Preferred Options - Hambleton District Council

F RA M EW O R K 

LDF 

H A M B L E T O N 

L O C A L 

D E VE LO P ME N T

S W Quartermain BA(Hons) Dip TP MRTPI 

Executive Director 

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

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

FOREWORD 

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

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

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

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

the existing Local Plan. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council’s vision and corporate priorities. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

particular document concerns allocations for the THIRSK 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 

THIRSK Preferred Options ALLOCATIONS OCTOBER 2007 

i

CONTENTS 

Page 

Foreword i. 

1. Introduction and Context 1 

2. Principles of site allocation 9 

3. Thirsk Sub Area 17 

3.1 The Core Strategy Context 17 

3.2 Background Studies 19 

3.3 Current development commitments 20 

3.4 Settlement proposals: Service Centre 22 

Thirsk (with Sowerby) town 

3.5 Settlement proposals: Service Villages 42 

Carlton Miniott 42 

Topcliffe 49 

3.6 Secondary Villages 55 

(Borrowby, Dalton, Dalton Airfield, Knayton, 

Pickhill, Sessay, South Kilvington, 

South Otterington, 

Sutton under Whitestonecliffe) 

4. Summary of Preferred Options: Thirsk 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 79 

4. Policies in the Hambleton District Wide Local Plan 81 

replaced by the Allocations DPD 

5. Monitoring and implementation 82 

6. Sites not considered in this analysis 91 



ii

Preferred Options 

ALLOCATIONS – THIRSK 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 THIRSK Sub Area. It contains information about the 

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

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

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

considering which sites should be promoted for development, the Allocations 

DPD also includes the proposed definition of Development Limits for designated 

settlements. 

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

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

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

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

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

The Preferred Options stage 

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

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

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

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

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

proceeds, all the consultation responses on all DPDs are taken into account – so 

that views expressed previously have also influenced the content of this report. 



1

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

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

the authority is approaching the preparation of the Allocations DPD. It is not a 

draft of the final document, but an indication of the approach, in the form of the 

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

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

comparison with all the other alternative sites that have been identified (including 

those other sites raised through consultation to-date), indicating why these sites 

are not preferred. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

see para. 1.19. 

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

during October to November 2007. Comments on any matters are requested 

back by Friday 23 November 2007. 

Please send your comments to: 

Planning Policy Team, Hambleton District Council, Civic Centre, 

Stone Cross, Northallerton, DL6 2UU 

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

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

The Local Development Framework context 

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

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

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

relevant to the Allocations DPD are described here. 



2

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

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

give structure and direction; a set of three Spatial Principles, which guide the 

approach to delivering the Vision; and a number of Core Policies, which define 

the strategic approach. Supplementing the Core Strategy, and providing details 

that elaborate the Core Policies and give guidance on their implementation, the 

Development Policies DPD contains a number of Development Policies. The 

Development Policies DPD has now been submitted, and was subject of a Public 

Examination in June 2007. The Inspector’s Report (which will be binding) is 

expected in December 2007. 

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

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

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

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

alternatives for allocations considered in this Allocations DPD Preferred Options 

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

now adopted, following receipt of the Inspector’s binding report in February 2007. 

The Development Policies DPD contains some area based policies (for example 

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

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

which is to be proposed by the Allocations DPD. 

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

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

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

formal Proposals Map is effectively the map contained within the Hambleton 

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

advanced with the submission Development Policies DPD. The Proposals Map 

will be issued in its first revision when the Development Policies DPD is adopted. 

The submission Allocations DPD will similarly be accompanied by plans showing 



3

the proposed revisions of the Proposals Map that reflect its new allocations and 

changes to Development Limits – and on adoption of the Allocations DPD the 

Proposals Map will be revised again. 

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

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

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

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

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

DPD – so the adoption of this DPD will mean that the DWLP is entirely replaced, 

and the Proposals Map similarly will be entirely that derived from the LDF. 

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

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

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

adopted Development Plan Documents. For example, briefs for the 

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

SPDs, which will provide necessary additional guidance relating to the 

development of sites allocated in the Allocations DPD. 

The nature of the LDF 

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

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

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

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

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

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

community, without wasting scarce resources or spoiling the environment. This 

approach goes beyond the controls of development and land-uses of the 

previous system, and provides an opportunity for all parties and agencies to work 

together to develop programmes and activities to achieve a common vision for 

Hambleton, within the spatial framework provided by the LDF. 

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

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

The LDF must be in conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). Most 

of the implications for this were addressed in developing the Core Strategy, but a 

number of RSS Policies are relevant to this Allocations DPD (for example 

concerning the sequence for the selection of land for development). Particularly 

important, the LDF provides the means of giving spatial expression to the 

Community Plan (both the Hambleton Community Plan and the North Yorkshire 

Community Strategy). Thus the allocations considered in this report provide an 

opportunity to deliver the aspirations set out in the Community Plan, and in the 

Area Action Plans which have been prepared as part of the Community Plan and 

its process. The allocations considered 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). 



4

The consultation process 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

options” for site allocations starting in October 2005. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

allocations. This consultation represents another opportunity to comment on 

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

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

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

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

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

specific questions are posed, set out as follows: 



5

QUESTION 1: 

DO YOU AGREE WITH THE PREFERRED OPTIONS 

ALLOCATION SITES FOR THIS SETTLEMENT – AND DO 

YOU AGREE WITH THE JUSTIFICATION GIVEN 

QUESTION 2: 

DO YOU AGREE WITH THE REJECTION OF THE OTHER 

SITES CONSIDERED HERE – AND DO YOU AGREE WITH 

THE REASONS GIVEN FOR THEIR REJECTION 

QUESTION 3: 

DO YOU THINK THAT ANY OTHER SITES SHOULD BE 

ALLOCATED – AND FOR WHAT REASONS 

QUESTION 4: 

DO YOU AGREE WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 

LIMITS FOR THIS SETTLEMENT – AND IF NOT, WHAT 

CHANGES DO YOU SEEK 

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

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

consultation process should mean that assessment of sites, and the 

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

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

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

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

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

on this document. Indeed if new sites are promoted for development after this 

stage it is likely that it will not be possible to consider them fully, and it may well 

not be possible for them to be included in this Allocations DPD. This is because 

all sites must be subject to the same full Sustainability Appraisal, and be open to 

full debate through public consultation. Whilst the new system does require any 

new site (or boundary changes) representations made at the submission stage to 

be advertised for a further consultation period, it must be stressed that full and 

proper consideration of such sites will be very difficult to achieve at the Public 

Examination. The message is – now is the time to comment on the 

proposed site allocations, and identify any further new sites and 

Development Limits changes! 



6

The evidence base 

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

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

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

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

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 

Thirsk Sub Area – proposed allocations, and explanation of 

alternatives rejected 

Summary of Preferred Options: Thirsk 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 Thirsk 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 reject 

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

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



9

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 

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. 



10

2.7 The current position in the Thirsk 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. 

Housing site acceptability and sustainability 

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

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

considerations that need to be addressed in considering the suitability of 

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

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

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

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

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

development should be: 



11

settlement character 

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

(and have the least impact on the environment compared with alternatives); 

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

DP8) 

• consistent with Policy DP10 requirements: having no unacceptable impact on 

the green wedges and spaces of townscape importance defined under that 

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

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

conserve biodiversity; and Policy DP35 – protecting water resources; 

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

accessibility 

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

and to employment and employment proposals; 

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

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

public transport accessibility; 

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

local issues 

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

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

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

• capable of making a contribution towards achieving a sustainable community, 

including delivering wider community benefits; 

feasibility 

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

or proposed infrastructure (and with any timing implications of infrastructure 

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

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

forward for development during the plan period; 

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

existing flooding implications elsewhere), in accordance with the objectives of 

Policy DP43 – minimising the risk of flooding. 

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 – 



12

to enable the contribution of the proposals towards achieving the LDF brownfield 

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

be on brownfield land, District-wide). 

Principles for making employment development allocations in each 

Sub Area 

The scale and distribution of employment development 

2.13 There are distinct parallels between the principles for making housing allocations 

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

purposes. Core Policy CP10A identifies the overall scale of development 

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

Core Policy CP10. However, whilst there is a need to monitor the demand for 

employment land and ensure that available supply is adequate, and for example 

is physically capable of being developed during the plan period, there is not the 

same detailed concern with regard to the timing of development. Guidance on 

the phasing of release of employment sites in different time periods is not 

therefore contained in the Core Strategy, and is therefore not considered here. 

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

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

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

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

the submitted Core Strategy para. 4.3.8. 

2.15 The current position in the Thirsk Sub Area with regard to existing permissions for 

employment uses is set out in Section 3.3 (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. 

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; 



13

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); 

accessibility 

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

proposals; 

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

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

public transport accessibility; 

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

local issues 

• capable of meeting particular local needs and circumstances, particularly the 

priorities for economic development expressed in Core Policy CP12 and 

Development Policy DP16; 

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

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

• capable of making a contribution towards achieving a sustainable community, 

including delivering wider community benefits; 



14

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). 

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 0.3ha or greater (or capable of accommodating 10 dwellings or 

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

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

the acceptability of such developments will not be anticipated by making specific 

allocations on the Proposals Map. Where sites within the Service Centre and 

Service Villages have been suggested for consideration that are below this 

threshold, the sites are shown referenced and outlined on the Maps included in 



15

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. THIRSK 

3.1 THE CORE STRATEGY CONTEXT 

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

as follows: 

• Spatial Principle 1 identifies the Thirsk area as being part of an Area of 

Opportunity in order to reflect the scope for development based on 

accessibility, scale of existing facilities and relative lack of development 

constraints. The Area of Opportunity also includes part of the Bedale area 

and the southern part of the Northallerton area. Most housing and 

employment development will take place within this area; 

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

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

Service Centre 

Thirsk/Sowerby 

Service Villages 

Carlton Miniott 

Topcliffe 

Secondary 

Villages 

Borrowby 

Dalton 

Knayton 

Pickhill 

Sessay 

South Kilvington 

South Otterington 

Sutton under 

Whitestonecliffe 



17

• Policy CP5A establishes that the housing completion targets per annum are: 

2004 – 2011 2011 – 2016 2016 – 2021 

Thirsk Area 80 80 70 

out of 

Hambleton total 320 290 260 

• Policy CP6 places two requirements on the scale of housing development in 

Thirsk: 

- at least 51% of all housing in the District needs to be in Northallerton and 

Thirsk towns, ie. 163 (2004 – 2011); 148 (2011 – 2016); 133 (2016 – 

2017); 

- at least two thirds of all housing in the Thirsk Sub-Area should be in Thirsk 

town. 

