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 EASINGWOLD 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 OCTOBER 2007 

EASINGWOLD Preferred Options ALLOCATIONS 

i

CONTENTS 

Page 

Foreword 

i 

1. Introduction and Context 1 

2. Principles of site allocation 9 

3. Easingwold 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 

Easingwold Town 

3.5 Settlement proposals: Service Villages 34 

Brafferton/Helperby 34 

Husthwaite 39 

Shipton 46 

Stillington 55 

3.6 Secondary Villages 62 

(Alne, Brandsby, Crayke, Huby, 

Linton-on-Ouse, Raskelf, 

Sutton-on-the-Forest, 

Tholthorpe, Tollerton) 

4. Summary of Preferred Options: Easingwold Sub Area 72 

Annexes 

1. The Council’s approach to site selection 75 

2. Proposed changes to District Wide Local Plan Development Limits 78 

3. Review of current housing commitments 80 

4. Policies in the Hambleton District Wide Local Plan 82 

replaced by the Allocations DPD 

5. Monitoring and implementation 83 

6. Sites not considered in this analysis 92 



ii

Preferred Options 

ALLOCATIONS – EASINGWOLD 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 EASINGWOLD Sub Area. It contains information about 

the Allocations DPD in general, and about the Easingwold 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 todate), 

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 



3

Proposals Map were advanced with the submission Development Policies 

DPD. The Proposals Map will be issued in its first revision when the 

Development Policies 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 



4

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 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 “frontloading”, 

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 

“front-loading” 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 



6

undertaken or commissioned a number of technical studies, many of which 

support the 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 

Easingwold Sub Area – proposed allocations, and explanation of 

alternatives rejected 

Summary of Preferred Options: Easingwold 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 Easingwold 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 are 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. 

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 



9

eject 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 Easingwold 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 3.3 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 is 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; 



12

• 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. 

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 adopted Core Strategy para. 4.3.8. 

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

permissions for employment uses is set out in Section 3 (para. 3.3.3) 

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. 



13

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 

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 and through the work of the Hambleton Community Plan, 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 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. SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS 

EASINGWOLD 

3.1 THE CORE STRATEGY CONTEXT 

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

Area are as follows: 

• Spatial Principle 2 defines the Easingwold area as an Area of Restraint 

from external influences, which is intended to counter the development 

pressures from York. The scale of new housing development will therefore 

be reduced in the Easingwold Area to restrict further in migration from York 

whilst still accommodating the housing requirement of the local population, 

including the need for affordable housing. Similarly, employment 

development in the Easingwold area will be more limited in order to reduce 

cross boundary commuting from York; 

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

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

Service Centre 

Easingwold 

Service Villages 

Brafferton/Helperby 

Husthwaite 

Shipton 

Stillington 

Secondary Villages 

Alne 

Brandsby 

Crayke 

Huby 

Linton on Ouse 

Raskelf 

Sutton on the Forest 

Tholthorpe 

Tollerton 



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 

Easingwold 50 40 30 

Area 

Out of 

Hambleton total 320 290 260 

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

located in Easingwold 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 Easingwold Area to be 

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

• Policy CP10A sets a target level of 8 hectares of employment development 

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

Taking account of existing land available with permission, the Core 

Strategy estimates that a further 7 hectares will need to be identified; 

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

as a District Centre, meeting the 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 Easingwold Area in the Allocations DPD, as 

follows: 

• Easingwold Community Strategy Area Group Action Plan projects 

recommended for consideration include: 

- provision of improved sports facilities in Easingwold; 

- use of vacant sites for community or business use; 

- affordable housing including starter homes to rent or buy; 

- possible by-pass for Shipton and Thormanby; 

- provision of recreational open spaces; 

- increased nursing care accommodation. 

• Town Centres Study – concluded that there is a need for a new food store 

in Easingwold, although no suggestions of a site to accommodate it were 

identified or put forward; 



18

• Economic Development Study – suggested that the additional 7 hectares 

of employment land required for the Easingwold area should be sited in the 

Roxby House area rather than at the A19 junction south of the town. 

Demand was considered likely to be for light industry, offices and general 

industry; 

• Car Parking Study – considered that Easingwold has sufficient car parking 

capacity, subject to improved signage and management of Market Place 

parking; 

• Strategic Flood Risk Assessment – recognised that there are localised land 

drainage issues to the south of Easingwold, as the area to the east of York 

Road and to the south of Stillington Road is prone to a high water table. 

More detailed investigations would need to be undertaken before allocating 

any particular site for development; 

• 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

Current housing position and residual requirement - phase 1 

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 

(350 for Sub Area, = 231 - approx 

2/3rds, for Service Centre ) 


SERVICE 

CENTRE 

17 174 191 40 

TOTAL 

Brafferton/ 

0 6 6 

Helperby 

Husthwaite 0 5 5 

Shipton 1 17 18 

Stillington 2 20 22 

SERVICE 

VILLAGE 

3 48 51 - 3 

TOTAL 

Alne 0 4 4 

Brandsby 0 2 2 

Crayke 0 0 0 

Huby 4 2 6 

Linton-on- 

0 1 1 

Ouse 

Raskelf 1 1 2 

Sutton-on-the- 0 9 9 

Forest 

Tholthorpe 0 2 2 

Tollerton 2 12 14 

SECONDARY 

VILLAGE 

TOTAL 

7 33 40 0 

OTHERS 3 28 31 

TOTAL 30 283 313** 37 

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

** Of the 313 dwellings completed/committed, 189 (or 60%) of dwellings have been on brownfield land. 

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 

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

Easingwold Sub Area for the lifetime of the plan (2005 – 2021) as 8 hectares. 

The Economic Development Study identified 1 hectare of land that already 

has permission for employment purposes - therefore, a further requirement of 

around 7 hectares is identified as needed in the Easingwold Sub-Area. 

However, since this assessment of employment land need was made, over 

1ha of land has been given approval for employment purposes at Hawkhills 

and available sites (that were not identified in the Economic Development 

Study) have been identified in other locations in the Easingwold sub area 

further reducing the employment land requirement to under 6ha. 



20

SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS 

EASINGWOLD 

Strategic overview 

3.4.1 Easingwold is identified as a Service Centre within 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, schools, employment and medical services. 

3.4.2 Easingwold is located close to the A19 to which there is good vehicular 

access. Thirsk lies 22km (14 Miles) to the North West of the town with the Sub 

Regional Centre of York approx 18 Km (11 Miles) to the South East. 

3.4.3 Key characteristics of Easingwold include: 

location of main facilities 

These are generally in or close to the Market Place, Easingwold, although 

there are a number of niche market shops (specifically antiques) in Long 

Street where there is also a supermarket and a small range of other shops. 

There is a primary school to the north of the town and a large secondary 

school at the southern end of the town; 

location of main employment areas 

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

commercial area, there is a small industrial estate to the south of the town 

off Stillington Road; 

main environmental constraints 

The submission Development Policies DPD proposes that a large Green 

Wedge is protected from development (under Policy DP10) to the north of 

Uppleby. This includes areas of public open space and adjacent areas of 

private land. Few other significant environmental constraints exist, 

although there are known to be areas to the south of the town that may 

have land drainage issues due to a high water table. Easingwold centre 

and Uppleby have been designated as a Conservation Area; 

accessibility and infrastructure issues 

The A19(T) runs almost north-south between Thirsk and York, and 

Easingwold has good access to it from both the northern and southern 

ends of the town. Yorkshire Water is currently investigating reported foul 

and surface water drainage issues in Easingwold; 

brownfield land 

Although there are some potentially available areas of brownfield land 

within the existing Development Limits, they are inadequate in both size 

and number to satisfy the anticipated housing requirement for the 

settlement. 



21

you told us that … 

• there is plenty of scope to build elsewhere rather than develop 

greenfield sites; 

• greenfield sites should be sacrosanct; 

• there is a desperate need for long-stay car parking in or near the 

Market Place; 

• drainage and infrastructure in the town (access to GPs, dentists, 

etc.) must be taken into account; 

• new housing and industry should be encouraged to maintain a 

vibrant town; 

• common sense should direct planners to sites with easy access to 

the by-pass/A19. 

• the use of sites identified as 041/20 and 041/23 (Whiteoak Avenue) 

for housing attracted significant opposition; 

• the use of the site south of Stillington Road (041/02) received some 

support for business use; 

• the majority of respondents did not see the need to alter 

development limits. 

Source: LDF Allocations DPD Issues and Options Consultation Statement 

Potential development sites and Development Limits 

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

development relating to Easingwold, 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. 

