allocations proposed submission consultation statement

Local Development FrameworkALLOCATIONSPROPOSED SUBMISSIONDEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENTCONSULTATION STATEMENTJANUARY 2009

PROPOSED SUBMISSIONALLOCATIONS DOCUMENTCONSULTATION STATEMENTCONTENTS1. Introduction2. Consultation under Regulation 25: Issues and OptionsOctober/November 20052.1 Who was invited to make representations?2.2. How they were invited.2.3 A summary of the Main Issues raised.2.4 How the representations made were taken into account in preparingthe Allocations Preferred Options document.3. Consultation under Regulation 26/27: Preferred OptionsOctober/November 20073.1. Who was invited to make representations?3.2 How they were invited.3.3. A summary of the main issues raised.3.4 How the main issues have been addressed in the ProposedSubmission version of the Allocations Development Plan Document.3.5 Conclusion4 Sustainability Appraisal Consultation4.1 Who was invited to make representations?4.2 How they were invited.4.3 A summary of the main issues raised and action taken.AppendicesAllocations Issues and Options ConsultationOctober/November 2005Appendix 1 Issues and Options List of ConsulteesAppendix 2 Issues and Options List of RespondentsAppendix 3 Issues and Options Programme of Meetings and ExhibitionsAppendix 4 Issues and Options Notes of Area MeetingsAppendix 5 Issues and Options Hambleton News ArticleAppendix 6 Issues and Options Site Assessment FormAppendix 7 Issues and Options Questionnaires (Market Towns/ServiceVillages/Secondary Villages/Other).Allocations Preferred Options ConsultationOctober/November 2007Appendix 8 Preferred Options List of ConsulteesAppendix 9 Preferred Options List of RespondentsAppendix 10 Preferred Options Notes of Area MeetingsAppendix 11 Preferred Options Hambleton News ArticleAppendix 12 Preferred Options QuestionnaireAppendix 13 Preferred Options Press Notice1

1. INTRODUCTION1.1 The current planning system requires Local Planning Authorities to involve thewider community including stakeholders at an early stage in preparing LocalDevelopment Frameworks in order to achieve local ownership of andlegitimacy for its policies and proposals. The Statement of CommunityInvolvement sets out how Hambleton District Council should undertake suchconsultation.1.2. Extensive consultation has already been undertaken by the Council onseveral occasions:• Key Issues (March – April 2003)• Core Strategy Issues and Options (April – May 2005)• Core Strategy Preferred Options (July - August 2005)• Statement of Community Involvement (December 2004 and April and July2005)• Development Policies Issues and Options (September – October 2005)• Development Policies Preferred Options (January – February 2006)• Allocations Issues and Options (October – November 2005)• Allocations Preferred Options (October – November 2007)1.3 Consultation requirements have recently been reviewed by Government andtwo stages of consultation on each Development Plan Document – at theIssues and Options stage and the subsequent Preferred Options stage – areno longer required. However, Local Planning Authorities retain discretionabout the number of stages about which to engage the community in the leadup to the submission of Development Plan Documents.1.4 The changing regulations concerning community consultation took placeduring June 2008 by which time the Council had already followed the originalrequirements for consultation at both Issues and Options and PreferredOptions stages. This Report, therefore, summarises the main responses tothe Allocations Issues and Options and Preferred Options consultations, bothof which have contributed very significantly to the Allocations ProposedSubmission Document.1.5 This Statement, therefore, sets out how Hambleton District Council hasundertaken community participation and involvement in connection with theproduction of the Allocations Development Plan Document. As such, theStatement is prepared in accordance with Regulation 30 (d) of the Town andCountry Planning Local Development Regulations 2008, which requires thatthe submission of a Development Plan Document is accompanied by aStatement pursuant to regulation 25, setting out the following:(a) Who was invited to make representations?(b) How were they invited?(c)(d)A summary of the main issues raised.How the main issues were taken into account in preparing theAllocations Development Plan Document.1.6 This Statement of Consultation has basically two parts to it relating to twoconsultation exercises:Consultation under Regulation 252

Section 2 - Allocations Issues and Options ConsultationSection 3– Allocations Preferred Options Consultation1.7 Sustainability AppraisalA Sustainability Appraisal of the Local Development Framework is anessential component of the current Development Plan system. A parallelprocess of consultation has, therefore, been undertaken, firstly with regard tomethodology used in the Sustainability Appraisal and secondly in connectionwith the Appraisal of the Allocations at both the Issues and Options andPreferred Options stages of the Plan’s preparations . After Section 3,therefore, of this Statement there is a summary of the consultation on theAllocations Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Report.2. ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION OCTOBER – NOVEMBER 20052.1 WHO WAS INVITED TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS?2.1.1 An initial letter was sent to individuals and organisations recorded in the LocalDevelopment Framework list of consultees compiled by Hambleton DistrictCouncil. The list was drawn up in accordance with the Town and CountryPlanning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 and thereforeincludes “specific consultation bodies” such as the Yorkshire and HumberRegional Assembly and Government agencies like English Nature (nowNatural England) and the Highways Agency. In addition, a large number of“general consultation bodies” were consulted representing voluntary groups,ethnic minorities, religious groups, disabled persons and business communityrepresentatives. They included Age Concern, Over 50s Forum, the GypsyCouncil, Churches Together, the Learning Disability Partnership and BusinessSolutions. The List of Allocations Issues and Options Consultees areattached as Appendix 1 to this Report. The consultees who were sent copiesof the Issues and Options Reports from the outset were all selected on thebasis of the interest and responsibilities of the individual or organisationconcerned.2.1.2 Over 230 individuals and organisations recorded in the List of Consultees tookup the Council’s offer to be consulted on the Allocations Issues and OptionsReport. Responses were received from 49 of the consultees and a list ofthem is included at Appendix 2. In addition, a further 839 responses werereceived from individuals (mostly) and organisations, originally not consultedbut who, nevertheless, wanted to engage in the Allocations process.2.1.3 Both the Government and Hambleton District Council are keen to ensure thatthe Local Development Framework reflects a broad cross-section ofcommunity interest, including traditionally hard to reach groups such as youngpeople and disabled groups and the list of consultees shows that.2.1.4 As part of the Council’s desire to engage as many people as possible in thepreparation of the Local Development Framework, the opportunity was alsotaken to include a feature about the Allocations Issues and Options in theHambleton News. Written and published by the Council itself, 42,000 copiesof Hambleton News are circulated to addresses in the District.3

2.1.5 Over 700 people attended either a mobile exhibition as it toured the ServiceVillages or day exhibitions in the Market Towns.2.2. HOW THEY WERE INVITED2.2.1 The consultation methods used were a combination of prepared documents(the Allocations Issues and Options Reports including maps and questionforms); letters to individuals and bodies such as Parish Councils; pressnotices; posters; area meetings and exhibitions; a Hambleton News feature;and a touring exhibition. Finally, copies of the Allocations Issues and OptionsReports were available on the Hambleton Council website. The mainelements of the consultation programme are set out below.Allocations Issues and Options Reports2.2.2 A decision was taken early on that the Allocations Issues and Options Reportswhich were circulated for comment to organisations and individuals includedin the Hambleton list of consultees would be produced on an area basis, onefor each of the five Market Town Sub areas. The Allocations Area Reportscontained OS based maps showing each of the 300 or so sites suggested forconsideration. The Reports also incorporated Site Assessment pro formaswhich set out basic information for each site and gave a preliminary viewabout the site’s suitability, availability, and accessibility (see Appendix 6 for asample Site Assessment form).2.2.3 Arrangements were made to provide the Allocations Issues and OptionsReport in alternative formats in accordance with the Council’s EqualOpportunities Policy. 33 consultees were supplied with CD versions but therewere no requests to make the Reports and associated documents available inany other format.2.2.4 A total of 153 individuals or organisations responded by returning lettersand/or questionnaires about the Market Towns themselves. In addition,questionnaires were produced for the other levels of the settlement hierarchy,namely Service Villages, Secondary Villages and Elsewhere Villages andthese were also returned in large numbers, 735 altogether. (See Appendix 7for sample questionnaires)Area Meetings2.2.5 Area public meetings were arranged in each of the five Market Towns andtook the form of a presentation followed by discussion of the Issues andOptions. Views expressed at the meetings were noted (see Appendix 3 forthe meetings programme and Appendix 4 for notes of the Area Meetings). Inaddition, participants were also encouraged to fill in and return the questionforms and many of them did so. Some also responded by submittingindividual lettersArea Exhibitions2.2.6 Prior to the Area meetings, day long exhibitions were held in the 5 towns inthe same venues and were well attended. Attendees brought up a variety ofplanning and community service issues, in addition to the many site specificmatters which the Allocations Issues and Options consultation with its 300 or4

must be borne in mind when considering responses in relation to housingrequirements.BEDALE SUB AREA2.3.2 Altogether 124 questionnaires were returned for the Bedale Sub Area; 33 forBedale (with Aiskew); 30 for the Service Villages; 45 for Secondary Villagesand 16 for Other Settlements.Bedale (with Aiskew)2.3.3 Regarding the need for new homes and employment land, nearly everyrespondent favoured less than 500 dwellings up to 2021 and less than 9hectares of land for employment purposes. The most popular housing siteswere in Aiskew, generally backing on to the Wensleydale Railway, while sitesin the centre of Bedale were usually less so. However, one of the proposedhousing sites, 004/01 Wilberts Farm, attracted significant opposition as wellas support from respondents. The Abattoir site at Aiskew (004/05) was themost favoured for employment purposes whereas sites at south Bedale offMasham Road (011/03a-d) were particularly unpopular. The Bridge Streetsite (011/09) was rated most preferred for business and also for shopping.The south Bedale sites were considered the most appropriate for recreationuse. In answer to the question about any other possible sites for allocation,several were put forward for residential development. The same southBedale sites were thought to be unavailable as was land at the Bedale GolfCourse entrance. Asked if they had any other comments, 23 respondentsreplied about a wide range of sites but particularly the very unpopular southBedale sites.2.3.4 Development Limits were felt strongly not to need amendment.Bedale Service Villages2.3.5 Crakehall and Leeming Bar accounted for over two-thirds of the responses(22 out of 30). Regarding housing needs, Crakehall residents thought up to50 new dwellings should be provided as compared with Leeming Barrespondents who favoured no new housing at all. Strong opposition wasexpressed about a housing site outside the village boundaries on the northernedge of Crakehall. In Snape, opinions were divided about new housing sites,especially the Hares Works site 135/02. The limited replies from Tanfieldwere unanimous in supporting a site within the Development Limits (Site170/10 Station Yard) and resisting one outside (The Cliffe Site 170/01).2.3.6 Development Limits in general were considered not in need of amendmentexcept for Crakehall where opinions were more varied. There was littleenthusiasm for allocating sites for any other uses in any of the ServiceVillages.Bedale Secondary Villages2.3.7 Only Kirkby Fleetham (27) and Scruton (14) returned significant numbers ofquestionnaires (41 out of 44); most of the Kirkby Fleetham respondentsfavoured less than 10 new dwellings but no opinion was expressed about thenumbers of new dwellings in Scruton. Affordable Housing attracted littleinterest; Kirkby Fleetham replies did, however, identify 3 sites as unsuitablefor such housing. Amendments to Development Limits were not very popular6

amongst Kirkby Fleetham residents, whereas Scruton respondents were moreevenly balanced in their opinions.2.3.8 Sites for other uses attracted interest in Kirkby Fleetham, particularly forplaying facilities.Bedale Other Villages2.3.9 Great and Little Fencote produced over half the 16 responses with 1 eachfrom a further 6 villages. Most Fencote respondents were in favour of 10dwellings or less; by contrast Gatenby Parish Council suggested 25 to 30dwellings. Regarding sites for new housing, Fencote replies identified one inparticular at Kirkby Fleetham Lane but opposed 2 others at The Hatchery andChurchyard. Opinions amongst Fencote respondents were narrowly dividedabout amending Development Limits. Only Fencote respondents repliedabout other uses – a burial ground and another public house were suggested.EASINGWOLD SUB AREA2.3.10 A total of 154 questionnaires were returned from the Easingwold Sub Area; 20from Easingwold itself; 43 from Service Villages; 89 from Secondary Villages;and 2 from the Other Settlements.Easingwold2.3.11 The estimated need for additional housing in Easingwold varied from lessthan 250 to more than 1,000 with the majority favouring less than 250.Employment land requirements were put at 20 hectares or more by nearly halfthe respondents, while the others supported less than 9 hectares, again quitea variation. When asked about sites for new housing, there was no strongpreference but sites 041/20 West of Easingwold and 041/23 West of HaggLane were both proposed and opposed. Employment sites in general did notattract strong interest either for or against. Respondents supported sites forrecreation and leisure in the south east of Easingwold (Sites 041/02; 041/06and041/43 Stillington/York Road, 041/15 Ward Trailers, and 041/24 North ofStillington Road) but not strongly so. In addition to the option sites,respondents were asked to suggest any other sites that they wanted to beconsidered. Of the few who answered, most suggested additional housingsites. Regarding sites thought by respondents not to be available, Sites041/29 and 041/30 land to the west of Hagg Lane and 041/07 North ofEasingwold were considered to be unavailable for housing purposes,particularly because of poor access.2.3.12 Development Limits were not seen by the majority of respondents to needamendment. When asked to comment generally on the option sites, anumber expressed concern about retaining the character of Easingwold bynot allowing much more development.Easingwold Service Villages2.3.13 Most of the responses from the Service Villages about the need for newhomes were in favour of some development during the plan period althoughthere were significant variations in numbers of dwellings. The question aboutthe choice of new housing sites produced answers which were often verycritical of some sites (particularly site 141/03 South of South Back Lane inStillington) whereas support for sites was more muted. In Stillington, nearly7

half of the 23 respondents thought there were better sites than those theywere consulted on by the Council. In Brafferton/Helperby, sites 063/03 and063/04 East and West of Back Lane were objected to as were some of thesites at Husthwaite.2.3.14 There were significant variations between the Service Villages regardingDevelopment Limits; Stillington replies favoured amendment as comparedwith Brafferton/Helperby and Husthwaite replies which wanted to retain themunamended. Sites for other uses sparked some interest inBrafferton/Helperby but not in the other three Service Villages.Easingwold Secondary Villages2.3.15 Tollerton generated a surprising number of responses – 64 as compared with20 from Easingwold itself, a much larger settlement – and the majority of themfavoured less than 15 dwellings although one respondent wanted 75dwellings. Replies from the other Secondary villages were generally veryrestrictive except for Linton on Ouse whose Parish Council proposed 100dwellings. Three sites in Tollerton, including 162/02b North east of Kyle Closeand 162/04 North west of Back Lane, were considered suitable for affordablehousing and attracted substantial support although a significant minorityopposed any affordable housing at all. There was much objection to 7specific sites being used for affordable housing in Tollerton, mainly for accessreasons. Huby was similar in that there was strong feeling against the site070/06 South of Gracious Street. Both Tollerton and Huby respondents werealike in being very opposed to amending Development Limits with only Alneand Linton on Ouse in favour. Which new sites to allocate for other usesclearly interested a number of Tollerton respondents who put forward ideasfor recreation uses and a GP’s surgery amongst other things.Easingwold Other Villages2.3.16Two responses were received from Myton on Swale and Newton on Ouse.Both respondents wished to see very little new housing and no sites werepreferred for housing either. As for Development Limits, the Myton reply wasin agreement with amending the limits, whereas the Newton on Ouseresponse was to object.NORTHALLERTON SUB-AREA2.3.17 There were 185 questionnaires returned from the Northallerton Sub Area, themajority of them from Service, Secondary and other villages.Northallerton (with Romanby)2.3.18 The very small response from Northallerton itself was disappointing (10) andsurprising as it is much the largest settlement in Hambleton. Replies about thenumbers of new homes needed varied between less than 250 dwellings andmore than 1,000.2.3.19 Only two people answered the question about employment land, one in favourof 5 ha. and the other who supported 20 ha. When asked to evaluate sitepreferences for housing, employment and other uses, few sites werementioned and indeed, none stood out as popular or unpopular.8

2.3.20 Alternative sites attracted little support from respondents; on the other hand,flooding issues were considered to make some sites quite unsuitable.2.3.21 Amendments to Development Limits were on balance not considerednecessary, other than to accommodate any new allocations. When asked forany other comments, respondents raised housing matters, traffic and parkingproblems, and the need for community facilities.Northallerton Service Villages2.3.22 Much greater interest was generated in the 3 Service Villages, particularlyEast Cowton, which contributed 60 of the 88 replies from the villages, with 17from Morton-on-Swale and 11 from Brompton.2.3.23 Suggestions about how many new homes were required varied quite widely inall 3 villages (from 0 to 100 or more in both East Cowton and Morton-on-Swale) although the majority favoured low numbers. As to which sites weresupported or opposed, site 042/02 Bungalow Farm in East Cowton was veryunpopular with many respondents (as was site 042/01 Vineyard Terrace)because of flooding in particular and traffic issues to a lesser extent. Despitethat, there was also some support for the Bungalow Farm site. SeveralMorton-on-Swale replies objected to the sites 102/03 North of A684 and102/05 East of Dales School, principally on access grounds, preferringinstead site 102/02 Land to the rear of the Swaledale Arms. In Brompton, nosite attracted great support but 2 were objected to, namely sites 020/01 TheClose and 020/05 Northallerton RUFC ground, largely on environmentalgrounds. The Parish Council strongly opposed the erosion of the ‘BromptonGap’.2.3.24 Amendments to Development Limits attracted significant attention in all 3villages with a small majority in favour of amendment in East Cowton, a deadheatin Morton-on-Swale and a majority of 1 opposed to amendment inBrompton.2.3.25 Suggestions regarding new sites for uses attracted some support from allthree villages: in East Cowton, there was much interest in recreationalfacilities of one kind or another; in Morton-on-Swale and East Cowton therewere various ideas for other uses, including school parking provision,affordable housing for young people and small business units.Northallerton Secondary Villages2.3.26 Nearly all the 64 responses from Secondary Villages came from AppletonWiske. Two thirds of the Appleton Wiske replies wanted less than 10dwellings although one person proposed as many as 40. All 5 Great Smeatonresponses preferred less than 10 dwellings.2.3.27 There was keen interest in Appleton Wiske in affordable housing and over halfthe replies (36) favoured site 008/02 South of Hornby Road. However, thesame site and 008/03 East and South of Appleton Wiske School attractedover 30 objections because of flooding and the effect on the character of thevillage. As for Great Smeaton, site 016/01 East of East Farm attractedopposition from 4 of the 5 respondents who thought it unsuitable for affordablehousing.9

