Richard Bray Old Woodholme Aldwark YO61 1UB 27th April 2015 Andrew Cunningham Hambleton Planning Department Easingwold Area Office The Police Station Church Hill Easingwold York YO61 3JX Re: Planning Ref: 15/00694/FUL - Construction of 3no dwelling houses and associated garages at Land Adjacent The Cottages just outside the village of Aldwark Dear Mr Cunningham I am writing to oppose a proposal to build three executive-style houses in Aldwark, Ref: 15/00694/FUL and would appreciate it if you would (a) consider the evidence presented in this letter and (b) upload the letter onto the Planning Portal for others to see. Firstly, I want to object to any suggestion of converting agricultural land to building land when there is absolutely no reason for it. Hambleton is currently in a “favourable and positive position” [1] in relation to having met its target for having a proven five year supply of deliverable housing land with planning permission and a further five year supply of developable sites [2]. This means there is absolutely no reason to allow the development of protected green-field agricultural land for housing as sufficient land is already earmarked to meet Central Government targets as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Secondly, the planning application should be rejected as it contravenes planning policy in the Council’s Local Development Framework, Core Strategy [3], and even the Interim Policy Guidance [4] which Hambleton Council has introduced to take into account the Government’s new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). I will go into my reasoning for this under the heading Planning Policy, later in this letter. Next, I am concerned that the applicant, having taken advice from Planning, has still gone ahead with the expense of submitting a full-planning application, which must mean they feel they have every chance of getting it passed. This is extraordinary when you consider it’s a green-field site designated as agricultural land; it’s outside the development-limits of the village; it would extend the village boundary in an irregular way and adversely impact the street-scene; it is an area of Hambleton that has been specifically identified as an ‘area of restraint from external influences’ [5]; it is an application to build in a Conservation Village; and it clearly doesn’t fit into the character and form of the village as set out within the Aldwark Development Brief [6] which was produced to create a vision for, and control the regeneration of, a unique estate village made up of a mixture of individual dwellings and former farmstead groups. There is more on the evolution of Aldwark and its regeneration under the section headed The History of Aldwark, later in this letter. Finally, I am concerned that the proposal provides access to much more agricultural land beyond the proposed site, owned by the applicants, and that Planning Consent has recently been given to allow access from the main road to other agricultural green-field areas around the village (Planning Ref: 13/01807/FUL). These fields are also owned by the applicants so it’s clear to residents that this is the start of a much bigger encroachment to develop the open countryside and change the nature of the village. Again, I challenge the concept of developing agricultural land when there are more than sufficient development sites already identified in Hambleton and sufficient land has been approved for building in more sustainable areas of the Easingwold area [2]. Conclusion: I believe that if planning permission is approved for these three houses then a dangerous president is set for development on any green-field site around the village, in fact I would say it puts every field and paddock in Hambleton at risk, such is the level of infringement on planning policy being made by this application. My specific observations relating to this development are: Planning Policy 1. The development is at odds with Hambleton District Council’s Core Strategy CP4 and its Interim Policy Guidance (produced to take account of the Government's new National Planning Policy Framework). This means there are very stringent rules controlling housing development which the proposed development does not meet. Specific notice should be given to the Council’s ‘Spatial Strategy’ within its Local Development Framework, Core Strategy and its Interim Policy Guidance Note. i. Spatial Strategy 1: defines those areas where development should be encouraged, i.e. the Aldwark is not an Thirsk area, the southern part of the area that can sustain Northallerton area and the eastern part of development the Bedale area. Reflecting the scope for development, in particular based on its accessibility, scale of existing facilities and relative lack of development constraints. ii. Spatial Strategy 2: defines areas of restraint Core Strategy CP4 from external influences where pressure to shows the village of develop is related to the larger neighbouring Aldwark within an metropolitan areas. Consistent with the RSS area defined as an strategy, the Council’s response is to reduce ‘area of restraint’ due the scale of new housing development in these to its proximity to areas to resist further in-migration from the York, Harrogate and adjacent parts. Leeds. iii. Spatial Strategy 3: defines a sustainable hierarchy of settlements as the best way to allocate limited resources and ensure the best possible access to facilities for all. It also allows wider sustainability considerations to be taken Aldwark appears into account, such as the need to maximise the amount of within the ‘Other Villages’ category development on brownfield sites, to address climate within the ‘Settlement change through minimising journeys (and through the Hierarchy’ choice of settlements and the location of development within them), and to take flood risk issues into account. Note: the Council’s Interim Policy Guidance puts Aldwark at the bottom of the categories. 2. Hambleton’s Interim Policy Guidance: Although Hambleton’s Interim Policy guidance now determines that any settlement in the revised Settlement Hierarchy should be considered against new criteria, it is quickly clear that Aldwark fails the test for sustainability. i. Supporting Services: The Interim Policy Guidance states the Council will only support development in villages categorised in the ‘Other Settlement’ group if they Aldwark cannot be can be clustered with other villages “where the combined settlements offer a range clustered with other of services contributing to a sustainable community. This could include the sharing of villages to make it facilities such as a school, post office, health facility or village shop. However it is appear more unlikely to constitute a sustainable community if there are very few services or if sustainable there are significant distances (approximately 2km) or barriers between settlements (e.g. rivers with no crossing)”. Aldwark cannot be categorised within a ‘cluster’ as there are no villages within the 2km definition of ‘clustered villages’, the nearest village is Flawith (3Km), with no services at all, and then Alne which is 4km away; this is twice the distance set out in the policy guidance note. ii. Built Form: The Interim Policy Guidance states the council will assess the impact of a proposed development on the form and character of a settlement. Development which results in ribbon development or has a poor relationship with the built form Building three large will not be acceptable. Houses of a modern- form at the NE The proposal to build three large executive style properties on agricultural land, entrance to the village running ribbon-like away from the village, is not in keeping with the form and would have a negative character of Aldwark an historic estate farming village. The development at the impact on visual entrance to the village would be lop-sided and would not reflect the character of the character of the village village as determined within its Conservation status and the vision set out in the Aldwark Development Brief. iii. Character and Appearance of the Countryside: The Interim Policy Guidance states any detrimental impact on the character, appearance and environmental quality of the surrounding area should be avoided and development should not compromise the open and rural character of the countryside. Agricultural land and open countryside should be protected The proposal to build houses on a green-field site designated as agricultural land has an enormous impact on the open and rural character of the countryside as it puts housing onto what was previously open-countryside. It also sets a dangerous precedent for further development to be proposed on the rest of the green-field sites owned by the applicant around the village. iv. Infrastructure: The Interim Policy Guidance is that development is only to be supported in sustainable areas where there is infrastructure, services and amenities. Aldwark does not have the right infrastructure to support a development of this Aldwark has a minimal nature and hence why it continues to be a place where successive planning policy amount of has been to deter and prevent it. Aldwark has minimal amenities and services, it infrastructure. It’s no has: coincidence Aldwark is No shops not listed as a sustainable area in any No schools of the Council’s policy No children play groups documents No post office No doctor’s surgery No village or community hall A limited bus service Poor road access - the main route in and out of the village (the southern route) is single track with passing points and requires commuters to come over a single track iron/wood toll-bridge limited to 7.5tonnes, one of only two in England. Vehicles over 7.5tonnes have to find their way around the 25mile detour to avoid the bridge. The foul water sewage system seems to be at capacity as it regularly emits foul odours at peak holiday periods.