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

Development Policy DP8, revised Development Limits are proposed for 

Easingwold – 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 also include other minor changes, 

consistent with the intentions of Development Limits to appropriately constrain 

the growth of the town (as set out in Development Policy DP8). Annex 2 

describes the changes proposed to the boundary that are not related to the 

site allocations proposed here. 



22

3.4.6 To simplify the assessment (and reflecting the sequential approach indicated 

in Section 2), two categories of allocations for development are discussed in 

turn: 

1. small sustainable sites scattered within the built up area of the town; 

2. main development options – largely peripheral sites. 

1. Sustainable scattered sites within the built up area 

3.4.7 The following sites within the built up area of the town are considered suitable 

because: 

• they can be developed without prejudicing the existing form or character 

of the settlement, as they are usually surrounded by existing 

development; 

• the sites are within walking distance (400m) of local services and 

facilities (schools, supermarkets etc); 

• the larger of the two sites suggested in this category for housing in 

Phase 1 is a brownfield site, the Greenfield site being left until Phase 2. 

Sites proposed for housing: 

Site 

Ref 

Site Name 

Phase 1: short term (2004 – 2011) 

041/22 

Between Crabmill Lane 

and Leasmire Ave, 

Area 

Possible 

Yield 

(50% 

Affordable) 

Brownfield 

or 

Greenfield 

1.33ha 32 (8) Brownfield 

Phase 1 - TOTAL 1.33ha 32 (8) 

Phase 2: medium term (2011 – 2016) 

041/14 

North of Paradise Fields 

Estate. 

0.67ha 20 (10) Greenfield 

Phase 2 - TOTAL 0.82ha 20 (10) 

Phase 3: long term (2016 – 2021) 

No allocations - - - 

Phase 3 - TOTAL 0.0ha 0 0 

1.33ha (B) 

TOTAL 2.15ha 52 (18) 

0.67ha (G) 

commentary 

Site 041/22 was given approval 

(under ref 05/02609/FUL) for 32 

dwellings post April 2007 and is 

not, therefore, included in the 

commitments listed at para 3.3.1 

This site is now being developed 

This is a greenfield site which 

was allocated for community 

use in the DWLP. 

There are no known scattered 

sites suitable for development 

in this phase. 



25

Justification: 

• housing sites identified are located within existing residential areas and 

close to schools and local amenities; 

• these sites are situated in locations which could provide housing of the 

appropriate type and tenure to meet the identified need set out in the 

Housing Needs Survey; 

• the larger site (now approved) is brownfield & is phased for development 

before the Greenfield site in accordance with PPS3 guidance. 

2. Packages of alternatives 

3.4.8 In addition to the scattered sites within the built up area, five alternative 

strategic directions for development have been considered: North West, North 

East, East, South and West. These strategic directions are shown on Map 1. 

3.4.9 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 key on the 

map), 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. 

Easingwold: the preferred development package - 

Easingwold North West, East and South. 

3.4.10 The preferred option is to focus development mainly to the North West, South 

and East of the town. 

Overarching justification for the preferred option: 

• this option is capable of accommodating a variety of uses; 

• all of the selected areas are close to, or abut the existing built up areas 

and the development of these sites would respect the existing form of the 

settlement; 

• none of the sites are identified by the Environment Agency as being land 

liable to any significant flood risk; 

• there is potential for phasing the release of the selected areas for 

development; 

• the sites are within reasonable walking / cycling distance of the town 

centre; 

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



26

Easingwold North West: 

For Community use 

Site 

Ref 

Site Name 

Area 

Brownfield 

or 

Greenfield 

Commentary 

041/08 North of the Church 0.30ha Greenfield Community use - Cemetery 

TOTAL 

0.3ha 

0.0ha (G) 

0.0ha (B) 


• site 041/08 would provide for a natural extension to the existing cemetery 

and has Parish Council support. 

Easingwold East: 

Sites for Housing and Mixed use 

Site Ref 

Site Name 


Area 

Possible 

Yield 

(50% 

Affordable) 

Brownfield 

or 

Greenfield 

None - - - 

Phase 1 - TOTAL 0 0 N/A 


041/02 

041/06 

& 

041/43 

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

Stillington / York Rd. 

2.6ha 

(housing) 

6.0ha 

(empl.) 

80 (40) 

8.2ha (G) 

0.4ha (B) 

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

None 0.0ha 0 N/A 

Phase 2 - TOTAL 

2.6ha 

(housing) 

6.0ha 

(empl.) 

80 (40) 

4.2ha (G) 

0.4ha (B) 


041/19 East of Oxenby Place 0.91ha 28 (14) Greenfield 

041/11 East of Kelbalk Lane Greenfield 

041/33 East of Kelbalk Lane 

1.77ha 50 (25) 

Greenfield 

041/37 East of Kelbalk Lane 0.74ha 22 (11) Greenfield 

041/36 North of Meadowfield Cl. 0.30ha 10 (5) Greenfield 

Phase 3 - TOTAL 3.72ha 110 (55) 

TOTAL 12.46ha* 190(95) 

12.08ha (G) 

0.38ha (B) 

*N.B 6ha of sites 041/02 and 041/43 is proposed for employment purposes 

Commentary 

There are sufficient sites currently 

approved/developed to provide the 

required housing for Phase 1 

The mix proposed is housing 

(2.6ha) with high quality class B1 

employment uses being located 

towards Stillington Road and B2/B8 

uses with access onto York Road. 

(6ha in total) The release of this 

housing site early in phase 2 would 

provide the required amount of 

housing for this phase in an 

appropriate & sustainable location. 

Housing to meet the Easingwold 

requirement for this phase (and 

maintain an ongoing housing 

supply) would be achieved by the 

release of site 041/15 (South). 

These small greenfield sites are 

available in the short/medium term 

and would combine to provide a 

significant development opportunity 



27


• these sites are all close to the town centre and recreation facilities; 

• the proposed mixed housing/employment site off Stillington Road (site 

041/02 in particular) would provide a suitable and appropriate transition 

between the southernmost area of existing housing and what is currently 

an established employment area detached from the edge of the town. 

Any B2/B8 type uses should be located towards the south of site 041/43; 

• the development of this site for mixed use (residential and employment 

purposes), in addition to contributing to the required amount of housing 

for this phase, would release much needed employment land for B1 

employment uses (types a to c) (see Economic Development Study - para 5.70); 

• although the Issues and Options consultations revealed some opposition 

to the use of site 041/02 for residential purposes, there was support for 

the use of this site for employment purposes. 

Easingwold South: 

Site for housing 

Site Ref Site Name Area 

Phase 1: short term (2004 – 2011)- 

Possible 

Yield 

(50% 

Affordable) 

Brownfield 

or 

Greenfield 

No allocations - - - 



041/15 

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

Ward Trailers and land 

to the south,York Road 

1.50ha 45 (23) 

1.5ha 

Brownfield 

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

Commentary 


approved/developed to provide the 


This area is currently a vacant 

employment site which, if developed 

for housing would assist in meeting 

the brownfield housing target. 

None 0.0ha 0 N/A - 

Phase 2 - TOTAL 1.50ha 45 (23) 

1.5ha 

Brownfield 


No allocations 0 0 - - 

Phase 3 - TOTAL 0.0ha 0 (0) - - 

TOTAL 

1.50ha 

0.00ha (G) 

1.50ha (B) 


• this site is relatively close to the town’s services and facilities; 

• the area has good access both into Easingwold and onto the Easingwold 

bypass (via York Road); 

- 



28

Easingwold: rejected development options 

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

specified. 

Easingwold West 

3.4.12 This option would focus all development to the west of Whiteoak Avenue. 

Site Ref 

Site Name 

Area 

Greenfield 

or 

Brownfield 

Possible 

Yield 

(50% 

Affordable) 

Possible Type of 

Development 

041/20 West of Easingwold 3.81ha Greenfield 115 (58) housing 

041/23 

Hagg Lane / Whiteoak 

Ave 

5.42ha Greenfield 160 (80) housing 

041/29 West of Hagg Lane 0.54ha Greenfield 15 (8) housing 

041/30 West of Hagg Lane 0.61ha Greenfield 18 (9) housing 

041/31 South of Alne Rd 2.04ha Greenfield 60 (30) housing 

TOTAL 12.42ha 368(185) 

Reasons for rejection: 

• land at Hagg Lane is flat and open. Residential development in this area 

would appear visually prominent; 

• sites 041/20 and 041/23, in particular, attracted significant opposition in 

the responses to question 2 & 4 of the Issues and Options Consultation; 

Easingwold North East 

3.4.13 This option would focus residential development to the north east of 

Easingwold at Uppleby. 