2.3.28 Development Limits changes were unpopular in Appleton Wiske with twothirds of the replies objecting to them; they were even more unpopular inGreat Smeaton.2.3.29There was some interest from Appleton Wiske in other uses for new sites, twoof them in favour of recreational facilities for both old and young.Northallerton Other Villages2.3.30 Low Worsall generated three quarters of the replies from Other Villages; italso produced widely varying responses to the need for new homes withnearly everyone favouring less than 15 dwellings whereas 2 replies supported100 or more.2.3.31 Sites for affordable housing attracted some interest in Low Worsall,particularly site 098/02 East of Worsall Hall.2.3.32 Amending Development Limits was not supported by most replies from LowWorsall. Sites for new uses were mentioned by several Low Worsallrespondents, particularly regarding children’s play.STOKESLEY SUB-AREA2.3.33There were nearly 340 replies from the Stokesley Sub Area, of which 146were from Great Ayton and 73 from Hutton Rudby.Stokesley2.3.34 There were 43 replies from Stokesley itself. Few people expressed anopinion about the number of dwellings needed; once again, the range ofresponses was very varied with a cluster in favour of less than 250 dwellingsand the remainder up to 500 and more. As regards employment land, all thereplies favoured less than 9 hectares.2.3.35 Most comments about preferred sites related to housing, not surprisingly, witha cluster of replies choosing site 142/06a and b Tanton Estates and rejectingsite 142/14 White House Farm. Similar opposition was expressed towardsboth recreation uses and employment development at White House Farm. Bycontrast, extensions to sites 142/25 and 142/26 Stokesley Business Parkattracted significant support.2.3.36 There was very little interest expressed in alternative sites with only 142/02Land at Union Mill and 142/07 Land at Levenside getting a mention.2.3.37 Sites considered to be unavailable for development were generally on thesouth side of Stokesley on the grounds of flooding and drainage.2.3.38 Development Limit changes were unanimously opposed. Other commentsmade by respondents largely repeated their previous concerns about andopposition towards development south of Stokesley around Malvern Closeand also White House Farm.10

Stokesley Service Villages2.3.39 There were nearly 100 answers from Great Ayton to the question about theneed for new dwellings, of which 75% advocated less than 50 dwellings ascompared with one person who proposed 700 dwellings. Hutton Rudbyreplies varied considerably too, from 0 to 100 dwellings although 80%supported less than 50 dwellings. Great Broughton responses favoured lessthan 60 dwellings. The choice of new housing sites in Great Ayton wasfocussed on 3 sites – 058/16 East of Ayton Hall; 058/02 Grounds of ClevelandLodge; and 058/06 Slaughterhouse, Linden Avenue. Large swathes of landsouth-west (058/01a-b and 058/04) and south-east (058/07) of Great Aytonwere very unpopular for flooding, traffic and environmental reasons. In HuttonRudby, 2 sites were chosen, 073/04 North of Garbutts Lane and 073/06Deepdale whereas 073/01 South of Garbutts Lane and 073/05 South East ofEnterpen were objected to strongly.2.3.40 Existing Development Limits were supported by two-thirds of Great Aytonrespondents; in Hutton Rudby, 80% of respondents wanted no change, likethe 63% in Great Broughton.2.3.41 There was a lot of interest in sites for other uses in Great Ayton, particularlyrecreation and community facilities but in addition employment and transportfacilities. Hutton Rudby replies included housing for the elderly and the youngalike.Stokesley Secondary Villages2.3.42 There were just 7 responses from 3 of the Secondary Villages, Seamer,Ingleby Arncliffe and Kirkby in Cleveland. Regarding the number of newhomes required, almost every reply favoured single figures.2.3.43Sites for Affordable Housing were few and far between; indeed only oneattracted any support at all and that was in Seamer where respondentsconsidered 8 sites to be unsuitable for Affordable Housing.2.3.44 Most replies opposed changing the Development Limits.2.3.45 Regarding sites for other uses, just 1 in Seamer was put forward – again, forrecreational purposes.Stokesley Other Villages2.3.46 Potto accounted for most of the replies, 53 out of 58, and almost all of themproposed less than 10 dwellings.2.3.47 There was little support for Affordable Housing on any site in Potto but somein Rudby.2.3.48 Amending Development Limits was likewise very unpopular in Potto; Rudbywas split on this issue.2.3.49 There was some interest in sites for new uses: in Potto, recreational useswere suggested; in Picton, a village hall/playground; and a car park/churchyard extension in Rudby.11

THIRSK SUB AREA2.3.50 A total of 89 responses came from the Thirsk Sub-Area, 45 fromThirsk/Sowerby.Thirsk (with Sowerby)2.3.51 The number of new dwellings suggested for Thirsk (with Sowerby) variedconsiderably from less than 250 dwellings to more than 500; indeed, mostresponses proposed the higher figure. Employment land needs varied too,with over half the respondents supporting less than 9 hectares although 1person did suggest 20 or more.2.3.52 As for new sites, there were clusters of support for 139/04 Admiral’s Court,152/03 Rybeck Farm and 152/04 Stoneybrough Farm but opposition for139/06 York Road and 139/09 and 09a Cocked Hat Farm. Regardingemployment uses (including shopping), there was opposition to the YorkRoad, Cocked Hat Farm and Admiral’s Court sites with support for 139/03 OldRedhouse and 139/10 south of Austin Reed and 152/06 Austin Reed.2.3.53 In terms of recreation and community uses, there was opposition todevelopment of the York Road sites for these purposes also.2.3.54 With respect to alternative employment sites, there were several responsesproposing Dalton Airfield, Thirsk Industrial Park and Long Street. Sitesregarded as definitely not available for development featured predominantlythe York Road/Sowerby Flatts area which was highly valued as agriculturalland, playing fields and a green wedge.2.3.55 Amending Development Limits was not supported by the majority of the Thirskrespondents.2.3.56 In answer to the request for any other comments, again the YorkRoad/Sowerby Flatts area came up strongly as being unsuitable fordevelopment, but very valuable as amenity/agricultural land. Other commentsreferred to flooding issues, traffic congestion and the scale of residentialdevelopment which was considered excessive.Thirsk Service Villages2.3.57 Carlton Miniott (16) and Topcliffe together produced 21 responses.2.3.58 The question about the number of new dwellings required elicited responsesfor Carlton Miniott varying from 0 – 50 and for Topcliffe, 0 - 25.2.3.59 Two sites for new housing were supported at Carlton Miniott, namely 025/02Carlton Miniott Park and 025/03 Manfield Terrace. However, both these sitesalso attracted opposition. At Topcliffe, site 163/03 Winn Lane Farm wassupported rather than 163/01 Peter Fields where there were held to beinfrastructure issues. However, subsequently 163/03 was also found to beunavailable for development.With regard to new sites for other uses, 5 of the 9 Carlton Miniott replies saidthere was no requirement although others suggested a need for allotments,industry and play.12

2.3.60 Amending Development Limits divided both communities equally.2.3.61 Concerning new sites for other uses, the Carlton Miniott replies were almostequally split between there being no need and there being some need.Possible uses included allotments and children’s play. With regard toTopcliffe, 1 suggestion was to put further housing development at Dalton, over3 miles away.Thirsk Secondary Villages2.3.62 There were limited responses from the Secondary Villages, 14 in total.Answers as to how many new homes were needed ranged from 5 to 150 inDalton, up to 20 in Pickhill and up to 30 in South Otterington.2.3.63 No sites were strongly preferred for affordable housing in the SecondaryVillages and indeed, sites in Dalton, Pickhill and South Kilvington wereobjected to on access and environmental grounds.2.3.64 Development Limit changes were supported by Dalton and South Otteringtonreplies. As for sites for other uses, a site for workshop uses was put forwardin Pickhill.Thirsk Other Villages2.3.65 There were 8 responses from Other Villages, 6 of them from Catton.2.3.66 Regarding the number of new homes, replies from Catton varied from 0 to 15.Thirkleby Parish Council thought between 6 and 14.2.3.67 As to which sites would be best for housing, site 027/03 The Old Orchard wasput forward in Catton. Another site in Catton was strongly opposed forhousing. In Sandhutton, sewerage problems were said to affect the optionsites. The Thirkleby respondent preferred site 149/02 Manor Farm Cottagefor housing.2.3.68 Development Limit changes were considered unnecessary by SandhuttonParish Council and opinion was divided in Catton. As for Thirkleby, suchchanges, it was argued, would only be necessary to accommodate site149/02 Manor Farm Cottage for housing.CONCLUSION2.3.69 The consultation on the Allocations DPD Issues and Options Report producednearly 890 responses, rather more than the previous consultations on theother Development Plan Documents. This was hardly surprising really sincethe selection of individual sites for possible development is always a sensitivematter, whether from the point of view of local residents; developers, landowners and their agents; Parish and Town Councils; stakeholders such as theCounty Council, Government Departments and Agencies, Public Utilities;amenity and interest groups and so on. It was also apparent that theresponse from communities varied according to whether or not there were liveplanning issues already such as a current planning application or existinginfrastructure problems; burning issues from say the District Wide Local Planwere also likely to be controversial again.13

2.3.70 All the responses to the Allocations Issues and Options consultation wereconsidered in preparing the Preferred Options. A balanced approach wasadopted which sought to reflect the views expressed and reconcile conflictsas far as it was possible to do so. The full report on the Issues and Optionssets out in detail who was consulted and how the various comments havebeen addressed as required under the Local Development Regulations.2.3.71 The Council, as far as possible, chose Options consistent with the Issues andOptions Responses as the full Report on the Consultation explains in greaterdetail. Where the Council was unable to do so, the reasons included the needfor compliance with the adopted Core Strategy, national and regionalGovernment guidance, adverse visual impact, localised flooding issues, andtransportation considerations. For example, 291 sites were not subjected todetailed analysis and evaluation as they were in locations not supported bythe adopted Core Strategy. Due to a minimum size threshold of 0.3 ha., it wasalso the case that 58 sites within the Service Centres and Service Villageswere automatically discounted when the selection of the Preferred Optionswas undertaken.2.4 HOW THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT INPREPARING THE ALLOCATIONS PREFERRED OPTIONS DOCUMENT2.4.1 The purpose of this Section is to show how the choice of Preferred Optionswas influenced by the Issues and Options consultation replies, alwaysremembering that there were many other influences to be taken into accountas well. It is also the case that about 500 of the nearly 800 option sitesconsidered by the Council at the Preferred Options stage had only been putforward in response to the Issues and Options Report and had not previouslybeen out to consultation in any way. (It was to be expected that responses tothe Issues and Options consultation would include alternatives but the largenumber of them was not anticipated). The additional 500 together with theoriginal 300 were to be included in the Preferred Options Consultationprovided they complied with the Core Strategy’s locational policies so therewould be the opportunity for public consultation in the case of many of thenew sites.SELECTING THE ALLOCATIONS PREFERRED OPTIONS2.4.2 Following the consultation on the Allocation Issues and Options, considerationwas given to the methodology for selecting the Preferred Options. It wasdecided to adopt a more strategic approach than simply “picking and mixing”from the sites suggested by the consultation responses. The methodologyconsisted of the 4 principles and 7 steps outlined below. (A fuller explanationof the methodology is included in Section 2 and Annex 1 of the five AreaAllocations Preferred Options Reports).2.4.3 The most important principles or objectives driving the allocation of land wereas follows:i. to reflect and deliver the strategy for the future development of Hambleton setout in the adopted Core Strategy. The Core Strategy itself conforms to national14

and regional guidance, and sets the scale and distribution of developmentrequired to meet the District’s needs;ii.iii.iv.to reflect the principles set out in the Development Policies DPD, which givesfurther detail to the Core Strategy, and helps explain how it will beimplemented. An example is the detailed approach to safeguarding thecharacter and form of settlements (Policy DP10);to reflect national and regional (i.e. RSS) guidance. This includes for examplethe Government’s guidance on the selection and bringing forward of housingland in PPS3 (Housing). RSS also provides guidance on the sequence ofsearch for development sites;to reflect local views, as expressed through the preceding LDF consultationstages, on how individual settlements should or should not develop.2.4.4 These principles were then considered in more detail for each of the 4 mainland uses, namely housing, employment, town centre and community uses.The housing factors taken in to account were the scale, timing and distributionof housing development followed by site acceptability and sustainability(settlement character, accessibility, local issues and feasibility) and thendensity of housing and brownfield land targets.2.4.5 The preferred employment sites were selected using much the same factorsexcept for density and brownfield land targets of course. Town centre andcommunity use allocations were chosen for a variety of different reasonsdepending on the particular use proposed. Town centre proposals for instanceoften followed from the Town Centres Study suggestions, car parking from thetwo Car Parking studies or the Renaissance Market Towns and theCommunity Places Area Groups. Finally, a size threshold of 0.3 hectares or10 dwellings (in the case of residential sites) was adopted for allocations forall land uses.2.4.6 Putting the various considerations together, the overall approach adopted forall four land use categories within each Sub Area then involved the 7 stepsset out below:Step 1:Step 2:Step 3:undertake a strategic analysis of the Service Centre and ServiceVillages: consider all the development constraints and opportunities foreach of these settlements, drawing together information on all the issuesidentified above.discard all sites clearly contrary to the strategy contained in theCore Strategy: sieve all the sites suggested through the Issues andOptions consultation, and reject those sites outside the Service Centreand Service Villages and also those less than the adopted threshold of0.3 hectares (or 10 dwellings or more).identify through the sequential search process those scattered sitesclearly within the Service Centre (and the Service Villages) whichare sustainable and developable such as brownfield sites in the maincentres.15

Step 4:Step 5:Step 6:Step 7:identify and evaluate packages of alternatives from within theremaining sites: based on the broad strategic analysis in Step 1, anumber of discrete geographical directions of growth were provisionallyidentified for each Service Centre (and where appropriate the ServiceVillages), mostly housing proposals, but other land use categories wereconsidered as well. In the case of housing, provisional phases of landrelease were also identified as were the suggested Development Limits,taking account of the preferred alternatives.for Secondary Villages, review the Development Limits and considerany exceptional justification for allocations: Development Limits inSecondary Villages were proposed for public comment, bearing in mindthat, in these settlements, allocations were to be limited to exceptionalcircumstances only.measure the total quantities, distribution and timing of availability ofsites identified through Steps 3, 4 and 5 for housing and employment –and compare with the requirements of the Core Strategy (in terms ofquantity, distribution and timing).revisit as necessary Steps 3, 4 and 5 to establish an overallpreferred package meeting Core Strategy requirements: adjusting theselection process to ensure that the Preferred Options package matchedthe requirements of the Core Strategy (and other guidance) in terms ofquantity, distribution and timing.2.4.7 The outcome of Step 7, in the form of the package of preferred sites, theidentified alternatives which were rejected and also the suggestedDevelopment Limits, was as set out below beginning with the Bedale SubArea.BEDALE SUB AREABedale (with Aiskew)2.4.8 Revised Development Limits were proposed for Bedale (with Aiskew)following a review of the Development Limits boundary in the former DistrictWide Local Plan and also allowing for the new development proposals chosenas the Preferred Options.Bedale (with Aiskew) -- The Preferred Options2.4.9 Of the 4 Strategic Areas considered for Bedale (with Aiskew), the preferredone was Aiskew (East). This Area focused development in Aiskew, primarilysouth of the A684 and north of the Wensleydale Railway. The Area would bedeveloped in tandem with Preferred Scattered Sites within the built-up area (3housing sites; 2 mixed use sites; 3 transport related sites.2.4.10 Aiskew (East) and the Preferred Scattered Sites together provided for thefollowing:• Approximately 500 dwellings at 30 or 40 dwellings per hectare depending onthe sites. This is approximately two thirds of the housing requirement for the16

Bedale sub-area (for the period (2004-2021) and accords with Policy CP6 inthe Core Strategy. These dwellings will be a mix of flats, terraced and semidetached units of 2,3, and 4 bedrooms developed on sites with a significantproportion of brownfield land that lie within and adjacent to existingDevelopment Limits. The housing will be built on sites located on or close toexisting proposed public transport routes, and also existing and proposedpedestrian and cycle routes.• Approximately 2.3 hectares of employment land (complementing proposals atLeeming Bar Industrial Estate) suitable for office use or storage anddistribution, located close to existing employment areas and the A1.• Approximately 4.4 hectares of land for mixed uses ( housing, business, office,retail and community use) on sites located in the town centre and onbrownfield land close to existing public transport routes.• A community park in the centre of the settlement (Renaissance Park) whichwill be within easy access of most residential areas of Bedale (with Aiskew)• A new coach and car park, linked to the proposed Bedale (with Aiskew) reliefroad, easing traffic levels and flows in the central area of Bedale (withAiskew).• In addition, the proposed route of the Bedale relief road and the route of theWensleydale Railway line will be safeguarded.Relationship between the Preferred Options and the Issues and Optionsresponses2.4.11 The Council’s choices reflected quite closely the community’s preferences interms of sites felt to be suitable for residential, office, employment, andshopping uses. The most popular housing sites for example, (004/02, 004/03and 004/04), were the housing sites preferred by the Council. Similarly, sitesunpopular with the community were also by and large not selected fordevelopment by the Council. The Preferred Options were therefore a good fitwith the Issues and Options consultation replies both in terms of the scale ofdevelopment (most replies favoured up to 500 new dwellings and less than 9hectares of employment land) and the individual site allocations.Bedale Service VillagesCrakehall: - The Preferred Option2.4.12 With regard to scale of development, the Council’s proposal for 15 newhomes for Crakehall was well within the range of 4 to 50 dwellings suggestedby respondents. Crakehall replies did not express strong preferences for anyof the housing option sites in the village so the preferred housing allocation inCrakehall (site 032/03i) would seem unlikely receive strong objection.Similarly, the sites rejected by the Council were also opposed by theCrakehall replies. Crakehall opinion had been divided over whether theDevelopment Limits should be changed. The minimal changes proposed tothe Development Limits may had a mixed reception judging by thequestionnaire respondents.17

