Preferred Options - Hambleton District Council

F RA M EW O R K 

LDF 

H A M B L E T O N 

L O C A L 

D E VE LO P ME N T

S W Quartermain BA(Hons) Dip TP MRTPI 

Executive Director 

Hambleton District Council, Civic Centre, Stone Cross, Northallerton DL6 2UU 

Telephone: 0845 1211 555 Email: planning.policy@hambleton.gov.uk

FOREWORD 

The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 brought in major changes to the 

development plans system. The old system of Structure Plans and Local Plans is 

replaced by a Regional Spatial Strategy and a Local Development Framework. This 

Council is required to prepare the Local Development Framework (or “LDF”) to replace 

the existing Local Plan. 

Hambleton District Council welcomes the new system because it will result in quicker, 

more flexible and transparent plan preparation, and because of the potential it offers to 

plan positively for the area. The Council is committed to providing a high quality and 

responsive planning service that meets the needs of the community, and includes full 

community involvement and engagement. It recognises that an efficient and effective 

planning service is central to delivering the Community Plan for Hambleton and the 

Council’s vision and corporate priorities. 

Our aim is to produce a Local Development Framework that is distinctive to 

Hambleton, which is an effective response to local issues and priorities, and which 

contributes to our corporate vision of "Making Life Better". 

This report is one of a series intended to promote discussion about the preferred options 

concerning the site allocations that should form one of the Development Plan Documents 

(DPDs) within the LDF: the Allocations DPD. At this stage in the process the 

Allocations DPD is being progressed as six separate documents – one for each of the five 

Sub Areas of the District (Bedale, Easingwold, Northallerton, Stokesley and Thirsk) and 

one providing a brief overview of the proposals in all Sub Areas. This particular document 

concerns allocations for the STOKESLEY Sub Area. Consultation was undertaken on 

issues and options for this DPD starting in October 2005, and the views received have 

been taken into account in moving onto this next stage – that of identifying the preferred 

package of sites. 

The Allocations DPD provides the site details that will help to deliver the LDF’s Core 

Strategy, which sets out the long-term spatial vision, and the spatial objectives and 

strategic policies to deliver that vision. The Core Strategy has now been formally 

adopted, following its Public Examination in October 2006, and the receipt of the 

Inspector’s Report in February 2007. 

The Council has sought genuine participation in planning for the future of Hambleton. It is 

committed to maximising the opportunity for all the District’s communities, including 

groups that are often hard to reach (for example business, voluntary, disability, black and 

minority ethnic and religious groups), to shape the content of the new Local Development 

Framework. Full community involvement started at the very beginning of the LDF 

process, and is continuing throughout, as this report demonstrates. Views will be very 

welcome on these Preferred Options reports. 

HAMBLETON LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK 

STOKESLEY Preferred Options ALLOCATIONS OCTOBER 2007 

i

CONTENTS 

Page 

Foreword i. 

1. Introduction and Context 1 

2. Principles of site allocation 9 

3. Stokesley Sub Area 17 

3.1 The Core Strategy Context 17 

3.2 Background Studies 18 

3.3 Current development commitments 19 

3.4 Settlement proposals – Service Centre: 21 

Stokesley 

3.5 Settlement proposals - Service Villages: 34 

Great Ayton 34 

Great Broughton 48 

Hutton Rudby 56 

3.6 Secondary Villages 66 

(Ingleby Arncliffe, Kirkby-in-Cleveland, Seamer) 

4. Summary of Preferred Options: Stokesley Sub Area 70 

Annexes 

1. The Council’s approach to site selection 72 

2. Proposed changes to District Wide Local Plan Development Limits 75 

3. Review of current housing commitments 76 

4. Policies in the Hambleton District Wide Local Plan 77 

replaced by the Allocations DPD 

5. Monitoring and implementation 78 

6. Sites not considered in this analysis 87 



ii

Preferred Options 

ALLOCATIONS – STOKESLEY SUB AREA 

1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 

Purpose of the document 

1.1 This report forms part of the latest stage in Hambleton District Council’s work to 

replace the old-style Hambleton District Wide Local Plan (DWLP) with a new 

Local Development Framework or LDF. The requirement to produce an LDF 

was established by the new Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, 

which came into force in September 2004. 

1.2 This stage is intended to promote discussion about the “preferred options” 

concerning site allocations that will form one of the documents within the LDF. 

It is intended that these should form a “Development Plan Document” (DPD) 

titled “Allocations”. This DPD is being advanced at this stage (Preferred 

Options) in the form of 6 separate documents – one for each of the five Sub 

Areas of the District (Bedale, Easingwold, Northallerton, Stokesley and Thirsk) 

and one providing a brief overview of the proposals in all Sub Areas. 

1.3 Together these 6 documents will comprise the Allocations DPD – they will be 

recombined at submission stage into one volume. This document concerns 

allocations for the STOKESLEY Sub Area. It contains information about the 

Allocations DPD in general, and about the Stokesley Sub Area in particular. 

The other Sub Area documents should be consulted to see the consideration of 

site allocations for the rest of the area covered by the Hambleton LDF. In 

addition to considering which sites should be promoted for development, the 

Allocations DPD also includes the proposed definition of Development Limits for 

designated settlements. 

1.4 The Allocations DPD provides the site details that will help to deliver the LDF’s 

Core Strategy, which sets out the long-term spatial vision, and the spatial 

objectives and strategic policies to deliver that vision. The Core Strategy has 

now been formally adopted, following its Public Examination in October 2006, 

and the receipt of the Inspector’s Report in February 2007. 

The Preferred Options stage 

1.5 One of the key ingredients of the new LDF planning system is the recognition of 

the need for the earliest and fullest public involvement in the preparation of the 

new Plan. This report is the latest in several stages in the consultation process 

that the Council is following. Consultation was undertaken on issues and 

options for site allocations starting in October 2005. As the preparation of the 

LDF proceeds, all the consultation responses on all DPDs are taken into 

account – so that views expressed previously have also influenced the content 

of this report. 



1

1.6 The process of preparing the LDF differs in many respects from the preceding 

local plan system. The current stage provides an opportunity to comment on 

how the authority is approaching the preparation of the Allocations DPD. It is 

not a draft of the final document, but an indication of the approach, in the form 

of the sites identified, which the Council prefers. It shows the preferred 

package of sites (and gives reasons for their selection), but shows this package 

of sites in comparison with all the other alternative sites that have been 

identified (including those other sites raised through consultation to-date), 

indicating why these sites are not preferred. These alternative sites – not 

supported by the Council – are differentiated within this document by presenting 

them within shaded boxes. 

1.7 Thus the purpose of this stage is to seek your views: do you agree with the 

reasoning and selection of the identified preferred sites – or do you think that 

alternative sites (either those identified here, or any other site not as yet 

identified) should be included It is very important indeed that all alternative 

sites are finally identified at this stage, since it will be difficult to give the 

necessary full consideration to any sites raised later in the process (and thus 

possibly include them in the final DPD). This is discussed in more detail below: 

see para. 1.19. 

1.8 We are seeking views from everybody with an interest in the future of our 

District, during October to November 2007. Comments on any matters are 

requested back by Friday 23 November 2007. 

Please send your comments to: 

Planning Policy Team, Hambleton District Council, Civic Centre, 

Stone Cross, Northallerton, DL6 2UU 

or email them to: planning.policy@hambleton.gov.uk 

or use the online form on our website: www.hambleton.gov.uk 

The Local Development Framework context 

1.9 The LDF can best be viewed as a folder that contains a number of documents – 

as shown by the following diagram. A full explanation of the new LDF system 

is presented in the adopted Core Strategy (Annex 1), but the main documents 

relevant to the Allocations DPD are described here. 



2

1.10 At the heart of the LDF is the Core Strategy. This sets out the Spatial Vision 

for Hambleton, for the period to 2021. It contains a series of Strategic 

Objectives, to give structure and direction; a set of three Spatial Principles, 

which guide the approach to delivering the Vision; and a number of Core 

Policies, which define the strategic approach. Supplementing the Core 

Strategy, and providing details that elaborate the Core Policies and give 

guidance on their implementation, the Development Policies DPD contains a 

number of Development Policies. The Development Policies DPD has now 

been submitted, and was subject of a Public Examination in June 2007. The 

Inspector’s Report (which will be binding) is expected in December 2007. 

1.11 Both the Core Strategy and Development Policies DPD have major implications 

for the content of the Allocations DPD. The various components of the LDF 

must be consistent one with another – and in particular must be in conformity 

with the direction and content of the adopted Core Strategy. The options and 

alternatives for allocations considered in this Allocations DPD Preferred Options 

report must therefore reflect the Core Strategy – given that the Core Strategy is 

now adopted, following receipt of the Inspector’s binding report in February 

2007. The Development Policies DPD contains some area based policies (for 

example defining “green wedges” between settlements to help secure their 

separate identity), and in a number of cases sets the approach or guides the 

development which is to be proposed by the Allocations DPD. 

1.12 Also contained within the LDF, the Proposals Map shows the precise location 

of components of the LDF on an Ordnance Survey map. The Proposals Map 

will evolve as the various components of the LDF are approved. At this stage 

the formal Proposals Map is effectively the map contained within the Hambleton 

District Wide Local Plan. Amendments to change the LDF Proposals Map 

were advanced with the submission Development Policies DPD. The 

Proposals Map will be issued in its first revision when the Development Policies 



3

DPD is adopted. The submission Allocations DPD will similarly be 

accompanied by plans showing the proposed revisions of the Proposals Map 

that reflect its new allocations and changes to Development Limits – and on 

adoption of the Allocations DPD the Proposals Map will be revised again. 

1.13 At this point it is relevant to note that the various components of the LDF when 

adopted each replace parts of the Hambleton District Wide Local Plan (as 

described within each of the DPDs). Those Policies of the DWLP replaced by 

the Allocations DPD are set out in Annex 4 of this report. There is no intention 

to carry forward any of the DWLP components beyond adoption of the 

Allocations DPD – so the adoption of this DPD will mean that the DWLP is 

entirely replaced, and the Proposals Map similarly will be entirely that derived 

from the LDF. 

1.14 The LDF system also provides for the preparation of Supplementary Planning 

Documents (SPDs). These are prepared following full consultation but are not 

subject of Public Examination, and are intended to elaborate components of the 

adopted Development Plan Documents. For example, briefs for the 

development of sites (or groups of sites) could in due course be prepared as 

SPDs, which will provide necessary additional guidance relating to the 

development of sites allocated in the Allocations DPD. 

The nature of the LDF 

1.15 As well as its format, the purpose of the new LDF system is also radically 

different from the preceding development plan system. The LDF is intended to 

be a “spatial” plan. The concept of spatial planning is described fully in the 

adopted Core Strategy Annex 1 paras. 8 – 9. In essence, spatial planning is 

concerned with places, how they function and relate together – and its 

objectives are to manage change to secure the best achievable quality of life for 

all in the community, without wasting scarce resources or spoiling the 

environment. This approach goes beyond the controls of development and 

land-uses of the previous system, and provides an opportunity for all parties 

and agencies to work together to develop programmes and activities to achieve 

a common vision for Hambleton, within the spatial framework provided by the 

LDF. 

1.16 The nature of this spatial planning process means that it is essential for the 

relationship between the LDF and other strategies to be fully taken into 

account. The LDF must be in conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy 

(RSS). Most of the implications for this were addressed in developing the 

Core Strategy, but a number of RSS Policies are relevant to this Allocations 

DPD (for example concerning the sequence for the selection of land for 

development). Particularly important, the LDF provides the means of giving 

spatial expression to the Community Plan (both the Hambleton Community 

Plan and the North Yorkshire Community Strategy). Thus the allocations 

considered in this report provide an opportunity to deliver the aspirations set out 

in the Community Plan, and in the Area Action Plans which have been prepared 

as part of the Community Plan and its process. The allocations considered 



4

here also need to be considered within the context of and as means of 

delivering programmes and activities of other partners (for example utility 

companies and health bodies). 

The consultation process 

1.17 The importance that the new LDF planning system gives to the earliest and 

fullest public involvement in the preparation of the new plan has already been 

mentioned. Indeed the new system is based on the principle of “front-loading”, 

which means that the process seeks from the very beginning to develop a 

consensus based on public views. This report is the latest in several stages in 

the consultation process that the Council is following in preparing all the 

components of the LDF. It follows in particular consultation on “issues and 

options” for site allocations starting in October 2005. 

1.18 The results of the earlier consultation are reflected in the analysis of sites 

presented in this report. Brief summaries of the main points raised in the 

preceding Issues and Options consultation relevant to the Allocations DPD (as 

opposed to matters which related to the Core Strategy, which has now been 

adopted) are contained in relation to each of the settlements considered in 

Section 3 of this document (see the boxes headed “you told us that”). All the 

sites suggested, whether by the Council or by respondents to the earlier 

consultation, are reviewed here, in reaching conclusions about the preferred 

site allocations. This consultation represents another opportunity to comment 

on Development Limits and which allocations should be included, or excluded – 

and also whether any wholly new sites should be considered. It is particularly 

important for us to see if you agree with the reasons we have given for the 

inclusion – and for the rejection – of sites that have been considered. To help 

focus the consultation, at the end of each section that relates to a town or 

village, specific questions are posed, set out as follows: 



5

QUESTION 1: 

DO YOU AGREE WITH THE PREFERRED OPTIONS 

ALLOCATION SITES FOR THIS SETTLEMENT – AND DO 

YOU AGREE WITH THE JUSTIFICATION GIVEN 

QUESTION 2: 

DO YOU AGREE WITH THE REJECTION OF THE OTHER 

SITES CONSIDERED HERE – AND DO YOU AGREE WITH 

THE REASONS GIVEN FOR THEIR REJECTION 

QUESTION 3: 

DO YOU THINK THAT ANY OTHER SITES SHOULD BE 

ALLOCATED – AND FOR WHAT REASONS 

QUESTION 4: 

DO YOU AGREE WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 

LIMITS FOR THIS SETTLEMENT – AND IF NOT, WHAT 

CHANGES DO YOU SEEK 

1.19 All the sites addressed here have been assessed comprehensively, including 

by the Sustainability Appraisal (see para. 1.21 below). The nature of the “frontloading” 

consultation process should mean that assessment of sites, and the 

opportunity for public comment on them, is achieved earlier in the process than 

under the previous development plan system – and in particular that new sites 

should not be advanced at the last minute, after the submission of the DPD for 

Public Examination. It is particularly important that anyone who wishes to 

advance a new site, not considered here, does so in response to the 

consultation on this document. Indeed if new sites are promoted for 

development after this stage it is likely that it will not be possible to consider 

them fully, and it may well not be possible for them to be included in this 

Allocations DPD. This is because all sites must be subject to the same full 

Sustainability Appraisal, and be open to full debate through public consultation. 

Whilst the new system does require any new site (or boundary changes) 

representations made at the submission stage to be advertised for a further 

consultation period, it must be stressed that full and proper consideration of 

such sites will be very difficult to achieve at the Public Examination. The 

message is – now is the time to comment on the proposed site 

allocations, and identify any further new sites and Development Limits 

changes! 

The evidence base 

1.20 In order to plan anything properly, it is essential to have up-to-date and reliable 

information as to what is happening now. Preparing the Local Development 

Framework is just the same. Accordingly, the Council has undertaken or 

commissioned a number of technical studies, many of which support the 



6

development of the preferred package of site allocations. All of the following 

can be obtained from the Council (and are available on the Council’s website 

www.hambleton.gov.uk ): 

• Urban Potential 

• Village Services 

• Housing Needs 

• Flood Risk 

• Town Centres 

• Open Space and Recreation 

• Economic Development 

• Spatial Study of the Hambleton Community Plan and Area Group Action 

Plans 

• Town Centre Parking 

• North Yorkshire Renewable Energy Study 

The Sustainability Appraisal (& Strategic Environmental Assessment) – 

SA/SEA 

1.21 As a key part of ensuring that the LDF achieves sustainable development, at 

the same time as the main LDF documents are prepared the Council must 

undertake a separate and concurrent evaluation of the choices considered, and 

the options preferred. This evaluation, called a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) 

(and including a Strategic Environmental Assessment: SEA) provides an 

important context for considering the approach taken, determining whether the 

choices proposed are the most sustainable, and thus influencing the nature of 

the LDF’s proposals. An SA/SEA has been undertaken on the Allocations 

DPD work to-date, the results of which (in relation to this Preferred Options 

document) are published as a separate report. That report is available from the 

Council (and available from the web site) - it should be read in conjunction with 

this report. The SA/SEA supports the approach adopted here, and provides an 

important commentary on this report’s conclusions. 