Site Ref 

Site Name 

Area 

Greenfield 

or 

Brownfield 

Possible 

Yield 

(50% 

Affordable) 


Development 

041/04 Rear of 54 Uppleby 0.45ha Greenfield housing 

041/05a 

Rear of frontage 

properties north and east 0.94ha Greenfield housing 

of Uppleby 

80 (40) 

041/05b 

Rear of frontage 

properties north and east 

of Uppleby 

1.00ha 

Greenfield 

housing 

041/40 

North of Newlyn, Oulston 

Road. 


TOTAL 2.71ha 84(42) 


• development to the rear of Uppleby main Street would not reflect the 

character or form of the this part of the village or Conservation Area; 

• it would be difficult to provide a suitable & safe means of access to sites 

041/05a & b; 



29

• the sites are further away from town centre services than other available 

locations; 

• site 041/40 occupies a conspicuous detached location east off Oulston 

Road and would encourage further development in ribbon form extending 

northwards. 

Easingwold East 

3.4.13 This option would focus (and exceed) all the employment land requirement for 

Easingwold on a single site north of Stillington Road. 

Area Possible Possible Type of Development 

Site Ref Site Name 

Use 

041/24 North of Stillington Road. 7.00ha employment employment B1, B2 and B8 

TOTAL 

7.00ha 


• employment development on this large site, in addition to the preferred 

mixed use site, would far exceed the stated requirement in the 

Submission Regional Spatial Strategy, which translates to less than 6ha 

in total for the Easingwold sub area (para 4.3.8 of the Core Strategy and para 3.3.3 

above); 

• vehicular access from this site to the Easingwold bypass (via Stillington 

Road) is less than satisfactory 

• employment development on this site south-eastern entrance to the town 

would not be preferred while other more suitably placed alternatives 

exist. 

Easingwold North West 

3.4.14 Development in this area would extend the town northwards along Thirsk 

Road. The reasons for rejecting these sites are set out below. 

Site Ref 

Site Name 

Area 

Greenfield or 

Brownfield 

Possible 

Yield 

(50% 

Affordable) 

041/42 

(041/32) 

Prospect Farm 2.7ha Greenfield 45 (23) 

041/07 North of Easingwold, 

(from Husthwaite Rd) 

TOTAL 9.3ha 233 (117) 



Development 

Mixed use employment and 

housing 

6.6ha Greenfield 188 (94) Housing 

• residential development off Husthwaite Road would not respect the 

existing form or character of the settlement; 



30

• with the exception of the primary school, parts of the site are a significant 

distance from town centre services; 

• site 041/07 is visually prominent when viewed from the areas of public 

open space to the north of Uppleby; 

• Some sites are considered to have poor vehicular access. 

Easingwold South 

3.4.15 This option could provide for all of the sub areas employment requirements 

(as an alternative to extending the existing Stillington Road employment area 

as in the preferred option detailed above). 

Site Ref 

Site Name 

Area 

Greenfield 

or 

Brownfield 

Possible 

Use 


Development 

041/28 Roxby House 6.00ha Greenfield employment B1 – B2, B8 development types 

TOTAL 

6.00ha 

(note: a small part of this site is included in the preferred employment allocation. 


• although the employment site at Roxby house, could provide all of the 

required employment land for Easingwold on one site, the appropriate 

and satisfactory release of such a large area could be difficult to achieve 

(see the Economic Development Study para 5.70); 

• locating all the town’s employment requirements on a single site could 

prevent the allocation of appropriate forms of mixed use development 

elsewhere. 

Scattered sites - outside Development Limits 

3.4.16 There are several scattered sites in the open countryside around Easingwold 

that have been identified for rejection. These sites are listed below together 

with reasons for their rejection. 

Site Ref 

041/13 

041/26 

Site Name 

Shires Bridge Mill west of 

A19 

South of Easingwold, 

North of A19 / York Road 

roundabout. 

Area 

3.1ha 

041/34 South of Raskelf Road. 1.7ha 

041/41 

TOTAL 

Shires Bridge Mill west of 

A19 

Possible 

Use 

Originally for 

housing, 

latterly for 

employment 

purposes. 

Possible Type of Development 

B1 – B2 development types 

8.8ha Employment B1 – B2 and B8 development types 

Housing or 

light 

industry. 

2.5ha Employment B1 – B2 and B8 development types 

16.1ha 



31


• the creation of new, large employment centres, or the expansion of 

existing employment areas on Greenfield sites in the open countryside 

when more suitable/ sustainable alternatives exist within or adjacent to 

the main service centre would be contrary to Strategic Principle 4 of the 

Core Strategy (para 4.3.3 of the Core Strategy) and Core Policy CP11; 

• some of the sites put forward are in visually conspicuous locations where 

development would significantly detract from the open character and 

appearance of the countryside. 

Estimated yield from the preferred allocations 

3.4.17 In combination (both scattered sites (1) and, the preferred development 

package (2)), these proposals should provide: 

• approximately 287 new dwellings on allocated sites (calculated at approx 

30 dwellings per hectare, 32 in the remainder of phase 1 in addition to 

the 191 committed or constructed in Easingwold since the start of the 

LDF period, 145 in phase 2 and 110 in phase 3). This overall total of 478 

represents approximately 2/3 rd of the housing requirement for the 

Easingwold sub area (for the period 2004-2021) and accords with Policy 

CP6 in the Core Strategy; 

• approximately 6 hectares of employment land located at the south of the 

town, on areas allocated for mixed use development, with easy access 

onto the Easingwold bypass. 



32

EASINGWOLD TOWN - SUMMARY 

The preferred option in Easingwold would provide the following: 

• approximately 287 new homes in Easingwold (of which 50% 

would be affordable) 32 in the remainder of phase 1, with 145 in 

phase 2 and 110 in phase 3; 

• approximately 3.5 hectares of employment land for B1 business 

uses off Stillington Road; 

• approximately 2.5 hectares for B2 and B8 type uses on land off 

York Road; 

• an extension to the cemetery. 

QUESTION A1: 


ALLOCATION SITES FOR EASINGWOLD – AND DO YOU 

AGREE WITH THE JUSTIFICATION GIVEN 

QUESTION A2: 




QUESTION A3: 



QUESTION A4: 


LIMITS FOR EASINGWOLD – AND IF NOT, WHAT 




33

3.5 SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS - EASINGWOLD SUB AREA 

SERVICE VILLAGES 

1. BRAFFERTON / HELPERBY 


3.5.1 In its role as a Service Village, Brafferton/Helperby has been recognised as 

being able to provide a degree of development providing services and facilities 

for the village and its surrounding area. Generally, this settlement has a 

limited but sufficient range of shops and facilities that make it suitable to 

accommodate some modest development. 

3.5.2 Brafferton/Helperby is located approximately 6 miles (9.5km) west of 

Easingwold. It is situated close to the western boundary of the District and is 

served by bus services to and from Easingwold. 

3.5.3 Key characteristics of Brafferton/Helperby include: 

 

 

 

 

 

location of main facilities: 

The villages of Helperby and Brafferton, abut each other at the edge of 

their respective parish boundary and have, therefore, for the purpose of 

service provision, been treated as a single settlement. For example, the 

Church and Primary School are both located in Brafferton with the village 

shop(s) and post office and a Public House being located in Helperby. 

Other services that exist include a playgroup / nursery and opportunities 

for casual recreation. 

location of main employment areas: 

There are limited employment opportunities and areas in 

Brafferton/Helperby. However, employment opportunities exist at 

Easingwold. Dalton Industrial estate lies to the north. 

main environmental constraints: 

There are no significant environmental constraints in Brafferton/Helperby. 

There is potential for the nearby River Swale to flood, however, the built 

up areas of both Helperby and Brafferton are at a significantly higher 

level than the areas susceptible to flooding. Brafferton/Helperby was 

designated a Conservation Area on 30 th April 1985. 

accessibility and infrastructure issues: 

Brafferton/Helperby is not located on a main route and is only accessed 

by ‘B’ classification roads. It is, however, served by bus services to 

Easingwold. 

significant areas of brownfield land: 

There are no significant areas of brownfield land at Brafferton/Helperby. 



34

you told us that….. 

• more encouragement should be given to businesses in Helperby; 

• no more encouragement should be given to businesses in Brafferton; 

• Both Parish Councils considered that there is no need to alter the existing 

Development Limits of the village other than to include any recent 

developments such as that at St Peters Close in Brafferton. 