Leeming Bar - The Preferred Options2.4.13 The Leeming Bar replies about the number of dwellings varied from the fourwho thought there should be no more to one reply which said 30; the 40proposed by the District Council were thought to attract some opposition atthe Preferred Options stage. There were no strong preferences for newhousing sites so the District Council’s preferred options may well besupported. On the other hand, the proposal for 17 hectares of employmentland would be of concern to those Leeming Bar respondents opposed tofurther industrial development. However the decision to develop the additionalemployment land was fully consistent with the adopted Hambleton CoreStrategy which of course took a wider District view and included a figure of 20hectares for the whole Bedale Sub-Area. As far as the Leeming BarDevelopment Limits were concerned, there was stiff opposition to revisingthem.Snape - The Preferred Option2.4.14 The District Council proposed 21 dwellings for Snape; as this was themidpoint of the range proposed by respondents, it would meet with theirsupport. The 21 dwellings were to be concentrated on one site, Site 135/02.The replies had been split on this site with some opposed and some in favouralthough the actual proposal by the District Council was to allocate the frontportion of the site only, leaving the rest outside the Development Limits. Thispreferred option was likely to be popular with some respondents but not all.Regarding the Development Limits, these were to be modified but would stillseek to constrain growth in line with the Core Strategy. This modification wascontrary to consultation responses from Snape but was felt by the DistrictCouncil to be consistent with the proposed scale of change in ServiceVillages.West Tanfield - The Preferred Options2.4.15 Thirty four new homes were proposed by Hambleton Council for WestTanfield. Again this was within the range 30 – 50 which the 3 Tanfieldrespondents suggested. 23 of the 35 dwellings were intended by the DistrictCouncil to be developed on Site 170/10, a Brownfield and mixed use sitewhich the 3 Tanfield responses had also favoured.2.4.16 West Tanfield’s Development Limits were put forward for minor change by theCouncil in order to include Site 170/05 within the Limits in accordance with theCore Strategy. The respondents by comparison had been opposed tochanging the Development Limits although in reality the difference betweenthe Council and the respondents was very small (Site 170/05 is only 0.37hectares, slightly above the Council’s cut off point of 0.3 hectares).Bedale Sub Area Secondary Villages2.4.17 In accordance with the Adopted Core Strategy, there was always going to belimited development in Secondary Villages. The Allocations Preferred Optionsmust reflect the Core Strategy (“the chain of conformity” beginning withnational planning guidance, followed by the Regional Spatial Strategy andthen the Local Development Framework). The Bedale Allocations PreferredOptions therefore did not include specific allocations in the SecondaryVillages; such housing development as will take place in these villages will bewindfalls within Development Limits or affordable housing outside but18

adjacent to Development Limits. Only in exceptional circumstances would ahousing allocation be made in a Secondary Village. Similarly with employmentallocations, these will not to be found in Secondary Villages. Any developmentwhich does take place will be small in scale and related to rural employmentand diversification. Responses from the Secondary Villages were generally infavour of limited development; indeed very often the response was toadvocate little or no development at all (please see Section 4 above). Thatbeing the case, the Secondary Villages Preferred Options and the Issues andOptions responses were always likely to correspond and they did.2.4.18 Changes to Development Limits followed the same approach; such changeswere small scale and for very specific purposes such as including North Roadwithin the Development Limits at Hackforth or drawing in Development Limitsat the rear of 12, 14 and 17 Millfield Close at Leeming (See Annex 2Development Limits of the Bedale Allocations Preferred Options Report).Bedale Elsewhere Villages2.4.19 In addition to the Service Centres, Service Villages and Secondary Villages,there are of course a significant number of very small settlements withinHambleton District. As with the Secondary Villages, there are no site specificallocations being proposed by the Council in the Elsewhere settlements in linewith the adopted Core Strategy which focuses development in the ServiceCentres and Service Villages primarily. The low level of developmentproposed in the Elsewhere Villages was consistent with respondents’ viewsabout them. As for Development Limits, opinion had been divided aboutwhether to amend the Limits or not, with a majority supporting change. In theevent though, the Council decided that Development Limits were notappropriate in the Elsewhere settlements. The adopted Core Strategytherefore does not in these villages define Development Limits within whichdevelopment will be supported subject to certain criteria; instead developmentwill only be permitted when an exceptional case can be made as set out inPolicies CP1, CP2, and CP4 of the Core Strategy and DP9 of theDevelopment Policies Development Policies Document.EASINGWOLD SUB AREAEasingwold - The Preferred Options2.4.20 Of the 5 Strategic Areas considered for Easingwold itself, the ones preferredfocussed development mainly to the east and south of Easingwold with asmall area of rounding off north of Raskelf Road. The Area would bedeveloped in association with the two Preferred Scattered Sites within thebuilt up area, both of them being for housing. The Preferred Strategic Areasouth and east of Easingwold and the Preferred Scattered Sites togetherprovided the following:2.4.21 Approximately 287 new homes at 30 dwellings per hectare. Together with the191 committed or constructed since 2004, the overall total of 478 representsabout 66% of the housing requirement of the Easingwold Sub Area for theperiod 2004 – 2021 in line with Policy CP6 of the Core Strategy. A mix ofdwellings will be provided on sites with a significant proportion of brownfieldland, located on or close to existing and proposed public transport, pedestrianand cycle routes.19

• Approximately 3.5 hectares of employment land suitable for B2–B8 uses(General Industry and Warehousing and Distribution).• Approximately 3.0 hectares of land for B1-B2 employment uses (Offices andGeneral Industry).• Approximately 0.3 hectares extension to the existing cemetery.Relationship between the Preferred Options and the Issues and Optionsresponses2.4.22 Few sites attracted much attention at all and there was therefore relativelylittle guidance from the Issue and Options consultation responses when itcame to choosing the Preferred Options for Easingwold itself. It was also thecase that some of the sites which were preferred by the Council were bothsupported and opposed by respondents in almost equal measure. In oneinstance, site 041/43 preferred by the Council was actually a completely newone not subject to previous consultation, although it did adjoin an existing site041/02 Stillington Road/York Road. There were in addition some sites whichwere considered just as suitable for a variety of uses and of course thesecond largest site (041/03 Prospect Farm) was actually granted permissionby the Secretary of State on Appeal. So far as possible though, the Councilchose options for which there was a degree of support from the communityconsultation.Easingwold Service Villages2.4.23 For the four Service Villages in the Easingwold Sub Area(Brafferton/Helperby, Husthwaite, Shipton and Stillington), the Preferred andRejected Options chosen for each settlement were as set out below.Brafferton/Helperby - The Preferred Options2.4.24 With regard to the scale of development, the Council’s proposal was for up to20 dwellings, only a little more than the “up to 15” suggested by mostBrafferton/Helperby respondents.2.4.25 The Council chose two sites for housing, Sites 063/03 and 063/04, west andeast of Back Lane which together could provide the new dwellings required.However, these options had been objected to by Brafferton/Helperbyrespondents at the Issues and Options stage and may not have found favourwhen the Council consulted on them as Preferred Options. Having said that,no option had been very well received anyway.2.4.26 Amendments to the Development Limits as defined in the District Wide LocalPlan were proposed by the Council to include developments approved sincethe development limits were previously drafted and also to include the east ofBack Lane site 063/03. The Brafferton/ Helperby replies had mostly wanted toretain the existing limits but the Council felt it was logical to amend theboundary in this way.Husthwaite – The Preferred Option2.4.27 Almost all the Husthwaite replies about the number of dwellings required werein favour of less than 18 so the Council’s proposals for up to 20 dwellings20

ought to be non controversial. Of the various option sites considered, theCouncil selected part of Site 071/01i for development of up to 20 houses; thissite was also the first choice of the Parish Council. Regarding theDevelopment Limits and consistent with the Core Strategy, the Councilproposed to amend the existing boundary only to include Site 071/01i whichwas previously outside the Limits. Replies from the 7 Husthwaite respondentshad been almost equally balanced with a majority of one in favour of change.Shipton - The Preferred Options2.4.28 The Council proposed allocating land in Shipton which would provide 25dwellings compared with the 2 respondents who had suggested 50 and 70houses. The Council’s lower figure was considered more in line with the CoreStrategy which included Shipton within the Area of Restraint. 16 sites wereput forward for consideration in Shipton, of which 3 were preferred by theCouncil, namely sites 131/07, 131/03 and 131/10. The 2 respondents hadalso suggested 131/07, a long disused garage. Concerning the amendmentof the existing Development Limits, both respondents supported changing theLimits although the Parish Council did not. The District Council proposed 5amendments; EDL003 and EDL004 were employment uses presently shownoutside the Development Limits and EDL005, EDL006 and EDL014 wereresidential developments either now built or with planning permission.Stillington -The Preferred Options2.4.29 With regard to scale of development, the Council’s preferred option wouldhave produced 30 new dwellings which was comfortably within the range ofthe 14 respondents who suggested between 20 and 70. Others had putforward a requirement of less than 20 so there may be some opposition to theCouncil’s figure. Two sites were put forward by the Council as preferred; sites141/03 and 141/09, which actually overlap, were considered to be a logicalextension to development along South Back Lane which would respect theform and character of the village including the Conservation Area. Of the 23Stillington responses though,15 were opposed to this site on the grounds thatdeveloping it would spoil the character of the village.Easingwold Secondary Villages2.4.30 In accordance with the Adopted Core Strategy, there was to be limiteddevelopment in Secondary Villages. Easingwold Allocations Preferred Optionstherefore did not include specific allocations in the Secondary Villages; suchas housing development as would take place in these villages would bewindfalls within Development Limits or affordable housing outside butadjacent to Development Limits. Only in exceptional circumstances would ahousing allocation be made in a Secondary Village. Similarly with employmentallocations, these would not to be found in secondary villages. Anydevelopment which took place would be small in scale and related to ruralemployment and diversification.2.4.31 Responses from the Easingwold Secondary Villages were generally in favourof limited development; indeed very often the response was to argue for littleor no development at all (see Section 2 above). That being the case, both theCouncil’s Preferred Options and the Issues and Options replies advocatedthat there should be little building in the Easingwold Secondary Villages.Changes to Secondary Villages Development Limits followed the same21

pattern; such changes were small scale and for very specific purposes suchas at Alne (small amendment to include an approved/constructed allocationand adjoining residential property), Huby (exclusion of an undevelopedallocation from the Hambleton Local Plan) and Tholthorpe (small amendmentto include developed land).Easingwold Elsewhere Villages2.4.32 There were no site specific allocations being proposed by the Council in theElsewhere settlements in line with the Adopted Core Strategy which focuseddevelopment primarily on the Service Centres and Service Villages. The verylimited development proposed in the Elsewhere villages was fully consistentwith most respondents’ views about them.2.4.33 As for Development Limits, opinion in the Elsewhere Villages had beendivided about whether to amend the Limits or not, with a majority supportingchange. In the event though, the Council decided that Development Limitswere not appropriate in the Elsewhere settlements. Within these villagestherefore Development Limits were not defined; instead development wouldonly be permitted when an exceptional case could be made as set out inPolicies CP1, CP2, and CP4 of the Core Strategy and DP9 of theDevelopment Policies Document.NORTHALLERTON SUB AREANorthallerton (with Romanby)2.4.34 Following the review of the Development Limits in the former District WideLocal Plan and allowing for the new development proposals chosen as thePreferred Options, revised Development Limits were also proposed forNorthallerton (with Romanby). The Preferred Options consisted of twocategories of allocations sustainable scattered sites and main developmentoptions/ strategic directions.Northallerton (with Romanby) – The Preferred Options2.4.35 Of the 5 alternative strategic directions considered for development ofNorthallerton (with Romanby), the preferred one was Northallerton North. Thisoption was dependent on the provision of a new northern link road connectingDarlington Road in the west to Stokesley Road in the east. Northallerton Northwas considered the best in terms of sustainability, viability and deliverabilityand would be developed in tandem with the Preferred Scattered Sites withinthe built up area (4 sites for housing; 3 mixed use sites; 2 employment sites; 1community use site). The Preferred Options for Northallerton/ Romanbywould provide the following:• approximately 1213 dwellings on sites proposed in the preferred optionsduring the plan period (calculated in most cases at 30 dwellings per hectare),of which 40% will be affordable. This percentage may be less because of theneed to pay for the northern relief road. Together with completions andoutstanding commitments of 302 dwellings, this means a total provision ofland for 1515 dwellings in Northallerton town. This is in excess of two thirds ofthe housing requirement for the Northallerton area for the period (2004-2021)(actually 92%), and thus accords with Policy CP6 in the Core Strategy.Together with proposals in Thirsk (with Sowerby) for approximately 114122

dwellings, this means that 53% of all housing in the LDF area would belocated in the two towns of Northallerton and Thirsk (Principal ServiceCentres). This therefore accords with Core Policy CP6 requirement that atleast 51% should be concentrated in the two Principal Service Centres. Thedwellings in Northallerton will be a mix of flats, starter homes and larger familyhomes. Housing will be developed on a range of sites located on or close toexisting public transport routes and also existing and proposed pedestrian andcycle routes;• approximately 11 hectares of employment land suitable for a range of usesincluding industry, offices, storage and distribution. These proposals thereforeaddress the requirement identified in Core Policy CP10A, taking account ofexisting employment land available with permission in Northallerton;• approximately 5 hectares of land for mixed uses on sites located in the towncentre and on brownfield land close to existing public transport routes.Potential uses on these sites include housing, employment (business, office,retail) and community use;• a community recreation facility to the north of Northallerton (7.8ha) whichcould include the relocation of Northallerton Town Football Club;• a safeguarded route for the proposed northern relief road which will provideaccess to the proposed developments which form the preferred strategicoption for Northallerton/ Romanby;• a new town park area adjacent to The Applegarth area of Northallerton(approximately 8ha).Relationship between the Preferred Options and the Issues and Optionsresponses2.4.36 Issues and Options responses from Northallerton (with Romanby) were veryfew in number (10 questionnaires out of the 184 from the entire NorthallertonSub Area). Guidance from respondents as to which options the Councilshould choose was therefore inevitably very limited. Regarding the amount ofhousing, employment or other sites, even fewer people responded; 5 madesuggestions about housing numbers, varying between less than 250 dwellingsand more than 1000. The Council’s proposals for about 1500 dwellings(including completions and existing allocations) in line with the Adopted CoreStrategy was likely therefore to attract some opposition. There were only twoanswers about employment land: 5 hectares and 20 hectares. The Council’splans for approximately 11 hectares of employment land including mixed usesites were broadly consistent with these figures and of course are also in linewith the Council’s Economic Development Study.2.4.37 As for the distribution of housing, employment and other sites, the responseswere even more low key; no sites stood out as being unpopular or popular.The preferred scattered sites were not likely, therefore, to attract muchopposition on the basis of the Issues and Options replies. There were,however, known sensitivities about the retention of the Brompton Gap whichfeatures in the Northallerton North preferred option. The Council felt thoughthat the impact of the Northallerton North proposals on the form and character23

of Northallerton would be less than that of the other Northallerton strategicoptions. Finally, with respect to Development Limits, of the 5 replies, 2supported their amendment and the 3 remaining objected so it was not clearwhether the Council’s proposals to extend the Limits to accommodate theNorthallerton North development option would be supported or not.Northallerton Service VillagesBrompton - The Preferred Option2.4.38 Regarding scale of development, the Council’s proposal for 20 new homes inBrompton was consistent with the replies from the village with only onefavouring more than 20. Brompton respondents did not favour any particularsite for residential development so the Council’s choice of 020/02 was notlikely to attract significant objection. Some of the sites not selected by theCouncil were also objected to by respondents. Opinions about changing theDevelopment Limits had been almost evenly divided with a majority of justone opting for change; developing the preferred site did not require anamendment to the Limits, in line with the majority view.East Cowton - The Preferred Option2.4.39 The East Cowton replies about the number of dwellings required varied widelybetween none (because of drainage problems) and more than 120; over halfof the respondents said less than 40 so the Council’s choice of 48 was not toowide of the mark suggested by the community.2.4.40 With respect to the location of sites, both the Council and most respondentsagreed that site 042/02 would be best although there was also significantopposition to it again on the grounds of drainage. Other sites thought suitableby the respondents did not attract the Council’s support though, particularly042/06 and 042/09.2.4.41 As regards Development Limits, replies were very divided although a smallmajority had preferred not to change them. In fact the only change proposedby the Council was in order to include Site 042/02 which had attracted bothsubstantial support and opposition.Morton-on-Swale - The Preferred Option2.4.42 The Council proposed 40 new homes in Morton-on-Swale; although thisnumber was within the wide range suggested by respondents (0 to 100), themajority of replies favoured a limited number of dwellings. There was likely,therefore, to be some opposition to this scale of development during theconsultation on Preferred Options. However the Council felt that 40 dwellingswas consistent with the adopted Core Strategy and could be supported in thatway.2.4.43 The site for housing preferred by the Council (102/03) was not one of the twosupported by Morton-on-Swale respondents (102/02 and 102/05). Quite thereverse in fact; the Council’s chosen site was objected to and this was likely tobe repeated during the Preferred Options consultation.2.4.44 With respect to Development Limits, the Council proposed to amend them toinclude not only its preferred site but also land around Morton Hall and the24