Monitoring and implementation 

1.22 Preparation of the LDF is not a once and for all activity. It is essential to check 

that the Plan is being implemented correctly, assess the outcomes that result 

and check if these still remain as intended, and as currently desired. Annex 5 

describes this process, explaining how monitoring of the LDF as a whole, 

including of the Allocations DPD, is proposed to be undertaken. This includes 

definition of the process and the suggested performance indicators and targets. 



7

Structure of this report 

1.23 The structure of the remainder of this report is as follows: 

Section 2: 

Section 3: 

Section 4: 

sets out the principles by which allocations are proposed to be 

made in the Allocations DPD 

Stokesley Sub Area – proposed allocations, and explanation of 

alternatives rejected 

Summary of Preferred Options: Stokesley Sub Area 



8

2. PRINCIPLES OF SITE ALLOCATION 

2.1 The Allocations DPD is concerned with the allocation of specific areas of land, 

to meet the development requirements of Hambleton for the plan period until 

2021. This Preferred Options report suggests which areas the Council 

considers should be brought forward in the Stokesley Sub Area, and conversely 

which areas suggested by others should not – in each case giving reasons for 

the selection or rejection. The general principles that are proposed to be 

adopted in selecting the different types of land use are discussed in this 

Section. The main uses are for housing, for uses that generate employment, 

for town centre uses (which include car parking), and for other community uses 

(which include recreation). 

2.2 Closely related to the allocation of specific areas of land, and thus also covered 

within this Allocations DPD, is the definition of Development Limits around 

designated settlements. Development Limits establish the effective limit of 

development of each settlement. The settlements for which Development 

Limits are to be established are defined in Core Policy CP4 (which also 

provides the policy context for development within the Limits); the principles by 

which the Limits are defined given by Development Policy DP8 (and the policy 

context for development outside the Development Limits, addressed by 

Development Policy DP9). 

2.3 The most important principles or objectives driving the allocation of land are as 

follows: 

i. to reflect and deliver the strategy for the future development of Hambleton 

set out in the adopted Core Strategy. The Core Strategy itself conforms 

with national and regional guidance, and sets the scale and distribution of 

development designed to meet the District’s needs; 

ii. 

iii. 

iv. 

to reflect the principles set out in the Development Policies DPD, which 

gives further detail to the Core Strategy, and helps explain how it will be 

implemented. Important examples include the detailed approach to 

safeguarding the character and form of settlements (Policy DP10), phasing 

the release of housing land (Policy DP11), and conserving biodiversity 

(DP31); 

to reflect national and regional (ie. RSS) guidance. This includes for 

example the Government’s approach and priority afforded to building 

sustainable communities, and the guidance on the selection and bringing 

forward of housing land in PPG3 (Housing). RSS also provides guidance 

on the sequence of search for development sites; 

to reflect local views, as expressed through the preceding LDF 

consultation stages, on how individual settlements should or should not 

develop. 



9

These principles are now considered in more detail for each of the categories 

set out above. The practical approach undertaken by the Council to select or 

reject sites, and thus to identify the preferred package of sites for this Sub Area, 

based on the principles set out in this Section, is described in detail in Annex 1. 

Principles for making housing allocations in each Sub-Area 

The scale, timing and distribution of housing development 

2.4 Core Policy CP5A identifies the overall proportion of development required in 

each Sub Area – as a sub-division of the District total established in Core Policy 

CP5 (which in turn is consistent with regional guidance contained in RSS). 

2.5 Linked to the scale of housing that must be identified is the need to consider the 

appropriate timing of development. The release of land needs in particular to 

reflect the requirements of Development Policy DP11, which establishes the 

principles that should be taken into account in phasing the release of land, to 

ensure that: 

• the right amount is allocated in each phase (consistent with Core Policy 

CP5A, which identifies the scale for 3 phases each of 5 years); 

• Government guidance on the overall supply of land is met – the revised 

national approach set by PPS3 (November 2006) requires that LDFs should 

make provision from the date of adoption for sufficient specific deliverable 

sites for the first five years (years 1 – 5); then indicate a further supply of 

specific developable sites for the next five years (years 6 - 10); and then for 

the following five years (years 11 – 15), if possible identify specific 

developable sites, or alternatively indicate broad locations for future growth. 

The phases of housing land indicated in this report are designed to be 

consistent with these principles – ie. the first phase (to 2011) all comprise 

sites which are considered to be fully deliverable (in the terms of PPS3 para. 

54, they are available now, suitable for development, and likely to be 

achievable within the period). For the remaining phases, all the sites are 

considered to be developable, ie. in a suitable location and with a 

reasonable prospect of being achieved in the period; 

• the development is feasible in the relevant timescale, eg. infrastructure 

capacity exists or is programmed to be available; 

• the most appropriate land for development is used for first. The criteria for 

considering the suitability of individual sites are addressed below, but one 

particularly important concern in relation to phasing is to ensure that where 

possible brownfield land is used before greenfield sites. In this respect the 

objective is to ensure that the allocations proposed at least meet the District 

target for housing development of brownfield land set by Policy DP12 (and 

consistent with the requirements of RSS), ie. 55%. 

2.6 Policy DP11 concerning phasing is supported by housing “trajectories” (see 

Development Policies DPD Annex 6), which establish for each year during the 

plan period the likely scale of new allocations that should be made, taking 

account of completions and existing commitments (planning permissions). In 

accordance with PPS3 – Housing (para. 58), a review of existing planning 



10

permissions for housing (commitments) has been undertaken, which 

demonstrates that each site is developable and likely to contribute to the 

housing land supply in the first phase (ie. up to 2011): this is attached as Annex 

3. The Council’s approach to windfall housing developments (ie. housing 

development which is permitted on land which is not allocated) is set out in 

detail in para. 4.3. This indicates that no allowance for windfalls has been 

made in determining the scale of allocations made here, but the overall scale of 

development which actually occurs (which will inevitably include windfall 

developments) will be monitored annually – and depending on the results of this 

monitoring, this will may influence the timing of release of the phases of 

housing land proposed here. 

2.7 The current position in the Stokesley Sub Area with regard to recent housing 

development since 2004, and current commitments (as set out in Annex 3), and 

thus the residual requirement that needs to be identified in the Allocations DPD, 

is set out in Section 3 (para. 3.3.1) following. Given the need for the Allocations 

DPD to be in conformity with the principles set out in the Core Strategy, there 

are no options considered in relation to the resulting scale of new allocations 

that need to be identified, and the target set is a fundamental requirement. 

2.8 The distribution of development within the Sub Area is also guided by the Core 

Strategy: Policy CP6 establishes in particular that at least 51% of housing 

development should be in the Principal Service Centres of Northallerton and 

Thirsk; that in each sub-area at least two thirds of new housing will be 

concentrated in its Service Centre; and that in the Service Villages housing will 

be supported which is at a level appropriate to the needs of the local 

community. 

2.9 Together with the distributional guidance set by Policies CP4 and CP6, national 

and regional guidance also provides an important direction for the process of 

seeking appropriate land releases. Taking account of the Core Strategy which 

defines the approach to development in the defined hierarchy of settlements 

(Principal Service Centres and Service Centres, Service Villages and 

Secondary Villages) in order to achieve sustainable rural communities, the 

additional guidance provided by Submission RSS Policy YH8 together with 

PPG3 (Housing) suggests that a sequential approach should be taken, with 

priority given in the following order: 

1. brownfield land within Principal Service Centres/Service Centres; 

2. other infill opportunities within Principal Service Centres/Service Centres; 

3. sites on the periphery of Principal Service Centres/Service Centres or well 

related in public transport terms; 

4. brownfield land within Service Villages; 

5. other infill sites within Service Villages; 

6. sites on the periphery of Service Villages. 

This sequence of site search has been taken into account in determining the 

process followed, as described in Annex 1. 



11

Housing site acceptability and sustainability 

2.10 In addition to taking account of the strategic direction on scale, timing, 

distribution and the sequential approach, there are a wide range of other 

important considerations that need to be addressed in considering the suitability 

of individual sites or areas for housing development. At the level of individual 

site acceptability and the sustainability of development, the following criteria, 

under the four headings of settlement character, accessibility, local issues and 

feasibility, have also been taken into account in forming a view on the potential 

development sites in this Allocations DPD. In each case, to be acceptable 

development should be: 

settlement character 

• compatible and not discordant with the character and setting of the 

settlement (and have the least impact on the environment compared with 

alternatives); 

• consistent with the definition of Development Limits (as indicated by Policy 

DP8) 

• consistent with Policy DP10 requirements: having no unacceptable impact 

on the green wedges and spaces of townscape importance defined under 

that Policy in the Development Policies DPD and on the Proposals Map; 

• in accordance with the objectives of Policy DP31 – seeking to protect and 

conserve biodiversity; and Policy DP35 – protecting water resources; 

• capable of meeting the identified aspirations for quality (see Policy DP32); 

accessibility 

• in the optimum location in relation to facilities or journeys to work and shop, 

and to employment and employment proposals; 

• capable of making best use of transport infrastructure and capacity; 

• located close to an existing public transport corridor or in a location with 

good public transport accessibility; 

• in a location which provides maximum accessibility by non-car modes; 

local issues 

• capable of meeting particular local needs (eg. for affordable housing); 

• supported by local views, as expressed in the Issues and Options 

consultation, as to how individual settlements should or should not develop; 

• capable of making a contribution towards achieving a sustainable 

community, including delivering wider community benefits; 

feasibility 

• capable of development, in particular by being within the capacity of existing 

or proposed infrastructure (and with any timing implications of infrastructure 

investment taken into account in the potential phasing of development); 

• likely to be available: having a strong probability that the land can be 

brought forward for development during the plan period; 

• capable of development without risk of flooding (or without exacerbating 

existing flooding implications elsewhere), in accordance with the objectives 

of Policy DP43 – minimising the risk of flooding. 



12

Density of housing and brownfield land targets 

2.11 Except where indicated in relation to a particular site (for example where 

proximity to settlement services suggests that a higher density will be 

appropriate), a working assumption has been adopted that the “yield” of 

housing on each site will be based on 30 dwellings per hectare (ie. the 

minimum advised by PPS3 – Housing). 

2.12 For each proposed housing site, its status as either brownfield (“brown”, ie. 

previously developed) or greenfield (“green”, ie. never developed) is indicated – 

to enable the contribution of the proposals towards achieving the LDF 

brownfield land target set in Development Policy DP12 to be assessed (55% if 

all housing to be on brownfield land, District-wide). 

Principles for making employment development allocations in each 

Sub Area 

The scale and distribution of employment development 

2.13 There are distinct parallels between the principles for making housing 

allocations (discussed in paras. 2.4 –10 above) and for making allocations for 

employment purposes. Core Policy CP10A identifies the overall scale of 

development required in each Sub Area – as a sub-division of the District total 

established in Core Policy CP10. However, whilst there is a need to monitor 

the demand for employment land and ensure that available supply is adequate, 

and for example is physically capable of being developed during the plan 

period, there is not the same detailed concern with regard to the timing of 

development. Guidance on the phasing of release of employment sites in 

different time periods is not therefore contained in the Core Strategy, and is 

therefore not considered here. 

2.14 The scale of new employment allocations that should be made needs to take 

account of existing commitments (planning permissions), and also of the likely 

scale of “windfall” development, ie. development which will occur on 

unallocated sites (mostly small in scale). The likely scale of new allocations is 

anticipated in the submitted Core Strategy para. 4.3.8. 

2.15 The current position in the Stokesley Sub Area with regard to existing 

permissions for employment uses is set out in Section 3 (para. 3.3.1) following. 

Given the need for the Allocations DPD to be in conformity with the principles 

set out in the Core Strategy, there are no options considered in relation to the 

resulting scale of new allocations that need to be identified, and the target set is 

a fundamental requirement. 

2.16 The distribution of development within the Sub Area is also guided by the Core 

Strategy: Policy CP11 establishes in particular that most new employment 

development should be concentrated in the Service Centre, and that in the 



13

Service Villages opportunities for small-scale development to meet local needs 

will be supported. 

2.17 Together with the distributional guidance set by Policies CP4 and CP11, 

national and regional guidance also provides an important direction for the 

process of seeking appropriate land releases. Submission RSS Policy YH8 

establishes that a sequential approach should be taken, with effectively means 

(taking account of the Core Strategy’s definition of the sustainable hierarchy of 

settlements) that priority should be given in the following order: 

1. brownfield land within Principal Service Centres/Service Centres; 

2. other infill opportunities within Principal Service Centres/Service Centres; 

3. sites on the periphery of Principal Service Centres/Service Centres or well 

related in public transport terms; 

4. brownfield land within Service Villages; 

5. other infill sites within Service Villages; 

6. sites on the periphery of Service Villages. 

This sequence of site search has been taken into account in determining the 

process followed, as described in Annex 1. 

Site acceptability and sustainability 

2.18 In addition to taking account of the strategic direction on scale, distribution and 

the sequential approach, there are a number of other important considerations 

that need to be addressed in considering the suitability of individual sites or 

areas for employment development. At the level of individual site acceptability 

and the sustainability of development, the following criteria, under the same 

four headings used for housing proposals – settlement character, accessibility, 

local issues and feasibility – are also taken into account in forming a view on 

the potential development sites in this Allocations DPD. In each case, to be 

acceptable development should be: 

settlement character 

• compatible and not discordant with the character and setting of the 

settlement (and have the least impact on the environment compared with 

alternatives); 

• consistent with definition of Development Limits (as indicated by Policy DP8) 

• consistent with Policy DP10 requirements in having no unacceptable impact 

on the green wedges and spaces of townscape importance defined under 

that Policy in the Development Policies DPD and on the Proposals Map; 

• in accordance with the objectives of Policy DP31 – seeking to protect and 

conserve biodiversity; Policy DP35 – protecting water resources; and Policy 

DP43 – minimising the risk of flooding; 

• capable of meeting the identified aspirations for quality (see Policy DP32); 



14

accessibility 

• in the optimum location in relation to the main housing areas and new 

housing proposals; 

• capable of making best use of transport infrastructure and capacity; 

• located close to an existing public transport corridor or in a location with 

good public transport accessibility; 

• in a location which provides maximum accessibility by non-car modes; 

local issues 

• capable of meeting particular local needs and circumstances, particularly 

the priorities for economic development expressed in Core Policy CP12 and 

Development Policy DP16; 

• supported by local views, as expressed in the Issues and Options 

consultation, as to how individual settlements should or should not develop; 

• capable of making a contribution towards achieving a sustainable 

community, including delivering wider community benefits; 

feasibility 

• capable of development, in particular by being within the capacity of existing 

or proposed infrastructure (and with any timing implications of infrastructure 

investment taken into account in the potential phasing of development); 

• likely to be available: having a strong probability that the land can be 

brought forward for development during the plan period; 

• capable of development without risk of flooding (or without exacerbating 

existing flooding implications elsewhere), in accordance with the objectives 

of Policy DP43 – minimising the risk of flooding. 

Principles for making allocations for other uses: town centre allocations 

and community uses 

2.19 The justification and principles adopted in relation to these uses depend on the 

particular use proposed. For town centre allocations, the Town Centre Study 

(December 2004) recommended that a number of sites were suitable for 

development related to a range of town centre uses. A number of allocations 

for these purposes are identified for public comment, within the Sub Area 

Chapters. Also linked to the functioning of town centres, certain sites are 

advanced for car and lorry parking – these reflect the Car Parking Studies 

(January 2002 and February 2003). Sites are similarly identified for public 

comment based on the ideas and proposals of the Renaissance Market Towns 

and Strategic Partnership Area Group Action Plan initiatives (the latter part of 

the Community Plan process). 