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

(2005) 

Brafferton/Helperby: potential development sites and Development 

Limits 

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

in Brafferton/Helperby, 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 

Brafferton/Helperby 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 also include other 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 the boundary that are not related to site allocations 

proposed here. 



35

MAP 3: Brafferton/Helperby - Options, Preferred Sites and Phasing 



36

Preferred sites 

3.5.5 The preferred sites for allocation are as follows: 


Possible 

Yield 

(50% 

Affordable) 

Brownfield 

or 

Greenfield 


NONE - - N/A 

Phase 1 - TOTAL 0 0 


NONE - - N/A 



063/03 

& 

063/04 

East and West of Back 

Lane 


Phase 3 - TOTAL 0.46ha 20 (10) 

TOTAL 0.46ha 20 (10) 

0.0ha (B) 

0.46ha (G) 

commentary 

These housing sites are 

suitable for smaller dwelling 

units and are likely to be 

available towards the end of 

the plan period. 


• development on these sites would provide the opportunity for a small 

number of dwellings which located within walking distance of local services 

and facilities; 

• development on these sites would have relatively little impact on the form 

and character of the village; 

• development in this area would provide potential to improve this narrow 

part of Back Lane. 

Brafferton/Helperby: rejected options 

3.5.6 The following site in Brafferton/Helperby has been considered for development 

and has been rejected – for the reasons given below. 

Site 

Ref 

063/01 

Site Name 

Central Depot, Back 

Lane, Helperby. 

Area 

Greenfield 

or 

Brownfield 

Possible 

Yield (40% 

Affordable) 

Possible type of development 




37

Site 63/01: Central Depot, Back Lane, Helperby 

3.5.7 This is a very large site outside the built-up area of the settlement. In the 

absence of a Certificate of Lawful Use there is doubt whether the site is 

agricultural or not. 


• the site in its entirety is too large to be allocated for residential 

development in this service village; 

• development (even on part of the site) would appear unrelated to the 

main built up part of the settlement. 

BRAFFERTON/HELPERBY - SUMMARY 

The preferred option in Brafferton/Helperby would provide the 

following: 

• up to 20 new dwellings, of which 50% would be affordable, 

located near to existing services and amenities. 

QUESTION B1: 


ALLOCATION SITES FOR BRAFFERTON/HELPERBY – 

AND DO YOU AGREE WITH THE JUSTIFICATION GIVEN 

QUESTION B2: 




QUESTION B3: 



QUESTION B4: 


LIMITS FOR BRAFFERTON/HELPERBY – AND IF NOT, 

WHAT CHANGES DO YOU SEEK 



38

2. HUSTHWAITE 


3.5.7 In its role as a Service Village, Husthwaite has been recognised as being able 

to provide a degree of development providing services and facilities for the 

village and its surrounding area. Generally, this settlement has a limited but 

sufficient range of shops and facilities that make it suitable to accommodate 

some modest development. 

3.5.8 Husthwaite is located approximately 4 miles (6km) north of Easingwold and 

just over a mile (1.5km) east of the A19. 

3.5.9 Key characteristics of Husthwaite include: 

 

 

 

 

 


These are located along the village street and include a shop and post 

office, primary school, church and areas of open space; 


The nearest main employment area for Husthwaite is Easingwold 

approximately 4 miles to the south; 


There are few environmental constraints to development in Husthwaite; 


Husthwaite is not located on a main route and is only accessed by ‘B’ 

classification roads; 


there are no developable brownfield sites in Husthwaite. 

you told us that… 

• there was no need to alter the existing village limits; 

• the Parish Council felt that there should be more encouragement given 

to the development of businesses in the village; 

• Gibbet Hill should be included within development limits; 

• the area of townscape importance south of The Nookings should be 

removed. 


(2005) 



39

Husthwaite: potential development sites and Development Limits 


in Husthwaite, and indicates preferred options for allocation. In addition, 

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


Husthwaite – and shown on Map 4. 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, but otherwise concludes that the former 

boundary remains valid, and requires no other revision. 



40

MAP 4: Husthwaite Strategic - Options, Preferred Sites and Phasing 



41

Preferred Sites 




Possible 

Yield 

(50% 

Affordable) 

Brown 

or 

Green 

No allocations 0 0 N/A 



071/01i South of Prospect Cottages 0.7ha 20 (10) Green 





TOTAL 0.7 20 (10) 

0.0.ha (B) 

0.7ha (G) 

Commentary 


approved/developed in the sub area 

to provide the required housing for 

Phase 1. 

Housing needs study identifies a 

need for all types of accommodation, 

particularly smaller units. 

There will be sufficient sites approved 

/developed in the sub area to provide 

the required housing for Phase 3 

without further development in 

Husthwaite. 


• development of part of the submitted site (ie. 071/01 as a whole) would 

have minimal landscape impact 

• on this site would be well related to the existing form of the village; 

• the site has a suitable and acceptable access onto the highway; 



42

Husthwaite: rejected options 

3.5.12 The following sites in Husthwaite have been considered for development and 

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

for rejection: 


071/01ii 

& 

071/02 

071/05 

071/06 

South of Prospect Cottages 

and land to the west of 

dwellings at Kays Bank 

to the south west of Gibbet 

Hill 

towards the centre of the 

village 

Greenfield 

or 

Brownfield 

Possible 

Yield (50% 

Affordable) 

1.00 Greenfield 30 (10) Residential. 



071/07 south of the playing field 1.74 Greenfield - Residential. 

071/08 

Slaters yard west of 

Rokerby Cottage 

0.66 Greenfield - Residential. 

071/09 Slaters field 2.91 Greenfield - Residential. 

commentary 

Site 071/01ii and 071/02: land to the west of dwellings at Kays Bank. 

3.5.13 These site’s are located towards the eastern side of the village and include the 

larger part of site 071/01 (identified as 071/01ii) and adjacent land, 071/02. 


• the whole of site 071/01 (071/01i and 071/01ii) would provide for more 

housing that would be appropriate in this village and thus be contrary to 

Core policy CP6. 

• a satisfactory means of access to site 071/02 does not exist; 

• site 071/02 would only be suitable for development as part of a larger 

scheme which would have included the majority of adjacent land at site 

071/01 (071/01ii) and possibly other land which has not been put forward. 

Site 071/05: to the south west of Gibbet Hill. 

3.5.16 This site is visually detached ribbon of development to the south and east of 

the village. 


• Gibbet Hill is visually open countryside and development in this area would 

adversely affect the character and appearance of the landscape 



43

Site 071/06: towards the centre of the village. 

3.5.17 This site is an irregular shaped parcel of land located towards the centre of the 

village. 


• there is no acceptable or suitable means of access to the site. 

Site 071/07: south of the playing field. 

3.5.18 This is a large site to the south west of and detached from the built up part of 

the village off Amplecarr. 


• development in this area would appear visually detached from the built up 

part of the village and have an adverse affect on the landscape. 

• development in areas such as this would be contrary to the objectives of 

providing compact and sustainable form of development. 

Site 071/08: Slaters Yard west of Rokerby Cottage. 

3.5.19 This site is an isolated parcel of land towards the centre of the village. 


• this site has no suitable means of access and development on this land 

would appear detached from built up part of the village 

Site 071/09: Slaters Field. 

3.5.20 This is a large site south of, and relatively detached from the main built up part 

of the village 


• too detached from the settlement and not therefore a suitable development 

option. 

• a suitable access to this site would be difficult; 

• development in this area would have an adverse affect on the landscape. 

• development in areas such as this would be contrary to the objectives of 

providing a compact and sustainable form of development. 



44

HUSTHWAITE - SUMMARY 

The preferred option in Husthwaite would provide the following: 

• 20 new dwellings located close to existing village services and 

amenities 50% of which will be affordable. 

QUESTION C1: 


ALLOCATION SITES FOR HUSTHWAITE – AND DO YOU 


QUESTION C2: 




QUESTION C3: 



QUESTION C4: 


LIMITS FOR HUSTHWAITE – AND IF NOT, WHAT 




45

3. SHIPTON 


3.5.21 In its role as a Service Village, Shipton has been recognised as being able to 

provide a degree of development providing services and facilities for the 




3.5.22 Shipton is located at the south of Hambleton District and is much closer to 

York (less than 4 miles - 7km) than it is to Easingwold (7miles - 11km), which 

for the purpose of the LDF is its designated service centre. 