Swaledale Arms. Replies from Morton-on-Swale were equally divided aboutthe desirability of amending Development Limits so reaction to the Council’sproposed changes could have been the same.Northallerton Secondary Villages2.4.45As explained, the Allocations Preferred Options only exceptionally identifiedspecific allocations in Secondary Villages in line with the adopted CoreStrategy. Therefore, in the Northallerton Secondary Villages there were nosuch allocations. Development was not precluded entirely but would take theform of small housing windfalls for example or similarly small scaleemployment uses related to rural employment and diversification.2.4.46 There was significant interest from Appleton Wiske in the Issues and OptionsConsultation (please see para 4.4. above). Regarding the scale ofdevelopment, most replies proposed less than 10 dwellings, clearly consistentwith the Council’s Preferred Option for the village although 10 did opt for 20 ormore dwellings.2.4.47Development Limit changes were not supported either by the majority ofAppleton Wiske respondents although some were in favour. The changeproposed follows the removal of a previous Local Plan housing allocation atVillage Farm.Northallerton Elsewhere Villages2.4.48 As in the other Sub Areas, there were a number of even smaller settlementsin and around Northallerton. Again, in accordance with the adopted CoreStrategy very limited development was envisaged by the Council in thesevillages. Consultation responses mostly thought the same.2.4.49 Almost all the replies were also opposed to changing the Development Limits.The Council’s position that there should be no Development Limits inElsewhere Villages was, therefore, likely to be supported in theseNorthallerton Sub Area settlements.STOKESLEY SUB AREAStokesley - The Preferred Options2.4.50 Following the review of the Development Limits in the former District WideLocal Plan and allowing for the new development proposals chosen as thePreferred Options, revised Development Limits were also proposed forStokesley.2.4.51 Of the 4 alternative strategic directions for development considered by theCouncil, namely North, West, South and South East, the Preferred Optionwas to focus housing to the West, with smaller areas for employment andcommunity uses and the employment uses mainly as an extension to theexisting industrial park to the South-East.2.4.52 The preferred development package should provide:• approximately 320 new dwellings on allocated sites in Stokesley, calculated atapprox 30 to 40 dwellings per hectare depending on the site location. This, inaddition to the 69 completions/commitments (a total of 389 dwellings)25

epresents 67% of the proposed housing for the Stokesley Sub Area for theperiod 2004-2021, and thus is in accord with Policy CP6 requirement that atleast two thirds of housing in the Sub Area should be in Stokesley town.These dwellings will be a mix of flats, terraced and semi-detached units of 2, 3and 4 bedrooms and will be developed on sites which abut the DevelopmentLimits as was defined in the District Wide Local Plan – there are thus noproposals to amend these existing Development Limits. The preferred sitesare also close to existing public transport routes and existing or proposedpedestrian and cycle routes;• approximately 8.0 hectares of employment land suitable for office or storageand distribution uses is put forward, in the main located close to the existingemployment area;• approximately 1.1 hectares of land for community use including park areasand skateboard park.Relationship between the Preferred Options and the Issues and OptionsResponses2.4.53 While there was some similarity between consultation responses and theCouncil’s Preferred Options, there was some divergence, for example, of thehousing sites, a cluster of replies favoured sites 142/06A and B, which theCouncil rejected. There was also divergence over White House Farm towhich a number of respondents objected whereas the Council selected part ofit as a Preferred Option. On the other hand, both the respondents and theCouncil rejected 142/14A for housing purposes. There was also moreagreement about employment land; both the Council and respondentspreferred extensions to the existing Stokesley Business Park. As for scale ofdevelopment, a small majority was in favour of 250 or more dwellings and the300 or so new dwellings proposed by the Council was consistent with that.Stokesley Service Villages2.4.54 There was considerable interest both from Great Ayton (146 replies) andHutton Rudby (73 replies) in the Allocations Issues and Options. ThePreferred and Rejected Options for all three Service Villages in the StokesleySub Area, including Great Broughton, are set out below.Great Ayton - The Preferred Options2.4.55 The scale of development put forward for Great Ayton was approximately 52new dwellings; this compared with up to 50 suggested by 70% of the GreatAyton replies so the reaction to the Council’s Preferred Option was likely to bepositive. The Council chose two sites from the significant number itconsidered: 058/02 and 058/06. These sites were also much the most popularwith respondents, although it must be remembered that 33 respondents hadobjected to all the sites for flooding, traffic and other reasons.2.4.56 An amendment to the Development Limits at Great Ayton, as defined in theDistrict Wide Local Plan, was proposed by the Council to include the newallocation 058/02 which was presently outside the Limits. The majority of theGreat Ayton replies, however, were against amending the Limits but if theywere accepting of the new allocation, they would probably have seen the logicof amending them to suit.26

Great Broughton - The Preferred Option2.4.57The Council proposed land for approximately 38 new homes; the fewresponses to the question (4) all suggested less than 16 dwellings, so theymay well not have supported the Council’s proposal.2.4.58 The Council chose one site from the several put forward, site 057/09 (i).Respondents, by contrast, preferred 057/07 (part of 057/03), a site of 0.25ha., which was below the Council’s threshold of 0.3 ha. for any allocation site.2.4.59 Regarding Development Limits, and consistent with the Core Strategy, theCouncil proposed to modify the existing Limits to include site 057/09 andelsewhere. Great Broughton respondents opposed changing the Limits whenasked the question but may adopt a more pragmatic position when consultedabout this small change.Hutton Rudby - The Preferred Option2.4.60The Council proposed to allocate land in Hutton Rudby for 45 new houses; thisfigure was in line with the majority of responses which advocated up to 50dwellings. The Council chose one of the 17 option sites it considered, site073/04 North of Garbutts Lane. Over half of the replies selected the samesite.2.4.61 The existing Development Limits were suggested for alteration by the Councilto accommodate the proposed allocation. By contrast, a large proportion ofthe Hutton Rudby respondents preferred not to change the limits; however,faced with the modest amount of development proposed by the Council,replies to the Preferred Option consultation may have been more supportivethan the Issues and Options responses suggested.Stokesley Secondary Villages2.4.62 Compliance with the Core Strategy automatically means limited developmentin Secondary Villages. Stokesley Allocations Preferred Options did not,therefore, include such specific allocations for either housing or employmentuses; housing in Secondary Villages would only be allowed exceptionally inline with the Core Strategy which focussed most development on ServiceCentres and Service Villages. Similarly, only small scale employment useswould be permitted in Secondary Villages related to the rural economy and itsdiversification.2.4.63 Respondents from the Secondary Villages generally supported limiteddevelopment in such settlements so the Council’s very modest developmentproposals were likely to be popular.2.4.64 Regarding proposed changes to Secondary Villages’ Development Limits, ifany take place at all, they would be very small, in fact, in the StokesleySecondary Villages, only in Seamer was there a change and its purpose wasto exclude an undeveloped previous allocation from the District Wide LocalPlan. In all 3 Stokesley Secondary Villages, there was little support foramending Development Limits.27

Stokesley Elsewhere Villages2.4.65Potto stood out amongst these very small villages with a total of 53questionnaires being returned. There were no site specific allocationsproposed by the Council in the Elsewhere Settlements in accord with theadopted Core Strategy and its focus on Service Centres and Service Villages.The very limited development proposed in the Elsewhere Villages (includingPotto where 48 of the 53 respondents wanted to see less than 10 dwellings)was much in tune with responses received. Finally, in relation toDevelopment Limits, the Council decided to omit them in these very smallsettlements; such development as was proposed had to be an exceptionalcase, therefore, as defined in the adopted Core Strategy.THIRSK SUB AREAThirsk/Sowerby2.4.66 Revised Development Limits were proposed for Thirsk (with Sowerby)following a review of the Development Limits in the District Wide Local Planand also allowing for the new development proposals chosen as the PreferredOptions.Thirsk – The Preferred Options2.4.67 Of the Strategic Directions considered for Thirsk, the preferred option was tofocus housing and employment development mostly to the North East andSouth West of the town. The North East had seen recent residentialexpansion, would accommodate further expansion without a significant impactupon the settlement form, and is very clearly bounded to the east by the A19.The South-West consisted of existing residential areas including two schools,was close to the town centre and further development would have limitedimpact on the settlement form. The South West also contained employmentdevelopment and could accommodate more.2.4.68 The Preferred Options consisting of both scattered sites and the preferreddevelopment package together provide the following:• approximately 778 dwellings on sites proposed in the preferred optionsadvanced here (calculated at approx 30/40 dwellings per hectare). Togetherwith completions and outstanding commitments of 391, this means a totalprovision of land for 1,169 dwellings in Thirsk town. This is in excess of twothirds of the housing requirement for the Thirsk area for the period (2004 –2021) (actually 89 %), and thus accords with Policy CP6 in the Core Strategy.Together with proposals in Northallerton for 1,618 dwellings, this means that56% of all housing in the LDF area would be located in the two towns ofNorthallerton and Thirsk (Principal Service Centres). This therefore accordswith the Core Strategy Policy CP6 requirement that at least 51% should beconcentrated in the two Principal Service Centres;• approximately 14.1 hectares of employment land made up from employmentuses on a total of 3 sites to the south east and south west of the town. Thisgives an oversupply at this stage, but sites could be used in part to decreasethe allocation to the required 13 hectares.28

Relationship between the Preferred Options and the Issues and OptionsResponses2.4.69 There was a relatively small number of responses from the Thirsk Sub-Area(89 all told) with only 45 from Thirsk (with Sowerby) itself and from which theCouncil derived guidance in selecting the Allocations Preferred Options forThirsk. So far as possible, though, the Council chose options for which therewas a degree of support from the community consultation although inevitablythere were many other factors for the Council to consider too.2.4.70 With regard to the scale of development, only one third of respondents saidthere should be 700 or more new dwellings which compared with theCouncil’s figure of approximately 700. There may have been some concernexpressed about the Council’s proposals during the consultation on PreferredOptions. Respondents gave tangible support for additional industrial land.2.4.71 Regarding individual sites, the Council’s Thirsk North East package was likelyto attract support for sites 152/03 Rybeck Farm and 152/04 StoneybroughFarm for residential use, reflecting the choices of the Issues and Optionsrespondents. Thirsk South West included site 139/04 Admirals Court forhousing and this too was well supported by respondents. As for employmentland, sites 139/10 and 139/03 were not only preferred by the Council but alsoby a significant number of consultation replies. Overall, a good measure ofagreement existed between the Council and the respondents about most ofthe preferred housing and employment sites.2.4.72 With regard to Development Limits there was a small majority supporting noamendments (other than to accommodate the new allocations).Thirsk Service Villages2.4.73 Of the 21 responses from Thirsk Service Villages, 6 were from Carlton Miniott.Carlton Miniott – The Preferred Options2.4.74 The scale of development being proposed in Carlton Miniott by the Councilwas approximately 46 new homes which was compatible with the top end ofthe range of 0 – 50 suggested by Carlton Miniott respondents. The Council’spreferred options included site 025/02 which had attracted both support andopposition from respondents, and the same might have happened again whenthe Preferred Options were published for consultation. Site 025/03 was alsoselected by the Council but the Carlton Miniott replies opposed it. Again,there might have been an adverse reaction to this site during consultations onthe Preferred Options.2.4.75 The Council did not propose to amend the Development Limits whereasCarlton Miniott’s opinions were split equally on this matter and might havebeen when consulted on the Preferred Options.Topcliffe – The Preferred Option2.4.76 A total of some 12 new homes for Topcliffe was being put forward by theCouncil, almost the mid-point of the range suggested in the Topcliffe replies.This scale of development may well have been accepted by the localcommunity during the Preferred Options consultation.29

2.4.77 The option site preferred for housing by the Council (site 163/03) was alsosupported by the Topcliffe responses – bearing in mind that the response wastiny and not necessarily representative of the community as a whole ofcourse.2.4.78 The decision by the Council to amend the Topcliffe Development Limits toinclude the new allocation at Winn Lane Farm seemed likely to be favouredsince the respondents agreed with the Council that the Winn Lane Farm sitewas the preferred one.Thirsk Secondary Villages2.4.79 The Core Strategy determined that little development would take place inSecondary Villages in order to deliver sustainable development in HambletonDistrict. As a general rule, therefore, there were no site specific allocationsnormally in Secondary Villages. Thus, in 7 of the 8 Secondary Villages in theThirsk Sub-Area, the only development to take place would be small windfallsand conversions generally within the Development Limits. However, anexception was made for Dalton where there was a proposal for both a 30dwelling residential development and a consequential amendment to theDevelopment Limits. The residential site 037/06 was part of the formerTurkey Factory holding and was considered essential to bring aboutredevelopment and improvement of the factory land.2.4.80 Only two consultation responses were received from Dalton, hardly the mostreliable indicator of the community view; they gave a range of between 5 and15 new homes. Regarding the Development Limits, there was some supportfor changes from the 5 replies to this question.2.4.81 With regard to Dalton Airfield, the Council concluded that there was sufficientland for employment uses in Thirsk to meet requirements in the plan period.The 6 option sites at the Airfield were, therefore, rejected in line with the CoreStrategy Policy CP11.2.4.82 So far as the other Secondary Villages were concerned, there was support forup to 20 new homes in Pickhill and 30 in South Otterington so clearlydevelopment was not ruled out entirely. The Council believed that allowingdevelopment only exceptionally was the most appropriate planning option. Asfor Development Limits, only Dalton and South Otterington gave someendorsement to amending them with opinion divided in Pickhill. In the event,the only amendment proposed by the Council was, of course, at Dalton, toaccommodate some development on the Turkey Factory site.Thirsk Elsewhere Villages2.4.83 In line with the Core Strategy, there were no allocations proposed by theCouncil in these small villages. Any development which took place would,therefore be small scale and meet local needs whether for housing oremployment. This low level of development was likely to be generallyconsistent with respondents’ view about the villages although replies fromCatton suggested up to 15 new homes were required and Thirkleby ParishCouncil thought up to 14.30

2.4.84 Regarding Development Limits, some views were expressed as to whetherthey should be amended or not; opinion was divided in Catton, opposed inSandhutton and accepted in Thirkleby if a site suggested there fordevelopment needed to be included within the limits.CONCLUSION2.4.85 The Allocations Issues and Options consultation was always likely to generatea large number of responses, so the 900 or so were no surprise. However,the level of response varied considerably from settlement to settlement andnot always in proportion to size. Northallerton, for instance, the largestsettlement in the District, produced only 10 responses as compared with say,53 from Potto, an Elsewhere Village in the Stokesley Sub Area where peoplewere particularly agitated about the scale of development being suggested bya land owner. Obviously a low response from the community did not greatlyassist the Council in choosing Preferred Options.2.4.86 The Council chose, as far as possible, options consistent with the Issues andOptions Responses, as the above analysis explains. Where the Council wasunable to do so, the reasons included the need for compliance with theadopted Core Strategy, national and regional Government guidance, adversevisual impact, localised flooding issues, and transportation considerations.For example, 291 sites were not subjected to the detailed analysis set out inSection 5 above as they were in locations not supported by the adopted CoreStrategy any way. It was also the case that because of the 0.3 ha. threshold,58 sites within the Service Centres and Service Villages were automaticallydiscounted when the selection of the Preferred Options was undertaken.Bearing all of this in mind, it remained to be seen how much support theAllocations Preferred Options did actually receive from respondents whenconsulted in October and November 2007.3. CONSULTATION ON PREFERRED OPTIONS OCTOBER – NOVEMBER20073.1 WHO WAS INVITED TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS?3.1.1. The Preferred Options consultation was very similar in scale and complexityto the Issues and Options consultation. An initial letter was sent to over 1,600organisations and individuals included in the Local Development FrameworkList of Consultees. The List is maintained on a regular basis by the DistrictCouncil and includes specific and general consultees as required by the LocalDevelopment Regulations. The List also reflects the inclusive approachadopted by the District Council in its Statement of Community Involvement.Subsequently, 282 copies of the Allocation Reports were sent to specific andgeneral consultation bodies and in addition to individuals who had requesteda copy (See Appendix 8).3.1.2 In total 927 responses were made by the 783 individuals and organisationswho replied to the consultation. Most of the respondents used only theCouncil’s questionnaire to reply; others submitted detailed and lengthyrepresentations either instead of or as well as the questionnaire31

3.2 HOW THEY WERE INVITED3.2.1 The primary source of responses was through the circulation of theAllocations Report and the associated questionnaire (see Appendix 12).However, other methods of contact were also used as well; an exhibition washeld in each of the 5 Market Towns, generally followed the same evening by aPublic Meeting at which there was ample opportunity to put questions toCouncil Representatives following an audio-visual presentation of thePreferred Options. For notes of meetings, see Appendix 10.3.2.2 A Press Notice was issued (see Appendix 13) and the Hambleton News wasalso used to publicise the 6 week consultation on the Preferred Options (seeAppendix 11); this, the Council’s own newspaper, has proven to be aneffective medium for engaging with the public in preparing the LocalDevelopment Framework.3.2.3 As required by the Statement of Community Involvement, all the PreferredOptions documentation was available in alternative media forms including theCouncil’s website. Both the documents and the Council’s questionnaire wereavailable on line for engagement in the Preferred Options consultation.3.2.4 A Schedule of Representations was compiled listing each representation inreply to the various questions in the questionnaire. Often the representationwas simply to agree or disagree with little or no indication as to the reasons.In these cases it was mostly considered unnecessary for the Council tocomment and it would have been difficult to do so any way. Where writtenrepresentations were made, these have been summarised by the Council inthe Schedule. The Schedule, therefore, includes a brief comment on therepresentations and indicates the action that the Council has taken, orproposes to take, in response.3.3. A SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES RAISED3.3.1 The following paragraphs are a summary analysis of the representationsreceived. The analysis continues the pattern of the Preferred OptionsConsultation Report which was divided into five volumes, one for each MarketTown or Service Sub Area.BEDALE SUB AREA3.3.2 There were altogether 85 responses from the Bedale Sub Area.Bedale Aiskew3.3.3 In Bedale with Aiskew, one of the Preferred Options, site 011/05, Rear ofMasham Road, generated most interest (13 replies) with 3 respondents infavour of it and 7 against. Even the ones in favour of the site were not entirelyhappy with the access proposed. 9 other Preferred Option sites weresupported for development by at least 1 respondent, sometimes for mixed userather than exclusively housing, such as site 004/18, North east of the PigFarm. The other favoured sites were land South of St Mary’s and St Joseph’s004/25 Land at Garden House 004/03; 004/04 Pig Farm; 004/05 The Abattoir;004/17 Renaissance Park; 004/18 Land North of Aiskew Pig Farm; 011/08and 011/09 Auction Mart Car Park and 011/10 Gateway Car Park. Mostly thePreferred Option sites and some others were also objected to, often bydevelopers and agents who considered their own sites to be a better choice.32