2.20 Sites are similarly advanced for public comment in relation to a number of other 

community uses (including for recreational purposes). These sites reflect 

especially local priorities expressed through the Community Plan process (and 

the Area Group Action Plans in particular). 



15

2.21 Sites advanced under both the town centre and community uses headings also 

provide an opportunity to include (for public comment, in the context of the LDF) 

the plans and proposals of our spatial planning partners, for example the 

County Council, in relation to the proposals in the Local Transport Plan (LTP); 

and the utility companies. 

Site size threshold 

2.22 For practical reasons, and taking account of the large size of Hambleton District 

and the great number of sites that have been advanced for possible 

development, it has been decided to adopt a size threshold for allocations for all 

uses: only sites greater than 0.3ha (or capable of accommodating 10 dwellings 

or more) will be allocated within the LDF. Developments smaller in scale than 

this threshold will be considered on their merits, in accordance with LDF 

Policies, but the acceptability of such developments will not be anticipated by 

making specific allocations on the Proposals Map. Where sites within the 

Service Centre and Service Villages have been suggested for consideration 

that are below this threshold, the sites are shown referenced and outlined on 

the Maps included in this document, but the merits of the sites themselves are 

not addressed. These “below threshold” sites are listed within Annex 6 (sites 

not considered in the analysis). 



16

3. STOKESLEY 

3.1 THE CORE STRATEGY CONTEXT 

3.1.1 The main Sub Area specific implications of Core Strategy for the Stokesley 

Area are as follows: 

• Spatial Principle 2 defines the Stokesley area as an area of restraint 

intended to counter the external influences and development pressures from 

Tees Valley. The scale of new housing development will therefore be 

reduced to resist further immigration from Teesside, whilst still 

accommodating the housing requirements of the local population including 

the need for affordable housing. Similarly, employment development in the 

Stokesley area will be more limited in order to reduce cross boundary 

commuting from Teesside; 

• Spatial Principle 3 and Core Policy CP4 define the sustainable settlement 

hierarchy, which in this Sub Area comprises the following settlements: 

Service Centre 

Stokesley 

Service Villages 

Great Ayton 

Great Broughton 

Hutton Rudby 

Secondary Villages 

Ingleby Arncliffe 

Kirkby 

Seamer 



17

• The proportions defined in Policy CP5A, when applied to the District wide 

requirement defined in Policy CP5, establish that the housing completion 

targets per annum are: 

2004 – 2011 2011 – 2016 2016 – 2021 

Stokesley 40 30 30 

Area 

out of 

Hambleton total 320 290 260 

• Policy CP6 requires that at least two thirds of this housing development be 

located in Stokesley town, giving minimum per annum targets as follows: 

2004 – 2011 2011 – 2016 2016–2021 


Service Centre 

• Policy CP9 sets the target of 50% of all dwellings in the Stokesley Area to 

be “affordable” (see Development Policy DP15 for definition); 

• Policy CP10A sets a target level of 9 hectares of employment development 

in the Stokesley Area (out of 75 hectares in the District as a whole). Taking 

account of the undeveloped employment land that had permission at the 

time when these figures were produced (which has now all been developed) 

the Core Strategy estimates that a further 8 hectares will need to be 

identified; 

• Policy CP14 defines the District-wide retail hierarchy, defining Stokesley as 

a District Centre, meeting day-to-day needs of its rural catchment. 

3.2 BACKGROUND STUDIES 

3.2.1 Background studies undertaken to inform the production of the LDF reached a 

number of conclusions, including recommending that a number of site-specific 

allocations be considered in the Stokesley Area in the Allocations DPD, as 

follows: 

• the Community Area Group Action Plan identified the following projects for 

consideration as specific allocations: 

- sports facilities for young people in Great Ayton; 

- improved parking in Great Ayton and Hutton Rudby for residents and 

tourists; 

- a nursery school at Kirkby and Broughton Primary School; 

- car parking at Great Broughton for Village Hall users; 

and the District Leisure Strategy identified that there is a need for a Skate 

Park at Stokesley; 



18

• Town Centres Study – the Study concluded there may be scope for a larger 

supermarket to claw back expenditure leaking to Teesside. However there 

is a lack of suitable sites, although the showground is suggested as a 

possibility. With regard to offices, the Study reported a requirement for 

modern office space, which should be accommodated within or on the edge 

of existing centres; 

• Economic Development Study – identified a shortage of employment land 

and looked at 3 possible sites, 2 of which were adjacent to the Stokesley 

Business Park. Land to the north of Stokesley off the B1365 was less 

favoured; 

• Car Parking Study – identified a need for further short stay car parking for 

30 car spaces within the Stokesley High Street area. Although opposed by 

local groups, there is little scope for alternative sites. In the medium term, 

the Study proposed a site be identified for long stay car parking for 30 – 50 

spaces for commuters. The Study also revealed a need for long stay 

parking in Great Ayton in the High street area for 30 cars and coach parking; 

• Strategic Flood Risk Assessment – this Study raised various issues that 

need to be addressed when assessing potential allocations in the Stokesley 

area. The main influences on flooding in Stokesley are the River Leven and 

the River Tame, and areas identified as Flood Zones 2 and 3 (ie. subject to 

0.1% or 1% annual probability of flooding from a river) extend over much of 

the area to the south of the town. Great Ayton and Hutton Rudby are also 

effected by the River Leven that runs through both villages but not to the 

same extent as Stokesley; 

• Urban Potential Study – this Study was undertaken in November 2004 to 

identify possible brownfield sites and buildings that could be suitable for 

housing development by 2021. This covered sites located within the larger 

settlements and of at least 0.15 ha in area or capable of yielding 5 or more 

dwellings. The results of this Study have been taken into account in 

considering sites in this report. 

3.3 CURRENT DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 

Housing 

3.3.1 The effective plan period for the LDF started on 1 st April 2004. In order to 

establish the outstanding need to allocate land for housing for the remainder of 

the plan period (to 2021), account needs to be taken of completions to date (the 

most recent information being available up to 1 st April 2007), and outstanding 

commitments (ie. land with planning permission for housing). Annex 3 reviews 

current commitments, and establishes that all these permissions are likely to 

contribute towards meeting the housing land supply. The following table sets 

out the current position, and the resulting residual requirement for the first 

phase, up to 2011: 



19

SETTLEMENT 

COMPLETIONS 

As at 01/04/07 

OUTSTANDING 

COMMITMENTS 

As at 01/04/07 

TOTALS 

As at 

01/04/07 

Residual requirement to 

meet LDF (Policy CP5A 

requirement) 

for 2004 – 2011 

(at 280 for Sub Area, 

with 189*, approx 2/3rds, 

for Service Centre). 


SERVICE 

CENTRE 

11 58 69 120 

TOTAL 

Great Ayton 7 10 17 

Great Broughton 3 15 18 

Hutton Rudby 2 4 6 

SERVICE 

VILLAGE 

12 29 41 36 

TOTAL 

Ingleby Arncliffe 0 1 1 

Kirkby 0 3 3 

Seamer 0 3 3 

SECONDARY 

VILLAGE 

0 7 7 0 

TOTAL 

OTHERS 1 6 7 0 

TOTAL 24 100 124 156 

*N.B. the addition of rounded annualised figures (para 3.1.1) and % of total give a slightly different result. 

(Note: of the 124 permissions/completions in the period April 2004- March 2007, 107 dwellings 

have been on brownfield sites = 86% for this period). 

3.3.2 The analysis in the rest of this Section advances proposals which will meet the 

Core Policy CP5A requirement for the Sub Area – the first phase taking account 

of completions and commitments as indicated in this table, and seeking to meet 

the residual requirement for the first phase indicated in the far right column. 

Land for employment uses 

3.3.2 Policy CP10A identifies the target level for employment development in the 

Stokesley Sub Area for the lifetime of the plan (2005 – 2021) as 9 hectares. As 

approximately 3 hectares of employment land within and to the North East of 

the existing Industrial Park has been given permission (and has now been 

developed) since the Core Strategy was prepared, only approximately 6 

hectares more is needed to meet the Sub Area target. 



20

3.4 SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS 

STOKESLEY 

Strategic overview 

3.4.1 The Market Town of Stokesley is located approximately 3km (slightly over a 

mile) from the northern boundary of the District and is identified as a Service 

Centre in the Settlement Hierarchy set out in Policy CP4 of the Hambleton Core 

Strategy. This means that its role as a Market Town has been recognised as 

providing services and facilities for the town and its hinterland. The town has a 

wide range of businesses, retail uses and employment, schools and medical 

services. 

3.4.2 Key characteristics of Stokesley include: 

location of main facilities: 

These are generally in or close to the Market Place, in Stokesley. The 

settlement has a primary school close to its centre (west of Springfield) and 

there is a large secondary school east of Station Road; 

location of main employment areas: 

In addition to the range of employment opportunities in the town centre 

commercial area, there is a business/industrial park to the south of the town 

to the east of Station Road (the majority of which is in the Parish of Kirkbyin-Cleveland); 

main environmental constraints: 

Flooding issues to the south of the town, around the River Leven and Eller 

Beck pose a significant development constraint and there are a number of 

other areas in and around Stokesley with a high water table and or land 

drainage issues. The area south of the town, in addition to being at risk of 

flooding is also proposed in the Development Policies DPD to be a 

protected area of “Green Wedge” under Policy DP10. Stokesley town 

centre has been designated as a Conservation Area; 

accessibility and infrastructure issues: 

The town enjoys good highway access onto the Stokesley by-pass (the 

A172) which skirts the eastern side of the settlement and provides links to 

Northallerton to the south and Middlesbrough to the north; 

brownfield land: 

There are few brownfield sites remaining in the town that have been 

identified as being available and suitable for redevelopment. 



21

you told us that … 

• many of the sites put forward are not available as they are likely to 

flood; 

• parking is “dire” and at weekends the town is congested with traffic; 

• all new developments in Stokesley should be confined to brownfield 

land; 

• the skate park is a bad idea as it will just bring vandalism and “yobs” 

to the area; 

• the gap between Tame Bridge and Stokesley should be kept; 

• keep industry on the existing industrial sites; 

• support was received for housing sites to the north of Stokesley 

rather than west; 

• the majority of respondents were opposed to development to the area 

of Malvern Drive (on land liable to flood); 

• all respondents favoured no alteration to the existing development 

limits. 

Source: LDF Allocations DPD Issues and Options Consultation Statement 

Potential development sites and Development Limits 

3.4.3 Map 1 shows all the sites that have been assessed for suitability for 

development relating to Stokesley indicating both those sites that are proposed 

to be allocated for development, and those which are not preferred. Map 2 

shows for clarity only those sites that form the package of the Council’s 

preferred sites, and indicates the proposed phasing of development. 

3.4.4 Reflecting Core Policy CP4, and based on the principles contained in 

Development Policy DP8, revised Development Limits are proposed for 

Stokesley – and shown on both Maps 1 and 2. The Development Limits 

boundary contained in the former District Wide Local Plan has been reviewed in 

proposing this new boundary – it takes account of the proposals for new 

development advanced here, and includes no other changes, consistent with 

the intentions of Development Limits to appropriately constrain the growth of 

the town (as set out in Development Policy DP8). 



22

Packages of alternatives 

3.4.5 Four alternative strategic directions for development have been considered: 

North, West, South and South East. These strategic directions are shown on 

Map 1. 

3.4.6 Analysis of the comparative merits of these strategic directions has led to the 

identification of a package of preferred development sites. The conclusions of 

this analysis are set out below, and illustrated on Map 1, which differentiates 

the suggested use of each site by colour (see the legend on the inside back 

cover), with preferred options shown both by colour (bold colours for preferred 

options, and pale colours for rejected options) and by symbol (preferred options 

shown by a tick, rejected options by a cross). Map 2 illustrates solely the 

preferred package, and indicates also the proposed phasing of development. 

Stokesley: the preferred development package - 

Stokesley West and South East 

3.4.7 The preferred option is to focus housing to the West (with small areas for 

employment and community uses) and the employment uses mainly as an 

extension to the existing industrial park to the South East. 

Overarching justification for the preferred option: 

• this option is capable of accommodating all the required uses; 

• the identified areas respect the existing settlement form of Stokesley; 

• there is potential for phasing development on a site by site basis; 

• the sites provide the most sustainable development option on available 

land that is least likely to be affected by flood risk; 

• most sites are located near to existing public transport routes, close to 

local shops and services; 

• preferred sites are accessible from existing transport routes and are within 

reasonable walking / cycling distance of Stokesley town centre; 

• sites are likely to be available in the short to medium term. 



25

Site 

Ref 

Stokesley West - sites proposed for housing: 

Site Name 

Phase 1: short term (2004 – 2011) 

Area 

Possible 

Yield 

(50% 

Affordable) 

142/14e White House Farm (part). 4.0ha 120 (60) 

Phase 1 TOTAL 4.0ha 120 (60) 

Phase 2: medium term (2011 – 2016) 

Greenfield 

or 

brownfield 

100% 

Greenfield 

To be released at the start of phase 2 to maintain an ongoing 5 year supply 

142/14e White House Farm (part). 1.3ha 40 (20) 

100% 

Greenfield 

To be released later in phase 2 to maintain an ongoing 5 year supply 

142/19 North of Hebron Rd. West 2.3ha 80 (40) 

Phase 2 TOTAL 3.6ha 120 (60) 

Phase 3: long term (2016 – 2021) 

100% 

Greenfield 

To be released at the start of phase 3 to maintain an ongoing 5 year supply 

142/20 North of Hebron Rd. West 2.0ha 80 (40) 

Phase 3 TOTAL 80 (40) 

TOTAL 9.6ha 320 (160) 

100% 

Greenfield 

100% 

Green 

commentary 

The housing element of this site is 

5.3ha in total – the release of 4ha 

of this site in phase 1 would 

deliver the required housing for 

this phase on one available and 

developable site. 

4.0ha of this site is to be released 

in Phase 1 – the remainder of the 

site (1.3ha) will contribute to 

phase 2 housing requirements, 

provide access to site 142/19 and 

help maintain a 5 year supply. 

The development of this site in the 

second part of phase 2 would be a 

logical extension of site 142/14e, 

provide access to site 142/20 and 

could provide the required housing 

at a higher density of 35dph in 

view of its proximity to the town 

centre. 

The development of this site 

would be a logical extension of 

site 142/19 and deliver the 

required housing for this phase at 

a density of 40dph (in view of 

proximity to town centre & the 

neighbouring density of 35 dph). 

Justification: 

• these sites comprise land that is not known to be liable to flood (either 

naturally or as a result of a potential failure/breach of flood relief scheme - 

see Annex E, E3, of PPS25) or have any other known land drainage issues; 

• the sites have the least visual impact on the landscape and setting of the 

town of all the realistically available options; 

• the sites, cumulatively, have satisfactory access to the road network with 

opportunity for pedestrian links to the town centre; 

• the sites allow for appropriate phasing over the plan period. 



26

Stokesley West - sites proposed for community and employment use 

Site Ref Site Name Area Possible Type of Development 

142/14 d White House Farm 3.00ha Public open space / accessible parkland 

142/14e i White House Farm 0.80ha Small employment starter units 

142/14e ii White House Farm 0.80ha Pocket Park area 

142/14e iii White House Farm 0.30ha Skateboard Park 

TOTAL 

4.90ha 


• the site of the existing farm buildings to the south of Westlands will provide 

for a conversion and/or redevelopment opportunity to provide a range of 

employment start-up units, good quality B1 type development, close to the 

town centre and new housing; 

• the provision of a skateboard park would satisfy an identified need 

(Stokesley Area Group Action Plan) and the pocket park would provide a 

suitable buffer between existing residential development and the small 

employment area and skateboard park to the west. 

• a larger area of green space to the north west corner of the housing 

development could provide the required formal public open space to serve 

the new housing development to the south and east in addition to other 

open space with public access. 

Stokesley South East – site proposed for employment uses: 

Site Ref Site Name Area Possible 

use 

Possible Type of Development 

(Based on EDS) 

142/26 ii 

Stokesley Business Park 

– East 

5.20ha employment Range of employment uses. 