3.5.23 Key characteristics of Shipton include: 

 

 

 

 

 


Shipton village has a good range of facilities within its boundaries 

including a primary school, church, public house, village hall and 

opportunities for various types of casual and formal recreation. The 

village shop and post office was recently closed and a planning 

application to use the property for an alternative purpose was permitted 

on appeal; 


There is a designated employment area in Shipton to the west of the 

village; 


There are no known flooding issues within the village of Shipton. The 

settlement lies within the York Green Belt with relatively small areas 

outside the village realistically being available for development; 


The A19 passes through Shipton which provides good public transport 

links to the surrounding area; 


There is one significant area of brownfield land located in Shipton which 

has been vacant for many years – the garage site 131/07. 



46


• more encouragement should be given to the development of 

businesses in the village; 

• there is a need for a play area if additional land is developed; 

• the Parish Council consider that development limits should be altered 

to include land to the rear of Authitts Cottages; 

• The Parish Council consider that Shipton is in need of a bypass. 


(2005) 

Shipton: potential development sites and Development Limits 


in Shipton, and indicates preferred options for allocation. In addition, 



Shipton – 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 also include other 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 the boundary that are not related to site allocations 

proposed here. 



47

MAP 5: Shipton - Options, Preferred Sites and Phasing 



48





Possible 

Yield 

(50% 

Affordable) 

Brownfield 

or 

Greenfield 




131/07 

& 

131/03 

Disused garage west of 

main street (and land to 

rear). 

0.50ha 15 (7) Brownfield 



131/10i 

Farm south of Sand Hole 

Lane (part). 



TOTAL 0.80 25 (12) 

0.38.ha (B) 

0.30.ha (G) 

commentary 


approved/developed in the sub 

area to provide the required 

housing for Phase 1 

Housing Needs = Flats, 1 & 2 bed 

units required in this sub-area and 

are considered to be a suitable 

form of development for these 

brownfield sites. 

Although a greenfield site, by virtue 

of its agricultural status, there are 

currently agricultural buildings on 

this site. 


• The garage site (131/07) has been vacant for many years and its development 

would improve the appearance of the village; 

• development on the garage site would have no visual impact on the character 

or form of the village; 

• development on the garage site would meet NYCC highways accessibility 

criteria; 

• the proposed part of the farm site (131/10) lies outside the York Green Belt 

• the frontage of the farm site lies within development limits as defined in the 

current Local Plan and, especially as the site accommodates disused 

agricultural buildings, there is considered to be no valid reason to amend limits 

at this point in a designated Service Village; 

• the development of the farm site would have little or no adverse affect on the 

character or form of the village; 



49

Shipton: rejected options 

3.5.26 The following sites in Shipton have been considered for development and 


for rejection. 


Greenfield 

or 

Brownfield 

Possible 

Yield (50% 

Affordable) 

commentary 

131/01a 

Site around Highfield, 

north of the village. 


131/01b 

Church Farm, opposite 

(west of) the church. 


131/02 

Manor Farm, Main 

Street. 

0.63 - - Now under development 

131/06a 

North of Authitts 

Cottages 


131/06b 

South of The Grange, 

west of A19 


131/06c 

South of the south Garth 

Estate 


131/08 Richardsons trailers 0.86 - - Employment purposes. 

131/09 Land at Dawney Garth 1.60 Greenfield 64 (32) Residential. 

131/10ii 

Farm south of Sandhole 

Lane 

Greenfield - Residential. 

131/11 North of Burrells Lane 1.44 Greenfield 55 (27) Residential. 

131/13 East of Sandhole Lane. 19.00 Greenfield - Residential. 

Site 131/01a: Site around Highfield, north of the village. 

3.5.27 This is a very large site to the north of the village outside the built-up area of 

the settlement. The site is wholly in agricultural use. 


• The site lies within the York Green Belt and is of townscape importance; 

• development on this site (even a small frontage development) would 

adversely affect the setting of the church and the visually pleasant 

approach to the village; 

• development on this site would appear detached from the village; 

• development on this site would encourage further non-essential 

development within the York Green Belt to the detriment of the open 

character and appearance of the countryside; 

• Easingwold sub area is an area of restraint where large areas of 

residential development outside the main service centre should be 

discouraged. 



50

Site 131/01b: Church Farm, opposite (west of) the church. 

3.5.28 The majority of this site is outside the current development limits for the 

settlement. The frontage of the site is within development limits and a 

sympathetic frontage development onto the A19 may be acceptable. There 

are agricultural buildings towards the frontage of the site. 


• development in depth on this site would not respect the form or character 

of this part of the village (frontage development for up to 8 may be an 

acceptable option); 

• the rear 2/3 rds of the site sites within the York Green Belt. 

Site 131/02: Manor Farm, Main Street. 

3.5.29 The developable part of this site has received approval since its inclusion in 

the LDF allocations process. 


• currently under development. 

Site 131/06a: North of Authitts Cottages 

3.5.33 This is a large site outside the York Green Belt and between built-up areas of 

the village. The sites current use appears to be wholly agricultural. 


• this large Greenfield site would deliver more housing than is required in 

Shipton for the plan period; 

• an alternative brownfield site is available to meet the development needs 

of the village. 

Site 131/06b: South of The Grange, west of A19 

3.5.34 This is a very large site adjacent to the built-up area of the settlement. The 

area is currently in agricultural use. 


• the site lies within the York Green Belt; 

• the site would provide far more housing than is required in Shipton for 


• frontage development in this part of York Green Belt would have adverse 

affect on the landscape and be a visually inappropriate form of 

development. 



51

Site 131/06c: South of the south Garth Estate 

3.5.35 This site lies within the York Green Belt. It is part of a larger agricultural field 

wholly in agricultural, use. 


• the site lies within the York Green Belt. 

• development on this site would be clearly seen as part of a larger field 

and be visually unacceptable. 

• development on this site would be difficult to satisfactorily relate to 

existing frontage housing. 

Site 131/08: Richardsons trailers 

3.5.36 This site has been put forward for designation as an employment protection 

area (not allocated for residential development). As the sites existing use is 

for employment purposes, its long term use should be secured by policy 

DP17 of the Submission Development Policies DPD. 


• the site is an appropriate location for employment development. 

Site 131/09: Land at Dawney Garth. 

3.5.37 This very large site lies outside the York Green Belt. 




Site 131/10ii: Farm south of Sandhole Lane. 

3.5.38 This large site lies to the south of the village and is within the York Green Belt. 


• the site is within the York Green Belt; 

• Development on this site would be visually conspicuous when 

approaching the village from the south 



52

Site 131/11: North of Burrells Lane. 

3.5.39 This very large site lies to the west of the village and is outside the York Green 

Belt. 


• the site is detached from the built up part of the village; 

• the site has no suitable vehicular access; 



Site 131/13: East of Sandhole Lane. 

3.5.40 This is a very large site outside the built-up area of the settlement. The 

current use appears to be wholly agricultural. 


• the site lies wholly within the York Green Belt; 

• the site is detached from the built up part of the village; 

• the site is adjacent to the sewage works; 

• the site is close to areas known to be susceptible to flooding. 



53

SHIPTON - SUMMARY 

The preferred option in Shipton would provide the following: 

• A total of 25 homes (including 12 affordable) would be provided. 

One allocation in the centre of the village to provide 15 new 

dwellings (7 affordable), and a second at Sandhole Lane to 

provide a further 10 dwellings (5 affordable). 

QUESTION D1: 


ALLOCATION SITES FOR SHIPTON – AND DO YOU 


QUESTION D2: 




QUESTION D3: 



QUESTION D4: 


LIMITS FOR SHIPTON – AND IF NOT, WHAT CHANGES 

DO YOU SEEK 



54

4. STILLINGTON 


3.5.41 In its role as a Service Village, Stillington has been recognised as being able 

to provide a degree of development providing services and facilities for the 




3.5.42 Stillington is located approximately 3.5 miles (5.5km) east of Easingwold. 

3.5.43 Key characteristics of Stillington include: 

 

 

 

 

 


services and facilities at Stillington include convenience stores, post 

office doctors surgery, public houses, a primary school, village hall, 

church and various recreation facilities including a football pitch; 


The nearest employment centre would be at Easingwold though bus 

services are also available to York; 


Although Stillington village is not subject to major flooding difficulties, 

areas to the east are influenced by the River Foss and are within higher 

flood risk zones. Land between Mill Lane and the built up edge of the 

settlement is identified as being prone to flooding and is, therefore, less 

likely to be suitable for development. Stillington was designated a 

Conservation Area on 20 th October 1976; 


Stillington is not located on a main route and is only accessed by ‘B’ 

classification roads; 


There are no identified brownfield sites in the village as being suitable for 

development. 