Reconciling these two requirements to give a working target for Northallerton 

and Thirsk towns (by using the proportionate differences in Sub Area totals 

between Northallerton and Thirsk Sub Areas), this effectively gives a 

minimum target of housing provision in Thirsk town of: 

2004 – 2011 2011 – 2016 2016–2021 

Thirsk 72 66 58 

Principal 

Service Centre 

• Policy CP9 sets the target of 40% of all dwellings in Thirsk Area to be 

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

• Policy CP10A sets a target level of 18 hectares of employment development 

in the Thirsk Area (out of 75 hectares in the District as a whole). However, 

taking account of existing land available with permission, the Core Strategy 

estimates that only a further 13 hectares will need to be identified; 

• Policy CP11 establishes the District-wide principle that most employment 

development will be encouraged to locate within Service Centres – however in 

the case of Thirsk, it recognises that if land cannot be identified in the town of 

Thirsk, some development should also be supported at Dalton Airfield (as will 

development to meet the needs of existing businesses); 

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

Town Centre, serving a wide rural catchment; 

• highways schemes – in the Thirsk area the proposed upgrading of the A1 to 

motorway standards is identified in the Development Policies DPD by Policy 

DP16, which identifies the protected route. 



18

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 Thirsk Area in the Allocations DPD, as follows: 

• the Community Plan (including the Area Group Action Plan) identifies that 

there is a need for a Skate Park at Thirsk; 

• Town Centres Study – considered that the former Royal Mail Sorting Office 

and Fire/Ambulance Stations at Newsham Road, Thirsk, offers the most 

scope for new development, recommending that it should be allocated for 

comparison retail development to complement the existing offer within the 

traditional centre. This could potentially accommodate new retail, leisure or 

office development; 

• Economic Development Study – demonstrated that Thirsk is a priority area for 

new employment land and identifies land to the west of York Road as the 

preferred site. However, part of the site floods and is very intrusive when 

viewed from the west. The Study also suggested land at Station Road and to 

the south of Thircon at York Road for employment development as it does not 

flood and is a natural extension to the existing industrial estate. At Dalton, the 

Study proposed an extension to the existing Airfield Industrial Estate; 

• Car Parking Study – the following proposals were identified for consideration: 

short term 

- Millgate Car Park was recommended to be remodelled to provide more car 

parking by looking at the landscape areas, the coach park and the area 

adjacent to the Norby Front Street access; 

medium term 

- a new Long Stay Car Park was proposed to provide at least 60 car spaces 

and additional car parking although no specific site is suggested. The 

existing Coach Park is one possibility. 

• Strategic Flood Risk Assessment – raised various issues that need to be 

addressed when assessing potential allocations in the Thirsk area. Large 

areas of central Thirsk and Sowerby lie within flood zone 3 areas, which have 

a 1% annual flooding probability. There are also flooding issues at Dalton 

Airfield to be addressed; 

• 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. 



19

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: 

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 

(= 560 for Sub 

Area, = 504 for 

Service Centre) 

Thirsk 26 196 222 

Sowerby 68 167 237 

SERVICE 

CENTRE 

94 363 459 45* 

TOTAL 

Carlton Miniott 2 3 5 

Topcliffe 0 10 10 

SERVICE 

VILLAGE 

2 13 15 0 

TOTAL 

Borrowby 1 1 2 

Dalton 2 7 9 

Knayton 0 0 1 

Pickhill 0 1 1 

Sessay, 1 1 2 

South Kilvington 1 0 1 

South 

0 1 1 

Otterington 

Sutton under 

1 2 4 

Whitestonecliffe 

SECONDARY 

VILLAGE 

6 13 21 0 

TOTAL 

OTHERS 11 19 30 0 

TOTAL 113 408 521 39 

*Number required to meet Core Strategy proportion of development for Service Centre (504). However, 39 

dwellings only required to meet sub area target for phase 1(39), taking into account completions and 

commitments. 

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. 



20

land for employment uses 

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

Sub Area for the lifetime of the plan (2005 – 2021) as 18 hectares. Currently only 

5 hectare has permission - therefore, a further requirement of around 13 hectares 

is needed in the Sub-Area. 



21

3.4 SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS 

THIRSK (WITH SOWERBY) TOWN 

Strategic overview 

3.4.1 Thirsk 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. 

3.3.2 Thirsk is located directly to the west of the A19, to which there is good vehicular 

access. There is also good access along the A168 to the A1 and a train station 

1km to the west. The town consists of two areas, that of Thirsk and the adjoining 

Sowerby. For the purpose of this document, the two will be considered as one 

settlement. 

3.3.3 Key characteristics of Thirsk include: 

location of main facilities 

These are generally in or close to the Market Place, or along the streets which 

extend from the Market Place. Just out of the centre on Station Road is a 

Tesco superstore, which is close to the largest leisure facility, the racecourse, 

which generates a significant number of visitors to the town and subsequent 

traffic congestion. There are three primary schools within the town, one to the 

north and two within Sowerby. There is also a Secondary School in Sowerby. 

The main sports facilities are located at the racecourse off Newsham Road 

and there is a swimming pool to the south of the Market Place. 

location of main employment areas 

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

commercial area, there are two clusters of employment concentrations, one to 

the south-east of the town off York Road, close to the A19 and one to the 

west along Station Road. There is also a large industrial site at Dalton 

Airfield, just 8km to the south-west. 

main environmental constraints 

The submission Development Policies DPD proposes that a large Green 

Wedge is protected from development (under Policies DP10 and DP31) to the 

south of the town, known as Sowerby Flatts. This is also partially designated 

as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and largely falls within 

the town’s designated Conservation Area (DP28). 

There are also significant areas of open space (DP10) to the north of the 

town, known locally as The Holmes, which follows the line of the Cod Beck 

through the town south to Sowerby Flatts. In addition there are two 

Scheduled Ancient Monuments (DP29); the Castle located to the north of 

Millgate car park and the Castle Keep to the west of the Market Place. 



22

accessibility and infrastructure issues 

From the town there is excellent access onto both the A19 and A1(M). there 

are also good connections to the nearest town, Northallerton via the A168. 

The train Station at Carlton Miniott provides regular Transpennine Express 

services along the north/south main line. 

brownfield land 

Although there are a number of potentially available brownfield sites within the 

existing Development Limits, they are inadequate in both size and number to 

satisfy the anticipated housing requirement for the settlement. 

you told us that … 

• prefer to see business development to the east of the town, closer to 

transport links; 

• site 139/05 should remain as a Health Centre and hospital; 

• present schools may be at capacity; 

• consideration to be given to further car parking; 

• sites 139/06 & 139/06a (Sowerby Flatts) provide valuable recreational 

agricultural land and are vital to maintaining the town’s character; 

• flooding problems affect most of the town; 

• concern for traffic congestion; 

• concern for the creation of industry circulating the town; 

• consideration should be given to improving infrastructure; 

• significant support for housing at sites 152/03 & 152/04; 

• Dalton Airfield to be used as an alternative employment site. 

Source: LDF Allocations DPD Issues and Options Consultation Statement 

Potential development sites and Development Limits 

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

relating to Thirsk, 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 which form the package of the Council’s preferred sites, and indicates 

the proposed phasing of development. 

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

Development Policy DP8, revised Development Limits are proposed for Thirsk – 

and shown on both Maps 1 and 2. The Development Limits boundary contained 



23

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. 



24

3.4.5 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 

3.4.6 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); 

• all of the sites are brownfield, and all but one of them (Site 152/09) are in 

current use; 

• this use of brownfield sites is preferred to Greenfield in conformity with 

national guidance; 

• development of these sites would improve the character and appearance of 

the town centre. 

sites proposed for housing: 

Site Ref Site Name Area Possible 

Yield 

(40% 

Affordable) 

Brown or 

Green 

commentary 

Phase 1: short term (2004 – 2011) 

152/09 Vale Garage, Long Street 0.33ha 13 (5) Brown Town centre vacant 

brownfield site 

40 per ha 

152/10 Bridge Garage, 

Ingramgate 

139/17 Cherry Garth Nursing 

Home and Hall’s 

Engineering 

0.62ha 10 (4) Brown Available brownfield site 

(site can only accommodate 

10 units) 

0.6ha 24 (10) Brown Town centre brownfield site 

Phase 1 Total: 1.55ha 47 (19) 1.55ha B 

Phase 2: medium term (2011 – 2016) 

139/02 

& 

139/15 

& 

139/16 

Depot sites, Station Road 2.84ha 113 (45) Brown Town centre brownfield site 

40 per ha 

Phase 2 Total: 2.84ha 113 (45) 2.84ha B 

Phase 3: long term (2016 – 2021) 

Phase 3 Total: 0 0 0 

TOTAL 4.39ha 160 (64) 4.39ha B 

No scattered sites available. 



27

Justification: 

• all these sites are brownfield and therefore in compliance with the sequential 

test set out in PPS3 Housing; 

• housing sites identified are located within existing residential areas and 

close to schools and local amenities; 

• these sites could provide housing of the appropriate type and tenure to meet 

the identified need set out in the Housing Needs Survey; 

• potentially, these preferred housing sites could yield in excess of 130 units; 

• Site 152/09 has been vacant for some time and is a visual concern to this 

area of the town and therefore appears within phase 1; 

• 152/10 could in theory yield at least 18 dwellings, however the Development 

Control system has indicated that the site can only yield 10 dwellings due to 

flooding on the lower part of the site; 

• Site 139/17 would only be suitable for homes for the elderly; 

• sites 139/02, 139/15 and 139/16 are adjacent to each other and should be 

delivered simultaneously – subject to existing uses being suitably relocated; 

• 139/02, 139/15 & 139/16 were previously allocated for housing within the 

Hambleton District Wide Local Plan (HDWLP); 

• sites have been phased mainly within phase 1 as they are brownfield sites 

within close proximity of the town centre; 

• sites 139/02, 152/15 and 152/16 appear within phase 2 as they are slightly 

further from the town centre and together form a much larger site than 

required within the first phase; 

• all these sites are considered available for development. 

site proposed for retail/leisure/offices: 

Site 

Site Name Area Possible 

Possible type of development 

Ref 

Use 

152/12 Newsham Road 1.0ha B1/A1/D2 Use suggested in Town Centre Study 

Town centre site, largely brownfield 

TOTAL 

1.0ha 

justification: 

• Site 152/12 is located within the town centre and development of this site 

could improve the character and appearance of this part of town; 

• One of the existing occupiers of this site has expressed the need to 

relocate/expand due to outgrowing existing premises; 

• this site must be developed in its entirety to form a worthy scheme; 

piecemeal development would result in unacceptable levels of traffic. 