These sites were 004/25 South of St. Mary’s and St. Joseph’s; 004/01i and/01ii, Wilbert’s Farm; 011/10 Car Park rear of St. Gregory’s; 004/03 GardenHouse; 011/06 Land off South End Avenue; and 011/08 Between Car Parkand Market Place.Bedale Service Villages3.3.4 Of the 41 responses from the 4 Service Villages, (Crakehall, Leeming Bar,Snape and West Tanfield), 21 were from Leeming Bar. The issue was site004/21 Motel Leeming which attracted strong support from the owners andemployees of the motel.Crakehall3.3.5 In Crakehall, the Preferred Option Site 032/03i East of Hackforth Road,attracted 5 responses, 3 of them in favour. Two sites at Back Lane 032/05and 06 were suggested instead.Snape3.3.6 In Snape, the Hares of Snape Site 135/02 generated 10 replies, 6 of whom,including the owner of the business, fully supported the allocation of the sitefor residential purposes. One respondent objected on the grounds thatdeveloping the Hares site would mean a loss of employment opportunities inthe village.West Tanfield3.3.7 Regarding West Tanfield, the Preferred Options 170/05 rear of Meadowfieldsand 170/10 Station Road were supported by 6 respondents. However, therewas 1 objection to the excessive amount of employment on the Station Roadsite which is mixed use, not just housing.Bedale Secondary Villages3.3.8 The Secondary Villages replies, including 3 Parish Councils, were generallycritical of the lack of housing allocations in their villages (Burneston,Hackforth, Scruton, Kirkby Fleetham, Well, Thornton Watlass and Carthorpe).EASINGWOLD SUB AREAEasingwold3.3.9 Of the 85 responses from the Easingwold sub area, 37 came from Easingwolditself. The mixed use Preferred Option sites at Stillington Road/York Road(041/02; 041/06; 041/43) were the subject of 13 objections ranging from therebeing no need for more employment land at all to the contention that all theland was needed for employment purposes. Other objectors felt employmentuses would create noise and traffic nuisance for the proposed residentialdevelopment alongside. One objector thought the residential element of sitesshould be developed in phase 1, (2004-2016) rather than phase 2 (2016-2021). The Preferred Options sites East of Oxenby Place and Kelbalk Lane(041/11; 041/19; 041/33; 041/36; and 041/37) were opposed by somerespondents, partly because they were Greenfield and partly because roadsand drainage were considered inadequate (however the same sites werestrongly supported by developers with an interest in them). The samerespondents thought sites on the western and north western approaches toEasingwold would be much better because the infrastructure was thought tobe superior. The Preferred Option Ward Trailers site (041/15) was both33

supported as a residential site and opposed because it should be usedinstead for a sports hall.3.3.10 Two Preferred Option Sites 041/06 rear of York Road and 041/39 South ofStillington Road were considered too small to be allocated on their own andshould be joined with adjacent land.3.3.11 General comments were made by a number of respondents, several of themconcerned about infrastructure and its capacity to cope with extradevelopment. One reply made a plea for implementation of a play areaproposal of long standing at Highland Court.Easingwold Service VillagesBrafferton/Helperby3.3.12 The Brafferton/Helperby Preferred Option sites 063/03 and 063/04 East andWest of Back Lane, attracted some support, qualified by concern about theroad access. One objector, however, pointed out that West of Back Lane(063/04) was a greenfield site and accordingly ought not to be developed.Husthwaite3.3.13 In Husthwaite, the Preferred Options Site South of Prospect Cottage 071/01iwas given some support, particularly if the adjacent site 071/01ii wasdeveloped as well. There was also agreement with the rejected sites 07/02,07/05 to 07/09 south east of the village centre. One objector thought the 20houses proposed on the Preferred Options site were far too many and wouldgenerate more traffic and commuting while at the same time spoiling thearea’s character.Shipton3.3.14 The Shipton Preferred Options 131/03 and 131/07 West of Main Street weresupported but also objected to because they were considered to be a phase 1site (rather than phase 2) as they are Brownfield. Owners and agents, notsurprisingly, thought their sites, 131/01 Church Farm and 131/02 Manor Farm,should be allocated as well.Stillington3.3.15 In Stillington, there was objection raised to the Preferred Options 141/03South of South Bank Lane on the grounds that it was too big (30 houses) andwould have harmful traffic and visual impacts as a result. Alternative sites onthe west of the village 141/02; 141/07 and 141/06, were considered by onerespondent to be less intrusive. The Parish Council in particular objected tothe Preferred Option and supported smaller sites on the western and easternapproaches to the village.Secondary VillagesAlne3.3.16 By contrast, Alne Parish Council was much in favour of the Preferred Option,that is, no allocations and a minor adjustment to the Development Limits. InHuby, developers and agents supported two schemes: one south of the Hubysports ground 070/02 and the other 070/06 South of Gracious Street.34

Sutton-on-the-Forest3.3.17 The 4 Sutton-on-the-Forest respondents wanted the Development Limitsrelaxing to include their own or their client’s land. The Parish Council, on theother hand, supported Sites 144/01 and 144/08 South of Sutton and Huby soas to avoid an increase in traffic if development were encouraged inStillington, the adjacent service village.NORTHALLERTON SUB AREA3.3.18 There were over 177 respondents who commented on the Preferred Optionsfor the Northallerton Sub Area, over half of them replying about Northallertonand Romanby.Northallerton/Romanby3.3.19 The North Northallerton Development Option, the key Preferred Option forNorthallerton, was the subject of most people’s attention, much of it verycritical. Indeed, over 60 replies objected to the Northallerton scheme withonly 8 in favour. In addition to the objectors who used the questionnairesand/or letters to reply, a petition against the North Northallerton DevelopmentOption was signed by 275 signatories. The objections covered a variety ofissues including the excessive number of houses involved in the scheme; lossof agricultural land; loss of Greenfield land; drainage problems; impact onschools; road safety; the proposed new bypass will not work and relieve theLow Gate level crossing problem; nuisance from the new football ground;visual impact of the new road bridge; and impact of such a large scheme onthe setting of Northallerton. Several thought the sites 123/08 and 123/08aEast and West of Thirsk Road at Low Thornborough Farm to the south ofNorthallerton were a better location. The supporters of the NorthNorthallerton Development Option thought the scheme would produce a morecompact town as it would consolidate Northallerton and was therefore a moresustainable solution; it would be an effective and deliverable way of meetingemployment and housing needs; and it would be supportable if it meant theretention of the Brompton Gap. One respondent favoured the scheme but hadconcerns about its viability and offered its own land as a back up if necessary.3.3.20 The Castle Hills Site 110/12 (also a Preferred Option) received 15 objections,often because the archaeological interest of the site would be prejudiced butalso because of a loss of green space; traffic impact; risk of flooding; andaccess difficulties. Three of the 15 objections were from developers whoconsidered the density proposed was too low although they supported the sitein principle. The adjoining site, York Trailers, 110/11, attracted more limitedopposition on traffic grounds and also because the same developers objectedthat the housing density was too low, while strongly supporting housingdevelopment in principle.3.3.21 Some smaller sites such as 110/29 Kwik Fit Tyres and 110/30 rear of HighStreet had been rejected by the Council but respondents thought they shouldnot have been. Similarly, the agent and owners of Castle Hills Farm site123/09 opposed their land being rejected, emphasising its availability;deliverability; accessibility; lack of environmental constraints; and proximity toservices.35

Brompton3.3.22 There were 32 responses from Brompton, of which 21 objected to the NorthNorthallerton Development Option due to its impact on the Brompton Gap; oninfrastructure; on road safety; on the risk of flooding and on Greenfield land.Another 4 respondents opposed the rejection of sites at 69 NorthallertonRoad, 020/08, and the adjacent 020/01, 58 Northallerton Road, which it wasfelt, although a Listed Building, was capable of a sensitive conversion to flatswith supporting residential development. There were 2 objections from theowner of 020/11, 89a Northallerton Road, on the grounds that, contrary to theCouncil’s Preferred Option Report, it would not constitute ribbon developmentnor would it reduce the green wedge between Brompton and Northallerton.There was also opposition to rejecting site 020/09, Old Factory and CoalYard, in order to retain local employment in Brompton. The objector argued itsloss would not be significant and, furthermore, any drainage problems couldbe alleviated.East Cowton3.3.23 The Preferred Option, Bungalow Farm, Site 042/02, attracted 5 objectionsprincipally on the grounds of flooding; one objection was to the phasing of thesite but the principle was fully accepted. There were 3 replies in support ofBungalow Farm as well.Morton-on-Swale3.3.24 There were 8 objections to the preferred Site 102/03 North of A684, mostly onaccess grounds from St. Helen’s Close. Other sites such as 102/04 Gardenand Butcher’s Yard were suggested as preferable and, therefore, should nothave been rejected, according to some respondents. Both the Parish Counciland the NYCC supported the Preferred Option.Ainderby Steeple3.3.25 Two replies from Ainderby Steeple supported the idea of including some landwithin the Development Limits to enable some development to take place.Another reply was equally opposed to any such extension of the DevelopmentLimits.Appleton Wiske3.3.26 In Appleton Wiske there was 1 reply only and that was in favour of extendingDevelopment Limits to allow some development to take place and therebymaintain the village’s viability.Great Smeaton3.3.27 The 2 replies from Great Smeaton took up opposing positions regarding theDevelopment LimitsSTOKESLEY SUB AREA3.3.27 There was a total of 134 responses about the Stokesley Sub Area.Stokesley3.3.28 Forty-one of the 134 were about Stokesley itself, the majority of themobjections although 6 were in support. White House Farm Site 142/14attracted 11 objections for a variety of reasons: the Skate Board Parkproposals were mentioned specifically as a nuisance by 5 objectors; others36

objected to the business premises included in the mixed use part of this sitewhich objectors felt should be residential, including possibly a Care Home.One objector was particularly concerned about visual impact; poor accessfrom Hebron Road; distance from schools; likely increase in traffic generation;and the risk of further growth westwards as a result. There were severalstatements of support about White House Farm, including the employmentuses. The Stokesley Parish Council in particular was supportive of thePreferred Options for both housing and employment although it did haveconcerns about traffic congestion and traffic flows to and from the site.3.3.29 Alternatives which objectors preferred to the White House Farm/Hebron Roadsites included site 142/06a and b Tanton Estates, land at Strikes GardenCentre Sites 114/22 and 142/35 North of B1365; and finally Sites 142/21 and142/18 Land North of The Stripe. The Tanton Estates site in particular wasconsidered to have less impact on settlement character, was closer to schoolsand had better access to the A172. Land north of The Stripe (Sites 142/18and 142/21) was also thought to be closer to facilities and to have less impacton settlement character too. An adjacent site lying to the rear of the rectorywas felt to have lesser problems regarding flood risk, access and designissues. In addition to improving access, supermarket provision in Stokesleywas of concern to some respondents although support for the idea wascountered by Stokesley Parish Council.Great Ayton3.3.30 Thirty-one responses came from Great Ayton; 15 of them were strongly insupport of proposals for very sheltered housing at Cleveland Lodge, Site058/02, a Preferred Option. The other Preferred Option, the Slaughterhousesite at Linden Avenue Site 058/06 was opposed by 7 respondents includingthe Great Ayton Parish Council because of access difficulties. Four siteswere suggested instead, Site 058/01 a-d, South West of Great Ayton, Site058/04 Land at Easby, Site 058/16 Land East of Ayton Hall and Site 058/18Land West of Skottowe Crescent. The Ayton Hall and Skottowe Crescentsites were considered to have better access and the houses could bescreened from the church and the Hall. Developing the sites would haveincluded retention of the Great Ayton football and cricket pitches and thebuilding of a new road link in exchange for allocating land south west of GreatAyton but were considered by the Council to be far too large and prominent.Great Broughton3.3.31 There were 23 replies from Great Broughton. The Preferred Option site057/09i Grange Farm generated 14 objections and 2 statements of support,the objections because of poor access and drainage and the size of the sitewhich was simply too large for the village. On the other hand, Site 057/03North of Hallgarth was supported because it could be amended to reduce itsimpact and could include a landscape buffer. Objections were made to theproposals to amend the Development Limits.Hutton Rudby3.3.32 Of the 29 replies about Hutton Rudby, 23 were to do with Site 073/04 North ofGarbutts Lane, to which 17 respondents objected. The reasons for objectionincluded likely traffic congestion; flooding risk; sewage treatment capacityissues; impact on the character of the village; a previous residential refusal;37

etter alternative sites; and being located outside Development Limits. Therejection of 3 sites by the Council was opposed; Site 073/05 Land South Eastof Enterpen Farm; Site 073/15b Land at Bellbrough Lane and Site 073/13Land North East of Linden Crescent, were all considered suitable fordevelopment as they are close to facilities, link well with the existingdevelopment and are not prone to flooding. It was accepted by anotherrespondent that Site 073/10 North of the Green was too large in its entiretybut could obviously be partially developed. Hutton Rudby Parish Councilsupported the Preferred Options (the 073/04 Site North of Garbutts Lane).Stokesley Secondary and Other Villages3.3.33 Four villages were the subject of representations; in Seamer and Rudby therewas opposition to the rejection of Sites 128/03 Land at Hilton Road and125/02a&b land at Blue Barn Lane Nurseries, on the grounds that sites werenot allocated in Secondary Villages and Other Villages as defined in theadopted Core Strategy. The Development Limits in Rudby were also objectedto as they would need extending to accommodate the sites at Blue Barn LaneNursery. Potto Parish Council supported the Preferred Options i.e. did notwish to see land allocated for development. The North York Moors NationalPark Authority supported the existing Development Limits of Hambletonvillages which are within the National Park as the Authority also wished to seeonly limited building there.THIRSK SUB AREA3.3.34 The Thirsk Sub Area generated by far the largest response, 425 out of the927 or so for the District as a whole.Thirsk/Sowerby3.3.35 The majority of the Thirsk Sub Area responses came from Thirsk withSowerby and were mostly about 139/10 Station Road and 139/03 Old RedHouse/South of Austin Reed. These 2 sites accounted for over 340 of theobjections. Twenty-six individual objections, using the questionnaires and/orpersonal letters, were made objecting to development of Sites 139/10 StationRoad and 139/03 Old Red House/South of Austin Reed, both of themPreferred Options for strategic employment. Various reasons were cited forobjecting including increased HGV flows along Station Road and throughCarlton Miniott; impact of extra traffic on existing residential development onStation Road and in Carlton Miniott; road safety issues; increased traffic noisefrom additional vehicles; and risks to children and parents at school openingand closing times. In addition 319 standard objection letters were submittedby respondents strongly opposed to the same 2 sites on “highways and safetygrounds.” At the same time, there was some support albeit limited for Sites139/10 Station Road and 139/03 Old Red House/South of Austin Reed asthere was for 152/02 Station Road and 139/23 South of Station Road.3.3.36 Other sites in Thirsk with Sowerby attracted rather less attention than theStation Road ones. Sites 152/03 Rybeck Farm and 152/04 StoneybroughFarm (both of them Preferred Options) were objected to by a total of 9developers and their agents and also individuals for a number of reasons:Stoneybrough Farm, in particular, was not available for development; bothsites were subject to flood risk; and they were too remote from services,including Thirsk Town Centre and the Town’s Secondary School.38

3.3.37 Admirals Court Site 139/04 (also a Preferred Option) received 4 objections,mostly to do with access matters including road safety. One supporter was adeveloper with an interest in the site. Development Limits were an issue for25 residents who objected to the Council’s proposed amendments which theycontended were not needed.3.3.38 There were 8 objections to Sites 139/09 Cocked Hat Farm and 139/23 StationRoad not being allocated as they were considered to have better access tothe town’s facilities than the Preferred Options. A combination of Site 139/09aCocked Hat Farm (East) and Site 139/19 Back Lane was also considered tohave been wrongly rejected by the Council. A similar objection to Cocked HatFarm not being allocated for development was made by the developerpromoting a comprehensive scheme on the land. There were also severalother statements in support of developing Cocked Hat Farm.3.3.39 Sites 137/01 and 02 Stockton Road were considered by the owners and agentto be suitable for development in terms of easy access and availability,despite being adversely affected by flooding.3.3.40 A number of other sites also attracted limited opposition: Preferred Option Site139/02 Depot Site, Station Road was objected to because of poor access;Site 139/18 Long Acre was opposed because of poor access but, in addition,its development was considered to cause a loss of wild life. Other sites werenot allocated and several respondents thought that was wrong; Site 139/06West of York Road; Sites 009/03 and /03a East of A19 were not selected as aPreferred Option and the view was held they should have been.3.3.41 Yet other sites drew very limited opposition and support in equal measure:Sites 139/22 East of York Road and 139/21 East of A168 should have beenallocated for employment said a respondent while another supported theCouncil’s rejection of them. The Thircon site 009/02 was likewise supportedby two respondents (including Thircon Ltd.) and rejected by another.Thirsk Service Villages3.3.42 There were 8 responses from the two Service Villages, 6 from Carlton Miniottand 2 from Topcliffe.Carlton Miniott3.3.43 Sites 025/02 Carlton Miniott Park, 025/03 Manfield Terrace and 025/05Ordnance Survey 253 were chosen by the District Council as the PreferredOptions. One respondent objected to the Preferred Options on the groundsthat the roads were not wide enough to accommodate extra traffic. Therewere, however, 3 statements of support for the Preferred Options, includingthe representation of the Carlton Miniott Parish Council. The Parish Councilqualified its support though, by stressing the need to improve infrastructurebefore undertaking any further development in the village. Another supporteremphasised the need to develop the Carlton Miniott Park site first in order toprovide an acceptable access to the Manfield Terrace one. NYCC’s responsefocussed on the requirement for adequate primary school places to serve anyfuture population.39