55


• the Parish Council consider that between 15 and 30 houses should be 

built in the village to 2021: 

• encouragement should be given to the development of businesses by 

the conversion of farm buildings and by the development of small 

industrial units; 

• development limits should be altered by extending them to the south, 

east and west of the village; 

Sources: ‘Consultation Statement’ and page 12 of the Village Services Town & Parish Council 

Consultation Report (2005) 

Stillington: potential development sites and Development Limits 


in Stillington, and indicates preferred options for allocation. In addition, 



Stillington – and shown on Map 6. 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 also include other 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 the boundary that are not related to site 

allocations proposed here 



56

MAP 6: Stillington - Options, Preferred Sites and Phasing 



57


3.5.45 The preferred site for allocation is as follows: 

Site 

Ref 

Site Name 


Area 

Possible 

Yield 

(40% 

Affordable) 

Brownfield 

or 

Greenfield 

No allocations - - N/A 



141/03 

(141/09) 

South of Back Lane (site 

141/03 and 141/09 

overlap) 

1.0 30 (15) Greenfield 

Phase 2 - TOTAL 1.0 30 (15) G 


No allocations - - N/A 


TOTAL 1.0 30 (15) 

0.0.ha (B) 

1.0ha (G) 

commentary 

There are sufficient sites 

currently approved/developed 

in the sub area to provide the 


An additional part of this larger 

site is currently under 

development as a site for 100% 

affordable - 10 dwellings 

(0.34ha fronting Carr Lane) 

There will be sufficient sites 

approved/developed in the sub 

area to provide the required 

housing for Phase 3 without 

further development in 

Stillington 


• the site is the logical extension of development along South Back Lane; 

• development in this area would respect the existing form and character 

of the village with little adverse impact on the Conservation Area; 

• development in this area would help provide reqiured highway 

improvements along South Back Lane. 



58

Stillington: rejected options 

3.5.46 The following sites in Stillington have been considered for development and 


for rejection: 


Greenfield 

or 

Brownfield 

Possible 

Yield (50% 

Affordable) 

141/02 

Road frontage north of 

OS 8070 


141/04 

East of “Oak Dene” 

north of Mill Lane, 0.30 Greenfield 10 (5) Residential. 

Stillington 

141/07 West of the village 

(141/06) north of the highway 


141/08 

West of York Road 

behind frontage dev. 


141/09 

land fronting Carr 

Lane 


141/10 East of Jack Lane 0.19 Greenfield 7 (3) Residential. 

141/11 White Bear Farm 0.50 Greenfield 20 (10) Residential. 

Possible type of Development 

Site 141/02: Road frontage north of OS 8070 

3.5.48 This small site located at to the south of the highway, has no natural southern 

boundary and is currently in agricultural use. 

Reason for rejection: 

• development on this site could adversely affect the pleasant western 

approach to the village and adversely affect views into and out of the 

Conservation Area. 

Site 141/04: East of “Oak Dene” north of Mill Lane 

3.5.49 This small site located at to the north of Mill Lane, has no natural northern 

boundary and is currently in agricultural use. 


• the site provides an important visual break between development at Holm 

Farm and the entrance to the village; 

• this small site is in an area which may be susceptible to flooding. 



59

Site 141/07 (and 141/06): West of the village north of the highway 

3.5.52 Site 141/07 (which includes site 141/06 within its boundary) and lies to the 

west and north of the village. 


• the site in its entirety is too large to be allocated for residential 

development. 

• development (even on part of this site) would adversely affect the 

character and appearance of the Stilling Conservation Area which, at this 

point, forms an attractive western approach to the village. 

Site 141/08: West of York Road behind frontage development. 

3.5.53 This large visually prominent site is in agricultural use. 


• development on this scale is not required or appropriate in a service 

village. 

• development on the northern part of the site would be prominent and 

adversely affect the character of the Conservation Area. 

Site 141/09: East of Carr Lane 

3.5.54 Since the LDF allocations process began, this northern part of this site been 

approved for 10 affordable housing units. Only 0.28ha of this site remains 

available. 


• further development in this area would result in more housing being 

provided in the village than is considered appropriate – the preferred site is 

closer to village services and facilities. 

Site 141/11: White Bear Farm 

3.5.56 This small site lies to the south of White Bear Farm. 


• the site is detached from the built up part of the village and should not be 

developed in advance of more well related sites. 



60

STILLINGTON - SUMMARY 

The preferred option in Stillington would provide the following: 

• 30 new dwellings, of which 15 would be affordable, would be 

provided located close to existing village services and amenities. 

QUESTION E1: 


ALLOCATION SITES FOR STILLINGTON – AND DO YOU 


QUESTION E2: 




QUESTION E3: 



QUESTION E4: 


LIMITS FOR STILLINGTON – AND IF NOT, WHAT 




61

3.6 EASINGWOLD 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 

Easingwold Sub Area, Secondary Villages are designated at: 

− Alne 

− Brandsby 

− Crayke 

− Huby 

− Linton-on-Ouse 

− Raskelf 

− Sutton-on-the-Forest 

− Tholthorpe 

− Tollerton 

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 Easingwold Sub Area. These Development 

Limits are shown on Maps 7 – 15. 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 Easingwold Sub Area, and thus no 

allocations are proposed here. 

QUESTION F4: 


LIMITS FOR THESE SETTLEMENTS – AND IF NOT, WHAT 




62

MAP 7: Alne - Development Limits 



63

MAP 8: Brandsby - Development Limits 



64

MAP 9: Crayke - Development Limits 



65

MAP 10: Huby - Development Limits 



66

MAP 11: Linton-on-Ouse - Development Limits 



67

MAP 12: Raskelf - Development Limits 



68

MAP 13: Sutton-on-the-Forest - Development Limits 



69

MAP 14: Tholthorpe - Development Limits 



70

MAP 15: Tollerton - Development Limits 



71

4. SUMMARY OF PREFERRED OPTIONS: EASINGWOLD SUB AREA 

Housing land proposals 

4.1 The overall implications of the preceding proposals on the Easingwold area in 

terms of housing land supply are as follows: 

• the proposals as set out above will provide approximately 382 new homes 

within the Easingwold 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 

313), meets the requirements of Policy CP5A in the Core Strategy (set out 

in para. 3.1.1 above); 

• approximately 287 new homes are planned for Easingwold town, which, in 

total, caters for at least 2/3 rd of the housing requirement for the Easingwold 

Sub Area. This meets the requirements of Policy CP6 in the Core 

Strategy; 

• these proposals do not utilise significant amounts of brownfield land for 

development. Overall, approximately 40% of development in the 

Easingwold sub area over the plan period will be on brownfield land – 

which is below the District target of 55%. This is due to the nature of 

Easingwold and the associated Service Villages in the Sub Area having 

limited brownfield opportunities. 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 Easingwold Sub Area 

are set out in para. 3.1.1 above. In Easingwold town as the Service 

Centre, and in the Service Villages, the proposed phasing of housing 

suggested in the preferred options is set out below. This takes account of 

313 calculated completions and commitments for the period 1 st April 2004 

to 31 st March 2007, which is included within Phase 1. Given the existing 

level of commitments, this implied trajectory can be seen to be very similar 

to the required three phases: 

Settlement 2004 – 2011 2011 – 2016 2016 – 2021 TOTAL 

Easingwold (town) 223 145 110 478 

Core Strategy (minimum 

requirement) 

231 135 100 466 

Service Villages 51 65 30 146 

Secondary Villages 40 0 0 40 

Other villages 31 0 0 31 

Total outside 

Easingwold town 

122 65 30 217 

Core Strategy requirement 119 65 50 234 

Sub Area Total 345 210 140 695 

Core Strategy requirement 350 200 150 700 



72

4.2 The Preferred Options sites are proposed to be phased as follows: 

PHASE SETTLEMENT SITE YIELD 

1* Easingwold 041/22 32 

(2004 – 

2011) TOTAL 32* 

* In addition, 313 calculated completions and commitments for the period 1 st April 2004 to 31 st 

March 2007 contribute to the required total (of approximately 350) for this Phase. This site 

received approval in May 2007. 