• The Town Centre Study has identified this site for comparison retail 

development. The site meets requirements of CP14 as it would enhance 

the vitality and viability of the town centre, is located within the boundary of 

the town centre (DP20) and meets the requirements of the sequential test 

set out in PPS6. 



28

2. packages of alternatives 

3.4.7 In addition to the scattered sites within the built up area, four alternative strategic 

directions for development have been considered: North East, North West, South 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thirsk: the preferred development package - 

Thirsk North East and South West 

3.4.9 The preferred option is to focus housing and employment development mainly to 

the North East and South West of the town. The north east of town has seen 

recent residential expansion and would accommodate further expansion without 

a significant impact upon the form of the settlement. As this area of town is 

bounded to the east by the A19, this forms a visible point at which the 

development should be contained. 

To the south west, again there are significant existing residential areas, which are 

within close proximity to both the town centre and 2 of the schools, both located 

within the south west. Again, these sites would have limited impact on the form 

of the existing settlement. 

Also to the south west of the town, along Station Road is an area occupied by 

employment development. A number of sites have been put forward for 

employment development in this location. 

Overarching justification for the preferred options: 

• 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; 

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

development; 

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

• the sites are able to achieve suitable accesses; 

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



29

• these sites are all Greenfield, which is the reason they appear in Phases 2 

and 3 (after the scattered sites within the built up area, which are all 

brownfield sites). 

Thirsk North East 

Sites for housing and recreation 


Yield 

(40% 

Affordable) 

Brown or 

Green 

commentary 


0 0 There are sufficient sites 

allocated on brownfield sites 

within the town centre to 

cater for this requirement. 

Phase 1 - TOTAL 0 0 


152/03i Ryebeck Farm (i) 1.5ha 45 (18) Green Greenfield site occupied by 

farmhouse and buildings 

adjacent to existing 

development and forming 

logical extension 

152/16 South Dowber Lane 

(Recreation) 

152/05 St Mary’s Close 

(Recreation) 

3.4ha 0 Green To form green link alongside 

A19 to link east of town with 

north 

1.3ha 0 Green To retain open space 

allocation to meet local 

needs 

Phase 2 - TOTAL 6.2ha 45 (18) 


152/03ii Ryebeck Farm (ii) 3.3ha 118 (47) Green Greenfield site: logical 

extension to development 

limits 

152/04 Stoneybrough Farm 6.2ha 186 (74) Green Greenfield site: logical 

extension to development 

limits 

Phase 3 - TOTAL 9.6ha 304 (121) 

TOTAL 15.8ha 349 (139) 15.8ha (G) 

152/03 & 152/04 calculations based on areas outside flood zones 3 & 2 


• these sites have been grouped together and would be suitable for phased 

development; 

• these sites are within walking distance of the town centre, relate well to the 

form of the existing settlement and have good access from existing estate 

roads; 

• Site 152/05 was previously allocated as recreation land in the HDWLP, 

however this has never been implemented and there are concerns for its 

appearance and neglect. It is envisaged that this site will come forward as 

a result of developer contributions from site 139/04; 

• Site 152/16 is proposed within Phase 2 as it is envisaged that this will be 

brought up to usable standard in conjunction with the development of 152/3i 

(also within Phase 2). Development of this site for recreation purposes will 

allow the formation of a link from the east of the town to the north, then on 

to the footpath along Whitelass Beck which leads down Cod Beck and 



30

through the town to join with Sowerby Flatts. This would complete the 

‘circuit’; 

• Site 152/03 has been split into i, ii and iii to allow for the site to be phased, 

as it is too large to consider as a single allocation and also because the 

section to the north (iii) is subject to flood zone 3 and is unsuitable for 

development; 

• Sites 152/03ii and 152/04 appear within Phase 3 because they yield 

significant numbers of housing and are Greenfield sites. There are also 

issues of flooding which need to be addressed and the development of 

152/03i may require the provision of flood alleviation measures to enable 

the development of 152/03ii and 152/04; 

• Sites 152/03i, 152/03ii and 152/04 have sections with a 0.1% annual 

probability of flooding. It would be appropriate to use the areas with this 

flood risk for the public open space requirements. 

Thirsk South West 

Sites for housing and recreation 


Yield 

(40% 

Affordable) 

Brown or 

Green 

commentary 


139/12 Gravel Hole Lane 2.0ha Recreation Green existing recreation allocation: 

proposed to be retained 

Phase 1 - TOTAL 2.0ha 0 


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

139/11 Saxty Way 1.4ha 42 (17) Green well related to urban area 

139/18 Long Acre 0.4ha 12 (5) Green well related to urban area 

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

139/04 Admirals Court 4.4ha 132 (53) Green well related to urban area 

The release of this site later in 

phase 2 will ensure that a 

logical and sustainable 

approach to the development 

of this site and site 139/11 

above is undertaken. 

Phase 2 - TOTAL 6.2ha 186 (75) 


No allocations 0 0 

Phase 3 - TOTAL 0ha 0 There are sufficient sites 

allocated within the north east 

of the town to meet this 

requirement. 

TOTAL 8.2ha 186 (75) 8.2ha(G) 


• Site 139/12 was a previous recreation allocation in the HDWLP and further 

interest has been expressed by Leisure Services for the retention of this as 

open space; 

• these sites relate well to the form of the existing settlement; 

• Sites 139/04 & 139/11 were previously allocated for housing in the HDWLP; 



31

• Sites 139/04 & 139/11 relate well to the existing urban form, however as 

they are Greenfield they should be developed only after the brownfield sites 

which have been identified within Phase 1; 

• all sites are within walking distance of the town centre and local amenities; 

• access can be provided from existing estate roads into these sites, and 

potentially from the Wimpey site to the north into 139/04; 

• there are no issues of flooding on these sites; 

• links can be created with existing footpaths and proposed cycleways. 

• housing would be accommodated on sites nearest to the town centre in the 

earlier phases of the plan period and then progress outwards in later 

phases; 

• site 139/11 appears in the early stage of phase 2 as the development of this 

site would enable a more satisfactory means of access to site 139/04 in the 

later stage of the phase. 

strategic employment sites location 

3.4.11 Adopted Core Strategy Policy CP11 states that in general most employment 

development will be encouraged to locate within the development limits of the 

Service Centres of the District. However, Policy CP11 indicates that in the 

Thirsk area, whilst most development will be encouraged to locate in the Thirsk 

Service Centre, if land cannot be identified in Thirsk, some development will also 

be supported at Dalton Airfield. Following assessment of the potential in Thirsk 

town, it has been concluded that sufficient satisfactory employment land can in 

fact be identified: the following sites are suggested for employment use located 

within Thirsk, and views are sought on these proposals. The alternative potential 

sites at Dalton Airfield are considered less suitable (being in a less sustainable 

location, as Core Strategy para. 4.3.9 indicates), and these are included within 

the rejected sites summary within the Dalton section. 

Sites for employment 

• approximately 14.1 hectares of employment land has been included within 

the preferred option. This comprises 13.1ha to the south west and 1ha to 

the south east. 



Use 


139/10 South of Austin Reed 7.4ha 

B1 

Greenfield site well related to urban area its 

and employment development 

139/03 Old Red House 5.7ha B1 Greenfield site well related to urban area 

and employment development 

TOTAL 

13.1ha 


• B1 employment uses could be located to the west of Thirsk along Station 

Road, within a cluster of existing employment sites; 



32

• these sites relate well to the existing form of the settlement; 

• they would not have any significant adverse visual impact; 

• they would concentrate employment development in an existing 

employment area; 

• according to the Environment Agency, none of these sites are subject to 

flooding; 

• Development in this location may increase traffic movements through the 

Town Centre and along Station Road. However, B1 uses are less likely 

than B2 or B8 uses to generate significant heavy movements of traffic; 

• they are within walking distance of the town centre and the railway station 

and are accessible via bus, foot and cycle; 

• a comprehensive development brief will be required to address the 

cumulative impacts upon existing infrastructure (NYCC). 

Thirsk South East 

3.4.10 Thirsk Industrial Park lies to the south east of the town and is where the majority 

of employment land is located. The industrial park is now at capacity and there is 

no available land there for expansion or new development as it is constrained by 

the A19 to the east and south. One site to the south of Thircon currently lies 

vacant, which has been put forward for allocation for the expansion of the 

adjacent business. 


Use 

009/02 

B1,B2 & B8 

Thircon 

1.0ha 

TOTAL 

1.0ha 


Greenfield site well related to urban area 

suitable for the expansion of existing 

industry 


• Site 009/02 is located adjacent to existing development and is required for 

the expansion of the adjoining business; 

• Planning permission has already been granted for the expansion of the 

existing industrial building to the north; 

• development of this site would not have a significant adverse impact upon 

the character and appearance of this location, subject to satisfactory 

landscaping; 

• the site is located within walking distance of the town centre and is 

accessible by public transport; 

• development would not adversely impact upon the existing highway 

network. 



33

Thirsk: rejected development sites 

3.4.13 The following sites have been rejected for development for the reasons indicated 

below: 

Thirsk North East 

3.4.14 These sites to the north east of the town are poorly related to the existing 

settlement due to their location which is poorly related to the urban area. This 

area of the town is affected by the watercourse of Whitelass Beck, and 

development would impact on the character of the open countryside surrounding 

the town. 

Site Ref 

Site Name 

Greenfield Brownfield Area Possible Yield 

(40% 

Affordable) 

Possible 

Type of 

Development 

152/03iii Rybeck Farm (c) G 4.1ha 123 (49) Housing 

137/01 OS 8700 Stockton Road G 1.7ha 51 (20) Housing 

137/02 Part OS 9628 Stockton Rd G 16.5ha - Employment 

TOTAL 

22.3ha 

Reasons for rejection: 

Site 152/03iii 

• the northern section of the Rybeck Farm site would extend the site to the 

north of the beck and further into the open countryside; 

• the site would extend into flood zones 2 and 3. 

Site 137/01 

• this is a Greenfield site, which is significantly impacted by flood zones 2 and 

3 and is therefore unsuitable for development. 