Topcliffe3.3.44The Preferred Option for Topcliffe, Site 163/03 Winn Lane Farm, wassupported by NYCC who also had no objection to the proposed amendmentto the Development Limits to include an area of land adjacent to GreenAcres. There was one objection to the existing Development Limits which, itwas considered, should include the west side of School Lane. However, itcame to light during the public consultation that Winn Lane Farm was notavailable for development.Secondary VillagesDalton3.3.45 There were 6 responses about Dalton including the Airfield. The PreferredOptions Site 037/06 Turkey Factory was put forward by the District Councilonly as an exception on environmental grounds to the Core Strategy Policythat there would normally be no allocations as such in Secondary Villages.Although supported by the Dalton Parish Council, there were 2representations to the Turkey Factory allocation; one thought their client’sland was a better site than the Turkey Factory and the other that insufficient ofthe Turkey Factory site was being allocated. Regarding the nearby DaltonAirfield, one objector thought that a site there (DA037/02 Dalton Transport)should have been allocated too. Owners of two other sites, 037/02 LongAcres, Back Lane and 137/03 Holly Bank, objected on the grounds that theyshould have been allocated for development. The Holly Bank objection wasaccompanied by a proposal to amend the Development Limits to include theHolly Bank site.Knayton3.3.46 Nor had the Council made an allocation in Knayton, which is also aSecondary Village. Two objections thought the former playing fields/cricketpitch/transport café should have been allocated and objected because it wasnot.Pickhill3.3.47 In Pickhill 3 objections arose; one was made about the failure to allocate thePickhill Engineering site 113/04, and objections were also raised against thefailure to allocate the Chapel Farm Poultry Sheds site 113/03. Finally therewas one objection about site 113/05 Low Fields Lane which the ownerthought should be allocated. In accordance with the Core Strategy though,the Council had not made any allocation in Pickhill because it is a SecondaryVillage.Sessay3.3.48 Neither of the two Issues and Options sites in Sessay had been allocated andone objector thought that one of them, Site 129/02, ought to have been, as itis a long narrow site, complementary to this very linear village.Skipton on Swale3.3.49 Skipton on Swale Parish Council objected that none of the three Issues andOptions sites(133/01a and 133/01b Skipton on Swale Airfield; and 133/02land east and west of Eastholme) had been allocated for development andthey should have been.40

South Otterington3.3.51 There was one objection in South Otterington and that was to theclassification of Crosby Lodge site 139/01 as part Brownfield (80%) and partGreenfield (20%) (Garden/Paddock). This compared with the adjacent Site138/02 Woodstock which the Council had classified as 100% Brownfield (inthis case garden and orchard).3.4 HOW THE MAIN ISSUES BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE PROPOSEDSUBMISSION VERSION OF THE ALLOCATIONS DPD.3.4.1 The Schedule of Representations sets out each of the 927 representationsmade by the 783 organisations and individuals who replied, together with theCouncil’s reaction. The Schedule may be inspected on the Council’s web sitewww.hambleton.gov.uk/ldf The following pages summarise the main issuesraised about the Preferred Options and the Council’s actions in response foreach of the 5 market towns and their sub areas.MAIN ISSUESBEDALE (WITH AISKEW)BEDALE SUB AREACOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTION004/01i and 004/1ii Wilbert’s Farm/Development Limits• Wilbert’s Farm is more suitable forresidential development because it isBrownfield/disused Poultry Sheds; access isbetter from Sandhill Lane, its redevelopmentwould benefit the adjoining housing and itwould better maintain the gap betweenAiskew and Bedale. (Mr. & Mrs. Gregory;Stead/Emery Planning)004/02 The Hatchery.• The Hatchery should be deleted as ahousing allocation and remain asEmployment Lane (PersimmonHomes/Northern Planning)004/03 Garden House• The Garden House site should be deletedas a housing allocation as it cannot bedelivered owing to access constraints and isGreenfield. (Persimmon Homes/NorthernPlanning)• We support the Preferred Options includingGarden House but feel that Garden Houseshould be released in Phase 1(Nicholson/Yuill Homes)Having reviewed Wilbert’s Farm again, theCouncil agreed that part should be allocated forresidential development.Agree: allocate in part Wilbert’s Farm forresidential development and amendDevelopment Limits accordingly.Other sites are considered by the Council to bemore suitable for Employment Uses. TheHatchery will, therefore, remain allocated forresidential development.Disagree: the Hatchery to remain allocated forresidential uses.Although the site is Greenfield the Councilconsiders its development would fit in well withthe adjoining sites 004/02 and 004/04 throughwhich the site will be accessed.The Council accepts the Garden House siteshould be developed in Phase 1.Agree: the Garden House site to be developedin Phase 1.004/04 Pig Farm• We support the housing allocation butobject to the earlier phasing of 004/03Garden House and 004/02 The Hatchery.(Mr & Mrs. Feasby)The Council accepts that the phasing of thesesites needs to be reordered.Agree: the phasing of the Pig Farm is to bebrought forward004/17 Renaissance Park• We support the Renaissance Park subject The support of the Environment Agency (subject41

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONto a satisfactory Flood Risk Assessment.(Environment Agency)BEDALE SUB AREAto satisfactory Flood Risk Assessment) iswelcomed.Agree: No change required.• We support allocation as a Community Park(Sport England; Yorkshire Forward; EnglishHeritage)004/18 North of Pig Farm• We strongly support mixed use of this sitefor residential, community garden andallotment purposes. (Scorror; EnglishHeritage).004/25 Land South of St. Mary’s and St.Joseph’s• This site should be deleted because it isundeliverable as there is no obvious accessand there are also clearly flood risks.(Persimmon Homes/Northern Planning)• We support 004/25 for housing but it shouldbe brought forward to Phase 1 because it isclose to town, public transport and has goodlinks to open spaces. (Oakwood Enterprisesand Big Sheep and Little Cow Farm).• English Heritage supports site 004/25subject to respecting the Listed Building onsite. (English Heritage)011/01 Bedale Golf Club and DevelopmentLimits.• This site should be allocated because it hasgood access, the town centre is nearby andresidential development is suitable at theentrance to the Golf Club. TheDevelopment Limits would need to beamended accordingly. (Harrison/ Golf Club)011/04 South End• This site should be allocated because it ismore accessible for Bedale facilities, thereare no environmental constraints, it isdeliverable quickly and would round offBedale at this point. (PersimmonHomes/Northern Planning)011/05 Rear of Masham Road• This site is supported so long as access isfrom Masham Road not Firby Road.(IBlogg)• We welcome the allocation of these sitesThe support of Sport England and YorkshireForward is also welcomed, as is the supportfrom English Heritage, which is subject to arequirement that the Conservation Area settingof this site be respected.Agree: no change requiredThe support for the development of the PigFarm is welcomed; in English Heritage’s case,support is subject to development respectingthe Listed Building on this site.Agree: no change is required.The Council agrees that the site is undeliverablebecause of access and Flood Risk issues andthe site will therefore be deleted.Agree: 004/25 to be deleted.Because the Council accepts there are floodingand access issues which cannot be resolved,this site is to be deleted.Disagree: site to be deleted.Because the Council accepts there are floodingand access issues which cannot be resolved,this site is to be deleted.Noted: but site to be deleted.This site is not suitable principally because ofpoor access/Disagree: the site is to remain rejected becauseof poor access.South End has been reviewed and is nowconsidered suitable for residential developmentalthough later in the Plan period (Phase 3)Agree: South End to be allocated for housing inPhase 3.Access to all sites is very important; regardingthe Masham Road site, it will be accesseddirectly from Masham Road with emergencypedestrian and cyclist access only from FirbyRoad.Agree: vehicle access to be from MashamRoad.The Council does not accept the need to extend42

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONbut the Development Limits should bemoved southwards to allow futuredevelopment. (Diocese of Ripon & Leeds/Greenwood/Carter Jonas)BEDALE SUB AREAthe Development Limits to allow for futuredevelopment.Disagree: no change to Development Limits isrequired.• This allocation is objected to untilreplacement allotment and POS land isidentified. (Barningham/Bedale andVillages Community Plan Forum)011/06 Land off South End Avenue• We object to this site because of unsuitableaccess. (Sullivan; England & Lyle/TaylorWimpey)011/08 Between Car Park and Market Place• We support this site which was identified inthe Regional Market Town Programme.(Yorkshire Forward)• We support this site for redevelopmentwhich respects the Conservation Areasetting. (English Heritage)011/09 Auction Mart Car Park• We support this site which was identified inthe Regional Market Town Programme.(Yorkshire Forward)• We support this site for redevelopmentwhich respects the Conservation Area.(English Heritage)011/10 Car Park near St. Gregory’s Church• We object because of the impact on St.Gregory’s Church. (English Heritage)• We support the proposed Gateway CarPark north of St. Gregory’s Church.(Yorkshire Forward)Bedale Relief Road site• The Relief Road should be built beforesignificant development at Aiskew takesplace. (Challoner)The importance of the allotment site and openspace is recognised and alternative provision isbeing identified with community groupsadvising.Disagree: the rear of Masham Road site isretained as an allocation but will not be releaseduntil alternative recreation and allotmentprovision is found.This site has a difficult access and is, therefore,being deleted by the Council.Agree: 011/06 is to be deleted on access andother grounds.This site is to be retained as a car park until analternative is found and the site is to be deallocatedaccordingly.Noted: site to be retained as car park.Support from English Heritage is welcomed.Both Yorkshire Forward’s and EnglishHeritage’s support is welcomed.Agree: no change is needed.The Council feels that the Car Park if properlydesigned and landscaped should not have anundue impact on St. Gregory’s Church.Disagree: no change therefore required.The Council welcomes the support fromYorkshire Forward for the proposed Car Park.Agree: no change required.There is no land requirement for expandingAiskew to the north during the Plan period. TheRelief Road is strongly supported by HambletonCouncil but is dependent upon funding.Disagree: developments at Aiskew south of theA684 are needed to satisfy existing demand socannot wait for the Relief Road to beconstructed.CRAKEHALLSERVICE VILLAGES43

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTION032/03i East of Hackforth Road• We support 032/03i only and not 032/03ii.(Crakehall with Longthorn PC; Green &Barnes; Powell/The Land & DevelopmentPractice/NYCC Children & Young People)BEDALE SUB AREAThe support for allocating 032/03i is welcomed.Agree: no change therefore, required.• 032/03ii – we support the rejection of thissite because of its possible impact on theListed Building and Conservation Area.(English Heritage).032/05 Land at Back Lane (South)032/06 Land at Back Lane (North)• These sites are more suitable fordevelopment than 032/03 and should nothave been rejected. (Powell/The Land &Development Practice).• We support the rejection of 032/05 becauseif its likely impact on the Listed Building andConservation Area. (English Heritage)The Council welcomes English Heritage’srejection of 032/03ii.Agree: no action required therefore.These sites would impact adversely on bothsettlement form and countryside character andare, therefore, not acceptable.Disagree: no change, therefore, required asthey remain rejected.The Council welcomes English Heritage’ssupport for its rejection of this site for residentialdevelopment.Agree: no change therefore required as the siteremains rejected.LEEMING BAR004/07 Elm Tree Farm• We object to Elm Tree Farm being allocatedfor residential use as it is close to the villagecentre and therefore should be used foremployment/community facilities.(Wilson/Emery Planning)004/08 Northallerton Road Development Limits.• We object to this site because of its visualimpact and it is also a Greenfield siteoutside of Development Limits and withinthe noise restriction area. (Wilson/ EmeryPlanning/Cllr. Crisp)004/10 Land adjacent to NYCCDepot/Development Limits.• We object to this site’s non-allocationbecause it is a better site than the preferredones and would also have little impact onthe open countryside. Development Limitswould require amendment. (EmeryPlanning)004/11 John H Gill & Sons• We object to partial residential allocation;the whole site should be kept for retail,leisure or community use as it is in thevillage centre. (Wilson/Emery Planning)• While we have no objection to thedevelopment of the John Gill site, it isimportant to note that the John Gill worksare a Listed Building and will needappropriate protection from any newdevelopment. (English Heritage.)004/13ii Land between A1 and Leases LaneIt is accepted that 004/07 is noisy but is suitablefor mixed housing and employment uses closeto the village centre.Disagree: no change therefore, required.The Council accepts that 004/08 is affected byaircraft noise but it is still the best site forresidential development for Leeming Bartogether with 004/07 and 004/11Site 004/10 is further from the centre ofLeeming Bar and is hence, less sustainable.Disagree: no change is therefore required asthis site remains unallocated.The Council believes mixed use, includinghousing, is more appropriate to the villagecentre.Disagree: no change required, therefore.Noted: no action required at this stage.44

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTION• We object to the rejection of 004/13ii whichcould otherwise be used to relocate ExelbyServices. (Hanson Architects/ExelbyServices; Diskin)004/16 Land off Harkness Drive• Object to non-allocation of land offHarkness Drive which would be acceptablewith adequate noise and visual screening(Cllr. D. Crisp)004/21 Motel Leeming• This allocation is fully supported(Employees/Motel Leeming/WardHathaway, Cllr. Les.)SNAPEBEDALE SUB AREAThe Council prefers land at 004/13i as anextension of the Leeming Bar Industrial Estate(rather than 004/13ii).Disagree: no change, therefore, required.The Council has previously rejected this sitebecause of its concerns regarding visual andnoise impact from the re-aligned A1M.Disagree: no change required as this sitecontinues to be rejected.Much of the site is already in use as a motorwayservice area and its continued allocation,therefore, may not strictly be necessary.Noted: the site remains allocated for amotorway service area.135/02 Hares of Snape• We support the Hares site for residentialdevelopment, subject to it includingAffordable Housing for rent. (Knopp)• We support the Hares site for housing (Mr &Mrs. Hedley/Hares of Snape/KnightFrank;Knopp;NYCC)• We object to 135/02i which is too large forthe village (Snape with Thorpe PC)WEST TANFIELD• The Preferred Options are supported,however, the Development Limits are toorestricted and therefore, Secondary Villagesbecome dormitories/retirementcommunities. (Trewhitt)• Development Limits – NYCC support theDevelopment Limits.170/02 Rear of Methodist Church• We disagree with the rejection of 170/02which is more suitable for housing than170/05. (Tanfield PC)170/04 Allotments r/o Rose Cottage; 170/06Part of South of Main St• Rejection of these sites are supported onthe grounds of impact on the ConservationArea. (English Heritage)170/05 Rear of Meadowfields• We agree with 170/05 but the entrance to itis through an industrial unit (Tanfield PC)The Council welcomes support for site 135/02Agree: no change, therefore, required.The Council welcomes support for site 135/02Agree: no change, therefore, required.The Council believes the Preferred Option sitewill provide both private market and affordablehousing for Snape.Disagree: no change required, therefore, to135/02i)Support for the Preferred Options is welcomed.Regarding Development Limits, the Councildoes not believe that they are too restrictive asthere are still opportunities for small scaledevelopment within the Development Limits.Agree/Disagree: no change to the PreferredOptions and the Development Limits.The Council previously rejected 170/02 becauseof the adjoining industrial site and betteralternatives.Disagree: no change required because 170/02remains rejected.Support for the rejection of these sites iswelcomed.Noted: no change is therefore, required.Qualified support from the Parish Council isnoted. However, 170/05 is no longer required tomeet housing need and therefore is deleted asan allocation.Agree: but 170/05 is to be deleted as no longerneeded.45

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONBEDALE SUB AREA• We support 170/05 for housing (BarberTitley; Hayton)• We support this site for residentialdevelopment subject to the developmentbeing respectful of its location within theConservation Area. (English Heritage)170/10 Station Yard• We agree with this site subject torequirements to protect the adjacenthousing, the provision of car parking andthe establishment of a 20 mph Safer Routeto Schools area. (Tanfield PC)• We support the allocation but object to theindustrial proportion and suggest increasinghousing from 30 to 36 units of which 20%should be live-work units and retain theexisting employment.• We support 170/10 as a mixed use site(Axe/Barber Titley)Support for 170/05 is noted but it is no longerrequired. Agree; but 170/05 to be deleted.Support for this site for appropriate residentialdevelopment is welcomed but it is no longerneeded.Noted: but 170/05 to be deleted.The Council notes the Parish Council’s qualifiedsupport for 170/10.Noted: no change requiredSupport for the allocation is welcomed and theproportion of the different uses will be thesubject of further consideration.NotedThe Council welcomes support for site 170/10for mixed use.NotedBURNESTONSECONDARY AND ELSEWHERE VILLAGES021/02 Land at Church Wynd• This site should be allocated for residentialpurposes and included in the DevelopmentLimits because it is a natural extension ofthe village; access is good; and it hasmature boundaries. (Robin Jessop)Development Limits.• Development Limits should be extended toinclude site 021/02a. (Robin Jessop)• The Development Limits should beamended to include all my farm buildings.(Bowe)HACKFORTH062/01 Adjacent Village Hall, 062/05 North ofBrookfield Farm, 062/08 Adjacent to Elm Garth• We object to no site in Hackforth beingallocated. These three sites should beallocated for residential purposes andincluded in the Development Limits.(Hackforth & Ainderby Miers PC)062/04 North of Hackforth• This site should be allocated and theDevelopment Limits be amendedaccordingly. (Webster/Emery Planning)In line with the Core Strategy, sites are notnormally allocated in Secondary Villages.Disagree: no change required, therefore.Development Limits have been reviewed inBurneston and only one small change isproposed.Disagree: it is not appropriate to amendDevelopment Limits to include 021/02a.Disagree: it is not appropriate to amendDevelopment Limits to include these farmbuildings.In line with the adopted Core Strategy, sites arenot normally allocated in Secondary Villages,such as Hackforth.Disagree: no change required.In line with the adopted Core Strategy, sites arenot normally allocated in Secondary Villages,such as Hackforth.Disagree: no change required.46