TOTALS 

5.20ha 


• There is a need for around 6ha of additional employment land in the 

Stokesley Sub Area. The remainder of site 142/26 (excluding the recently 

approved Armstrong Richardson site) would provide a further 5.2ha of that 

requirement adjacent to the existing established employment area which, 

in addition to the site at White House Farm (0.8ha), would satisfy the 

employment land requirement for the area. 

• access is readily available and landscaping treatment (tree planting) has 

already taken place around much of the site to reduce visibility from the 

east (B1257). 



27

Stokesley: rejected development options 

3.4.10 The following options are not preferred for development for the reasons 

indicated. 

Stokesley West 

3.4.11 This option could provide all the housing required for Stokesley to the west of 

the town centre, though some of the land is within watercourse floodplains. 

Site Ref 

Site Name 

Area 

Greenfield 

or 

brownfield 

Possible 

Yield 

(50% 

Affordable) 


142/14b 

Land north of 

Sowerby Crescent 

20.1ha Greenfield 600 (300) Housing 

TOTAL 20.1ha 729 (365) 

Reasons for rejection: 

• development on this site before the development of neighbouring sites 

would not relate well to the existing form of the settlement; 

• development on this site would provide housing numbers in the Stokesley 

sub area far in excess of that required in the RSS, and the adopted Core 

Strategy; 

• smaller and more, or equally, suitable alternative sites are available; 

• a significant part of site 142/14b is susceptible to flooding. 



28

Stokesley South East 

3.4.12 This option would provide additional employment land by extending the existing 

industrial estate in a south and south easterly direction towards Kirkby and 

Great Broughton. 


use 

142/25 

Stokesley Business Park 

– South 

142/33 

142/34 

TOTAL 

Land at Broughton Bridge 

Farm 

South at Broughton Bridge 

Farm 


6.0ha Employment Employment uses 

1.55ha 

6.38ha 

7.93ha 

Office, light 

Industry or 

Storage / 

Distribution 

Facilities 

Office, light 

Industry or 

Storage / 

Distribution 

Facilities 

Employment uses 

Employment uses 


• these sites may provide a suitable extension to the existing industrial 

estate should the need arise. However, other sites better related to the 

industrial park are available and would fall to be developed first and there 

is a limited requirement for employment land. 

Stokesley North: residential proposals 

3.4.13 This option would provide for all of Stokesley housing needs but sites are 

located a significant distance from the town centre. 

Site Ref Site Name Area Greenfield 

or 

brownfield 

142/01 

Land at Mill Riggs 

Farm. 

142/06a 

142/06b 

Tanton Estates north 

of Jacksons Drive 

Tanton Estates, 

Tanton Rd. 

Possible 

Yield (50% 

Affordable) 

1.27ha Greenfield 38 housing 

2.37ha Greenfield 70 

2.38ha Greenfield 70 

142/35 Land north of B1365. 4.48ha Greenfield 135 Residential 

TOTAL 10.50ha 313 


specialist sheltered housing with 

related day care facilities and day 

nursery. 

specialist sheltered housing with 

related day care facilities and day 

nursery. 


• development to the north of the town is a significant distance (well over 

400m ) from the town centre and other essential services; 

• although not specifically identified as liable to flood, land in this area is 

known to have a high water table where there could be drainage issues; 

• alternative sites are available which are closer to the town centre and with 

potentially fewer flood risk issues. 



29

Stokesley North: employment proposals 

3.4.14 This option would provide employment land in areas to the north of Stokesley, 

detached from the existing built up area of the town. 


use 

Office, light 

Industry or 

142/27 Land fronting B1365 13.31ha Storage / 

Distribution 

Facilities 

TOTAL 

13.31ha 


develop part of this site with smaller 

business units. 


• the creation of a new industrial area when suitable and sustainable 

opportunities exist to expand the existing industrial park to the south of the 

town is not considered to be an appropriate or acceptable option. 

• this site is detached from the built up area of Stokesley and a significant 

distance from the town centre with its essential services and facilities. 

Stokesley North: retail proposal 

3.4.15 This option would provide a site for an “out of town” shopping centre on the 

Strikes Garden Centre site to the north of Stokesley. 

Site Ref Site Name Area Possible Possible Type of Development 

use 

142/22 Strikes Garden Centre 5.16ha retail large retail development - supermarket 

TOTAL 

5.16ha 


• the need for a large out of town retail centre in Stokesley is not identified in 

the Town Centres Study, would be contrary to Core Strategy Policy CP14, 

and would have a significant, potentially adverse affect on the vitality and 

viability of the Market Place. 

Stokesley South: residential proposals 

3.4.16 This option would concentrate all new residential development to the south of 

the town in the area between existing development and the established 

industrial park. 



30

Site Ref 

Site Name 

Area 

Greenfield 

or 

brownfield 

Possible 

Yield (50% 

Affordable) 


142/02a Land south of Union Mill 3.18ha Greenfield 95 Residential development. 

142/02b Land east of Union Mill 1.54ha Greenfield 46 Residential development. 

142/03 Land rear of the rectory 2.03ha Greenfield 61 Residential development. 

142/07 Land at Levenside 2.12ha Greenfield 64 Residential development. 

142/09 Land adj to the A172 0.34ha Greenfield 10 Commercial / residential. 

142/12 Bezemer’s Nurseries 0.90ha Greenfield 27 Residential development. 

142/14a Land at Thirsk Rd, 0.62ha Greenfield 19 Sheltered housing Nursing home. 

142/29 Dromanby Grange Fm 4.80ha Greenfield 144 Residential development. 

142/32 Land at Longbeck Farm 5.90ha Greenfield 177 Residential development 

TOTAL 21.43ha 643 


• most of the sites/land in this area may be susceptible to flood risk; 

• alternative sites are available which are not affected by potential flood risk; 

• many of the sites in this area are in visually prominent locations when 

viewed from the A172 and development would have an adverse impact on 

the setting of the town when viewed from the south. 

Stokesley South: employment/mixed use proposal 

3.4.17 This option could provide mixed use sites for residential and or office type 

employment uses, some on land close to the south of the town centre. 

Site Ref 

Site Name 

Area 

Greenfield 

or 

brownfield 

Possible 

use 


142/04 Land at Union Mill 1.76 40% brown Mixed Residential and employment. 

142/15 South of Levenside (N) 6.30 10% brown Mixed Residential and employment. 

142/23 Cleveland Nurseries 10.30 90% green Mixed Residential and employment. 

142/28 Stokesley Showground 6.70 Greenfield Mixed Retail and leisure uses 

142/31 Field House Farm 10.0 Greenfield Mixed Residential and employment. 

TOTAL 

6.7ha 


• a significant part of this area is shown to be land susceptible to flooding; 

• much of the land in this southern option is flat and open, and contributes to 

the character and setting of Stokesley town. 

• “the showfield” provides significant views into and out of the Stokesley 

Conservation Area and its open character is, therefore, visually important. 

• land around Union Mill is susceptible to flooding and remains at risk should 

the flood defence scheme fail in the future (see Annex E, E3, of PPS25); 

• site 142/23 is very close to Stokesley school and its use for employment 

purposes (bearing in mind the potential range and type of employment 

activities that could be involved) may be inappropriate when alternative 

sites are available that are more closely related to the existing established 

industrial park and which use existing access points onto the main 

highway network. 



31

Scattered sites - Outside Development Limits 

3.4.16 These small sites are a significant distance from Stokesley Town Centre. 

Site Ref 

Site Name 

Area 

Greenfield 

or 

brownfield 

Possible 

Yield 

(50% 

Affordable) 


142/30 Peaton Carr Farm 0.21ha Greenfield 6 (3) Residential 

142/36 Stanley Grove (S) 1.04ha Greenfield 30 (15) Residential 

142/37 Long Meadow (N) 1.20ha Greenfield 36 (18) Residential 

TOTAL 2.45ha 72 (36) 

reasons for rejection: 

• sites 142/30, 142/36 and 142/37 (shown on Map 1) are too remote to be 

considered part of any realistic and sustainable development option for 

Stokesley. They are shown in the Map for the sake of completeness but 

are not considered suitable for housing development. 

Estimated yield from the preferred allocations 

3.4.17 The preferred development package should provide: 

• approximately 320 additional new dwellings on allocated sites in 

Stokesley, calculated at approx 30 to 40 dwellings per hectare depending 

on the site location. This, in addition to the 69 completions/commitments 

(a total of 389 dwellings) represents 67% of the proposed housing for the 

Stokesley Sub Area for the period 2004-2021, and thus is in accord with 

Policy CP6 requirement that at least 2/3 rd of housing in the Sub Area 

should be in Stokesley town. These dwellings will be a mix of flats, 

terraced and semi-detached units of 2, 3 and 4 bedrooms and will be 

developed on sites which abut the Development Limits as was defined in 

the District Wide Local Plan – there are thus no proposals to amend these 

existing Development Limits. The preferred sites are also close to existing 

public transport routes and existing or proposed pedestrian and cycle 

routes; 

• approximately 6.0 hectares of employment land suitable for business, 

general industry or storage and distribution uses is put forward, in the main 

located close to the existing employment area; 

• approximately 1.1 hectares of land for community use including park areas 

and skateboard park. 



32

Summary (Stokesley) 

The preferred option in Stokesley would provide the following: 

• a further 320 new homes of which 50% would be affordable 

(together with the 69 completions/commitments to date, 

representing a total of 389 dwellings for the Plan period); 

• approximately 6 hectares of employment land suitable for office 

use, general industry B2 or storage and distribution, located 

mainly adjacent to the existing employment area; 

• a skateboard park and community open spaces to the west of 

the town. 

QUESTION A1: 


ALLOCATION SITES FOR STOKESLEY – AND DO YOU 

AGREE WITH THE JUSTIFICATION GIVEN 

QUESTION A2: 




QUESTION A3: 



QUESTION A4: 


LIMITS FOR STOKESLEY – AND IF NOT, WHAT CHANGES 

DO YOU SEEK 



33

3.5 SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS - STOKESLEY SUB AREA 

SERVICE VILLAGES 

1. GREAT AYTON 

3.5.1 Great Ayton is located approximately 2.7 miles (4.5km) north east of Stokesley. 

In its role as a Service Village, Great Ayton has been recognised as being able 

to provide a level of services and facilities for its surrounding area. Generally, 

service villages have a limited but sufficient range of shops and facilities to 

make them suitable to accommodate some modest development. Key 

characteristics of Great Ayton include: 

 

 

 

 

 


The settlement of Great Ayton was not assessed in the way that smaller 

service villages were (Village Services report - June 2005) as it was clear 

that it has a range of services and facilities greater than any other in the 

Stokesley sub area. Shops and similar facilities are mainly along the High 

Street (between the bridge and High Green) with a Police Station and 

Church along Guisborough Road. Some recreation facilities exist 

alongside the river at Low Green with Sports provision (cricket ground) to 

the East of Wainstones Close; 


There are employment opportunities in Great Ayton, however, employment 

opportunities also exist at the nearby Stokesley Business Park, 

approximately 2.7 miles (4.5km) to the south west; 


There are areas alongside the River Leven which are known to be 

susceptible to flooding though the majority of sites put forward for 

development are not affected. Great Ayton has been designated a 

Conservation Area; 


Great Ayton lies on the A173 link between Stokesley and the Moors Road 

(A171) at Guisborough. Links to the surrounding road network are, 

therefore, good; 

significant areas of brownfield land: 

There are few areas of brownfield land at Great Ayton. 



34

you told us that….. 

• there was significant support from respondents for 3 sites – site 58/016, 

58/02 and 58/06; 

• 5 sites generated much opposition; site 58/01a, 58/01b, 58/04, 58/07 and 

58/05a (the reasons for the opposition were a combination of flooding, 

traffic and environmental issues); 

• most Great Ayton respondents did not see any need to change the 

Development Limits; 

• respondents suggested that there was a need for additional recreation 

and community facilities as well as retaining existing ones (such as the 

football field); 

• suggestions were made for employment uses, especially light industry 

and for transport proposals including junction improvements 

Sources: ‘Consultation Statement’ and Village Services Town & Parish Council Consultation Report (2005) 

Great Ayton: potential development sites and Development Limits 

3.5.2 Map 3 sets out all sites that have been put forward for possible development in 

Great Ayton, and indicates a single preferred option for allocation. In addition, 

reflecting Core Policy CP4, and based on the principles contained in 

Development Policy DP8, revised Development Limits are proposed for Great 

Ayton on Map 3. The Development Limits boundary contained in the former 

District Wide Local Plan has been reviewed in proposing this new boundary – it 

takes account of the proposal for new development advanced here, and 

includes no other changes, consistent with the intentions of Development Limits 

to appropriately constrain the growth of the settlement (as set out in 

Development Policy DP8). 



35

MAP 3: Great Ayton - Options, Preferred Sites and Phasing 



36

Preferred sites 

3.5.3 The preferred sites for allocation are as follows: 

Site 

Ref 

Site Name 


Site 

area 

Possible 

Yield 

at 50% 

Affordable 

Greenfield 

or 

brownfield 

NONE 0.0ha 0 N/A 

Total for Phase 1 0.0ha 0 



Total for Phase 2 0.0ha 0 


058/02 

058/06 

Grounds of Cleveland 

Lodge. 

Slaughterhouse, Linden 

Avenue 

0.89ha 35 (18) Greenfield 

0.54ha 17 (8) Brownfield 

Total for Phase 3 1.43ha 52 (26) 

TOTAL 1.43ha 52 (26) 

0.5ha (B) 

0.9ha (G) 

Commentary 

Sufficient land has been allocated 

elsewhere in this Phase to comply 

with Core Strategy requirements 

(see commentary on phase 3 site 

below). 


elsewhere in this Phase to comply 

with Core Strategy requirements 

(see commentary on phase 3 site 

below). 

Higher density development on 

this site, within the parkland 

setting of a Grade II Listed 

building, has been put forward 

specifically for “Very Sheltered 

Housing”. 

The owner of this particular site 

has indicated that the site will be 

available later in this phase. 


• development in this part of the grounds of Cleveland Lodge would not be 

visually conspicuous or cause significant harm to the character or 

appearance of the village. The site is close to the services and facilities 

within the village, therefore this site is eminently suitable for the provision of 

much needed very sheltered housing; 

• the Slaughterhouse site is within the existing Development Limits and is 

suitable for re-development provided a satisfactory access can be achieved 

– this site has been scheduled for release later in phase 3 as the owner has 

indicated that it will not be available until then. 

3.5.4 The preferred option of these two sites could provide around 52 new homes of 

which at least 50% would be affordable. In view of the proximity of the 

Stokesley Industrial Park no employment allocation is proposed for Great 

Ayton. 



37

Great Ayton: rejected options 

3.5.5 The following sites in Great Ayton have been considered for development and 

have been rejected. Each site is identified below together with the reason(s) for 

rejection. 

Site Ref Site Name Area 

058/01a 

058/01b 

058/01c 

058/01d 

058/03 

058/03a 

Great Ayton Cricket 

Field and lands to the 

SE (3.37ha - part of 

the larger site) 

Land south west of 

Great Ayton 

Land off Angrove Drive 

and Marwood Drive. 

Land west of Great 

Ayton 

Neatstead Farm, 

Station Road. 

Land at Little Ayton 

Lane & Station Lane 

Greenfield 

or 

brownfield 

8.23 ha Greenfield 

34.04 

ha 

14.94 

ha 

Possible 

Yield (50% 

Affordable) 

135 (67) 

40dph 

Greenfield - 

Greenfield - 

6.55 ha Greenfield - 

1.07 ha Greenfield 30 (15) Residential. 


Type of Development 

Relocating the sports facility and 

developing part of the sports field 

(3.37ha) could deliver a mix of 

smaller two or three bed units. 

Either employment or housing. 

058/04 Land at Easby Lane 2.21 ha Greenfield 66 (33) Residential. 

058/07 Land at Little Ayton 

23.88 

ha 

Greenfield - Residential. 

058/07a 

Land east of Easby 10.33 

410 (max) 

Greenfield 

Lane (or part of site !) ha 

40dph 

Residential. 