Site 137/02 

• this site lies between two settlements within a Green Wedge allocation and 

is unrelated to the urban area; 

• this is an isolated Greenfield site, and if developed would bridge the gap 

between the two settlements; 

• development of this site would lead to unacceptable levels of traffic through 

South Kilvington and Long Street. 



34

Thirsk North West 

3.4.15 This option would focus development to the north west of the town, which is 

characterised by its open space behind St Mary’s Church, Thirsk Hall and the 

cemetery and lies opposite the racecourse. Development in this area would have 

a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape. 

Site 

Ref 

Site Name 

Greenfield Brownfield Area Possible 

Yield 

(40% 

Affordable) 

G 

10.3ha 412 (164) 

Possible Type of 

Development 

152/14 

OS 3900 & 4679 

Housing 

North of Norby 

152/14a Cemetery Road G 10.6ha 424 (170) Housing 

152/15 Thirsk Hall G 18.3ha 732 (293) Housing 

TOTAL 39.2ha 1568 (627) 


Site 152/14 

• this site would extend the settlement into the open countryside; 

• development of this site would have an adverse impact on the form and 

character of the existing settlement. 

Site 152/14a 

• this site does not relate well to the form of the existing settlement; 

• development of this site would adversely affect the open nature of this area 

of the town; 

• development of this site would increase the level of traffic on the inadequate 

Newsham Road. 

Site 152/15 

• this site does not relate well to the form of the existing settlement; 

• the site overlaps with 152/14a and would have a significant adverse visual 

impact on the character and appearance of the area. 



35

Thirsk South East 

3.4.16 This option would focus development to the south east of the town, on 

agricultural land close to the bypass. Development in this area would extend the 

urban area beyond the containment of the bypass into the open countryside 

which would have a significant adverse impact on the visual character of the 

area. Development within the bypass, would have a significant adverse impact 

upon a Site of Important Nature conservation as well as local amenity. 

Site 

Ref 

Site Name 


Yield 

(40% 

Affordable) 

G 

39.0ha - 

Possible Type of Development 

139/06 

West of York 

Mixed use 

Road 

Overlaps with 139/06a 

139/06a EDS/York Road 

G 

Employment 

14.6ha - 

Overlaps with 139/06b 

139/06b 

OS4891 York G 

Housing 

1.0ha 30 (12) 

Road 

Overlaps with 139/06 

009/03 

Land east of 

G 

Employment 

17.7ha - 

bypass 

OS1657 & north G 

Employment 

009/03a of Woodcock 

3.5ha - 

Lane 

139/24 

York Road 

G 

Employment 

2.5ha - 

Garden Centre 

139/22 

East of York 

G 

- Employment 

1.8ha 

Road OS3339 

139/21 East of A168 G 18.9ha - Employment 

139/20 

West of 

G 

- Employment 

19.2ha 

Woodfields Farm 

TOTAL 

118.2ha 


Sites 139/06, 139/06a & 139/06b 

• these sites are located on the area known as Sowerby Flatts, which 

contributes significantly to the character of and approach to the town; 

• this area is also largely used for recreation and public access; 

• this site received significant public opposition at the Issues & Options stage; 

• Sites subject to flood zones 2 and 3. 

Sites 009/03 & 009/03a 

• development of these greenfield sites would have an unacceptable impact 

on the open character of the landscape; 

• these sites do not relate well to the existing urban area; 

• development here would be contrary to long standing policies of containing 

development within the A19/A168 boundary. 



36

Site 139/24 

• the site is currently occupied by a garden nursery and is therefore 

Greenfield. Development of this site for employment use could set a 

precedent for further development in this location. 

Site 139/22 

• development of this site would encroach into the open countryside and is 

unrelated to the urban area. 

Site 139/21 

• this site contains the new auction mart site and is therefore already 

developed. This development was given permission based on its 

‘agricultural’ use. 

Site 139/20 

• development of this site would encroach into the open countryside having a 

significant impact on the character of the landscape. 


3.4.17 This option would focus development to the south west of the town on open 

agricultural land behind Station Road and visible from the A168 on the approach 

to the town from the south. Development in this location would be poorly related 

to the existing urban form and would have a significant impact upon the character 

and appearance of the open countryside. 

Site 

Ref 

139/09 

139/09a 

139/19 

139/23 

Site Name 

Cocked Hat 

Farm 

(Westbourne 

Farm) 

Cocked Hat 

Farm (East) 

Back Lane, 

Sowerby 

OS 0027, 8447, 

7258 & south of 

Station Road 


Yield 

(40% 

Affordable) 

G 

G 

G 

G 

75.6ha 2268 (907) 

16.4ha 492 (197) 

2.4ha 72 (29) 

28.6ha 

9.5ha = 

285 (114) 


Housing 

Housing 

Housing 

Mixed use 

152/02 41 Station Road G 1.9ha 57 (23) Housing 

152/06 Austin Reed B 3.8ha B1,B2 & B8 Employment 

South & east of G 

B1,B2 & B8 

Employment 

152/07 

0.6ha 

Dispol 

TOTAL 

129.3ha 



37


Sites 139/09 & 139/09a 

• development of these sites would extend the urban form to the south, which 

would be beyond reasonable walking distance. 

• development would be visually intrusive on the approach to the town from 

the south; 

• Any development in this location at this scale would need to take account of 

highway access problems and create new links to local services and green 

travel plans as well as a significant landscaping scheme. 

Site 139/19 

• this is a level site with a frontage onto an adopted road. Development here 

would form a logical extension to the built up area. However, these small 

paddocks are the last fragment of the largely lost historic toft lands to the 

west of Back Lane and for this reason, they are of some local historic 

interest. 

• In addition, although located close to the schools, the site is some distance 

from local services. 

Site 139/23 

• this site lies behind houses fronting onto Station Road, development of this 

site would result in unacceptable backland development; 

• any development of this site should be considered as a comprehensive 

development of this whole area with new infrastructure links. 

Site 152/02 

• residential development here would consolidate development to the rear of 

the frontage along Station Road; 

• over half of the site is a former gravel pit () or pond, and unsuitable for 

development. 

• Any comprehensive development of the land to the south of this site could 

be accessed via this site. 

152/06 

• Site in existing employment use. 

152/07 

• Site developed for employment use since being put forward. 



38

Scattered sites within the built up area 

3.4.18 These are sites within the urban area, which are considered unsuitable for 

development. The potential loss of community/school facilities is a significant 

concern to the local community. 

Site 

Ref 

Site Name 


Yield 

(40% 

Affordable) 


139/05 Lambert Hospital B 0.3 9 (4) Housing, Office or Community use 

139/07 Croft Heads G 1.47 44 (18) Housing 

TOTAL 2.97 89 (36) 


Site 139/05 

• the loss of this existing healthcare facility would be unacceptable within the 

town centre and would cause frequent trips away from the town centre. 

Site 139/07 

• this site currently forms school playing fields and the loss of the site is 

considered unacceptable. Although it has been proposed to relocate the 

recreation provision to site 139/12, simply swapping these sites does not 

meet any shortfall in provision. 



39

estimated yield from the preferred allocations within Thirsk town 

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

(2)), these proposals should provide: 

• approximately 695 dwellings on sites proposed in the preferred options 

advanced here (calculated at approx 30/40 dwellings per hectare). 

Together with completions and outstanding commitments of 457, this 

means a total provision of land for 1152 dwellings in Thirsk town. This is in 

excess of 2/3 rd of the housing requirement for the Thirsk area for the period 

(2004 – 2021) (actually 88.3%), and thus accords with Policy CP6 in the 

Core Strategy. Together with proposals in Northallerton for 1,675 dwellings, 

this means that 54% of all housing in the LDF area would be located in the 

two towns of Northallerton and Thirsk (Principal Service Centres). This 

therefore accords with the Core Strategy Policy CP6 requirement that at 

least 51% should be concentrated in the two Principal Service Centres; 

• approximately 14.1 hectares of employment land made up from 

employment uses on a total of 3 sites; to the south east and south west of 

the town. This gives an oversupply at this stage, but sites could be used in 

part to decrease the allocation to the required 13 hectares. 



40

THIRSK TOWN - SUMMARY 

The preferred options in Thirsk town would provide the following: 

• approximately 695 new homes of which 40% would be 

affordable; 47 in the remainder of phase 1, 344 in phase 2 and 

304 in phase 3; 

• approximately 13.1 hectares of employment land for B1 uses; 

• approximately 1 hectare of employment land for B2 use; 

• approximately 1 hectare of land for B1 employment or A1 non 

food retail use; 

• 5.4 hectares of recreation land. 

QUESTION A1: 


ALLOCATION SITES FOR THIRSK – AND DO YOU AGREE 

WITH THE JUSTIFICATION GIVEN 

QUESTION A2: 




QUESTION A3: 



QUESTION A4: 


LIMITS FOR THIRSK – AND IF NOT, WHAT CHANGES DO 

YOU SEEK 



41

3.5 SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS - THIRSK SUB-AREA 

SERVICE VILLAGES 

1. CARLTON MINIOTT 

Strategic overview 

3.5.1 In its role as a Service Village, Carlton Miniott has been recognised as being able 

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

and its surrounding area. This settlement is divided into two sections that take a 

linear form. 

3.5.2 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 Carlton Miniott is located approximately 1 mile (1.8km) west of Thirsk. It is 

therefore within both walking and cycling distance of the town centre. There is 

also a cycleway provided along Station Road. The village is served by a regular 

bus service to the market town and has a train station that provides links to York 

to the south and Darlington to the north and beyond. 

3.5.3 Key characteristics of Carlton Miniott include: 

location of main facilities: 

Carlton Miniott has a number of local services, including a post office and 

convenience store, 2 public houses, 4 non food retail outlets, petrol 

station, playgroup, primary school, public hall, 2 churches, youth club and 

a sports ground. A Tesco store is located within easy reach of the village 

on the outskirts of Thirsk, which is accessible by foot, cycle or by bus. 

location of main employment areas: 

Employment areas are located to the east of the village alongside the 

railway track. Further employment sites are located over the tracks a few 

hundred metres toward Thirsk and within Thirsk itself. 

main environmental constraints: 

There are no significant environmental constraints in Carlton Miniott. 

However, there is one area of land with drainage problems, but there are 

no threats of flooding from local water sources. There is a large area of 

open agricultural land between the two sections of the village designated 

as G5 (DWLP) and DP10 (LDF). This area of land is considered important 

as it separates to the two sections of the village and includes wildlife 

ponds to the north. 

accessibility and infrastructure issues: 

Carlton Miniott is located along the A61, which links with the A1 (M) to the 

west and the A19 (through Thirsk) to the east. The village is also served 

by a frequent train service giving access to Northallerton to the north and 

York to the south. This station is located to the eastern end of Carlton 

Miniott. 