041/02 

041/06 

80 

2 Easingwold 

041/43 

041/14 20 

041/15 45 

(2011 – Husthwaite 071/01 20 

2016) 

131/07 11 

Shipton 

131/03 4 

Stillington 141/03 30 

TOTAL 210 


3 Easingwold 

041/19 

041/11 

041/33 

041/37 

041/36 

28 

50 

22 

10 

(2016 – 

2021) 

Brafferton / 

Helperby 

063/03 

063/04 

Shipton 131/10 10 

20 

TOTAL 140 

4.3 It should be noted that reflecting 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, it is almost certain that windfall developments will occur (and 

such 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 

cumulative 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). If necessary 

this may involve using the control mechanisms set out in Development 

Policies DPD para. 4.4.5. Thus if significant windfall development has taken 

place, the release of sites identified for subsequent phases may be delayed. 



73

Land proposed for employment purposes 

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

Easingwold Sub Area for the lifetime of the plan (2005 – 2021) as 8 hectares. 

However, as over 2 hectare of committed employment land remains 

undeveloped in the Easingwold sub area (see para 3.3.3), only 6 hectares 

needs to be provided for the remainder of the plan period. 

4.5 The Preferred Options identifies land to meet this 6ha requirement to the 

south of Easingwold as part of a mixed use development (residential and 

employment purposes). Land towards the north of the mixed use area (off 

Stillington Road - site 041/02) for B1 office and light industry type uses and 

towards the south of this area (off York Road - site 041/43) for B2 – B8 type 

employment uses where there is easy access onto the Easingwold bypass. 



74

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; 



75

Step 2: 

Step 3: 

Step 4: 

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; 



76

Step 5: 

Step 6: 

Step 7: 

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 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; 

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. 



77

ANNEX 2 

DEVELOPMENT LIMITS 

Explanation of changes from District Wide Local Plan, for each boundary 

(where not related to proposed new allocations): 

Service Centre – 

• Easingwold Map 2 – ref EDL001 

- Alteration to exclude an area of open space located at the edge of the 

settlement which would continue to be protected under Policy CP19. 

Service Villages 

• Brafferton/Helperby MAP 3 – ref EDL002 

- alteration to DWLP boundary to include developments approved since 

development limits were previously drafted. 

• Husthwaite MAP 4 

- former boundary considered to remain valid, and no revisions required 

• Shipton – MAP 5 – ref EDL003, EDL004, EDL005, EDL006 & EDL014. 

- alterations in five areas 

- (EDL003 -Station Road and EDL004 – at Richardsons Trailers) both of 

these alterations are to include employment uses previously shown as 

being outside development limits. 

- (EDL014, EDL005 – north of site 131/05 and EDL006 – at 131/02) are 

all required to include residential development approved or built since 

previous limits were drafted. 

- 

• Stillington – MAP 6 – ref EDL007 and ECDL008 

- two areas require amendment at The Green required for consistency 

reasons and to include more recently approved residential 

development (one to the north and the other west). 

Secondary Villages 

• Alne – MAP 7 – ref EDL009 

- one small amendment to include an approved / constructed allocation 

and adjacent residential properties; 

• Huby – MAP 10 – ref EDL010 

- one small alteration to exclude the undeveloped allocation in the DWLP 

which is not to be rolled forward; 



78

• Raskelf – MAP 12 – ref EDL0011 

- one small alteration (to include the highway north of the village) 

required for consistency reasons; 

• Sutton on the Forest – MAP 13 – ref EDL012 

- minor alteration to draw limits in at the north of the village; 

• Tholthorpe – MAP 14 – ref EDL013 

- one small alteration required to include developed land at the south of 

the village. 

Brandsby – MAP 8 

Crayke – MAP 9 

Linton-on-Ouse – MAP 11 

Tollerton – MAP 15 

- former boundary considered to remain valid, and no revisions required. 



79

ANNEX 3 

REVIEW OF CURRENT HOUSING COMMITMENTS 

EASINGWOLD SUB AREA 

Outstanding housing commitments by settlement 

Settlement 

Easingwold 

Brafferton / 

Helperby 

Husthwaite 

Shipton 

Site Name 

Application 

Number 

Developable 

Brown 

or 

Green 

Contribute to 

Phase 1 Housing 

Supply (2004-11) 

130 Long Street 06/00520/FUL Yes Brown Yes 2 


145 Long Street 2/05/041/1077 Yes Brown Yes 2 

Crabmill Lane, 2/04/041/1052 Yes Brown Yes 7 


190 Long Street 06/02334FUL Yes Brown Yes 2 

35 Galtres Drive 05/00597/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

55A Uppleby 2/04/041/0425B Yes Brown Yes 1 

63 Long Street, Back Lane 06/00745/FUL Yes Green Yes 1 

Adjacent to Treetops 05/02127/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Barbe Q 3 Ltd 06/00724/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Builders Yard 05/02360/FUL Yes Brown Yes 3 

Caretakers Bungalow 2/05/41/1012C Yes Brown Yes 1 

HDC Offices 05/02409FUL Yes Brown Yes 39 

Holly Brook Caravan Park 05/02405/FUL Yes Green Yes 1 

Holly Brook Caravan Park 06/01418FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Adjacent to Clairmont 2/04/041/1021A Yes Brown Yes 2 

Adjacent to Cottingham 07/00269/FUL Yes Brown Yes 2 

Adjacent toMillside 06/01544/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Adjacent to The Limes 06/00593//FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

39-45 Uppleby 06/01240/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Rear Station Cottages 06/00334/OUT Yes Brown Yes 3 

Rear 174-180 Long Street 06/00294/FUL Yes Brown Yes 7 

Orchard Close 06/02446/FUL Yes Brown Yes 3 

Prospect Farm 06/00078/FUL Yes Brown Yes 79 

Rear of Allonville 2/04/041/0809D Yes Brown Yes 1 

Redholme, Raskelf Road 2/05/041/0293E Yes Brown Yes 2 

Royal Oak Inn 2/05/041/0355D Yes Brown Yes 2 

Yield 

Windross House 06/02107/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

TOTAL 174 

Rear of Brafferton House 05/01462/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Almshouses 06/02481/FUL Yes Brown Yes 3 

Rear of Caldene 06/02601/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

West end Dunroyal 05/01781/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

TOTAL 6 

Holly Grove 2/04/071/0151 Yes Brown Yes 1 

Land Ajacent to Sleepy 2/05/071/0106D Yes Brown Yes 1 

Willows 

Rear of 7 East View 06/01601/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Lists House 2/04/071/0099B Yes Brown Yes 2 

TOTAL 5 

Holiday cottages 05/02150/FUL Yes Green Yes 2 

4 East Lane 06/01104/REM Yes Brown Yes 1 

The Market Garden 2/04/131/0205 Yes Brown Yes 1 

17 & 18 Authitts Cottages 06/02873/FUL Yes Brown Yes 8 

Ivy Cottages 2/04/131/0128D Yes Green Yes 1 

Manor Farm 06/01487/FUL Yes Green Yes 2 

West Garth 05/02504/FUL Yes Brown Yes 2 

TOTAL 17 



80

Stillington 

Secondary 

and Other 

Villages 

Church House Farm 05/02448/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Green Croft 2/04/141/0233E Yes Brown Yes 1 

Greystones 06/00272/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Wellington House 2/04/141/0134E Yes Brown Yes 2 

Wandell House 2/04/141/0291 Yes Brown Yes 1 

Wandell House 05/02480/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Bay Horse 2/04/141/0201B Yes Brown Yes 1 

OS field 2865 06/00280/FUL Yes Green Yes 10 

The Garage 06/02616/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

The White Bear Inn 06/02248/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

TOTAL 20 

Brownfield = 31 

TOTAL 

61 

Greenfield = 30 

Brownfield = 

TOTAL 

236* 313* 

Greenfield = 47* 



81

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. 



82

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, 

1 “Local Development Framework Monitoring: A Good Practice Guide”, ODPM, March 2005 



83

y measuring quantifiable 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. 



84

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 

DP8 – Development 

Limits 




85

Core Strategy 

Policies 

Supporting 



Targets 

DP9 – Development 

outside Development 

Limits 


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 

0% of inappropriate 

housing development 

outside Development 

Limits 


development outside 

Development Limits 


development in the York 

Green Belt 

DP10 – Form and 

character of settlements 


No. of development proposals approved 

in important areas such as Green 

Wedges and Spaces of Townscape 

Importance 

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 - 

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. 



86

Core Strategy 

Policies 

Supporting 



Targets 

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 

CP9A – Affordable 

housing exceptions 

DP15 – Promoting and 

maintaining affordable 

housing 

Proportion of social rented and 

intermediate affordable housing 

approved p.a. 