058/08 Land at Low Green 0.6 ha Greenfield 18 (9) Mix of larger houses and/or flats. 

058/09 

Land at Guisborough 

Road 


058/09a 

Land at Guisborough 

Road (east) 

3.73 ha Greenfield - Residential. 

058/09b Land north of B1292 2.85 ha Greenfield - 

058/10 

Land at Yarm Lane 

(South) 


058/11 Suggitts Field 2.67 ha Greenfield 36 (18) Residential. 

058/11a Suggitts Field (west) 1.47 ha Greenfield 

40 (20) 

40dph 

Residential. 

058/12 

Land to the rear of 

Linden Grove 


058/13 

Land to the east and 

north of Roseberry 6.28 ha Greenfield - 

Crescent 

058/13a 

Land north of 

Roseberry Crescent 


058/13b 

Land to the east and 

south of Roseberry 

Crescent 


058/14 

Land north of 

Skottowe Crescent 


Land north of the 

058/15 allotments 


058/16 

Land east of Ayton 

50 (25) 


Hall 

40dph 

Residential. 

058/17 

Land at Low Green 

(west) 


058/18 

Land west of Skottowe 

Crescent 


058/19 


A173. 

23.71 ha Greenfield - Residential.. 



38


Greenfield 

or 

brownfield 

Possible 

Yield (50% 

Affordable) 

058/20 Land north of Yarm Ln. 15.74 ha Greenfield - Residential. 

058/21 Ayton station 0.61 ha Greenfield - Residential. 


Site 58/01a: Great Ayton Cricket Field and land to the south east 

3.5.6 This large 8ha site includes the Great Ayton cricket pitch and adjacent land to 

the south east. 


• part of the submitted site is a valuable open area used for sport and 

recreation purposes; 

• developing this large site would not respect the character or form of the 

settlement, and even developing the sports fields only (3.37ha) would 

deliver more housing than would be appropriate for this service village. 

Site 58/01b: Land south west of Great Ayton 

3.5.7 This large 34ha Greenfield site has been put forward for housing and 

employment purposes in addition to providing a road link between the A173 and 

Easby Lane. 


• development on this site would be visually conspicuous and inappropriate 

when viewed from the southern approach to the village; 

• a large employment allocation in this village is not considered to be an 

appropriate and sustainable development option when more suitable 

alternatives exist at nearby Stokesley. 

Site 58/01c: Land off Angrove Drive and Marwood Drive. 

3.5.8 This large 15ha Greenfield site wraps around the southern corner of Angrove 

Drive and proposes a link between the A173 with Easby Lane. Various 

development scenarios have been put forward for this large site (including all or 

just parts of the site). 


• development on this scale would be visually conspicuous and 

inappropriate for Great Ayton; 

• development on much of the site would appear as a significant and 

unnecessary visual intrusion into the pleasant rural landscape which 

surrounds the southern approach to the village. 



39

Site 58/01d: Land west of Great Ayton 

3.5.9 This 6.5ha Greenfield site (which includes site 058/04) includes land to the east 

of the A173 opposite Greenacre Close in addition to land west of Marwood 

Drive and Angrove Close. 


• development on this scale is would not be in accord with the Core Strategy 

and smaller elements would have an adverse affect on this pleasant 

southern approach to the village. 

Site 58/03: Neatstead Farm, Station Road. 

3.5.10 This small site lies to the south of Station Road and is currently an animal feed 

business. There are several old and/or redundant farm buildings on the site. 


• pedestrian links to the village are not very good; 

• part of this site is shown as being susceptible to flooding. 

Site 58/03a: Land at Little Ayton Lane and Station Lane 

3.5.11 This 2.5ha mixed Greenfield/brownfield site lies to the south of Little Ayton 

Lane. 


• development in this area would adversely affect the rural character and 

appearance of this pleasant entrance to the village from Little Ayton; 

• parts of the site are shown as being susceptible to flooding. 

Site 58/04: Land at Easby Lane (all or part of site) 

3.5.12 This site lies to the west of Easby Lane and vehicular access could be achieved 

from both Angrove Drive and/or Easby Lane itself. 


• the rear (west of the site has land drainage issues and there are known 

highway drainage problems on the neighbouring estate (Angrove Drive); 

• the site is visible from the A173 approach to the village; 

• the development of this site met with opposition in the consultations 

process. 



40

Site 58/07: Land at Little Ayton 

3.5.13 Part of this large 24ha site has been put forward for recreation purposes (public 

parkland alongside the river). The precise area for the parkland use and the 

proposed use for the remainder of the land has not been specified. 


• the site is a considerable distance from the village centre where its formal 

designation as a public parkland without parking and similar facilities could 

be questioned; 

• residential development on this site would appear detached from the 

village and would not respect its character and form; 

• the site is affected by a public right of way that should be kept clear at all 

times. 

Site 58/07a: Land east of Easby Lane 

3.5.14 This large Greenfield site abuts existing development at Byemore Avenue and 

lies to the north-east of Easby Lane (at Halfpenny Hill). 


• the site is too large in total for the development needs of the settlement; 

• development on this site would further extend the village into open 

countryside in a manner contrary to its traditional form and character; 

• development on this site would have an adverse, visually intrusive affect 

on this pleasant rural location. 

Site 58/08: Land at Low Green 

3.5.15 This small site is the front curtilage of Ayton Hall (which is a Listed Building). 


• development on this site would detract from the setting of Ayton Hall 

especially when viewed from Low Green, which is an important recreation 

area; 

• development on this site would detract from the pleasant open character of 

this part of the Great Ayton Conservation Area. 



41

Site 58/09: Land at Guisborough Road 

3.5.16 This 2.6ha Greenfield site has a relatively narrow frontage onto the northern 

side of Guisborough Road, a short distance east of its junction with the B1292. 


• development on this site would detract from the existing pleasant northern 

approach to the village; 

• development on this site, if treated in isolation, would appear as an 

isolated development unrelated to the existing built up parts of the village 

• the site is further away from the village’s services and facilities than are 

other available sites. 

Site 58/09a: Land at Guisborough Road (east) 

3.5.17 This large prominently located Greenfield site lies at the northern approach to 

the village on the western side of Guisborough Road. 


• development on this site would detract from the existing pleasant northern 

approach to the village; 

• the site is further away from the village’s services and facilities than are 

other available sites; 

• development on this site would breach the clearly defined northern 

boundary of the village formed by Guisborough Road. 

Site 58/09b: Land north of B1292 

3.5.18 This 2.8ha Greenfield site lies at the junction of the B1292 and Guisborough 

Road at the northern side of the village. 


• development on this site would detract from the existing pleasant north 

western approach to the village; 

• development on this site would appear as an isolated housing 

development unrelated to the existing built up area of the village; 

• the site is further away from the village’s services and facilities than other 

available sites. 



42

Site 58/10: Land at Yarm Lane 

3.5.19 This small Greenfield site lies to the south of Yarm Lane at the western 

approach to the village. 


• the site is a visually important open area which abuts the western 

boundary of the Great Ayton Conservation Area; 

• a considerable part of the site is shown as being susceptible to flooding. 

Site 58/11: Suggitts Field 

3.5.20 This 2.7ha Greenfield site lies to the south of the river at High Street, Great 

Ayton. Parts of the site are identified as being of townscape importance in 

addition to being of recreational value in the DWLP. The site is also a protected 

area of greenspace (Green Wedge). 


• the area provides an attractive undeveloped setting for the river as it runs 

through this part of the Great Ayton Conservation Area; 

• parts of the site are of considerable recreational value; 

• there could be significant difficulty in achieving a suitable means of 

vehicular access to the site; 

• the northern and eastern parts of this site may be susceptible to flooding. 

Site 58/11a: Suggitts Field (west) 

3.5.21 This 1.5ha site lies to the south of “Hollygarth” and East of “Charters Mead” 


• there could be difficulty in creating a suitable means of access to this site. 

Site 58/13: Land to the east and north of Roseberry Crescent 

3.5.22 This large Greenfield site lies to the north of the village on the east side of the 

A173 Guisborough Road east of the Roseberry Crescent estate. 


• the site is to remote from village services and facilities to provide a 

sustainable development option; 

• the site as a whole would provide far more housing than would be required 

for the plan period. 



43

Site 58/13a: Land to the north of Roseberry Crescent 


A173 Guisborough Road. An access route to this site exists through the 

existing estate, Roseberry Crescent, so a new access onto the A173 is unlikely 

to be required. 


• the site is too remote from village services and facilities to provide a 

sustainable development option; 

• residential development on this site would not be an appropriate 

sustainable option when more suitable sites closer to the centre exist and 

are available. 

Site 58/13b: Land to the east and south of Roseberry Crescent 


A173 Guisborough Road, east of the Roseberry Crescent estate. 


• the site does not have any apparent means of access (other than through 

neighbouring sites - e.g. 058/13); 

• development on this site, in isolation, would not respect the character or 

form of the village. 

Site 58/14: Land north of Skottowe Crescent 

3.5.25 This 3ha site lies to the north of the Skottowe Crescent estate, west of the 

allotment gardens. 


• the site has no suitable means of vehicular access; 






44

Site 58/15: Land north of the allotments 

3.5.26 This 2.6ha site is north of the allotment gardens and is detached from the built 

up part of the village 


• the site is a visually prominent and detached from the built up part of the 

village; 




Site 58/16: Land east of Ayton Hall 

3.5.27 This small 1.3ha site lies north of the Church and east of Ayton Hall. 


• development on this site could adversely affect the setting of the Church 

and Ayton Hall (Listed Buildings); 

• development on this site would adversely affect views into and out of the 

Great Ayton Conservation Area; 

• there is no suitable vehicular access to this site other than through 

neighbouring land. 

Site 58/17: Land at Low Green (west) 

3.5.28 This small site lies at the western end of Low Green, south of Topcliffe House. 


• residential development on this site would adversely affect the open 

character and appearance of this part of the Great Ayton Conservation 

Area. 

Site 58/18: Land west of Skottowe Crescent 

3.5.29 This 3.6ha site lies to the west of the Skottowe Crescent estate, north of the 

church. 


• the site is a considerable distance form the services and facilities available 

in the village. 

• development on the southern part of this site could adversely affect the 

setting of the Church and Ayton Hall which are Listed buildings lying in the 

Conservation Area. 



45

Site 58/19: Land north of the A173. 

3.5.30 This large site lies at the south western entrance to Great Ayton. 


• the site is prominent and visually important at the main (A173) entrance to 

the settlement; 

• the site is too large to develop in total and smaller alternative sites are 

available. 

Site 58/20: Land north of Yarm Lane. 

3.5.31 This large site lies to the West of Great Ayton. 


• a small part of the site is susceptible to flooding; 

• the site is an attractive and prominent entrance to the village from the 

west; 

• the site is too large to develop in total and smaller alternative sites are 

available. 

Site 58/21: Ayton Station. 

3.5.32 This small site (in Little Ayton Parish) at Ayton Station is a remote brownfield 

site almost 1 mile outside Great Ayton. 


• the site is too remote from the main built up area to permit a sustainable 

form of development. 



46

Summary (Great Ayton) 

The preferred options in Great Ayton would provide the following: 

• approximately 52 new homes of which 50% would be affordable, 

on two sites located relatively close to the village centre. 

QUESTION B1: 


ALLOCATION SITES FOR GREAT AYTON – AND DO YOU 

AGREE WITH THE JUSTIFICATION GIVEN 

QUESTION B2: 




QUESTION B3: 



QUESTION B4: 


LIMITS FOR GREAT AYTON – AND IF NOT, WHAT 




47

2. GREAT BROUGHTON 


3.5.33 Great Broughton is located approximately 2 miles (3.4km) south-east of 

Stokesley, midway between the Service Centre and the boundary of the North 

York Moors National Park. In its role as a Service Village, Great Broughton, 

has been recognised as being able to provide a level of services and facilities 

for its surrounding area. Generally, service villages have a limited but sufficient 

range of shops and facilities to make them suitable to accommodate some 

modest development. Key characteristics of Great Broughton include: 

 

 

 

 

 


The village of Great Broughton, benefits from a shop/post office, 2 places 

of worship and 3 public houses. All facilities are within the boundary of the 

settlement and within easy walking distance; 


There are few employment opportunities/areas in Great Broughton. 

However, employment opportunities exist at the Stokesley Business Park, 

1.5m (2.7km) to the north west; 


There are no significant environmental constraints in Great Broughton 

though a small area to the south of the village is susceptible to flooding. 

Great Brought was designated a Conservation Area on 23rd October 

1990; 


Great Broughton is located at the northern end of the main moors route to 

Helmsley (B 1257). Bus services exist to both Stokesley and Northallerton; 


There are no significant areas of brownfield land at Great Broughton. 

you told us that… 

• land to the north of Hall Garth received support for development; 

• no sites attracted significant opposition; 

• a greater number of respondents wanted “no change” to development 

limits than those who did; 

• a site should be allocated for a shop with a parking area. 




48

Great Broughton: potential development sites and Development Limits 


Great Broughton, and indicates preferred options for allocation. In addition, 

reflecting Core Policy CP4, and based on the principles contained in 

Development Policy DP8, revised Development Limits are proposed for Great 

Broughton – shown on Map 4 as SDL004 and SDL005. The Development 

Limits boundary contained in the former District Wide Local Plan has been 

reviewed in proposing this new boundary taking into account the proposal for 

new development and other changes, consistent with the intentions of 

Development Limits to appropriately constrain the growth of the settlement (as 

set out in Development Policy DP8). Annex 2 describes the changes proposed 

to the boundary that are not related to site allocations proposed here. 



49

MAP 4: Great Broughton - Options, Preferred Sites and Phasing 



50

Preferred Sites 




057/09 

Broughton Grange Farm 

(Part) 

Possible 

Yield 

(50% 

Affordable) 

Greenfield 

or 

brownfield 

1.30ha 38(19) Greenfield 

Phase 1 Total 38(19) 



Phase 2 Total 0.0ha 0 N/A 



Phase 3 Total 0.0ha 0 N/A 

0.0ha (B) 

TOTAL 1.3ha 38(19) 

1.3.ha (G) 

commentary 

This site has been placed in this 

phase as the HNS specifies the 

greatest housing need to be 

around the Stokesley villages. 


in this village to comply with Core 

Strategy requirements. 


in this village to comply with Core 

Strategy requirements. 


• development on this site would respect the existing character and form of 

the village; 

• site 057/09 has existing screening to the south and development in this area 

would have minimal adverse landscape impact. 

3.5.36 The preferred option of this site could provide around 38 new homes of which 

50% would be affordable. In view of the proximity of the Stokesley Industrial 

Park, no employment allocation is proposed for Great Broughton. 



51

Great Broughton: rejected options 

3.5.37 The following sites in Great Broughton have been considered for development 

and have been rejected. Each site is identified below together with the 

reason(s) for rejection: 

Site 

Ref 

Site Name 

Area 

Greenfield 

or 

brownfield 

Possible 

Yield (50% 

Affordable) 

057/01 Land at Kirkby Lane 0.35 ha Greenfield 10(5) Residential. 

Land north of Hall 

66 (33) 

057/03 Garth (sites 057/07 & 1.67 ha Greenfield 

Residential. 

40dph 

057/08 combined). 

057/05 

057/08 

057/11 

057/12 

057/13 

057/14 

Land at Back Lane 

(part OS 8970), 

Land north of Hall 

Garth (part of 57/03) 

Land west of the 

Kirkby and Great 

Broughton Primary 

School. 

Land west of Great 

Broughton. 

Land at Back Lane 

(South). 

Land South of Ingleby 

Road. 


17 (8) 

40dph 

Residential. 






Site 057/01: Land at Kirkby Lane 

38 (19) 

40dph 

28 (14) 

40dph 

3.5.38 Access to this site would be possible from Kirkby lane. 

Residential. 

Residential. 



• access to this site could be difficult; 

• development on this visually conspicuous site could serve to encourage 

further development between Great Broughton and Kirkby within the area 

designated as Green Wedge; 



52

Site 57/03: Land north of Hall Garth (includes sites 057/07 and 057/08) 

3.5.39 This site lies to the north of the village, west of the highway. Access could be 

either from the main road or from the cul de sac Hall Garth. This site as a 

whole includes two smaller individual sites which were given ref number 57/07 

and 57/08. 