42

significant areas of brownfield land: 

There are no significant areas of brownfield land available within Carlton 

Miniott. 

you told us that….. 

• Site 25/02 received the most support for new housing development; 

• there was strong opposition to the development of site 25/03 because of 

access problems; 

• there was no consensus as to whether existing development limits should be 

altered; 

• the majority of respondents said no further land uses were necessary within 

Carlton Miniott; 

• interest was expressed for sites for allotments, industry and children’s play; 

• the Parish Council were opposed to development of Site 25/04 as it 

represents ribbon development. 

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

Carlton Miniott: potential development sites and Development Limits 

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

Carlton Miniott, 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 Carlton 

Miniott 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 proposals for new development advanced here, and include 

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

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

Policy DP8). 



43

MAP 3: Carlton Miniott - Options, Preferred Sites and Phasing 



44

Preferred sites 

3.5.4 The preferred sites for allocation are located to the north east of Carlton Miniott. 

It is considered that the development of these sites would have minimal impact 

upon the visual character of the settlement as they are set back from the main 

road and located close other residential development, relating well to the existing 

urban form. 


Yield 

(40% 

Affordable) 

Brown 

or 

Green 

commentary 


No allocations 0 0 Phase 1 target met in Service 

Centre 

Phase 1 - TOTAL 0 


025/03 Manfield Terrace 0.4ha 12 (5) Green 

Phase 2 - TOTAL 0.4ha 12 (5) 0.4 (G) 


025/02 Carlton Miniott Park 0.8ha 24 (10) Green 

025/05 OS253 0.3ha 10 (4) Green 


TOTAL 46 (24) 1.5ha (G) 


• development of these sites would provide the opportunity for a variety of 

dwellings which would be located within walking distance of new employment, 

local services and facilities; 

• these sites relate well to the form of the existing settlement; 

• development of these sites would have no visual impact from the main road 

through the village; 

• access points are available from existing estate roads; 

• highway improvements could bring Manfield Terrace up to an adoptable 

standard. 



45

Carlton Miniott: rejected options 

3.5.7 The following sites in Carlton Miniott have been considered for development and 

have been rejected. Many of these sites would have significant visual impacts 

upon the character of the settlement and some would bridge the gap between the 

two sections of the settlement, which would cause an adverse impact upon its 

character. Each site is identified below together with the reason(s) for rejection. 

Site 

Ref 

Site Name Greenfield Brownfield Area Possible 

Yield (40% 

Affordable) 


025/04 Carlton Lane G 0.7ha 21 (8) Housing 

025/06 

North of Carlton G 

Housing 

Miniott 

025/07 Thirsk Station G 10.2ha - Employment 

025/08 

Chesters Fish 

G 0.6ha 18 (7) Housing 

Farm 

025/09 

Carlton House 

G 0.8ha 24 (10) Housing 

Farm 

025/10 Toad Hall G 1.9ha 57 (23) Housing 

025/11 Thirsk Junction G 1.9ha 57 (23) Housing 

025/12 Carlton Road G 1.5ha 45 (18) Housing 

TOTAL 8 Green 17.6ha 222 (89) 

Reasons for Rejection: 

Site 025/04 

3.5.8 This is a Greenfield site on the edge of the settlement. 


• development of this site would produce further ribbon development within this 

linear settlement; 

• development would have a significant visual impact on the approach to the 

village. 

Site 025/06 

3.5.15 This is a Greenfield site to the north of the village. 

• This site would extend the settlement further into the open countryside and does 

not relate as well to the urban form. 

Site 025/07 

3.5.9 This site has been suggested for employment use. 


• development of this site would have a significant visual impact on the existing 

open nature of the countryside; 

• the site does not relate well to the form of the existing settlement. 



46

Site 025/08 

3.5.10 This is a Greenfield site put forward for residential use. 


• the site does not relate well to the form of the existing settlement; 

• development of this site would have an adverse visual impact within the 

Green Wedge area. 

Site 025/09 



• the site does not relate well to the form of the existing settlement; 



Site 025/10 



• development of this site would bridge the gap between the two settlements 

and encroach into open countryside. 

Site 025/11 



• this site lies behind an existing industrial estate and is therefore unsuitable for 

housing. 

Site 025/12 



• development of this site would result in ribbon development and would 

encroach into open countryside; 





47

CARLTON MINIOTT - SUMMARY 

The preferred option in Carlton Miniott would provide the following: 

• approximately 46 new homes of which 40% would be affordable; 

12 within phase 2 and 34 within phase 3. 

QUESTION B1: 


ALLOCATION SITES FOR CARLTON MINIOTT – AND DO 

YOU AGREE WITH THE JUSTIFICATION GIVEN 

QUESTION B2: 




QUESTION B3: 



QUESTION B4: 


LIMITS FOR CARLTON MINIOTT – AND IF NOT, WHAT 

CHANGES DO YOU SEEK 



48

2. TOPCLIFFE 

strategic overview 

3.5.14 In its role as a Service Village, Topcliffe 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. 

3.5.15 Topcliffe is located approximately 5.6 miles (8.2km) to the south of Thirsk with 

excellent access onto the A168 leading to the A1 (M) to the west and A19 to the 

east. The large industrial estate of Dalton Airfield is located 1.3 miles (2.1km) to 

the south-east. 

3.5.16 Key characteristics of Topcliffe include: 


Topcliffe has a number of local services, including a post office and 

convenience store, 2 public houses, playgroup, primary school, public hall, 

2 churches, youth club, sports ground and children’s play area. 


The large industrial estate at Dalton Airfield is located 1.3 miles to the 

south-east. There is a bus service along this route. The centres of both 

Thirsk (5.6 miles) and Ripon (9.2 miles) are easily accessible by bus. 

Topcliffe lies within close proximity of Allenbrooke Barracks located 2 

miles to the north. 


There are no significant environmental constraints in Topcliffe, however 

the village is largely with a Conservation Area. 


Topcliffe is located within easy access of both the A1 (M) and A19. 

Regular bus services link the village with the larger towns of Thirsk to the 

north and Ripon to the west. 


There are no significant areas of brownfield land available within Topcliffe. 



49

you told us that… 

• some support was given for site 163/03; 

• opposition was expressed for site 163/01 due to a lack of infrastructure; 

• there was no consensus as to whether existing development limits should 

be altered; 

• suggestion of new housing development being located at Dalton. 


Topcliffe: potential development sites and Development Limits 

3.5.17 Map 4 sets out all sites that have been put forward for possible development in 

Topcliffe, and indicates preferred options for allocation. In addition, reflecting 

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

DP8, revised Development Limits are proposed for Topcliffe – 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, and also include other 

minor changes, consistent with the intentions of Development Limits to 


Policy DP8). Annex 2 describes the changes proposed to the boundary that are 

not related to site allocations proposed here 



50

MAP 4: Topcliffe - Options, Preferred Sites and Phasing 



51

Preferred Sites 

3.5.18 The preferred sites for allocation are as follows: 


Yield 

(40% 

Affordable) 

Brown 

or 

Green 

commentary 


No allocations 0 0 Allocation met within Service 

Centre 



163/03 Winn Lane Farm 0.4ha 12 (4) Green 



No allocations 0 0 


TOTAL 0.7ha 12 (4) 0.7ha 

(G) 


• Site 163/03 is located within the centre of the village alongside the main 

road and falls within phase 2 as it relates well to the existing form of the 

village; 

• development of these sites would not have any adverse visual impact upon 

the village; 

• the sites are considered to relate well to the form of the existing settlement. 

Topcliffe: rejected options 

3.5.19 The following sites in Topcliffe have been considered for development and have 

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

rejection: 

Site 

Ref 

Site Name Greenfield Brownfield Area Possible 

Yield (40% 

Affordable) 


163/01 Peter Fields G 6.2ha 186 (74) housing 

163/02 North of Eastlea G 1.9ha 57 (23) housing 

163/04 Winn Lane G 0.5ha 15 (6) housing 

TOTAL 3 Green 8.6ha 258 (103) 



52

Site 163/01 

3.5.20 This site is very large and relies upon the formation of a new road linking the 

whole site from north to south. 


• the housing requirement in Topcliffe is not sufficient to require such a large 

site; 

• it is not possible to use part of this site due to access problems. 

Site 163/02 

3.5.21 This is a small Greenfield site which overlaps in part with 163/01. 


• access to this site from East Lea is not capable of meeting the necessary 

standard for several properties. 

Site 163/04 

3.5.21 This is a Greenfield site to the south of the village and overlaps with part of the 

recreation ground. 


• development of this site is not seen as appropriate in order to facilitate 

additional recreation facilities at the school, which is located at the other end 

of the village. 

• The site lies to the south of the village and development would extend the 

urban form further towards the A168. 

• Development of this site would result in the loss of some public open space. 



53

TOPCLIFFE - SUMMARY 

The preferred option in Topcliffe would provide the following: 

• approximately 12 new homes of which 40% would be affordable 

within Phase 2. 

QUESTION C1: 


ALLOCATION SITES FOR TOPCLIFFE – AND DO YOU 

AGREE WITH THE JUSTIFICATION GIVEN 

QUESTION C2: 




QUESTION C3: 



QUESTION C4: 


LIMITS FOR TOPCLIFFE – AND IF NOT, WHAT CHANGES 

DO YOU SEEK 



54

3.6 THIRSK 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 Thirsk 

Sub-Area, Secondary Villages are designated at: 

− Borrowby 

− Dalton 

− Knayton 

− Pickhill 

− Sessay 

− South Kilvington 

− South Otterington 

− Sutton under Whitestonecliffe 

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 Thirsk Sub-Area. These Development Limits are 

shown on Maps 5 – 6 and 8 – 12 at the end of this section. 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 


Policy DP8). Annex 2 describes any changes proposed to the boundaries. 

3.6.3 Opportunities for development within the proposed boundaries in these 

settlements are likely to be very limited, with the exception of Dalton (Map 6), 

which is considered below. As Policy CP6 of the Core Strategy indicates, 

allocations for housing will only be advanced in exceptional circumstances in the 

Secondary Villages. 