MAIN ISSUESKIRKBY FLEETHAMBEDALE SUB AREACOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONDevelopment Limits• Proposed alteration to Development Limitswould exclude development underconstruction so they should not be amendedin this way. (Gardiner)• We support the Preferred Options forBedale Service Centre and Service Villagesbut we are concerned there are no sites inKirkby Fleetham (Scruton PC)SCRUTON127/03 Land at Station Road• Station Road should be allocated to enableScruton to be a Sustainable Village(Greenwood/Carter Jonas)Development Limits• Development Limits are too tight (ScrutonPC; Wood; Latter)• Development Limits should include all mygarden. (Mainwaring-Taylor)• Brownfield sites need reconsidering; objectto rejection of Bill Wood Motors forresidential use as it is Brownfield. (Latter)Preferred Options• We object to there being no allocations inScruton (A & H Wood• We object to the Preferred Options notincluding allocations in Scruton and suggestWood’s Garage and Ward’s Farm Buildings(Scruton PC)The Development Limits will reflect this dwellingunder construction.Agree: Development Limits to include dwellingunder construction.In line with the adopted Core Strategy, sites arenot normally allocated in Secondary Villages,such as Kirkby Fleetham.Disagree: no change required.Station Road and the other options have notbeen allocated and this is in line with theadopted Core Strategy.Disagree: no change required therefore.Development Limits have been reviewed andare considered appropriate for Scruton.Disagree: no change required to DevelopmentLimits.Not all Brownfield sites are appropriate fordevelopment.Disagree: no change required therefore.In compliance with the adopted Core Strategy,there are no allocations within the SecondaryVillage of Scruton.Disagree: no change required therefore.In compliance with the adopted Core Strategy,there are no allocations within the SecondaryVillage of Scruton.Disagree: no change required therefore.THORNTON WATLASSDevelopment Limits• Development Limits need amending toinclude Fox Covert Bank. (Morris)WELL167/02a and b West of BedaleRoad/Development Limits• We object to 167/02a and b not beingincluded as these are the best sites in thevillage to meet housing needs; theDevelopment Limits should be amended toinclude them. (Lancaster/Harris/EmeryPlanning)CarthorpeDevelopment Limits• Development Limits are too restrictive; smallvillages need development sites.Development Limits have been reviewed andthe Council does not propose to amend themDisagree: no change required therefore..In accordance with the adopted Core Strategy,there are no allocations within the SecondaryVillage of Well. Following the review of theDevelopment Limits, there is no need to amendthem in Well.Disagree: no change required to allocate a siteor to amend Development LimitsNo sites have been allocated in Carthorpe, as aSecondary Village, in accordance with the47

MAIN ISSUES(Carthorpe PC)GENERAL RESPONSESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONBEDALE SUB AREAadopted Core Strategy. RegardingDevelopment Limits; following a review there isno need to amend them.Disagree: no change required to allocate a siteor to amend Development Limits in Carthorpe.• We object to the Preferred Options becauseof traffic problems on the A684 and impacton wildlife. (Mr & Mrs. Hopkins)• We support the Preferred Options forhousing as they are very sensibly planned.(Dr. & Mrs. Blagg)• The Preferred Options are insufficient tomeet the need for a flexible housing supplye.g. sites 011/05 and 05a and 011/06 allhave delivery problems. (Wilson/EmeryPlanning)While comments are noted, development atAiskew is well located in terms of access tofacilities/impact on settlement form and so on.Also, traffic increases can be accommodated onthe existing highway network.Disagree: while there are undoubtedly impactsarising from the Preferred Options they cangenerally be accommodated although somePreferred Options have been dropped.Support for the Preferred Options is welcomed.Agree: no change is therefore required.The Preferred Options are sufficient to meetRegional Spatial Strategy requirements;regarding delivery problems, these have beentaken into account in selecting PreferredOptions.Disagree; no change required therefore.48

MAIN ISSUESEASINGWOLDEASINGWOLD SUB-AREACOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTION041/02; 041/06; 041/43 Stillington Road,Easingwold• We object to the proposed mix of useswhich Redrow feel should be residential ledrather than employment led as HDCcontends. The policy for this site should bemore flexible. (Redrow/Spawforths)• We object regarding phasing as the landshould be in Phase 1 rather than Phase 2(Redrow/Spawforths)• Object to mixed use because of traffic/noiseand visual impacts from employment uses.Shires/Land & Property; Clarke)• Object to mixed use as the site should besolely allocated for employment uses.(Persimmon Homes/ Northern Planning)• I object because this amount of employmentland is not needed as the existing StillingtonRoad site is not full anyway. (Tanfield)041/07 North of Easingwold• This site should be allocated, in preferenceto the others, as it is a logical extension tothe settlement; is not visually prominent; iswithin walking distance to town centre; andhas appropriate access. (Hebdon Trust/Carter Jonas).Development Limits• The Development Limits should beamended to include 041/07. (HebdonTrust/Carter Jonas).041/08 North of the Church• I object to the proposed extension to thecemetery as it should be trebled in size tomeet future needs. (Revd. Wharton-Street)041/11 East of Kelbalk Lane & 041/19 East ofOxenby Place• Object to residential use as it is aninteresting landscape area in the Greenbelt;it is a valuable open space which is good forwildlife. It is also close to the HowardianMixed use proposals are in line withGovernment policy.Disagree: no change required therefore..With regard to phasing, the phasing proposedby the Council reflects its conclusions about thehousing needs as they develop throughout theLocal Development Framework period up to2026.Disagree: no action required therefore.Mixed use proposals are in line withGovernment policy. Also, appropriate attentionto lay out and design should minimise anyimpacts from the employment uses on adjacentresidential development.Disagree: no change required therefore.Mixed use proposals are in line withGovernment policy.Disagree: no change required therefore.The Council’s employment land proposals arebased on the Economic Development Study.There is therefore, a need for these sites overthe period of the Local DevelopmentFramework.Disagree: no action required therefore.Site 041/07 is visually prominent when viewedfrom the North; it is remote from services exceptfor the adjoining school and it would not respectthe settlement form of Easingwold.Disagree: no change required therefore.As the Council has rejected 041/07, there is noreason to include it in the Development Limits.Disagree: no change required therefore.The Council accepts the need for a larger site tomeet burial needs.Agree: a different and larger site is to be putforward for cemetery use until 2026.This site is considered a logical place forresidential development and is nearly 2 milesfrom the Howardian Hills so will have littleimpact on them.49

MAIN ISSUESHills.(Gilling)COUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONEASINGWOLD SUB-AREADisagree: no change required therefore..• We object to these sites being allocated forresidential use; they should be reconsideredbecause of poor road and drainageinfrastructure and public safety issues. (N &C Spink; E Spink Bishop)041/33; & 041/37 East of Kelbalk Lane & 041/36North of Meadowfield Close• Objection to these sites being allocated forresidential use; they should be reconsideredbecause of poor road and drainageinfrastructure and public safety issues. (N &C Spink; E Spink)• I object on traffic grounds. (Tanfield)Rejected sites: 041/07 North of Easingwold;041/20 West of Easingwold: 041/23 Hagg Lane:041/29 West of Hagg Lane; 041/30 West ofHagg Lane; 041/31 South of Alne Road.• We object to the rejection of these siteswhich should, therefore, be reconsidered forallocation as road and drainageinfrastructure is better. (N & C Spink; ESpink; Tanfield))041/13 Shires Bridge Mill• This site should not be allocated but it hasalready Outline Planning Permission.(Wood)041/14 – North of Paradise Fields• We support these allocations butinfrastructure issues need urgentconsideration. (N & C. Spink; E Spink))041/15 – Ward Trailers• We support this site as it is sustainable anddeliverable. (Persimmon Homes/NorthernPlanning)• I object to residential development as thesite should be used for a Sports Hall(Tanfield)• I support 041/15 as any development ispreferable to the current eyesore.(Atkinson)• I object to this site for residential purposesThe Council has up to date information from theEnvironment Agency regarding flooding for allthe sites considered. With regard toinfrastructure generally, capacity issues are tobe addressed by developer contributions, asappropriate.Disagree: no change required therefore..Infrastructure capacity has been taken intoaccount in selecting these sites. Capacityproblems will be addressed with developercontributions.Disagree: no action required therefore asinfrastructure issues have been taken intoaccount and, where necessary, developercontributions will be sought towards drainage,highway and other improvements.See above.Regarding these sites, they are more intrusivevisually and less suitable than the PreferredOptions and were, therefore, rejected by theCouncil.Disagree: no change required therefore..It is not intended to allocate more of this site foremployment purposes because it hassustainability and landscape characterproblems.Disagree: no change required therefore..Infrastructure requirements have already beenreviewed in selecting the Preferred Options.Any deficiencies will be addressed by developercontributions.Agree: no change required therefore.We welcome the support for this site.Agree: no change required therefore.It is possible that any need for a new Sports Hallcan be satisfied within the existing schoolgrounds so a specific site allocation is notrequired.Disagree: no change required therefore.Support for the residential development of thissite is welcomed.Agree: no change required therefore.Site 041/15 is put forward for housing purposes50

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONas it does not link well with other parts of thesettlement. (Wood)EASINGWOLD SUB-AREAin accordance with PPS3 Housing para. 40.Disagree: no change required therefore..Development Limits• We object to amending the DevelopmentLimits as this would detract from dedicatedplay areas. (Kirk/Forest of Galtrees Society)• I object to the Development Limits which aretightly drawn so that residential densitiesbecome too high. (Bishop)041/32 and 041/42 Land at Prospect Farm• We object to the rejection of these sites andsuggest that more land be allocated atProspect Farm towards Alne Road. (N & CSpink; E Spink)041/19 East of Oxenby Place• We support the allocation but request thatphasing be looked at with the adjoining siteEast of Kelbalk Lane and 041/19 besubstituted for it if problems arise. (Dunn/Smiths Gore)041/20 Knott Lane (Hagg Lane)• We object because Knott Lane is betterthan the preferred sites and shouldtherefore be allocated for residentialpurposes instead. (Waterworth Stephenson& Son; Bishop)041/11 East of Kelbalk Lane; 041/19 East ofOxenby Place; 041/24 North of Stillington Roadand 041/02 Stillington Road.• We object to these sites in the Greenbeltarea. Concentration should be on landbetween town centre and the bypass. (K &D M Snell)• The emphasis should be on land betweenthe Town Centre and the bypass. (K & DMSnell)041/42 & 32 Prospect Farm; 041/20 West ofEasingwold; 041/23 Hagg Lane.• I object to these sites not being allocated asthey are closer to schools and shops andshould have been preferred as residentialsites. (Clarke)• Object to 041/32 and 42 not being allocated.(Wood)Excluding play areas from Development Limitswill not alter their status as they are clearly notsuitable for development, whether in or out ofDevelopment Limits.Disagree: no change required therefore..The Development Limits for Easingwold havebeen reviewed and are intended to guide thedevelopment of the town up to 2026.Residential densities are in line withGovernment policies.Disagree: no change required therefore..The Council has made adequate provision onbetter sites for more employment land.Disagree: no change required therefore..The immediate availability of site 041/19 isnoted.Noted: no change required therefore.Development on several sites around the town,such as Knott Lane, may also have providedsuitable and/or acceptable options had theRegional Spatial Strategy required morehousing in Easingwold. Site 041/20 isconsidered less suitable for development thanthe Preferred Sites and also attracted significantopposition at the Options stageNone of these sites is in the Greenbelt and site041/24 is not actually proposed for developmentanyway. The other sites are, in the Council’sopinion, suitable for development, for goodplanning reasons.Disagree: no change required therefore..Developing more land at Prospect Farm in thisway would create a much greater adverseimpact on EasingwoldDisagree: no change required therefore..These sites were rejected because they wouldhave a much worse impact on the character andappearance of Easingwold.Disagree: no change required therefore..See above.51

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTION041/06; 041/02; & 041/43 Stillington Road• I object to these sites being mixed usebecause of the likely nuisance to adjacentresidential areas. (Clarke)041/11, 041/33 & 041/37 East of Kelbalk Lane,041/36 North of Meadowfield Close.• We support these sites as sustainable anddeliverable. (Persimmon/NorthernPlanning)Rejected Site Land at Mill Lane• Object that this site is not allocated forresidential as it is well related to the townand facilities. (Persimmon/NorthernPlanning)• 041/06 Rear of The Bungalow, York Road &041/39 Stillington/York Road Object – thesesites are too small to be allocated in theirown right but could be joined with adjacentland. (Shires/Land and Property)Rejected site 041/41 Shires Bridge Mill• Objection to rejection of this site; it shouldbe allocated for employment purposes.(Shires/Land and Property)All sites• Object to the Preferred Options becausethere is an urgent need to improveinfrastructure before more development isadded. (Forest of Galtres Society/Kirk)EASINGWOLD SUB-AREAGovernment policy favours mixed use so thesesites comply and there is no reason for them tobe purely residential.Disagree: no change required therefore..Support for these sites is welcomed.Agree: no change required therefore.Developing this land would be an unnecessaryand intrusive extension into open countrysidewith little to commend it and there are betteralternatives which would not have the sameimpact .Disagree; no change required therefore.Allocating this remote and conspicuous sitewould be contrary to the Core Strategy CP11 asbetter sites exist within Easingwold.Disagree: no change required therefore.While there are infrastructure capacity issues,these can be resolved with developercontributions.Disagree: no change required therefore..• We agree the allocation sites but areconcerned regarding infrastructure capacity,especially drainage but also schools andmedical facilities. (Mr & Mrs. Andrew; I & CPeel; Mark; Graves; Dawson)• Support the Preferred Options but the longstanding proposal for the play area shouldbe implemented at Highland Court. (Graves)• Support for all the allocations etc.(Harrison/Easingwold Parish Church; Mr &Mrs Boast; Morrison; Tanner/Smith; Paul;Roberts/Mouchel Parkman)• Objection to the Preferred Options becauseof impact on schools and other services.(Padgett)Preferred Options• Support the Preferred Options but there is aneed for a Park and Ride facility at satellitecar parks on the edge of town. (Glossop)Insufficient capacity in the sewage system inparticular is recognised and will be addressedby developer contributions as will otherinfrastructure problems.Agree/Disagree: Infrastructure capacityimprovements will be funded by developercontributions.The support for this long standing proposal for aplay area is welcomed.Agree: no change required therefore.The support for all the allocations is welcomed.Agree: no change required therefore.The impact on schools and other services, hasalready been taken into account in selecting thePreferred Options.Disagree: no change required therefore..Support for the Preferred Options is welcomed.The need for additional car parking is beinginvestigated. At the present time though a Parkand Ride scheme for Easingwold is unviable.52

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONEASINGWOLD SUB-AREANoted but no change required, therefore, at themoment.• Support Preferred Options but need toretain free parking for visitors and businesspeople possibly. (Thompson)Development Limits• I object to the Development Limits. (ESpink)• Easingwold should not expand to say theA19. (ClarkeThe support for the Preferred Options iswelcomed; however, the Council has recentlyintroduced parking charges in the 5 MarketTowns.Noted: no change required.The Development Limits for Easingwold havebeen reviewed and amended to enable thedevelopment of Easingwold to be appropriatelyregulated.Disagree: no change required therefore..The Development Limits have been amended toallow for development needed up to 2026 andno further extension is required.Agree: no change required therefore.BRAFFERTON/HELPERBYSERVICE VILLAGES063/03 and 063/04 East and West of BackLane• We agree that there should be no preferredsites in Brafferton and 2 preferred sites inHelperby but we are concerned aboutaccess to them via Raskelf Road and BackLane. (Palmer/Brafferton PC)063/03 East of Back Lane• Object as this is a Greenfield site. (Swiers)Rejected site 063/01 Central Depot, Back Lane• Object to rejection of this site which isBrownfield and should be used forhousing/employment as the ownerproposes. (Swiers)Development Limits• Development Limits should be amended toinclude Central Depot (Swiers)Preferred Options• We support the Preferred Options.However, there will be a need for extraschool places and the small size of thePreferred Options may not allow for Section106 contributions. (Ashton/Children &Young People’s Service)HUSTHWAITESupport for the Preferred Options is welcomedand the comments about access are noted.Agree: no change required, therefore.Although this site is Greenfield, it is close toservices and facilities; it would have little impacton the character of the village and it could helpimprove Back Lane.Disagree: no change required therefore..This is a large site outside the village and ifdeveloped would appear unrelated to it althoughthe site is Brownfield.Disagree: no change required therefore..The Central Depot site is not acceptable to theCouncil as a development site so there is noneed to amend the Development Limits toinclude it.Disagree: no change required therefore..Support for the Preferred Options is welcomed.Appropriate developer contributions are soughtwherever the need arises.Noted: no change required, therefore.53

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONRejected site 071/03 West Terrace• Object to the rejection of this site which iseffectively Brownfield; is only modest insize; and would be suitable for AffordableHousing. The Preferred Options 071/01ishould still be retained for development(Burnett)071/01i South of Prospect Cottage• We support the Preferred Option and thejustification for it. (Mouchel Parkman;Taylor; Burnett; Ward)EASINGWOLD SUB-AREASite 071/03 is too small for allocation; wouldhave an adverse effect on the character of thevillage if developed and therefore is notacceptable.Disagree: no change required therefore..Support for the Preferred Options is welcomed.Agree: no change required therefore..Rejected sites 071/02 ;West of Kays Bank071/05 South West of Gibbett Hill; 071/06Centre of Village: 071/07 South of Playing Field:071/08 Slaters Yard and 071/09 Slaters Field.• We support the rejection of these sites(Mouchel Parkman)071/01ii South of Prospect Cottages• We object to the rejection of 071/01ii as westill feel it should be included with 071/01ibut in Phase 3 because of its minimalimpact on the countryside and also becauseit is a clearly defined site. (MouchelParkman)Development Limits• We support the Development Limits exceptfor an amendment to accommodate071/01ii. (Mouchel Parkman)Development Limits• Development Limits should be amended toinclude our property at Cleveland House.(Mr. & Mrs. Walker/All Seasons Lawn Turf)Preferred Options• We support everything but object to the 10affordable dwellings for which we think thereis little need. (Husthwaite PC/Ward)• I object to the Preferred Option as there islittle local demand for housing anyway andthe 20 houses will therefore mean moretraffic and commuting. The 20 additionalhouses will also spoil the area’s character.Two or three Affordable Houses on two tothree small sites would be much better.Access to the site is also inadequate.(Scarce)• We support the Preferred Options and thereis sufficient capacity at Husthwaite PrimarySchool. (Ashton/NYCC/Children & YoungPeople’s Service)Support for the rejection of these sites iswelcomed.Agree: no change required therefore..Only 071/01i is needed to meet requirements ofHusthwaite so 071/01ii is not necessary.Disagree: no change required therefore..There is no need for 071/01ii so there is noneed to amend the Development Limits toinclude it either.Disagree: no change required therefore..Although there is commercial development onthis site, development here would not relate wellto the form and character of the village.Disagree: no change required therefore..There is a demand for Affordable Housing in theEasingwold Sub Area Villages according to theHousing Needs Study.Disagree: no change required therefore..Husthwaite is a Service Village where someresidential development is appropriate and 20additional houses is a suitable number,including Affordable Housing. The 20 additionalhouses will not, in the Council’s opinion, spoilthe area’s character.Disagree: no change required therefore. as thescale of housing, including Affordable Housing,is appropriate.Support for the Preferred Options is welcomed.Agree: no change required therefore..Rejected site adjacent The Norkin54