• this site is visually prominent and clearly visible on entering the village; 

• allowing development on this site could serve to encourage development 

on the east of the highway. 

Site 57/05: Land at Back Lane (part OS 8970) 

3.5.40 This site lies to the north of the village, east of the Back Lane. 


• development on this site would extend the village eastward and would not 

respect its existing form and character; 

• the site has no natural eastern boundary; 

• the allocation of this site could encourage further development along the 

eastern side of Back Lane. 

Site 57/08: Land at Hall Garth 

3.5.41 This site (the larger part of site 058/03) lies to the west of the highway at the 

northern approach to the village. Access may be possible from the main road, 

B1257. 


• development on this site would be visually prominent on entering the 

village; 

• the allocation and appropriate development of this site and neighbouring 

land would be an excessive allocation for this service village. 

Site 57/10: Curtilage land south of 43 High Street 

3.5.42 This small brownfield site (identified under the Urban Potential Study – ref 

057/04) lies within current development limits and the Great Broughton 

Conservation Area. The development of this site has already received planning 

permission since the site was submitted for consideration as part of the 

Allocations DPD process. 

Reasons for not being included: 

• The site has already been approved for development (ref 06/01207/FUL). 



53

Site 57/11: Land west of the Primary School 

3.5.43 This site lies to the west of the village. Vehicular access would be from the 

main road north of the site. 


• development on this site within the area designated as Green Wedge 

would serve to support/encourage the coalescence of Kirkby and Great 

Broughton and is not therefore considered to be a suitable development 

option. 

Site 57/12: Land west of Great Broughton 

3.5.44 This large Greenfield site lies to the north and west of the village with vehicular 

access from Kirby Lane. 


• the site is detached from the built up part of the village; 

• development on this site would not respect the existing form and character 

of the village; 

• development of the whole site would far exceed the reasonable 

development needs of the village and utilizing only a small part of the site 

would create an unsustainable, isolated pocket of residential development 

in what is open countryside. 

Site 57/13: Land at Back Lane (OS 9348 - part) 

3.5.45 This site lies to the north of the village, east of the Back Lane. 


• development on this site would extend the village eastward and would not 

respect its existing form and character; 

• the allocation and appropriate development of this site would be an 

excessive allocation for this service village. 

Site 57/14: Land to the south of Ingleby Road 

3.5.46 This site lies towards the centre of the village to the east of site 57/10 above. 


• in isolation, there is no suitable access to the site. 



54

Summary (Great Broughton) 

The preferred option in Great Broughton would provide the following: 

• approximately 38 new homes, of which 50% would be affordable. 

QUESTION C1: 


ALLOCATION SITES FOR GREAT BROUGHTON – AND DO 


QUESTION C2: 




QUESTION C3: 



QUESTION C4: 


LIMITS FOR GREAT BROUGHTON – AND IF NOT, WHAT 




55

3. HUTTON RUDBY 


3.5.47 Hutton Rudby is located approximately 3 miles (5km) south-west of Stokesley. 

In its role as a Service Village, Hutton Rudby, has been recognised as being 

able to provide a level of services and facilities for its surrounding area. 

Generally, service villages have a limited but sufficient range of shops and 

facilities to make them suitable to accommodate some modest development. 

Key characteristics of Hutton Rudby include: 

 

 

 

 

 


The village of Hutton Rudby, benefits from a shop/post office, 2 places of 

worship and 3 public houses. All facilities are within the boundary of the 

settlement and within easy walking distance; 


There are few employment opportunities/areas in Hutton Rudby village 

though the haulage firm Prestons of Potto lies 1.5km (1 mile) to the south 

and the Stokesley Industrial Park is approx 6km (3.75 miles) to the north 

east; 


There are no significant environmental constraints in Hutton Rudby though 

a large part of the village centre has been designated a Conservation 

Area; 


Hutton Rudby does not lie on any principal highway route, though good 

access exists to both the A19 (at Crathorne) and the A172 (at Swainby). 

Good bus services exist to both Stokesley and Middlesbrough; 


There are no significant areas of brownfield land at Hutton Rudby. 



56

you told us that… 

• support for 2 sites stood out; 73/04 and 73/06; 

• there was opposition to sites 73/01 and 73/05; 

• there was strong opposition to a change of the Development Limits; 

• it was suggested that the village needs a Health Centre, smaller 

housing for both the elderly and the young and a re-cycling facility. 


Hutton Rudby: potential development sites and Development Limits 


Hutton Rudby, and indicates preferred options for allocation. In addition, reflecting 

Core Policy CP4, and based on the principles contained in Development Policy DP8, 

revised Development Limits are proposed for Hutton Rudby – and shown on Map 5. 

The Development Limits boundary contained in the former District Wide Local Plan 

has been reviewed in proposing this new boundary – it takes account of the proposal 

for new development advanced here, and includes no other changes, consistent with 

the intentions of Development Limits to appropriately constrain the growth of the 

settlement (as set out in Development Policy DP8). 



57

MAP 5: Hutton Rudby - Options, Preferred Sites and Phasing 



58

Preferred Site 




Possible 

Yield 

(50% 

Affordable) 

Brownfield 

or 

Greenfield 


Total Phase 2 0.0ha 0 


073/04 

(inclb&c) 

North of Garbutts Lane 

(part). 

1.5 ha 45(22) greenfield 

Total Phase 2 1.5 ha 45(22) 



Total Phase 2 0.0ha 0 

TOTAL 1.5ha 45 (22) 1.5.ha (G) 

commentary 


in other villages to comply with 

Core Strategy requirements for 

this sub area. 

Mix of house types (1 to 3 bed 

units) 


in other villages to comply with 

Core Strategy requirements for 

this sub area. 


• these sites are close to village services and facilities; 

• the development of this land would link existing isolated (affordable) 

development with the nearby residential estate. 

3.5.50 The preferred option of these two sites could provide 45 new homes of which 

50% would be affordable. In view of the proximity of the Stokesley Industrial 

Park no employment allocation is proposed for Hutton Rudby. 



59

Hutton Rudby: rejected options 

3.5.51 The following sites in Hutton Rudby have been considered for development and 

have been rejected. Each site is identified below together with the reason(s) for 

rejection. 


Greenfield 

or 

brownfield 

Possible 

Yield (40% 

Affordable) 

073/01 

Land south of Garbutts 

Lane 


073/01a 


40 (20) 


Lane (NE) 

40dph 

Residential. 

073/04 

Land north of Garbutts 

70 (35) 


Lane 

40dph 

Residential. 

073/05 Land SE of Enterpen 4.9 ha Greenfield - Residential. 

073/08 

Land at Gardenstone 

Farm 


073/09 Land at Allotments 2.93 ha Greenfield 

073/10 

073/10a 

073/11 

073/12 

073/13 


Green 

Land to the rear of 

North End 


cricket ground 


Lane (North) 

Land NE of Linden 

Crescent 




88 (44) 

Possible type of development 

Residential. 

- Residential. 

30 

40dph 

Residential. 

3.04 ha Greenfield Residential. 


073/14 Hutton Rudby School 1.20 ha Brownfield - Residential. 

073/15 

073/15a 

073/15b 

073/16 

Land at Belbrough 

Lane 


Lane (south) 


Lane (east) 

Land at Drumrauck 

Hall 

4.00 ha Brownfield 




- Residential. 

Site 73/01: Land south of Garbuts Lane 

3.5.52 This large site lies to the west of the village and could be accessed by means of 

an existing road link from the Langbaurgh Road estate. 


• the site has only one means of access which could limit its eventual 

development capacity; 

• although relatively close to village services and facilities, nearer, more 

suitable sites are available; 

• this site, in total, is too large to accommodate the modest development 

needs of the village; 

• opposition to the development of this site was made known as part of the 

consultation process. 



60

Site 73/01a: Land south of Garbuts Lane (NE) 

3.5.53 This small site forms part of site 073/01 (OS2913) and does not have a suitable 

means of vehicular access. 


• the site is not served by a suitable or satisfactory means of vehicular 

access. 

Site 73/05: Land SE of Enterpen 

3.5.54 This large site is made up of 3 or 4 smaller elements, the larger part of which is 

behind properties that front onto Enterpen. 


• part of the site (73/05c) is within the Hutton Rudby Conservation Area, the 

openness of which provides a visually important open space that should 

not be developed (had this important site remained within development 

limits, it is likely to have been protected under Policy DP10); 

• development on this site would have a significant adverse visual impact on 

the landscape; 

• opposition to the development of this site was made known as part of the 

consultation process. 

Site 73/08: Land at Gardenstone Farm 

3.5.55 This large site lies to the south of Hutton Rudby and would wrap around the 

playing field opposite Linden Crescent. 


• this site is without existing natural boundaries and is too large and remote 

to be a preferable development option (for housing or employment); 

• the site is within a visually prominent open location where further 

development would be visually unacceptable while alternative, more 

suitable, options still exist. 



61

Site 73/09: Land at Allotments 

3.5.56 This area in the centre of the village is considered to be part Greenfield and 

part brownfield. 


• this site is an area of townscape importance and much of the site is 

protected under Policy DP10; 

• part of the site is in use as allotments and protected as an area of 

recreation value; 

• it is not considered appropriate to develop this area while other, more 

suitable, sites still exist. 

Site 73/10 and 10a: Land north of the Green 

3.5.57 This large site lies to the north of the village between development fronting the 

Village Green and the River Leven. 


• development on this site would have a significant adverse affect on the 

character and appearance of the Hutton Rudby Conservation Area; 

• development on this site would have significant adverse landscape 

implications. 

Site 73/11: Land north of the cricket ground 

3.5.58 This small site lies to the north of the Cricket Ground off Garbutts Lane. 


• this isolated site is detached from the village where development would be 

visually inappropriate and adversely affect the potential of the recreational 

land at its southern boundary; 

• the site’s shape would make it only suitable for a linear form of 

development which would appear as an incongruous form of development 

in the open countryside. 



62

Site 73/12: Land south of Garbutts Lane (North) 

3.5.59 This large site lies to the west of the village alongside Garbutts Lane. 


• the site is prominently located at the entrance to the village whereon 

development would create a significant adverse visual impact. 

Site 73/13: Land NE of Linden Crescent 

3.5.60 This site lies to the rear of residential and recreational buildings (Village Hall) 

which front Belbrough Lane. 


• housing on this backland site would not produce an acceptable form of 

development; 

• development in this area is not considered appropriate while other, more 

suitable, sites still exist. 

Site 73/14: Hutton Rudby School 

3.5.61 This site is presently the village school. 


• this central site is presently most suitable for its current use, as the village 

school. 

Site 73/15: Land at Belbrough Lane 

3.5.62 This site has arisen as a result of a suggested revision to development limits 

which, if accepted, would produce a 4ha site with development potential around 

a large detached property off Belbrough Lane. 


• this suggested revision to development limits is not acceptable as it would 

bring a large area of land within the boundary, suggesting that it would be 

suitable for development although it is located a significant distance from 

many of the village’s services and facilities. 



63

Site 73/15a: Land at Belbrough Lane (south) 


which, if accepted, would produce a 0.5ha site with development potential 

fronting Belbrough Lane. 


• this proposed revision to development limits is not acceptable as it would 

create a 0.5ha site with development potential located a considerable 

distance from many of the village services and facilities; 

• development on this site at or above 30dph (as recommended in PPS3) 

would appear as a visually isolated and incongruous development in the 

open countryside. 

Site 73/15b: Land at Belbrough Lane (east) 


which, if accepted, would produce a 0.9ha site which comprises the front 

gardens of 4 detached properties fronting Belbrough Lane. 




distance from many of the village services and facilities. 

Site 73/16: Land at Drumrauck Hall 


which, if accepted, would produce a 3.11ha site which comprises the front 

gardens of 4 detached properties fronting Belbrough Lane. 




distance from many of the village services and facilities. 



64

Summary (Hutton Rudby) 

The preferred options in Hutton Rudby would provide the following: 

• 45 new homes, of which 50% would be affordable, located close to 

services and facilities in the village. 

QUESTION D1: 


ALLOCATION SITES FOR HUTTON RUDBY – AND DO 


QUESTION D2: 




QUESTION D3: 



QUESTION D4: 


LIMITS FOR HUTTON RUDBY – AND IF NOT, WHAT 




65

3.6 STOKESLEY SUB AREA SECONDARY VILLAGES 

3.6.1 The Core Strategy (para. 3.4) indicates that in the designated ‘Secondary 

Villages’ limited development may be acceptable where it clearly supports a 

local need and contributes to the sustainability of the local community. In the 

Stokesley Sub Area, Secondary Villages are designated at: 

− Ingleby Arncliffe 

− Kirkby 

− Seamer 

3.6.2 Reflecting Core Policy CP4, and based on the principles contained in 

Development Policy DP8, revised Development Limits are proposed for the 

Secondary Villages within the Stokesley Sub Area. These Development Limits 

are shown on Maps 7 – 13. In each case the Development Limits boundary 

contained in the former District Wide Local Plan has been reviewed in 

proposing the new boundary – where appropriate this includes minor changes, 

consistent with the intentions of Development Limits to appropriately constrain 

the growth of the settlement (as set out in Development Policy DP8). Annex 2 

describes the changes proposed to any boundary. 

3.6.3 Opportunities for development within the proposed boundaries in these 

settlements are likely to be very limited. As Policy CP6 of the Core Strategy 

indicates, allocations for housing will only be advanced in exceptional 

circumstances in the Secondary Villages. It is considered that there are no 

such exceptional circumstances in the Stokesley Sub Area, and thus no 

allocations are proposed here. 

QUESTION E4: 


LIMITS FOR THESE SETTLEMENTS – AND IF NOT, WHAT 




66

MAP 6: Ingleby Arncliffe - Development Limits 



67

MAP 7: Kirkby - Development Limits 



68

MAP 8: Seamer - Development Limits 



69

4. SUMMARY OF PREFERRED OPTIONS: STOKESLEY SUB AREA 

Housing land proposals 

4.1 The overall implications of the preceding proposals on the Stokesley area in 

terms of housing land supply are as follows: 

• the proposals as set out above will provide approximately 455 new homes 

within the Stokesley sub-area in the Service Centre and Service Village 

settlements. This, in addition to the completed and committed dwellings 

already identified in the area for the period 2004 -2007 (approximately 124), 

meets the requirements of Policy CP5A in the Core Strategy (set out in para. 

3.1.1 above) of 580 dwellings over the plan period; 

• approximately 389 homes are planned for Stokesley town (320 on new sites, 

and 69 completed and committed dwellings), which just exceeds the 

requirement for at least 2/3 rd of the housing requirement for the Stokesley Sub 

Area set by Policy CP6 in the Core Strategy; 

• Only one of the sites proposed for development in this Sub Area (058/06) is on 

brownfield land – which, unfortunately, does not contribute significantly to the 

District target of 55%. This is due to the nature of Stokesley and the fact that 

the associated Service Villages in the Sub Area have limited brownfield 

opportunities (Note: of the 124 permissions/completions in the period April 2004- 

March 2007, 107 dwellings have been on brownfield sites – therefore the sub area 

figure for the plan whole period = 124 out of 579 = 21 %). It is expected that 

potential developments in Northallerton and Thirsk will offer more opportunities 

for development on brownfield sites; 

• in terms of a phased release of housing land in line with PPS3, the required 

totals for each of the three phases for the Stokesley Sub Area are set out in 

para. 3.1.1 above. In Stokesley as the Service Centre, and in the Service 

Villages, the proposed phasing of housing suggested in the preferred options is 

set out below. Given the existing level of commitments, this implied trajectory is 

very similar to the required three phases: 

settlement 2004 – 2011 2011 – 2016 2016 – 2021 TOTAL 

Stokesley 

(town) 

Core Strategy 

requirement 

(minimum) 

189 120 80 389 

187 100 100 387 

Service Villages 79 45 52 176 

Secondary Villages 7 0 0 7 

Other villages 7 0 0 7 

Total outside 

Stokesley town 

Core Strategy 

requirement 

93 45 52 190 

93 50 50 193 

Sub Area Total 282 165 132 579 

Core Strategy 

requirement 

280 150 150 580 



70

4.2 The Preferred Options sites are proposed to be phased as follows: 

PHASE SETTLEMENT SITE YIELD 

1* Stokesley 142/14e 120 (60) 

(2004 – Great Broughton 057/09 38(19) 

2011) TOTAL 158* 

* In addition, 124 calculated completions and commitments for the period 1 st April 2004 to 31 st 

March 2007 contribute to a total of 282 for this Phase. 