DALTON AND DALTON AIRFIELD 

Dalton: strategic overview 

3.6.4 Dalton has been designated a Secondary Village within the adopted Core 

Strategy, 2007. However, it is recognised that a large redundant brownfield site 

is a cause of concern with local residents as it has stood empty for several years, 

causes an adverse visual impact upon the character and appearance of the 

village and has little prospect of re-use. Policy CP6 recognises that in 

exceptional circumstances, such as at Dalton, housing land may be allocated 

within Secondary Villages. In its role as a Secondary village it is recognised that 

there is a lower level of service provision than in the Service Villages, however 

Dalton is within close proximity to Topcliffe, which is accessible via public 

transport and can provide all of those services that are not available within 

Dalton. 



55

3.6.5 Dalton is located approximately 2 miles (3.4km) to the east of Topcliffe with 

regular public transport to Thirsk and Topcliffe. The large industrial estate of 

Dalton Airfield is located 1.8 miles (3 km) to the south west, and is subject of 

further comments below (and shown on Map 7). 

3.6.6 Key characteristics of Dalton include: 


Dalton has a number of local services, including a post office (with store), 

2 public houses, 1 petrol filling station, 1 public hall, 2 churches, 1 sports 

ground and 1 play area. 


The large industrial estate at Dalton Airfield is located 1.8 miles to the 

south-west. The centres of both Thirsk (5.7 miles) and Ripon (10.6 miles) 

are easily accessible by bus. 


There are no significant environmental constraints in Dalton, however 

Eldmire Bridge, on the approach to the village from the west falls with flood 

zones 2 & 3. 


Dalton is located within easy access of both the A1 (M) and A19. Regular 

bus services link the village with the larger towns of Thirsk to the north and 

Ripon to the west. 


The former turkey factory is a significant brownfield site totalling 2.5 

hectares. 


• support was given for residential development on the site of the old 

turkey factory 




56

Dalton: potential development sites and Development Limits 

3.6.7 Map 6 indicates the preferred option for allocation within Dalton. In addition, 

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

Development Policy DP8, revised Development Limits are proposed for Dalton 

– 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 includes 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. 

3.6.8 The preferred site for allocation is as follows: 


Yield 

(40% 

Affordable) 

Brown 

or 

Green 

commentary 


No allocations 0 Allocation met within Service 

Centre 



037/06 Turkey Factory 1ha 30 (12) B Brownfield site 

Phase 2 - TOTAL 30 (12) 


No allocations 


TOTAL 1ha 30 (12) 1ha (B) 

Justification 

Allocation met within Service 

Centre and Service Villages 

• the site is located in a prominent position, opposite the village hall along 

Willow Bridge Lane; 

• the former turkey factory site consists of several large industrial buildings in 

a variety of conditions, which are fenced off from the road for safety. It is 

considered unlikely that this site will be brought back into use for 

employment purposes due to its location at the heart of a village and the 

potential cost implications of reclamation; 

• this site would be unsuitable for large scale employment development due 

to its location and potential adverse impact upon the amenity of nearby 

residents; 

• this is a problem site which requires clearance and redevelopment for 

housing in part which will allow this to be achieved; 

• at the Issues & Options consultation, local residents supported housing 

development; 

• although not designated as a Service Village within the Core Strategy, 

Dalton has some local services, including a post office (with store), 2 public 

houses, 1 petrol filling station, 1 public hall, 2 churches, 1 sports ground and 

a play area. 

• the neighbouring village of Topcliffe, just 1.8 miles from Dalton and 

accessible via public transport is designated a Service Village within the 



57

Core Strategy and offers those services, such as a school which are not 

available within Dalton itself; 

• it is considered appropriate for a residential allocation to be made as an 

exceptional circumstances within Secondary village; 

• The site is unsuitable in its entirety for a housing allocation as such level of 

provision would be excessive within a Secondary Village; 

• development of this site for housing will require further contributions to be 

made to benefit the local community, therefore it will be necessary to 

reclaim the remainder of the factory site for open space. The area to the 

south of the site (previously designated as an area of townscape importance 

within the HDWLP) should be retained to form a central focal point to the 

village; 

• this site falls within Phase 2 as it is a brownfield site, which should be 

developed prior to alternative Greenfield sites (but after the Phase 1 

proposals in Thirsk town). 



58

DALTON - SUMMARY 

The preferred option in Dalton would provide the following: 

• approximately 30 new homes of which 40% would be affordable within 

Phase 2. 

QUESTION D1: 


ALLOCATION SITES FOR DALTON AND DALTON 

AIRFIELD – AND DO YOU AGREE WITH THE 

JUSTIFICATION GIVEN 

QUESTION D2: 




QUESTION D3: 



QUESTION D4: 


LIMITS FOR DALTON AND DALTON AIRFIELD – AND IF 

NOT, WHAT CHANGES DO YOU SEEK 



59

Dalton Airfield: strategic overview 

3.6.9 CP11 states that employment development should be located within Thirsk in 

preference to Dalton Airfield as Thirsk is a more sustainable location. Sufficient 

employment land has been allocated within Thirsk to meet the requirements of 

the plan period, therefore it is not considered necessary to allocate any land at 

Dalton Airfield. However, expansion of existing businesses on the Airfield would 

be allowed under CP11. 

3.6.10 Dalton is located approximately 1.5 miles (3km) to the west of Dalton with good 

access onto the A19 and to the A1(M). The Airfield is home to several industrial 

developments, including Severfield Reeve, Wagg Foods, Cleveland Steel and 

Tubes Ltd, Dorton Packaging Ltd, Firmenich UK Ltd, SCA Nutrition Ltd and 

Jemmett Engineering Ltd. 

NYCC have included a section of site DA037/01 within the Minerals and Waste 

plan, which may require dealing with as an exception. 

3.6.11 Key characteristics of Dalton Airfield include: 


Local facilities are available at Topcliffe and at Dalton, however these are 

not within walking distance. 


Access to the industrial estate is often affected by flooding at Dalton 

Bridge. This area falls within flood zone 3. However, additional 

development at the Airfield could potentially help mitigate this issue with 

the construction of a new access road and bridge improvements. 


Dalton Airfield is has access onto the A19 without the need to travel 

thorough neighbouring villages. There are no public bus services to the 

Airfield, however some companies operate their own transport services. 


The airfield is considered to be brownfield land. 


• some support was given for location of development at Dalton Airfield 




60

Dalton Airfield: rejected options 

3.8.4 Map 7 indicates the rejected sites at Dalton Airfield. 

The rejected sites are as follows: 

Site Ref 

Site Name 

Greenfield Brownfield Area Possible Type of 

Development 

DA037/01 

North Edge 

B 

Employment 

4.3 

Airfield 

DA037/02 Dalton Transport B 1.3 Employment 

DA037/03 Reed Bordall B 2.7 Employment 

DA037/04 North of Ind Est B 16 Employment 

DA037/05 

Cod Beck 

B 

Employment 

3.6 

Blenders 

DA037/06 East Side B 1.54 Employment 

TOTAL 6 Brown 29.4ha 


DA037/01 

• employment development in this location would be unrelated to the form of 

the existing airfield; 

• development of this site would not enable improvements to the existing 

infrastructure. 

DA037/02 

• further development in this location could have an adverse impact upon the 

character of Dalton Village; 

• the site is unrelated to the form and character of the existing airfield; 



DA037/03 

• this site relates well to the form of the existing airfield and could achieve 

improvements to infrastructure, however is located in a less sustainable 

location than the preferred sites within Thirsk. 

DA037/04 

• this site relates well to the form of the existing airfield and could achieve 

improvements to infrastructure; 

• this site could also improve the landscaping in this location and provide 

drainage lagoons to benefit existing infrastructure; 

• however the site is located in a less sustainable location than the preferred 

sites within Thirsk. 



61

DA037/05 

• the site is unrelated to the form and character of the existing airfield; 



DA037/06 

• the site is unrelated to the form and character of the existing airfield 



QUESTION E4: 


LIMITS FOR THE REMAINING SECONDARY VILLAGES – AND 

IF NOT, WHAT CHANGES DO YOU SEEK 



62

MAP 5: Borrowby - Development Limits 



63

MAP 6: Dalton – Options, Preferred Sites and Phasing 



64

MAP 7: Dalton Airfield – Rejected Sites 



65

MAP 8: Knayton - Development Limits 



66

MAP 9: Pickhill - Development Limits 



67

MAP 10: Sessay - Development Limits 



68

MAP 11: South Kilvington - Development Limits 



69

MAP 12: South Otterington - Development Limits 



70

MAP 13: Sutton under Whitestonecliffe - Development Limits 



71

4. SUMMARY OF PREFERRED OPTIONS: THIRSK SUB AREA 

housing land proposals 

4.1 The overall implications of the preceding proposals on the Thirsk area in terms of 

housing land supply are as follows: 

• the proposals as set out above will provide approximately 1305 new homes 

within the Thirsk Sub-Area in the Service Centre and Service Village 

settlements during the Plan period 2004 to 2021. This includes completed 

and committed dwellings already identified in the area (approximately 522). It 

thus meets the requirements of Policy CP5A in the Core Strategy (set out in 

para. 3.1.1 above); 

• approximately 1152 new homes are planned for Thirsk (with Sowerby) town. 

This is in excess of 2/3 rd of the housing requirement for the Thirsk area for the 

period (2004 – 2021) (actually 88.3 %), and thus accords with Policy CP6 in 

the Core Strategy. Together with proposals in Northallerton for 1,515 

dwellings, this means that 54% of all housing in the LDF area would be 

located in the two towns of Northallerton and Thirsk (Principal Service 

Centres). This therefore accords with the Core Strategy Policy CP6 

requirement that at least 51% should be concentrated in the two Principal 

Service Centres; 

• these proposals utilise significant amounts of brownfield land for development. 

Approximately 52% of proposed development (this includes Dalton) will be on 

brownfield land – which falls slightly short of the District target of 55%. In 

District-wide terms there are limited brownfield opportunities outside 

Northallerton and Thirsk, and thus it will be essential that opportunities for 

development on brownfield sites are taken in those two towns, if the District 

target is to be met; 

• in terms of a phased release of housing land in line with PPS3, the required 

totals for each of the three phases for the Thirsk Sub Area are set out in para. 