No. of affordable dwellings completed 

through exception schemes 

50:50 social 

rented:intermediate 

affordable housing 

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 

CP11 – Distribution 

of new employment 

development 

- 


% of employment development 

completed within each level of the 

settlement hierarchy 

2010-2021: 

Service Centres 90% 

Service Villages 5% 

Secondary 

Villages/Elsewhere 5% 



87

Core Strategy 

Policies 

Supporting 



Targets 

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 

2,500 jobs created or 

safeguarded between 

2006 and 2010 

Percentage of “High quality” jobs 

created 

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 

DP22 – Other town centre 

uses 


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 


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 between 2006 

and 2021 



88

Core Strategy 

Policies 

Supporting 



Targets 

DP26 – Agricultural issues 


No. of rural agricultural diversification 

schemes approved 

10% increase in 

agricultural 

diversification schemes 

approved between 2006 

and 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-to-date 

character appraisals by 

2010 

12% of Conservation 

Areas with published 

management plans by 

2010 

Listed Buildings at risk 

reduced to 1.5% by 

2010 

DP29 – Archaeology 

DP30 – Protecting the 

character and appearance 

of the countryside 


No. of approved proposals on, or 

affecting nationally important sites 

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 - 



89

Core Strategy 

Policies 

CP18 – Prudent use 

of natural resources 

Supporting 



DP34 – Sustainable energy Core Indicator – 9 

Renewable energy capacity installed by 

type 

Targets 

All developments over 

1,000 m.sq in size or 10 

or more dwellings to 

provide a least 10% of 

their energy 

requirements from onsite 

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/composting 

rate by 2010 

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 



90

Core Strategy 

Policies 

Supporting 



Targets 

DP44 – Very noisy 

activities 




91

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 

041/09 Westfield Music Centre, Thirsk Road 0.00ha 

041/10 West of Ashton House, Raskelf Road 0.13ha 

041/12 Rear of 176 Long Street 0.15ha 

041/16 Old Fire Station, Stillington Road 0.12ha 

041/17 North of Mill Lane (Crayke Road) 0.23ha 

041/18 West side of Oulston Road. 0.08ha 

041/21 North of Padock Rise. 0.25ha 

041/35 Land at Oulston Road, (for recreation purposes - fishing) 3.17ha 

041/38 OS field 349a Thirsk Road, Easingwold (original A19) 0.20ha 

041/40 Newlyn, Oulston Road, Easingwold 0.32ha 

063/02 Lund Farm, Back Lane, Helperby 0.27ha 

063/05 “Oak tree Inn” at junction of Back Lane with Raskelf Road 0.12ha 

071/03 land opposite the cemetery, Husthwaite 0.03ha 

071/04 North of the Lodge at Kays Banks, Husthwaite 0.13ha 

131/04 land to the rear of East Villa, Shipton 0.12ha 

131/05 South and East of The Grange, Shipton 0.11ha 

131/12 South of School Lane, Shipton 0.16ha 

141/05 East of village south of Mill Lane, Stillington 0.16ha 

141/01 North of South Back Lane, Stillington 0.13ha 

141/10 East of Jack Lane, Stillington 0.19ha 



92

(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. 

Parish 

Reference 

Number 

Address 

Aldwark 005/01 Land at The Cottage (adjacent to former Woodholme Farm) 

Aldwark 005/02 Land at Bay Horse Farm 

Aldwark 005/03 Land to the North and west of the Beech Croft Farm 

Aldwark 005/04 Land at Home Farm (Opposite St Stephens Church) 

Aldwark 005/05 Land at Bridge Farm and Aldwark Wood 

Alne 006/01 

Alne 006/02 

Alne 006/03 

Alne Station 

North east of the village 

West of Jack Hole Lane 

Alne 006/04 North of Village Street (off Jack Hole Lane) 

Alne 006/05 

Alne 006/06 

Alne 006/07 

Alne 006/08 

Cheshire Home, YO61 1SA 

North and west of Gale Road 

North of St Mary’s Church. 

Amended development limits – NW of Cricket Ground 

Brafferton 018/01 

St Andrews Church, (Pilmoor) 

Brandsby 019/01 

Crayke 034/01 

To the south and west of the village (between Howardian and Wood 

View) 

To the South of the village, at Town End Farm. 

(Dalby cum) 

Skewsby 

(Dalby cum) 

Skewsby 

036/01 West of Townend Farm 

036/02 Land at Dalby Terrace, Dalby-cum-Skewsby 



93

Parish 

Reference 

Number 

Address 

Farlington 050/01 Bridge Farm Stables (OS 5562) 

Flawith 054/01 Chapel Farm NE of road 

Flawith 054/02 Flawith Farm SW of road 

Flawith 054/03 North of Foxholm House 

Huby 070/01 

Huby 070/02 

Huby 070/03 

North and East of Bell Lane (Sutton Road) 

South of Huby Sports Ground, north of the school 

Baston Lane 

Huby 070/04 Rear of a terrace of houses on the North Side of Gracious Street 

Huby 070/05 

Huby 070/06 

Huby 070/07 

Huby 070/08 

Huby 070/09 

Huby 070/10 

Huby 070/11 

Huby 070/12 

Linton on Ouse 093/01 

Linton on Ouse 093/02a 

Linton on Ouse 093/02b 





Rear of Inglenook etc. Easingwold Road 

South of Gracious Street – OS 9170 

East and north of Bell Lane, Sutton Road 

Baston Lane (OS 3129 opposite Rose Cottage) 

South of Stillington Road 

West of Newton House Farm, Main Street 

North of village and West of the highway 

East of School Close and west of Bell Lane 

Mill House, Linton Woods Lane 

Road frontage between Linton Meadow and Linton Woods Lane 

North of Lyncroft 

North and east of Lyncroft 

Land to the west of the access road into the RAF base 

South of main road “Priests Garth” 

West of the village off Half Moon Street 

Myton on Swale 103/01 Land around The Poplars 



94

Parish 

Reference 

Number 

Address 

Newton on Ouse 109/01a Back Lane, opposite Sill Lane 

Newton on Ouse 109/01b East of Tollerton Road 

Newton on Ouse 109/02 North of Moor Lane 

Newton on Ouse 109/03 Greenways Garage and land to the east 

Overton 117/01 Church Farm North West of “Prosclift” 

Raskelf 122/01 

Raskelf 122/02 

To rear of frontage houses north west of the village street 

To south west of 1 North End Raskelf 

Sutton on the 

Forest 

Sutton on the 

Forest 

Sutton on the 

Forest 

Sutton on the 

Forest 

Sutton on the 

Forest 

Sutton on the 

Forest 

Sutton on the 

Forest 

Sutton on the 

Forest 

Sutton on the 

Forest 

144/01 

Goose Lane, 1500m south of village 

144/02b 

West of village behind Newton Farm Court off York Road 

144/03 See 144/01 

144/04 

North east of village, west of B1383 

144/05 

North east of village, East of B1383 (garage site) 

144/06 North east of village, west of B1383 (north of Senior Cottage) 

144/07a 

East of Carr Lane (opposite “Blink Bonnie”) 

144/07b 

Rear of The Steadings 

144/08 

West side of Hagg Lane, 1km south of village 

Tholthorpe 153/01 







Plant Hire Depot 200m to the south of Tholthorpe 

South west of Back Lane 

Agricultural buildings at Beckside Farm 

East of Hagg Lane, South of Webbs Plantation, Tholthorpe Airfield 

Adjacent to Reynards Yard 

North of Back Lane – High Farm 

Hag Lane, industrial estate 

Tholthorpe 153/08 Tholthorpe Moor 



95

Parish 

Reference 

Number 

Address 

Thormanby 154/01 Opposite Wentworth Avenue, Back Lane, Church Lane 

Tollerton 162/01 

Tollerton 162/02a 

Tollerton 162/02b 

South east of South Back Lane 

North of Back Lane, East of Moorlands Lane 

South west of the railway, North east of Kyle Close 

Tollerton 162/03 North west side of Tennis Court Lane, opposite Japonica House 


OS field 9840, north west of Back Lane near The Meads (old 

surgery) 

Tollerton 162/05 Land to the rear of properties fronting west side of Station Road 


Land between Main Street and Back Lane 

Tollerton 162/07 Opposite Morgan Cottage (West of site 162/04 above) 









South East of South Back Lane 

Sports Ground south of site 162/02b 

Maltings Farm, South of Church Close, off Newton Road 

North west of Church Close 

South of the Village, West of Newton Road 

East of Moorlands Lane 

South East of the Village – south of Holmfield 

South West corner of the village (Tennis Court Lane) 



96

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

Hambleton District Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?