2 Stokesley 142/14e 40 (20) 

(2011 – Stokesley 142/19 80 (40) 

2016) Hutton Rudby 073/04 (incl-b&c) 45(22) 

TOTAL 165 (82) 


3 Stokesley 142/20 80 (40) 

(2016 – Great Ayton 058/02 35 (18) 

2021) Great Ayton 058/06 17 (8) 

TOTAL 132 

4.3 It should be noted that in accordance with Government Guidance contained in 

PPS3 – Housing (para. 59), no allowance is made for “windfall” developments, 

ie. housing development on sites other than those proposed to be allocated. 

Nevertheless, windfall developments naturally will occur (and proposals will be 

assessed under LDF Core Policy CP6 and Development Policies DP8, DP9 

and DP11). The scale of overall housing development, including windfall 

development, will be kept under continuous review, and documented in the 

Annual Monitoring Report. Depending on the scale of development, action 

may need to be taken to achieve the required “housing trajectory” (the scale of 

housing needed in each phase in each area - as set out in Development 

Policies DPD Annex 6). This may if necessary involve using the control 

mechanisms set out in Development Policies DPD para. 4.4.5 (including the 

earlier or later release of sites identified for subsequent phases). 

Land proposed for employment purposes 

4.4 Policy CP10A identifies the target level for employment development in the 

Stokesley Sub Area for the lifetime of the plan (2005 – 2021) as 9 hectares. A 

further requirement of around 6 hectares is needed in the Sub-Area. The 

Preferred Options identify a site to the immediate East of the existing Industrial 

Park as being suitable to provide the majority of this land for employment (Site 

ref 142/26 ii - 5.2ha). 

4.5 Other employment land will be provided as part of a mixed use development at 

White House Farm to the West of Stokesley (142/14e - 0.8ha). 



71

ANNEX 1 

THE COUNCIL’S APPROACH TO SITE SELECTION 

1. The description of the principles and factors to take into account set out in 

Section 2 reveals that the selection of sites for development is inevitably a 

complex process – even more so because of the extremely large number of 

individual sites (nearly 800 District-wide) that have been identified either by the 

Council or by others during the Issues and Options consultation. Whilst this is 

a daunting prospect in terms of analysis, this scale of proposals is a clear 

indication that engagement has been successful. The process of selection 

involves reconciling the requirements at three levels: quantity and distribution; 

site acceptability and sustainability; and timing. How in practice has this 

complicated exercise been undertaken A number of approaches might have 

been adopted, ranging from detailed quantified comparison of all sites based on 

measurement of all variables (weighted to reflect their significance), through to 

comparison between sites using more straightforward principles of selection or 

rejection. 

2. Whilst detailed quantification approaches may appear to give an objective 

assessment, ultimately their conclusions depend on the difficult task of 

measurement and comparison between inevitably disparate variables – and 

thus on subjective measures and weighting. The approach adopted here 

focuses firstly on the acceptability and sustainability merits of individual sites – 

designed to reflect commonsense principles in a simple step-by-step process, 

by categorising sites and focusing on the main strategic choices and 

preferences. Secondly the process is cyclical, in order to deal with the other 

necessary ingredients, of quantity and distribution, and timing. The 

accompanying Sustainability Appraisal has both validated the suitability of this 

approach in the Hambleton context, and provided a commentary on the 

conclusions reached. 

3. Putting the various considerations together, the overall approach adopted (for 

all land use categories) within each Sub Area has therefore been as follows: 

Step 1: 

undertake a strategic analysis of the Service Centre and Service 

Villages, considering the development constraints and opportunities 

for each, drawing together information on all the issues identified 

above, using the background evidence collected to support the LDF 

(including for example flood risk assessments, the Urban Potential 

Study and nature conservation designations). The key elements of 

this analysis are presented for comment in relation to each settlement 

in Section 3; 



72

Step 2: 

Step 3: 

Step 4: 

Step 5: 

discard all sites clearly contrary to the strategy contained in the 

Core Strategy: sieve all the sites suggested through the Issues and 

Options consultation, and reject those clearly strategically 

unacceptable, because of location in relation to a settlement in a level 

of the hierarchy not designated for development (or potentially where 

other constraints unequivocally render the site unacceptable). Only 

sites relating to the Service Centre and Service Villages are 

considered in Section 3 of this report – all other sites (ie. those 

contrary in locational terms to the Core Strategy) have been 

discounted at this stage. It should be noted also that only sites put 

forward greater than the adopted threshold (see para. 2.22) of 0.3 

hectares (or 10 dwellings or more) have been considered further; 

identify through the sequential search process those scattered 

sites clearly within the Service Centre (and the Service Villages) 

which are sustainable and developable: this selection is made 

from the remaining sites, and involves at this step provisionally 

identifying those scattered sites where development is clearly 

acceptable, such as developable brownfield sites located within the 

main settlements. The selection here follows directly the first stages 

in the sequential approach, described in paras. 2.9 and 2.15 above. 

Where sites within the Service Centre are not considered sustainable 

and developable, the logic for the rejection is documented, and 

presented in Section 3 – and comments are welcome on the validity 

of these decisions; 

identify and evaluate packages of alternatives from within the 

remaining sites: having formed an initial view which sieved out 

those sites clearly unacceptable and acceptable, marginal sites 

remain that are proposed to be main focus of analysis and public 

discussion. Based on the broad strategic analysis in Step 1, a 

number of discrete geographical directions of growth are provisionally 

identified for each Service Centre (and where appropriate the Service 

Villages), in some cases constituting packages of sites best 

considered together for development, in a co-ordinated and phased 

manner. This relates in particular to housing proposals, but options 

for the other land use categories, especially employment are also 

considered. In the case of housing, provisional phases of land 

release are also identified. The suggested Development Limits, 

taking account of the preferred alternatives, are also defined at this 

point for these settlements. The logic for the rejection of alternative 

sites at this step is documented, and presented in Section 3 – and 

comments are welcome on the validity of these decisions; 

for Secondary Villages, review the Development Limits and 

consider any exceptional justification for allocations. 

Development Limits in these Villages are proposed for public 

comment. Their definition, following Policy DP8, reflect the intentions 

of defining the hierarchy of settlements in Policy CP4 to guide the 

appropriate distribution of development – thus opportunities for 



73

development within the proposed boundaries in these settlements are 

likely to be very limited. As Policy CP6 indicates, allocations for 

housing will only be advanced in exceptional circumstances in the 

Secondary Villages. Exceptionally therefore allocations may be 

suggested for consideration, in particular where it could enable major 

environmental improvements that cannot be achieved in any other 

way, or would similarly represent the only solution to overcome 

serious infrastructure problems; 

Step 6: 

Step 7: 

measure the total quantities, distribution and timing of 

availability of sites identified through Steps 3, 4 and 5 for housing 

and employment – and compare with the requirements of the Core 

Strategy (in terms of quantity, distribution and timing); 

revisit as necessary Steps 3, 4 and 5 to establish an overall 

preferred package meeting Core Strategy requirements: adjusting 

the selection process (taking or rejecting marginally acceptable sites) 

to ensure that the end result – in the form of the Preferred Options 

package presented here – matches the requirements of the Core 

Strategy (and other guidance) in terms of quantity, distribution and 

timing. 

4. The outcome of Step 7, in terms of the package of preferred sites and the 

identified alternatives which are not preferred (and suggested Development 

Limits), is set out for public comment in Section 3 of this report. This identifies 

firstly the reasoning for the selection of sites identified under Step 3 – scattered 

sites thought clearly to be acceptable. Secondly, the alternative packages for 

development identified under Step 4 are named and located on maps, and the 

analysis explains the reasoning for the identification of a preferred option (and 

its timing), and similarly the reasons why the alternatives are thought to be less 

acceptable. Development Limits are suggested for all the settlements 

designated as Service Centres, Service Villages, and under Step 5, Secondary 

Villages. 

5. The primary objective of the Preferred Options stage is to allow the reasoning 

for the site selection to be open for comment, and for preferences for or against 

to be expressed – and indeed for alternative sites and reasoning to be 

advanced. All the comments received will be considered, and the package of 

sites reviewed, in reaching conclusions about the ultimate selection of sites that 

will comprise the submission Allocations DPD. 



74

ANNEX 2 

DEVELOPMENT LIMITS 

An explanation of changes from the District Wide Local Plan, for each boundary 

(where not related to proposed new allocations) 


MAP 3 - Great Ayton 

No amendments. 

MAP 4 - Great Broughton – SDL004 and SDL005 

Amendment to include new development together with a drawing in of 

development limits to the west of the village. 

MAP 5 - Hutton Rudby 


Secondary Villages 

MAP 6 - Ingleby Arncliffe 


MAP - 7 Kirkby 


MAP 8 - Seamer –– SDL002 

Amendment to exclude an undeveloped previous allocation. 



75

ANNEX 3 

REVIEW OF CURRENT HOUSING COMMITMENTS 

STOKESLEY SUB AREA 

List of all outstanding housing commitments by settlement 

Settlement 

Stokesley 

Great 

Ayton 

Great 

Broughton 

Site Name 

Application 

Number 

Developable 

Brown 

or 

Green 

Contribute to 

Phase 1 Housing 

Supply (2004-11) 

35 Levenside Yes Brown Yes 2 

46 High Street Yes Brown Yes 1 

4A High Street Yes Brown Yes 1 

51 High Street Yes Brown Yes 1 

Land at Springfield Yes Brown Yes 1 

Land rear of 45 High Street Yes Brown Yes 2 

Manor House Manor Close Yes Brown Yes 1 

Meadowfield Garage Yes Brown Yes 6 

Oaklands Nursing Home Yes Brown Yes 13 

Rear of 50 High Street Yes Brown Yes 1 

Springfield House Yes Brown Yes 28 

Villa Farm Yes Green Yes 1 

TOTAL 58 

11 and 13 Bridge Street 06/02109/FUL Yes Brown Yes 4 

15 Station Road 05/02675/LBC Yes Brown Yes 2 

Chartesmead, Easby Lane 01/01578/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Land Adj to 10 Roseberry 

06/00629/FUL Yes Green Yes 1 

Crsc 

Land Adj to 90 Marwood 

Drive 

2/05/058/0953A Yes Brown Yes 2 

TOTAL 10 

4 Ingleby Road 06/02216/FUL Yes Brown Yes 2 

49 High Street 06/01207/FUL Yes Brown Yes 5 

58 Kirkby Lane 2/04/057/0299C Yes Brown Yes 2 

64 Kirkby Lane 07/00158/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Blue Hall Cottages 05/02682/LBC Yes Brown Yes 1 

12 The Holme 06/00578/FUL Yes Green Yes 1 

Ings Meadows 05/02379/FUL Yes Green Yes 1 

14-16 The Holme 06/02288/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Manor Farm 05/02239/FUL Yes Green Yes 1 

TOTAL 15 

12 Eden Park Road 05/02616/FUL Yes Brown Yes 2 

Hutton 

Rudby Hutton Rudby PO 2/04/073/0238B Yes Brown Yes 2 

TOTAL 4 

Secondary 

and Other 

Villages 

TOTAL 

Brownfield = 7 

Greenfield = 6 

Yield 

13 

OVERALL TOTAL 

Brownfield = 88 

Greenfield = 12 

100 



76

ANNEX 4 

POLICIES IN THE HAMBLETON DISTRICT WIDE LOCAL PLAN 

REPLACED BY THE ALLOCATIONS DPD 

Policy 

L1 

Title 

Development Limits 

All the Hambleton District Wide Local Plan policies covering site allocations lapsed on 

27 September 2007 and they are no longer part of the Development Plan. Policy L1 

was saved by Government direction, together with 12 other policies, until superseded 

by the Development Policies DPD and the Allocations DPD. 



77

ANNEX 5 

MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION 

Implementation 

1. Ensuring that the intentions of the LDF are delivered and correctly implemented 

is of course a key concern, if the LDF’s vision and objectives are to be secured. 

Table 1 which follows specifies the performance measures and targets which 

will be adopted to secure the implementation of the Core Strategy and the 

supporting Development Policies and Allocations. 

Monitoring Arrangements 

2. Preparation of any plan should never be seen as a once and for all activity. It is 

essential to check that the plan is being implemented correctly, assess the 

outcomes that result, and check if these still remain as intended, and as 

currently desired. This requires a process of continual monitoring, and the 

potential to review the plan’s policies and proposals as and when necessary. 

3. The new planning system places great importance on the process of continual 

plan review. The separation of the components of the LDF means that each 

part can be reviewed and amended individually – leading to a more rapid and 

responsive planning system. A key component of this process is the 

requirement to produce an Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). Each year this 

will need to be submitted to the Government by the end of December, and 

relate to information up to the end of March of that year. This document will be 

similar to the regular annual monitoring reports prepared for the Hambleton 

District Wide Local Plan, but in addition to assessing the extent to which 

policies in local development documents are being achieved, it will need to 

assess progress in preparing the plan documents themselves, in other words 

monitor the achievement of the Local Development Scheme (see Core Strategy 

Annex 1, para. 4). 

Performance Indicators 

4. Progress towards any plan’s vision should be measured against a number of 

“Performance Indicators”. The Government guidance on monitoring LDFs 1 

advises that a structured approach to developing indicators is necessary, 

recognising their different types and purposes. This reflects the recommended 

approach of establishing objectives, defining policies, setting targets and 

measuring indicators. Contextual indicators should be monitored to describe 

the social, environmental and economic background of the LDF, and provide a 

basis for checking the continued relevance of the LDF and its approach. These 

will be included within the Annual Monitoring Report. Output indicators should 

be identified to measure the performance of policies, by measuring quantifiable 

1 “Local Development Framework Monitoring: A Good Practice Guide”, ODPM, March 2005 



78

physical activities that are directly related to, and are a consequence of, the 

implementation of planning policies. Their selection needs to be guided by the 

key spatial and sustainability objectives of the LDF. They are of three types: 

Core output indicators – which are identified by the Government, and must be 

collected, in order to provide a comprehensive regional and national data set; 

local output indicators – which address matters not covered by the core 

indicators, but which are important locally; and significant effects indicators – 

which assess the significant social, environmental and economic effects of 

policies, and are linked to the sustainability appraisal of the LDF, and will be 

developed through that analysis (see Core Strategy Annex 1, paras. 13-14). 

5. As the Government’s guidance indicates, the development of a monitoring 

framework will be gradual and evolutionary, as the plan is put into place, and as 

the spatial approach to planning is developed. The set of indicators collected, 

with associated targets, should be kept short, to enable collection to be 

achieved, and to provide a simple but robust set of measures of the plan’s 

performance. A set of core output and local output indicators in relation to the 

Core Strategy, the Development Policies DPD and this Allocations DPD is 

shown in the following Table 1. The assistance of the implementation agents 

who will be involved in delivering the policies will be crucial in collecting and 

measuring performance. Targets to measure performance against the 

indicators are also defined. 

6. The indicators shown in the table are intended to measure the key outcomes 

sought, and provide a brief guide to overall progress. Each Development Plan 

Document, will be monitored individually, and the results brought together in the 

Annual Monitoring Report. The involvement of partner organisations will be 

sought wherever appropriate. A close relationship will be maintained with the 

monitoring process being undertaken at the regional level, since there will also 

be an annual monitor of the Regional Spatial Strategy, which will utilise the core 

output indicators in particular. 