3.1.1 above. In Thirsk (with Sowerby) 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 521 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: 



72

settlement 2004 – 2011 2011 – 2016 2016 – 2021 TOTAL 

Thirsk 

(town) 

Core Strategy 

requirement 

(minimum) 

504 344 304 1152 

504 330 290 1124 

Service Villages 15 24 34 73 

Secondary Villages 20 30 0 50 

Other villages 30 0 0 30 

Total outside Thirsk 

(town) 

Core Strategy 

requirement 

(maximum) 

65 54 34 153 

56 70 60 186 

Sub Area Total 569 398 338 1305 

Core Strategy 

560 400 350 1310 

requirement 

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

PHASE SETTLEMENT SITE YIELD 

1* 

(2004 – 

2011) 

Thirsk 139/17 

152/09 

152/10 

24 

13 

10 

Carlton Miniott 0 0 

Topcliffe 0 0 

TOTAL 47* 

* In addition, 522 calculated completions and commitments for the period 1 st April 2004 to 31 st 

March 2007 contribute to the total for this Phase. 


2 

(2011 – 

2016) 

Thirsk 139/02 &139/15 & 139/16 

139/11 

139/18 

152/03i 

139/04 

113 

42 

12 

45 

132 

Topcliffe 163/03 12 

Carlton Miniott 025/03 12 

Dalton 037/06 30 

TOTAL 398 


3 

(2016 – 

Thirsk 

152/03ii 

152/04 

118 

186 

2021) Carlton Miniott 025/02 

025/05 

24 

10 

TOTAL 338 

TOTAL Plan Period 2004 - 2021 783 

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 



73

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. 

land proposed for employment purposes 

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

Sub Area for the lifetime of the plan (2005 – 2021) as 18 hectares. Outstanding 

commitments total 5 hectares, therefore 13 hectares are provided within the 

Thirsk sub-area throughout the plan period. 

Thirsk Sub Area Summary. 

• taking account of 521 completions and commitments, total provision in the 

Sub Area within the plan period would be approximately 1,305 dwellings; 

• a total of 783 houses are proposed on new sites within the Sub Area; 

• in Phase 1 it is proposed to allocate 47 new houses, all located within 

Thirsk town; 

• in Phase 2 it is proposed to allocate 398 new houses. 344 of these will be 

located in Thirsk town, 12 within Topcliffe, 12 within Carlton Miniott and 

30 at Dalton; 

• in Phase 3 it is proposed to allocate 338 new houses within Thirsk town 

and 34 houses within Carlton Miniott; 

• approximately 14.1 hectares of employment land (on 3 sites to the south 

east and south west of Thirsk town. 



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: 

Step 2: 

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; 

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 



75

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; 

Step 3: 

Step 4: 

Step 5: 

identify through the sequential search process those scattered 

sites clearly within the Service Centre (and the Service Villages) 

which are sustainable and developable: this selection is made from 

the remaining sites, and involves at this step provisionally identifying 

those scattered sites where development is clearly acceptable, such as 

developable brownfield sites located within the main settlements. The 

selection here follows directly the first stages in the sequential 

approach, described in paras. 2.9 and 2.15 above. Where sites within 

the Service Centre are not considered sustainable and developable, 

the logic for the rejection is documented, and presented in Section 3 – 

and comments are welcome on the validity of these decisions; 

identify and evaluate packages of alternatives from within the 

remaining sites: having formed an initial view which sieved out those 

sites clearly unacceptable and acceptable, marginal sites remain that 

are proposed to be main focus of analysis and public discussion. 

Based on the broad strategic analysis in Step 1, a number of discrete 

geographical directions of growth are provisionally identified for each 

Service Centre (and where appropriate the Service Villages), in some 

cases constituting packages of sites best considered together for 

development, in a co-ordinated and phased manner. This relates in 

particular to housing proposals, but options for the other land use 

categories, especially employment are also considered. In the case of 

housing, provisional phases of land release are also identified. The 

suggested Development Limits, taking account of the preferred 

alternatives, are also defined at this point for these settlements. The 

logic for the rejection of alternative sites at this step is documented, 

and presented in Section 3 – and comments are welcome on the 

validity of these decisions; 

for Secondary Villages, review the Development Limits and 

consider any exceptional justification for allocations. 

Development Limits in these Villages are proposed for public comment. 

Their definition, following Policy DP8, reflect the intentions of defining 

the hierarchy of settlements in Policy CP4 to guide the appropriate 

distribution of development – thus opportunities for 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; 



76

Step 6: 

Step 7: 

measure the total quantities, distribution and timing of availability 

of sites identified through Steps 3, 4 and 5 for housing and employment 

– and compare with the requirements of the Core Strategy (in terms of 

quantity, distribution and timing); 

revisit as necessary Steps 3, 4 and 5 to establish an overall 

preferred package meeting Core Strategy requirements: adjusting 

the selection process (taking or rejecting marginally acceptable sites) 

to ensure that the end result – in the form of the Preferred Options 

package presented here – matches the requirements of the Core 

Strategy (and other guidance) in terms of quantity, distribution and 

timing. 

4. The outcome of Step 7, in terms of the package of preferred sites and the 

identified alternatives which are not preferred (and suggested Development 

Limits), is set out for public comment in Section 3 of this report. This identifies 

firstly the reasoning for the selection of sites identified under Step 3 – scattered 

sites thought clearly to be acceptable. Secondly, the alternative packages for 

development identified under Step 4 are named and located on maps, and the 

analysis explains the reasoning for the identification of a preferred option (and its 

timing), and similarly the reasons why the alternatives are thought to be less 

acceptable. Development Limits are suggested for all the settlements designated 

as Service Centres, Service Villages, and under Step 5, Secondary Villages. 

5. The primary objective of the Preferred Options stage is to allow the reasoning for 

the site selection to be open for comment, and for preferences for or against to 

be expressed – and indeed for alternative sites and reasoning to be advanced. 

All the comments received will be considered, and the package of sites reviewed, 

in reaching conclusions about the ultimate selection of sites that will comprise the 

submission Allocations DPD. 



77

ANNEX 2 

DEVELOPMENT LIMITS 

Service Villages 

Map 3 – Carlton Miniott 

No amendments. 

Map 4 - Topcliffe 

DL001: Amendment at East Lea to include area of land adjacent to Greenacres. 

Secondary Villages 

Map 5 - Borrowby 


Map 6 - Dalton 


Map 7 - Knayton 


Map 8 - Pickhill 


Map 9 - Sessay 


Map 10 - South Kilvington 


Map 11 - South Otterington 


Map 12 - Sutton under Whitestonecliffe 




78

ANNEX 3 

REVIEW OF CURRENT HOUSING COMMITMENTS 

THIRSK SUB AREA 

Outstanding housing commitments by settlement (not inc completions) 

Settlement Site Name Application 

Number 

Sowerby 

Thirsk 

Developable 

Brown 

or 

Green 

Contribute to 

Phase 1 Housing 

Supply (2004-11) 

George Court 52 Front St 2/05/139/0457D&E Yes Brown Yes 9 

1 Back Lane 2/04/139/0328E Yes Brown Yes 1 

110 Front Street 2/05/139/0677 Yes Brown Yes 1 

6 Chapel St 2/04/139/0561A Yes Brown Yes 1 

Ivydene Cottage, Topcliffe 06/01777/FUL Yes Brown Yes 3 

Rd 

Land at Racecourse Mews 06/01126/FUL Yes Brown Yes 2 

Land off Stn Rd (East) 06/00712/FUL Yes Brown Yes 69 

Land off Stn Rd (West) 05/01970/REM Yes Brown Yes 64 

Manor Farm, Front St 03/02304/FUL Yes Green Yes 3 

Oxmoor Farm, 136 Front St 2/04/139/0642A Yes Brown Yes 1 

Storage Bdgs, Silver St 06/02587/FUL Yes Brown Yes 2 

The Pines, Blakey Lane 05/00413/FUL Yes Brown Yes 11 

164B SUB TOTAL 167 

110 Long St 2/04/152/0756 Yes Brown Yes 57 

105 Long St & 30 

2/04/152/0774 Yes Brown Yes 2 

Stammergate 

11 Westgate 2/04/152/0090G Yes Brown Yes 5 

12 Millgate 06/00260/FUL Yes Brown Yes 2 

21 Station Rd 2/04/152/0567C Yes Green Yes 2 

5 Ingramgate 05/01899/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

5 Norby Front Street 2/04/152/0798 Yes Brown Yes 4 

78-80 Long Street 05/01903/FUL Yes Brown Yes 8 

8 Stammergate 05/01854/FUL Yes Brown Yes 2 

9 Chapel Street 06/02641/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Adj 8 Stammergate 06/01724/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

1 Bateman’s Yard 06/00087/FUL Yes Brown Yes 2 

2 Westgate 06/00057 Yes Brown Yes 1 

Former Salem Chapel, 05/01819/FUL Yes Brown Yes 6 

Nursery Gardens 

Land adj 2 Barbeck 05/00367/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Land at Hambleton Place 2/04/152/0779 Yes Brown Yes 2 

Land Btwn Greenacres & 5 2/05/152/0802 Yes Brown Yes 1 

Barbeck 

Land off Nursery Gdns 05/02207/FUL Yes Brown Yes 12 

Rear 123 Hambleton Pl 2/04/152/0782 Yes Brown Yes 2 

Rear 4 Piper Lane 05/02433/OUT Yes Brown Yes 1 

Rear 71 Market Place 05/02552/FUL Yes Brown Yes 2 

Model Farm, Croft View 06/01132/FUL Yes Green Yes 1 

Pintetiques, Norby 04/01441/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Rear 64-64a Market Pl 2/04/152/0236A Yes Brown Yes 1 

Rear 14 Millgate 2/05/0767 Yes Brown Yes 1 

Rear 31 Kirkgate 06/026655/FUL Yes Brown Yes 2 

Regent Bingo 06/00685/FUL Yes Brown Yes 4 

2 & 3 Gillings Yard 06/02753/FUL Yes Brown Yes 2 

Vicarage, Cemetery Rd 06/01409/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Norby Depot 04/02051/OUT Yes Brown Yes 68 


SERVICE CENTRE TOTAL 357B 363 

Yield 



79

t 

Settlement Site Name Application 

Number 

Carlton 

Miniott 

Topcliffe 

Developable 

Brown 

or 

Green 

Contribute to 

Phase 1 Housing 

Supply (2004-11) 

Land Btwn San Remo & 05/01276/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Linden Tree 

