefore wish to offer no views on the settlements 397 document. Huggate Parish Council Observations Although the Parish Council have no observations to make on the plan we would like to invite you to 865 960 discuss it at a meeting once the plan has been published. North Yorkshire County Observations Officers at North Yorkshire County Council would like to thank East Riding of Yorkshire Council for Council 597 consulting North Yorkshire County Council on the Smaller Settlements Document - Preferred 1446 Options. We do not have any strategic comments with regards to the East Riding Smaller Settlements Document on condition that its development continues to be in accordance to the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Spatial Strategy. Sutton upon Derwent Support As a general comment we welcome this report which has a rigorous and objective approach to the Parish Council 1043 issues. We believe that implementation of its proposals will be in the best interests of our village and 1420 the wider East Riding Community. Yorkshire and Humber Observations At this stage, the Assembly’s response to the consultation document is a set of officer comments. The Assembly 981 aim is to highlight where issues related to general conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy may 483 arise. When the Smaller Settlements Document is submitted to the Secretary of State a formal Assembly view on its general conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy will need to be given. The following officer comments are made in relation to the existing Regional Spatial Strategy for the Yorkshire & the Humber (based on a selective review of RPG12 issued in December 2004) and the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy – the Yorkshire and Humber Plan (submitted to the Secretary of State in December 2005). The comments place emphasis on the draft Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), which reinforces and develops the general thrust of existing RSS; furthermore it is more up to date and has significant ‘weight’ in its own right. Prior to adoption (expected late 2007), the weight attached to the draft RSS Name/ID Type/ID Representation will increase once the Panel’s Report is received (expected early 2007) and also when proposed changes are published (expected Summer 2007). Yorkshire and Humber Observations The document clearly sets out that ‘Market Villages’ will be expected to accommodate only limited Assembly 986 growth. This is further highlighted through the proposed development limits, which are set out as a 483 tool in restricting development outside the limits. It is critical to the RSS approach that this growth is very limited and focussed on meeting local needs, particularly for affordable housing as market villages represent an additional tier of settlements below the ‘towns’ identified in the Joint Structure Plan and the Local Service Centre approach required by the draft RSS. Highways Agency Observations Overall, the agency has no specific comment on this document, which seeks to identify and justify 1519 1804 Market Villages, although the agency stresses the need for sequential testing and the need to apply sustainability principles when deciding where to allocate development land. Any development either in isolation or cumulatively that could impact on the SHN must be discussed with the Agency at the earliest opportunity in order to consider suitability and whether any mitigation measures are required in accordance with Circular 04/2001 or any subsequent guidance. Parking provision is a significant issue, especially for a borough such as the East Riding, and the document tends toward higher provision. However, care is required to ensure that such an approach does not discourage the use of public transport and detrimentally affect the service, particularly for the relatively high proportion of non car owning households. In addition the East Riding is known to provide housing for workers in surrounding large towns and cities, and thus the borough is subject to much commuting. Policies should seek to reduce this by encouraging services and employment opportunities at the local level and particular care should be taken when providing housing that would appeal to commuters, e.g. Executive Housing. Hull City Council Observations Overall, Hull City Council supports the preferred options document. We welcome the identification 1482 1249 of a limited number of ‘Market Villages’ (JSP policy DS4 settlements) in the preferred option. This will prevent a more dispersed pattern of development which the JSP and draft RSS seek to avoid. Such dispersed patterns of development under the policies of the Humberside Structure Plan in the past have been damaging for the City of Hull which has suffered from high levels of out-migration with many residents moving to rural East Riding areas near the City. Focussing the majority of limited rural development in a small number of larger villages will mean that these villages will be more likely Name/ID Type/ID Representation to retain a variety of services, therefore making them better able to perform their Market Village function. Although the general approach of the preferred option is supported, we would question whether all 28 of these settlements need to be included as Market Villages. North Cave, Roos, Beeford, and Skipsea in particular are smaller than the average size of settlements included under this policy approach. North Cave is also located in close proximity to the other market village of South Cave which weakens the case for including it as such. Identifying settlements as Market Villages which are unsuitable to act as such would only increase commuting from these Villages. Cllr Symon Fraser Object There are three fundamentals which require further development:- (Conservative Group) 651 a) Enabling local residents to have a meaningful say in shaping their village or settlement 1421 b) Addressing the challenges to sustainability c) Tailoring planning guidance to more accurately and realistically reflect rural needs. We are determined to see local opinion more actively involved in the process of shaping the East Riding of Yorkshire. We must continue to counter NIMBYism but to do this successfully we must enable residents to have a say in how their villages and towns are developed. Leconfield Parish Council Object This Council supports the views of the Conservative Group as set out in the letter dated 6th 443 1992 November 2006. Sue Lang (East Riding of Observations We are also very concerned about the impact on smaller settlements services becoming a ‘self- Yorkshire Council) 663 fulfilling prophesy’ - Restricted housing development leads to price rises leads to fewer younger 276 families, leads to falling school roll, leads to school viability being in doubt, etc. (From comments to Housing Site Selection Methodology) Cllr Winifred I Knight Object I still think that this document is in conflict with the Joint Structure Plan for the area you describe as 1452 1070 the sub-regional Urban area. As Greater Hull the sub regional Urban Area has a different agenda to exercise restraint to encourage the regeneration of Hull. The present situation leaves us wide open at a time when we should be cooperating with Hull and sending a firm message to developers. This frustrating situation needs to be resolved without delay. Wilberfoss and Thornton Observations In principle the Board has no real comment to make on specific issues but would like to remind the Level Drainage Board 2057 Council that development should be undertaken in a sustainable manner without increasing flood risk. 839 Within the context of the new PPS25 each development should generally discharge surface water into the watercourses that serve its natural catchment at the rate that can be proved to exist prior to the Name/ID Type/ID Representation development taking place. In addition consideration must be given to the possible presence of drainage routes through the various sites. These should be maintained so as not to cause problems elsewhere in the systems. Preston Drainage Board Observations In principle the Board has no real comment to make on specific issues but would like to remind the 839 2058 Council that development should be undertaken in a sustainable manner without increasing flood risk. Within the context of the new PPS25 each development should generally discharge surface water into the watercourses that serve its natural catchment at the rate that can be proved to exist prior to the development taking place. In addition consideration must be given to the possible presence of drainage routes through the various sites. These should be maintained so as not to cause problems elsewhere in the systems. Development Land & Object In general terms the following points in general are objected to in relation to this document: The Planning 1113 exclusion of Newbald as a potential development areas 1454 The low rating of Nafferton as a development area Development Land & Object The identification of those small settlements deemed suitable for development should be referred to Planning 1114 as rural service centres rather than Market Towns as this causes confusion in definitions and lacks 1454 clarity Development Land & Object Undue weight has been accorded to the Hull and East Riding Joint Structure Plan in light of the draft Planning 1116 RSS. 1454 Development Land & Object Objection must also be made to the terminology adopted within the document. While Option 1 refers Planning 1123 specifically to “rural service centres” this document instead refers to what can be defined as Market 1454 Towns. This appears to introduce a new definition of Market Town specific only to this Development Plan Document and as such creates confusion as what could reasonably be considered to meet the requirements set out by the Development Plan Document.