79

Table 1 – Local Development Framework Monitoring 

Core Strategy 

Policies 

Supporting 

Development Policies 

Indicator and Type 

Targets 

Meeting local development needs sustainably 

CP1 – Sustainable 

development 

DP1 – Protecting amenity No indicator required - 

DP2 – Securing 

developer 

contributions 

No indicator required - 

Note: Monitoring of CP1 also undertaken through DP12 and through the 

Allocations DPD 

CP2 – Access 

DP3 – Site accessibility 

Core Indicator - 3b 

Proportion of new housing within 30 

mins from key facilities by public 

transport 

70% 

Local Indicators 

No. of major developments that produce 

and implement a travel plan 

Proportion of residential development 

within 800m/13mins walk from an hourly 

bus service 

100% of major 

development 

proposals 

producing and 

implementing a 

travel plan 

DP4 – Access for all No indicator required - 

75% 

CP3 – Community 

assets 

DP5 – Community 

facilities 


No. of lost facilities or closures of 

community facilities 

No. of new community facilities provided 

or existing facilities enhanced 

75% of threatened 

closures p.a. 

averted or 

alternatives 

provided 

25% of facilities to 

be new, enhanced 

or enlarged by 

2021 

DP6 – Utilities and 

infrastructure No indicator required - 

DP7 – 

Telecommunications 


CP4 – Settlement 

hierarchy - 

Local Indicator 

Main service providers using LDF 

settlement hierarchy for the provision of 

services and facilities 

75% of main 

service providers 

using hierarchy by 

2011 



80

Core Strategy 

Policies 

Supporting 


DP8 – Development 

Limits 


Targets 


DP9 – Development 

outside Development 

Limits 

DP10 – Form and 

character of settlements 


No. of dwellings approved outside 

Development Limits when no 

exceptional circumstances 

No. and type of other developments 

approved outside Development Limits 

when no exceptional case 

No. of approvals contrary to policy within 

the HDC boundary of the York Green 

Belt 


No. of development proposals approved 

in important areas such as Green 

Wedges and Spaces of Townscape 

Importance 

0% of inappropriate 

housing 

development 

outside 

Development 

Limits 


development 

outside 

Development 

Limits 


development in the 

York Green Belt 

0% Spaces of 

Townscape 

Importance and 

Green Wedges lost 

through 

inappropriate 

development 

Developing a balanced housing market 

CP5 – The scale of 

new housing 

- 

Core Indicator – 2aii 

Completions of housing development 

within the three phasing periods to 

accord with Core Strategy 

requirements. 

Post-adoption 

housing trajectory 

to be met 

CP5A – The scale 

of new housing by 

sub-area 

- 


Net additional dwellings for current 

year by sub-area 

Post-adoption 

housing trajectory 

to be met 

CP6 – Distribution 

of new housing 

- 


% of new dwellings completed within 

each level of the settlement hierarchy 

2010-2021: 

Principal Service 

Centres 51% 

(minimum) 

Service Centres 

66.6% (minimum) 

of sub-area totals 

Figures to be set in 

Submission 

version for full 

hierarchy 

CP7 – Phasing of 

housing 

DP11 – Phasing of housing See CP5 above - 



81

Core Strategy 

Policies 

Supporting 



Targets 

DP12 – Delivering housing 

on “brownfield” land 

Core Indicator - 2b 

% of new and converted dwellings on 

previously developed land 

55% of housing 

completions on 

“brownfield” p.a. 

CP8 – Type, size 

and tenure of 

housing 

DP13 – Achieving and 

maintaining the right mix of 

housing 


Proportion and type of dwellings 

approved p.a. 

Figures to be set in 

Submission 

version based on 

findings of 

Strategic Housing 

Market 

Assessment 

DP14 – Gypsies and 

travellers’ sites 


No. of existing and new pitches 

approved District Wide compared 

against need 

No unmet need 

within the District, 

pending findings of 

Gypsy and 

Traveller 

Accommodation 

Assessment 

CP9 – Affordable 

housing 

DP15 – Promoting and 

maintaining affordable 

housing 


No. of affordable dwellings completed 

p.a. 

Proportion of affordable housing 

achieved by sub-area p.a. 

43% of new 

housing 

completions p.a. 

to be affordable 

100% of sub-area 

targets met 

Proportion of social rented and 

intermediate affordable housing 

approved p.a. 

50:50 social 

rented:intermediat 

e affordable 

housing 

CP9A – Affordable 

housing exceptions 

DP15 – Promoting and 

maintaining affordable 

housing 


No. of affordable dwellings completed 

through exception schemes 

Post-adoption 

target of 15 units 

completed p.a. 

Supporting prosperous communities 

CP10 – The scale 

and distribution of 

new employment 

development 

- 

Core Indicator - 1a 

Amount of land developed for 

employment by type p.a. 

Average of 4.5 ha 

p.a. over the plan 

period 

CP10A – The scale 

of new employment 

development by 

sub-area 

- 


Amount of land developed for 

employment by sub-area p.a. 

2010-2021: 

Bedale 0.2 ha 

Easingwold 0.7 ha 

Northallerton 1.3 

ha 

Stokesley 0.7 ha 

Thirsk 1.3 ha 



82

Core Strategy 

Policies 

Supporting 



Targets 

CP11 – Distribution 

of new employment 

development 

- 


% of employment development 

completed within each level of the 

settlement hierarchy 

2010-2021: 

Service Centres 

90% 


5% 

Secondary 

Villages/Elsewhere 

5% 

CP12 – Priorities for 

employment 

development 

DP16 – Specific measures 

to assist the economy and 

employment 


Jobs created or safeguarded to which 

the Council has made a significant 

contribution 

Percentage of “High quality” jobs 

created 

2,500 jobs created 

or safeguarded 

between 2006 and 

2010 

33% of new jobs 

created or 

safeguarded (to 

which the Council 

has made a 

significant 

contribution) to be 

of high quality 

DP17 – Retention of 

employment sites 

Core Indicator - 1e 

Losses of employment land (completed 

non-employment uses) 

All losses meet 

the requirements 

of Policy 

DP18 – Support for small 

businesses/working from 

home 


No. and type of new business start-ups Start-up of 900 

SMEs 2005 - 2010 

CP13 – Market 

towns regeneration 

CP14 – Retail and 

town centre 

development 

DP19 – Specific measures 

to assist market town 

regeneration 

DP20 – Approach to town 

centre development 

DP21 – Support for town 

centre shopping 


No. of completed initiatives within the 5 

Area Community Plans 

75% of (2006) 

listed projects 

completed by 2021 


Core Indicator - 4a 

Amount of completed retail, office and 

leisure development p.a. 


% of non-retail commercial uses in 

Primary Shopping Frontages 

Minimum of 2,000 - 

5,000 m sq (net) of 

new convenience 

goods floorspace 

and 16,000 - 

18,600 m sq (net) 

comparison goods 

floorspace within 

the District by 2012 

Less than 25% in 

Northallerton and 

Thirsk. Less than 

33% in Bedale, 

Easingwold and 

Stokesley 



83

Core Strategy 

Policies 

Supporting 



Targets 

DP22 – Other town centre 

uses 

DP23 – Major out of centre 

shopping and leisure 

proposals 

DP24 – Other retail (& nonretail 

commercial) issues 




CP15 – Rural 

regeneration 

DP25 – Rural employment 


No. of rural regeneration schemes 

supported under policy initiative 

10% increase in 

rural regeneration 

schemes approved 


2021 

DP26 – Agricultural issues 


No. of rural agricultural diversification 


10% increase in 

agricultural 

diversification 



2021 

DP27 – Tourism 


Increase in visitor numbers to the 

District 

1% increase year 

on year in no. of 

visitors achieved 

via the Hambleton 

Attractions Group 

4% increase year 

on year arising 

from the Councils’ 

marketing effort 

Maintaining a quality environment 

CP16 – Protecting 

and enhancing 

natural and man 

made assets 

DP28 – Conservation 


No. of Conservation Areas with up-todate 

character appraisal 

% of Conservation Areas with published 

management plans 

No. of Listed Buildings “at risk” 

17% of 

Conservation 

Areas with up-todate 

character 

appraisals by 2010 

12% of 

Conservation 

Areas with 

published 

management 

plans by 2010 

Listed Buildings at 

risk reduced to 

1.5% by 2010 



84

Core Strategy 

Policies 

Supporting 


DP29 – Archaeology 

DP30 – Protecting the 

character and appearance 

of the countryside 



No. of approved proposals on, or 

affecting nationally important sites 

Targets 

0% inappropriate 

development on 

nationally 

important sites 


DP31 – Protecting natural 

resources: 

biodiversity/nature 

conservation 

Core Indicator – 8 

Change in areas and populations of 

biodiversity importance and % of 

nationally important wildlife sites in 

favourable condition 

Meet 5% of targets 

p.a. in the 

Hambleton 

Biodiversity Action 

Plan 

CP17 – Promoting 

high quality design 

DP32 – General design No indicator required - 

DP33 – Landscaping No indicator required - 

CP18 – Prudent use 

of natural resources 

DP34 – Sustainable energy Core Indicator – 9 

Renewable energy capacity installed by 

type 

All developments 

over 1,000 m.sq in 

size or 10 or more 

dwellings to 

provide a least 

10% of their 

energy 

requirements from 

on-site renewable 

energy generation 

or delivered 

through savings 

Meet approved 

RSS District 

potential for 

installed renewable 

energy capacity 

(MW) to 2010 

DP35 – Water resources No indicator required - 

DP36 – Waste 


Improve the recycling/composting rate 

50% improvement 

in the 

recycling/composti 

ng rate by 2010 



85

Core Strategy 

Policies 

Supporting 



Targets 

Creating healthy and safe communities 

CP19 – 

Recreational 

facilities and 

amenity open space 

DP37 – Open space, sport 

and recreation 

Core Indicator - 4c 

% of eligible open spaces managed to 

“Green Flag” standard 


% of residents satisfied with the quality 

of open space 

100% of Council 

sites brought into 

local sustainable 

management, 50% 

of which to be 

maintained to 

equivalent of 

“Green Flag” 

standard 

69% of residents 

satisfied with 

quantity and 

quality of open 

space 

DP38 – Major outdoor 

recreation 

No indicator required 

- 

DP39 – Recreational links No indicator required - 

CP20 – Design and 

the reduction of 

crime 

DP40 – Designing out 

crime 

Local indicator 

% of relevant schemes incorporating 

“secured by design” principles. 

90% of all 

schemes >10 

homes to achieve 

“secured by 

design” 

DP41 – Road safety No indicator required - 

CP21 – Safe 

response to natural 

and other forces 

DP42 – Hazardous and 

environmentally sensitive 

operations 


DP43 – Flooding and 

floodplains 

Core Indicator – 7 

No. of planning applications granted 

contrary to the advice of the 

Environment Agency 

0% of approvals 

p.a. without 

Environment 

Agency support 

DP44 – Very noisy 

activities 




86

ANNEX 6 

SITES NOT CONSIDERED IN THIS ANALYSIS 

These sites fall into two categories: 

(a). Small sites within the Service Centre and Service Villages 

The suitability of these sites has not been addressed because they are below the size 

threshold that has been adopted for the making of allocations: only sites greater than 

0.3ha (or capable of accommodating 10 dwellings or more) will be allocated within the 

LDF – see para. 2.22. Development of these small sites will be considered on their 

merits, in accordance with LDF Policies. 

Number Identification details Site Area 

057/02 Land to rear of the Jet Miners Inn, Great Broughton 0.16 ha 

057/07 Land north of Hall Garth, Great Broughton 0.25 ha 

058/05 a-b 

Hollygarth, Great Ayton. Site being developed for sheltered 

housing 

0.29 ha 

058/12 Land to rear of Linden Grove, Great Ayton 0.29 ha 

073/03 Remote site off Black Horse Lane, Hutton Rudby 0.29 ha 

073/06 

Land at Deepdale, Hutton Rudby (Urban Potential Study 

site) 

0.22 ha 

073/07 

Land at Greenbank Terrace, Hutton Rudby (Urban Potential 

Study site) 

0.20 ha 

142/05 Land at West Green, Stokesley 0.20 ha 

(b). Other sites which are in locations not supported by the Core Strategy 

The approval of the Core Strategy now determines that development should be 

located within the sustainable hierarchy of settlements, in accordance with Spatial 

Principle 3, and Policies CP4, CP6 and CP11. Sites that do not accord with these 

principles have not been addressed in this document, since their development would 

not be consistent with the approved Core Strategy as they are in remote or 

unsustainable locations. 

Parish 

Reference 

Number 

Address 

Crathorne 033/01 School Farm 

Crathorne 033/02 Land at Old Hall 

Crathorne 033/03 Free House Farm 

Crathorne 033/04 Grange Farm 



87

Parish 

Reference 

Number 

Address 

Ingleby Arncliffe 075/01 Land to the rear of The Old School House 

Ingleby Arncliffe 075/02 Land to the rear of Rose Cottage 

Ingleby Arncliffe 075/03 Land at the Tontine 

Kirkby 082/02 Land at the Bungalow 

Kirkby 082/03 Land at The Meadows 

Kirkby 082/04 Land north of Kirkby Lane 

Kirkby 082/05 Land off Busby Lane 

Kirkby 082/06 Dromonby Bridge Farm 

Kirkby 082/07 Land north of Kirkby 

Kirkby 082/08 Land west of The Meadows 

Kirkby 082/09 Land north of The Meadows 

Kirkby 082/10 Land north of Busby Lane 

Middleton-on-Leven 101/01 Land at Mill Farm House 

Newby 106/01 Antelope Lodge Farm 

Picton 119/01 Land east of Picton 

Picton 119/02 Land south of Picton 

Picton 119/03 Land south of Tithelands 

Potto 120/01 Land adjacent to the Dog and Gun Inn, Cooper Lane 

Potto 120/02 Land to the rear of 12 Cooper Lane 

Potto 120/03 Land to the west of Potto 

Potto 120/04 Land adjacent to 60 Cooper Lane 

Potto 120/05 Land at Rawcliffe 



88

Parish 

Reference 

Number 

Address 

Potto 120/06 Land South of Rawcliffe 

Potto 120/08 Land to the rear of Potto Grove 

Potto 120/09 Prestons of Potto 

Potto 120/10 Land west of Potto 

Potto 120/11 Land south of the Village Hall 

Potto 120/11a Land south of the Village Hall (recreation area) 

Potto 120/12 Land to the north east of Potto 

Potto 120/13 Land to the north west of Potto 

Potto 120/14 Land to the west of Potto 

Potto 120/15 Land to the rear of Mainland and Sinks 

Potto 120/16 Land to the rear of Woodlands 

Potto 120/17 Land at the Dog and Gun PH 

Rudby 125/01 Land at Rudby Farm 

Rudby 125/02a Blue Barn Lane 

Rudby 125/02b Blue Barn Lane Nurseries 

Rudby 125/03 Land to the rear of Four Gables 

Rudby 125/04 White House Nurseries 

Rudby 125/05 Land south of South View 

Rudby 125/06 Land east of Rudby 

Rudby 125/07 Land adjacent to Rudby Dairy 

Rudby 125/08 Land north of Blue Barn Lane 

Rudby 125/09 Land north of South View 

Rudby 125/10 Land north of All Saints Church 

Rudby 125/11 Land south of All Saints Church 



89

Parish 

Reference 

Number 

Address 

Seamer 128/01 Land to the rear of Churchside Cottage 

Seamer 128/02 Land north of Seamer 

Seamer 128/03 Land at Hilton Road 

Seamer 128/05 Land at Seamer Hill 

Seamer 128/06 Land at Leconfield 

Seamer 128/07 Seamer Engineering and land to the rear 

Seamer 128/08 Land to the rear of the Green 

Seamer 128/09 Seamer Engineering 

Seamer 128/10a - b Land at Tame Bridge 

Seamer 128/11 Land at the old brick yard, Tame Bridge 

Seamer 128/12 Land at Springwell Nurseries 



90

F RA M EW OR K 

LDF 

H A M B L E T O N 

L O C A L 

D E VE LO P ME N T 

Hambleton District Council 

Civic Centre, Stone Cross, Northallerton, North Yorkshire DL6 2UU 

Tel: 0845 1211 555 Fax: 01609 767228 E-mail: planning.policy@hambleton.gov.uk 

www.hambleton.gov.uk 

© HDC 2007

Preferred Options - Hambleton District Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?