Further to this morning’s website post, here, as promised, is some additional explanatory information for all those wanting to give feedback (by on-line form, email or letter) to Ryedale District Council’s Key Decisions Consultation. You will need to respond by 21st February.
Cllr David Wells writes:
Below, we’ve tried to summarise the changes being proposed, highlight the possible implications for our village and made a few suggestions about why you might want to respond.
Why is Ryedale revising the Local Plan Strategy?
Various issues relating to the creation of the new North Yorkshire Council have highlighted the need to create a new Ryedale Local Plan, rather than rolling the current one forward. The plan is intended to inform NYC policy and to cover a 15 year period.
What are the Key Decisions that Ryedale intends taking?
The number of new homes being approved each year (Question 1)
Ryedale is required to deliver approval for 186 homes each year but has 200 a year in its plan and intends to continue with this target.
Why might this matter to you? You might feel this is a good thing to be doing, meeting society’s housing needs, or you might feel that we should only deliver what we are required to do.
The distribution of development (Questions 2-3)
Two options are proposed. The first – Option 1 continues the current development strategy, focusing on development in market towns and key designated ‘Service Villages’.
Option 2 proposes a less concentrated more dispersed approach to development, increasing the number of Service Villages by changing the criteria for designation. Ryedale are firmly in favour of Option 2 (you can read why in their consultation document).
Why does this matter for Slingsby? We have till now been a designated Service Village – defined as having a) a regular bus service to permit commuting; b) a grocery shop with the means to make a meal and c) a school. However, the loss of Tony’s shop means that we no longer meet the criteria (indeed, Slingsby is singled out in the plan on p.13 for this reason).
The second key decision is therefore to Change the criteria of a Service Village so that Service Villages need only have a) a daily bus service and b) either a school or a grocery shop.
Why does this matter for Slingby? This would mean we would remain a Service Village and that Ryedale could add Welburn, West Heslerton, Sand Hutton, Settrington and Terrington to the list.
Why might this matter to you? You might be in favour of more development here and be worried that we are going to lose our Service Village status. Or you might feel that this is moving the goalposts, that a daily bus service is not the same as a regular bus service suitable for commuting (or indeed, attending hospital appointments etc.) You might also have concerns about how local infrastructure will cope and the increased use of cars, roads etc.
The remaining Strategic Decisions relate to:
Removing the local occupancy criteria from development (Question 4)
Removing the condition of primary residence condition (i.e. allowing more second homes) (Question 5)
Why this matters for Slingsby? Current development proposals by Castle Howard have already requested to be exempted from these criteria.
Why this might matter to you? You might feel that this could diversify the local community, with more second homes allowing developers to maximise the return on their investment and reducing daily pressures on infrastructure. Or you might be worried that this might make it increasingly difficult for people, especially youngsters, to stay in the village and work locally. You might be pleased or concerned that this would inflate property prices further.
Developing new criteria for small housing development sites (Questions 6-7)
Why this matters for Slingsby? This is quite a technical question, with several new criteria being proposed (pp.17-18) so worth reading closely, as we think about small infill and brown field developments. The consultation notes that most residents consulted in 2021 about this expressed concerns about impact on infrastructure, landscape and heritage but that there was support for change from the landed estates and residents representing site-submitters.
Ensuring 5% of all bungalows built are to wheelchair-accessible standard (Question 8)
Low carbon and sustainable energy solutions in new homes (Question 9 -10)
Why this might matter to you? These seem reasonably straightforward, but some people may feel that proposals for low carbon and sustainable energy solutions are not ambitious enough.
As a reminder, here are links to the Consultation Document and the On-line form for responses.
If you wanted to respond via email (to [email protected]) or a letter, the questions Ryedale District Council are asking are listed below for your convenience:
Ryedale Local Plan Key Decisions Consultation
Question 1: Do you agree that we should sustain the plan for figure of 200 homes per year?
Question 2: Do you agree with the application of Option 2 as a principle
Option 2: A less concentrated, more dispersed approach to distributing growth – with development focussed at the Market Towns and specific villages, including existing ‘Service Villages’ and selected additional villages.
Question 3: Do you agree with our chosen approach (to changing the criteria for a Service Village) and if not why?
Question 4: Do you agree with the proposed approach of as part of the review of the Ryedale Plan to cease the Local Needs Occupancy Condition?
Question 5: Do you agree with the approach to not propose the application of a Primary Residence Condition?
Question 6: Do you agree with the principle of the policy related to developing new criteria for small housing development sites?
Question 7: Are there additional criteria that should be considered?
Question 8: Do you agree to requiring the 5% of bungalows specified in Policy SP4 to be built to M4 (3) wheelchair-user accessible standard?
Question 9: We think the current criteria set out in the first part of SP18 (Low Carbon Energy solutions) remains broadly relevant and appropriate for majority of renewable and low carbon technologies, and so no changes are proposed to this part of SP18. It is not possible to identify suitable areas within this review of the plan. This part of the policy is therefore proposed to remain unchanged. Do you agree with this approach and if not why?
Question 10: Do you agree with the proposed changes to the wording of SP18 relating to requirements for renewable energy use and water consumption.
—————————————–