Glebe House 06/01958/FUL Yes Green Yes 1 

Land adj Glen View 2/05/025/0241A Yes Brown Yes 1 

2B 

SUB TOTAL 3 

17 Long St 05/025511/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

5 & 6 East Lea 2/04/163/0261A Yes Brown Yes 4 

Hagg House Farm 05/02085/FUL Yes Green Yes 3 

Adj 6 Manor Close 06/00495/OUT Yes Brown Yes 1 

West Lodge, Catton Road 2/04/163/0155D Yes Green Yes 1 


SERVICE VILLAGE TOTAL 8B 13 

Secondary Villages 

Borrowby Rear Rose Bank, Borrowby 2/04/017/0092E Yes Brown Yes 1 

Dalton 

Adj Croft House 06/00921/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Adj The Bungalow 06/00671/FUL Yes Brown Yes 2 

Middlemoor 2/03/037/0146 Yes Brown Yes 1 

The Rowans 06/02393/FUL Yes Green Yes 3 

Pickhill Adj Church Hill Cottage 05/02717/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Sessay Aldorian 06/00111/OUT Yes Brown Yes 1 

S.Otteringt Arncliffe 2/04/138/0078B Yes Brown Yes 1 

Sutton u W Sutton Bank Garage 2/04/145/0142A Yes Brown Yes 2 

SECONDARY VILLAGE TOTAL 10B 13 

Other Villages 

Bagby The Chapel 2/04/009/0019H Yes Brown Yes 1 

Balk The Grange 2/04/010/0026C Yes Green Yes 3 

Carlton Beech cottage 2/05/024/0008E Yes Brown Yes 1 

Husthwaite The Barn 06/01376/FUL Yes Green Yes 2 

Thorns Hall Farm 2/05/024/0059A Yes Green Yes 2 

Newsham Breckenbrough House Farm 06/00527/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Street House Farm 2/05/108/0065A Yes Green Yes 1 

Sandhutton Rear Wellgarth 06/02798/OUT Yes Brown Yes 2 

Skipton on Methodist Chapel 06/00820/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Swale 

Thirkleby Stockhill Green Farm 06/01668/OUT Yes Green Yes 1 

Thornton le Adj Ingleside 06/02226/FUL Yes Brown Yes 1 

Moor Rear Sycamore Lodge 2/05/157/0061D Yes Green Yes 3 

OTHER VILLAGE TOTAL 7B 19 

Secondary 

and Other 

Villages 

All 

Settlements 

SUB TOTAL 

TOTAL 

Brownfield = 17 

Greenfield = 15 

Brownfield = 382 

Greenfield = 26 

Yield 

32 

408 



80

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. 



81

ANNEX 5 

MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION 

Implementation 

1. Ensuring that the intentions of the LDF are delivered and correctly implemented 

is of course a key concern, if the LDF’s vision and objectives are to be secured. 

Table 1 which follows specifies the performance measures and targets which will 

be adopted to secure the implementation of the Core Strategy and the supporting 

Development Policies and Allocations. 

Monitoring Arrangements 

2. Preparation of any plan should never be seen as a once and for all activity. It is 

essential to check that the plan is being implemented correctly, assess the 

outcomes that result, and check if these still remain as intended, and as currently 

desired. This requires a process of continual monitoring, and the potential to 

review the plan’s policies and proposals as and when necessary. 

3. The new planning system places great importance on the process of continual 

plan review. The separation of the components of the LDF means that each part 

can be reviewed and amended individually – leading to a more rapid and 

responsive planning system. A key component of this process is the requirement 

to produce an Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). Each year this will need to be 

submitted to the Government by the end of December, and relate to information 

up to the end of March of that year. This document will be similar to the regular 

annual monitoring reports prepared for the Hambleton District Wide Local Plan, 

but in addition to assessing the extent to which policies in local development 

documents are being achieved, it will need to assess progress in preparing the 

plan documents themselves, in other words monitor the achievement of the Local 

Development Scheme (see Core Strategy Annex 1, para. 4). 

Performance Indicators 

4. Progress towards any plan’s vision should be measured against a number of 

“Performance Indicators”. The Government guidance on monitoring LDFs 1 

advises that a structured approach to developing indicators is necessary, 

recognising their different types and purposes. This reflects the recommended 

approach of establishing objectives, defining policies, setting targets and 

measuring indicators. Contextual indicators should be monitored to describe the 

social, environmental and economic background of the LDF, and provide a basis 

for checking the continued relevance of the LDF and its approach. These will be 

included within the Annual Monitoring Report. Output indicators should be 

identified to measure the performance of policies, by measuring quantifiable 

physical activities that are directly related to, and are a consequence of, the 

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



82

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. 



83

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 




84

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. 



85

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 

Proportion of social rented and 

intermediate affordable housing 

approved p.a. 

50:50 social 

rented:intermediate 

affordable housing 

CP9A – Affordable 

housing exceptions 

DP15 – Promoting and 

maintaining affordable 

housing 


No. of affordable dwellings completed 

through exception schemes 

Post-adoption target 

of 15 units completed 

p.a. 

Supporting prosperous communities 

CP10 – The scale 

and distribution of 

new employment 

development 

- 

Core Indicator - 1a 

Amount of land developed for 

employment by type p.a. 

Average of 4.5 ha 

p.a. over the plan 

period 

CP10A – The scale 

of new employment 

development by 

sub-area 

- 


Amount of land developed for 

employment by sub-area p.a. 

2010-2021: 

Bedale 0.2 ha 

Easingwold 0.7 ha 

Northallerton 1.3 ha 

Stokesley 0.7 ha 

Thirsk 1.3 ha 

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% 



86

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 





87

Core Strategy 

Policies 

Supporting 



Targets 

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 

DP26 – Agricultural issues 


No. of rural agricultural diversification 


10% increase in 

agricultural 

diversification 


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 



88

Core Strategy 

Policies 

Supporting 



Targets 

CP17 – Promoting 

high quality design 

DP32 – General design No indicator required - 

DP33 – Landscaping No indicator required - 

CP18 – Prudent use 

of natural resources 

DP34 – Sustainable energy Core Indicator – 9 

Renewable energy capacity installed by 

type 

All developments 

over 1,000 m.sq in 

size or 10 or more 

dwellings to provide a 

least 10% of their 

energy requirements 

from on-site 

renewable energy 

generation or 

delivered through 

savings 

Meet approved RSS 

District potential for 

installed renewable 

energy capacity 

(MW) to 2010 

DP35 – Water resources No indicator required - 

DP36 – Waste 


Improve the recycling/composting rate 

50% improvement in 

the 

recycling/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 - 



89

Core Strategy 

Policies 

Supporting 



Targets 

CP21 – Safe 

response to natural 

and other forces 

DP42 – Hazardous and 

environmentally sensitive 

operations 


DP43 – Flooding and 

floodplains 

Core Indicator – 7 

No. of planning applications granted 

contrary to the advice of the 

Environment Agency 

0% of approvals p.a. 

without Environment 

Agency support 

DP44 – Very noisy 

activities 




90

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. 

Thirsk 

152/08 Calvert’s, Long Street, Thirsk 0.16 

152/11 Nursery Gardens, Thirsk 0.24 

152/17 Bellingham Close, Thirsk 0.2 

163/05 Land adj Greenacres, Topcliffe 0.1 

(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. 

Settlement Site Ref Site Name 

Ainderby 

Quernhow 

002/01 Rear of Black Horse pub 

009/01 Church Close 

Thircon, York Road, Thirsk 

009/02 

Ind Est 

Bagby 

009/03 Land east of bypass 

009/03a 

OS 1657 and land north of 

Woodcock Lane 

009/04 Bagby Service Centre 

Balk 010/01 Monk Park Farm 

017/01 

Market Garden Field, Back 

Lane 

Borrowby 

017/02 

OS 9674 / 9767 

Bedlam Hill 

017/03 Mowbray House 

17/04 West House Farm 

Carlton 

Husthwaite 

024/01 East End & Ivy Cottages 

027/01 Hall Farm 

Catton 

027/02 The Chevins 

027/03 Old Orchards 



91


037/01 The Oaks 

037/01a Oaks (West) Amended 

037/02 Long Acres,Back Lane 

037/03 Hollybank 

037/04 Daisy Cottage 

037/05 Pond House 

037/07 Dalton Moor 

Dalton 

037/08 Rear Lawn/Brook Cottage 

037/09 

Land south Lawn/Brook 

Cottage 

037/10 Little Acre, Moor Road 

037/11 Rear of Chapel Row 

037/12 OS 1016 Dalton Moor 



Holme 065/01 Holme Farm 

088/01 Ion Garth 

088/02 Southfields 

Knayton 

Maunby 

Newby Wiske 

Pickhill 

Sandhutton 

Sessay 

Skipton on 

Swale 

South 

Kilvington 

South 

Otterington 

088/03 Swan Lane 

088/04 West of A19 

100/01 Pickering moor lane 

100/02 Adjacent 1 The Row 

107/01 West View 

107/02 Woodsend 

118/01 Pickhill Engineering 

118/02 Craiglynne 

118/03 Chapel farm Polutry sheds 

118/04 Station Farm Polutry Sheds 

118/05 Lowfields Lane 

118/06 Rear 1 The Cottages 

126/01 

Church House and Church 

Farm 

126/02 The Limes 

126/03 Skipton Airfield 

126/04 

Home Garth (aka Greens 

Farm) 

129/01 The Gables 

129/2 North of Sessay 

133/01a Skipton Old Airfield main site 

133/01b 

SKipton Old Airfield pet 

crematorium 

133/02 

Land east & west of 

Westholme 

133/03 Busby Stoop Abattoir 

137/01 OS 8700 Stockton Road 

137/02 

Part OS 9628 

Stockton Road 

137/03 North of Southend 

138/01 Crosby Lodge 

138/02 Woodstock 

138/06 Workshops (Parlours) 

138/03 Rock Cottage 



92


138/04 Mill Farm, Station Road 

138/05 Rear End House 

Sutton-under- 

145/01 Scotch Garth 

Whitestonecliffe 145/02 Brook House 

Great Thirkleby 149/01 Home Farm 

Little Thirkleby 149/02 

South of Manor Farm 

Cottages 

Thirkleby 149/03 White Horse Farm, Low Road 

Thirlby 150/01 OS 1200 Carr Lane 

156/01 Rear of The Lilacs 

Thornton le 

Beans 

Land to the north of Thornton 

156/02 

le Beans 



93

F RA M EW OR K 

LDF 

H A M B L E T O N 

L O C A L 

D E VE LO P ME N T 

Hambleton District Council 

Civic Centre, Stone Cross, Northallerton, North Yorkshire DL6 2UU 

Tel: 0845 1211 555 Fax: 01609 767228 E-mail: planning.policy@hambleton.gov.uk 

www.hambleton.gov.uk 

© HDC 2007

Preferred Options - Hambleton District Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?