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTION• Object to the rejection of this site whichshould be allocated as it is much better thanthe Preferred Option. (Scarce)EASINGWOLD SUB-AREAThe Council does not agree that this site isbetter than the Preferred Option.Disagree: no change required therefore..Development Limits• Development Limits should not be amendedas the village is really big enough. (Scarce)Rejected sites:• We agree the rejected sites as theirdevelopment would detract from theConservation Area. (Smith, EnglishHeritage).SHIPTONPreferred Options: 131/07 and 131/03 DisusedGarage West of Main Street• We object to the Preferred Options notincluding sites 131/01a & b Church Farm.(Blacker/Carter Jonas)Rejected sites: 131/01a & b Church Farm• These sites should be allocated becausethe farm house needs relocating on trafficand road access grounds. 131/01b ifallocated for housing could provide‘rounding off’ of the village. (Blacker/CarterJonas)Development Limits• Development Limits should be amended toinclude the Church Farm site.(Blacker/Carter Jonas)Rejected site: 131/02 Manor Farm• We object to the rejection of this site as itshould be allocated because it is small andrelates well to the settlement.(Sellers/Carter Jonas)131/03 and 131/07 Rear of West of Main Street• We support these sites in principle butobject on phasing grounds because theyshould be considered in phase 1 as the landis Brownfield (Harrison; Irvine/IDPPlanning; FD Todd & Sons)Rejected site: 131/04 Land to rear of East Villa.• We object to the rejection of this site whichshould be included in the DevelopmentLimits as it is part of our garden.(Shepherd/Carter Jonas)Preferred Options• We support the Preferred Options but thereIt is not appropriate to amend the DevelopmentLimits as the Preferred Option is within them.Agree: no change required therefore..Support for the rejected Options is welcomed.Agree: no change required therefore..Church Farm is a Greenfield site in the YorkGreenbelt. It would not be appropriate todevelop it when there is an existing Brownfieldsite in Shipton.Disagree: no change required therefore..Church Farm is a Greenfield site in the YorkGreenbelt. It would not be appropriate todevelop it when there is an existing Brownfieldsite in Shipton.Disagree: no change required therefore..There is no justification for allocating ChurchFarm so the Development Limits do not needamending to include it either.Disagree: no change required therefore..All the Manor Farm site is included in theDevelopment Limits but not allocated as it istoo small.Agree/Disagree: site 131/02 is included withinthe Development Limits but not as an allocationbecause it is below the 0.3 ha threshold fordevelopment sites.Although Brownfield, these sites are in aService Village, not a Service Centre andtherefore they fall into later Phases rather thanPhase 1.Agree/Disagree: no change in principle to theallocation but phasing after Phase 1 isappropriate.This site is considered too small for allocationand also unsuitable for development.Disagree: no change required therefore..Support for the Preferred Options is welcomed.55

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONis a shortage of Primary School places forwhich developer contributions will berequired and the sites may be too small togenerate the finance. (Ashton/NYCC;Children & Young People’s Service)EASINGWOLD SUB-AREAAppropriate developer contributions towardsprimary places will be sought.Agree: no change required, therefore.• We object to the Preferred Options becausethey are insufficient to meet the need for aflexible housing supply. Site 131/07 rear ofWest of Main Street, for example, has hadlong-standing ownership issues, delaying itsdevelopment. (Barrow/Geo. Wimpey)Rejected sites: 131/06a North of AuthittsCottage.• We object to the rejection of 131/06abecause 131/07 is not really availablealthough it is Brownfield. (Barrow/Geo.Wimpey)Rejected sites:• We support the rejected sites, particularlythe southern ones as they would adverselyimpact on the setting of the church and itsformer vicarage. (Smith English Heritage)STILLINGTONRejected site: 141/02 Adjacent to West View• We object to the rejection of this site whichis better for residential use than other sitesconsidered and also rejected on impactgrounds. Developing this site will notadversely affect the Conservation Area.(Southerton/Edwardson Associates))Development Limits• Development Limits should leave no scopefor Stillington and should be amended toinclude 141/02. (Southerton/EdwardsonAssociates)141/03 South Back Lane• Object because of visual impact of 30 morehouses; impact on the Conservation Area;too many houses would mean roadwidening and access to the field behind; riskof precedent and drainage issues.(Botterill; Bruce;Watson; Stillington PC;LoganlRejected Sites|:141/06 and 141/07 West of thevillage• I object to these sites being rejected as theywould be preferable and would not detractfrom the view of the village approachingfrom Easingwold. (Watson)Development Limits• Development Limits should be slightlyextended to include 141/06 and 07.The owner says the land is available fordevelopment.Disagree: no change required therefore..131/06a is far too large to be allocated and isalso Greenfield so it remains rejected in linewith the adopted Core Strategy.Disagree: no change required therefore..Support for the rejected site is welcomed.Agree: no change required therefore..Developing 141/02 would extend the villageundesirably to the west and not round it off.Disagree: no change required therefore..The Council does not regard 141/12 asacceptable and therefore there is no need toamend the Development Limits toaccommodate it.Disagree: no change required therefore..The South Back Lane site will enable a linearform and character of the village to be retainedalthough the Lane will need improving toprovide adequate access.Disagree: no change required therefore..The Council does not agree that developing141/06 and 07 would not detract significantlyfrom the approach from Easingwold. Thesesites, therefore, remain rejected.Disagree: no change required therefore..Sites 141/06 and 07 are not acceptable to theCouncil so the Development Limits need not be56

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTION(Watson)EASINGWOLD SUB-AREAextended to include them.Disagree: no change required therefore..Preferred Options• Support everything (Popplewell; Gresswell) Support for the Preferred Options is welcomed.Agree: no change required therefore..Rejected site: Land at west end of village.• Suggest land at west end of village lessobtrusive. (Bruce)Rejected site: 141/07 West of village and141/08 West of York Road.• We support the rejection of both sites asthere development would impactdetrimentally upon the character of theadjacent Conservation Area. (Smith, EnglishHeritage)Development Limits• Object to amending Development Limitsalong South Back Lane to accommodatethe South Back Lane proposal. (Bruce)141/03 South Back Lane• Object to this site as too large. (Ingham)• Objection – only west end of South BackLane should be allocated instead of all141/03. (Ingham)The Council feels that sites at the west end ofthe village are obtrusive.Disagree: no change required therefore..Support for rejection of both sites on visualimpact grounds is welcome.Agree: no change required therefore..The Council believes the South Back Lane siteis the appropriate one and the DevelopmentLimits are being amended to accommodate it,therefore.Disagree: the proposed amended DevelopmentLimits will be kept.The Council does not accept that this site is toolarge and therefore only the west end of SouthBack Lane should be allocated.Disagree: no change required therefore..Rejected sites: 141/04 Mill Lane and 141/06 and07 Easingwold Road• Object to rejection of these sites as Iconsider them to be less damaging than thePreferred Options, if developed. (Ingham)Development Limits• Development Limits should not be changedto allow for more development.(Ingham/Botterell)Rejected site: 141/09 Land fronting Carr Lane.• We object to this site not being allocated asit would fit well with those being developed ifhouses are of the same design. (TeesValley Housing Association/ Denton/NorthBank Res. Assoc.)141/03 West of South Back Lane• I support this site but it has no suitableaccess and new road works are thereforerequired. (Gresswell)Rejected sites: 041/02 Adjacent to West View;041/04 East of Oak Dene: 041/05 East ofVillage and 041/06 West of village.The Council does not accept that developingthese sites would be less damaging thandeveloping South Back Lane. These sites,therefore, remain rejected.Disagree: no change required therefore..The Council believes that the South Back Lanesite is the best option for development and theDevelopment Limits are being amended toinclude it.Disagree: Development Limits to be amendedto include the Preferred Options.The development of 141/09 would impact moreon the character and form of the village thandevelopment at South Back Lane.Disagree: no change required therefore..Support for 141/03 is welcomed; itsdevelopment will, inevitably, mean highwayimprovements to provide better access.Agree: no change required though as roadimprovements to South Back Lane are alreadyplanned.57

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTION• We object to the rejection of these smallersites which should be allocated.(Stillington PC)Preferred Options• We support the Preferred Options but theirdevelopment should be phased over longerperiod and also the drainage system mustbe satisfactory; support the PreferredOptions but do not fully agree withdevelopment proposals . (Cookman;McGeehan)EASINGWOLD SUB-AREASite 041/02 could adversely affect the westernapproach to Stillington. Site 041/04 provides animportant visual break and is susceptible toflooding. Sites 041/05 and 06 are also oftownscape importance, and prone to flooding.None of these sites was included as a PreferredOptions for these various reasons and theCouncil holds the same view now.Disagree: no change required therefore..Support for the Preferred Options is welcome.Drainage and other infrastructure issues will beaddressed with the developers.Noted: no change required, therefore.• Object to the Preferred Option as it isdifficult for Stillington to accommodate 30dwellings over the 6 year period of Phase1and it would also completely alter thecharacter of Back Lane. (Botterell)Development Limits• I support the Development Limits but do notfully agree with development proposals.(McGeehan)Preferred Options• We object to a residential development inStillington as it will increase traffic throughSutton-on-the-Forest and Huby. We suggestinstead sites south of Huby and Suttonalong the B1363. (Sutton on the ForestPC)• We support the Preferred Option and thereis sufficient school capacity. (Ashton/NYCC;Children & Young People’s Service)• Comments: A mix of dwelling sizes isrequired. (Wilson)ALNEPreferred Options• Support everything. (Alne PC)• We are concerned about the impact of newdevelopment on domestic gardens inConservation Areas. (Alne PC)HUBYThe Council notes the concern about the rate ofdevelopment and the changes to Back Lane butfeels that this site is still the best one available.Noted: Disagree: no change requiredtherefore..Qualified support for the Development Limits isnoted.Noted: no change required therefore..Residential allocations would not be appropriatein secondary villages like Sutton and Huby, inline with the adopted Core Strategy.Disagree: no change required therefore..Support for the Preferred Options is welcome.No change required therefore..The Council agrees entirely that a mix ofdwelling sizes is required.Agree: no change required therefore..Support for the Preferred Options is welcomed.Agree: no change required therefore..Such matters are dealt with at the planningapplication stage in the light of bothGovernment and local policies in the LocalDevelopment Framework.Agree: no change required therefore..Preferred Options• Support everything. (Walker) Support for the Preferred Options is welcomed.Agree: no change required therefore..58

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONEASINGWOLD SUB-AREA• Object to the Preferred Options notincluding an allocation in Huby. (HoggBuilders/Erinaceous Planning)• Object to the Preferred Options notincluding an allocation as has happened atDalton. (Lindrick Homes/Barton Wilmore)Rejected site: 070/02 South of Huby SportsGround• We object to the rejection of 070/02 whichshould be allocated for housing as itprovides better access to Huby School andcould contribute financially to the sportsground. (Lindrick Homes/BartonWilmore/Mitchell)Development Limits• Development Limits should be expanded toinclude 070/02. (Lindrick Homes/BartonWilmore/Mitchell)Rejected site: 070/06 South of Gracious Street• We object to the rejection of this site; thereshould be an allocation in Huby and this issuitable as it is close to shops and services;has a regular bus service; and there are noenvironmental constraints. (HoggBuilders/NAI Erinaceous Planning)Development Limits• Development Limits should be extended toinclude 070/06.LINTON-ON-OUSE• Comment: the area around Linton Lockshould be developed as a leisure andcultural destination. (Ramsden, BritishWaterways)RASKELFDevelopment Limits• The Development Limits should includePigeon Cote Farm. (Kilvington/BarberTitleys/Axe)SUTTON-ON-THE-FORESTDevelopment Limits• The Development Limits should beextended to include the Rectory andIn line with the adopted Core Strategy there willnot normally be an allocation in a SecondaryVillage such as Huby.Disagree: no change required therefore..The allocation at Dalton is an exceptionbecause of the environmental problems causedby the redundant Turkey Factory in the centre ofthe village.Disagree: no change required therefore..In line with the adopted Core Strategy there willnot normally be an allocation in a SecondaryVillage such as Huby.Disagree: no change required therefore..No allocation is to be made in Huby inaccordance with the adopted Core Strategy andthe Development Limits therefore need not beextended to include this site.Disagree: no change required therefore..In line with the adopted Core Strategy there willnot normally be an allocation in a SecondaryVillage such as Huby.Disagree: no change required therefore.No allocation is to be made in Huby inaccordance with the adopted Core Strategy andthe Development Limits therefore need not beextended to include this site.Disagree: no change required therefore.The area around the lock can be considered inthe light of PPS7 advice about Tourism andLeisure.Noted: no change is required therefore.In accordance with the adopted Core Strategyallocations are not normally made in SecondaryVillages such as Raskelf. There is no need,therefore, to amend the Development Limits toinclude Pigeon Cote Farm.Disagree: no change required therefore..The only reason for including the Rectory andChurch is to identify them as a suitable59

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONChurch as they lie within the ConservationArea and their development therefore istightly regulated. (Diocese ofYork/Sanderson Weatherall/Jones)EASINGWOLD SUB-AREAdevelopment option, and this is not the case.The Development Limits should, therefore, notbe extended.Disagree: no change required therefore..• The Development Limits are too restrictivenorth of Main Street and should include allthe Woods Farm buildings and not just part.(Mitchell – Innes/Smiths Gore)TOLLERTONOther sites:• Manor Lodge should be considered as asite for modest dwelling (Goodwin/CarterJonas)Development Limits• Development Limits should be amended toinclude Manor Lodge. (Goodwin/CarterJonas)• General Comments: Increased seweragecapacity is essential. (Brownlee/CPRE)MAIN ISSUESThere is no need to extend the DevelopmentLimits to include Woods Farm buildings as CorePolicy CP4 would allow conversion, if suitableand appropriate.Disagree: no change required therefore..Allocations are not normally made in SecondaryVillages in line with the adopted Core Strategy.Disagree: no change required therefore..Development Limits are to be tightly drawn inSecondary Villages such as Tollerton.Disagree: no change required therefore..Noted: no further action is required asdeveloper contributions will be used to improvefacilities.COUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONNORTHALLERTONPreferred Options• Support the Preferred Options butconcerned over extra sewage from thedevelopment. (Fisher)NORTHALLERTON SUB-AREASupport for the Preferred Options is welcomed.Infrastructure requirements including drainageare subject to ongoing liaison with developersand utilities.Agree/Noted: no change required, therefore.• Support the Preferred Options in principle(R & G Robinson; Rob Brittain/Broadacres))NNA• Support NNA but more land needed to fundbypass and additional flood protection.(Murdoch)NNA• Support the NNA in principle but it will spoilthis Market Town and create uncertainty forus. (Mr. & Mrs. Burdis)110/16 East of Darlington Road.• We object to this proposal as we do notwish to be surrounded by industrial units.(Mr. & Mrs. Burdis)• We object to the mixed use of sites 110/16Support for the Preferred Options is welcomed.Noted: no change required therefore..Support for the NNA is welcome. Regarding thesuggestion that more land is needed to fund thebypass and flood protection, the independentvaluation of the NNA does not support that.Agree/Disagree: no change required therefore..The in principle support is welcomed and theinfrastructure issues raised will be addressed aspart of the scheme.Noted/Agree: no change required therefore.This site is mixed use, including bothemployment and residential uses. Anyemployment will be suitable and appropriate tothe adjoining housing, such as offices.Disagree: no change required therefore..Mixed use is encouraged by government and60

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONand 110/23 East of Darlington Road, ashousing and business do not mix. (Brown)NORTHALLERTON SUB-AREAthese two sites are appropriate an appropriatelocation.Disagree: no change required therefore..NNA• Agree in principle but industry and housingshould not be mixed. (Beaver)NNA• Object as development should beconcentrated south of Northallerton wherethere are surface water outfalls to connectto. (Morton)• Comment: new link roads could become ‘ratruns’ and new housing could cause run offproblems. (Morton)NNA• I support the NNA because it is more likelyto create a more compact town. (Webster)NNA• We object to NNA because it would bringBrompton and Northallerton together; floodprevention works would be unattractive; theBridge would be an eyesore; wildlife wouldbe driven away, etc. (Mr. & Mrs. Race;Barnes; Anderson/Northallerton & VillagesCommunity Plan Forum)NNA• We object to the NNA because it does not fitwith the Core Strategy; the approach to thetown will be harmed; there are sewer andwater problems and the bypass won’t work.(Mr. & Mrs. Wood)The support in principle is welcomed.Regarding mixing industry and housing,government policy is to encourage mixed use.Agree/Disagree: no change required therefore..The Council feels the NNA is the best optionrather than to the south where there are floodrisks.Disagree: no change required therefore..These comments are notedSupport for the NNA is welcomed.Agree: no change required therefore..The Council feels the NNA is the best option inline with the adopted Core Strategy. Theimpacts will not be as harmful as contended.Infrastructure issues will be addressed with thedevelopers concerned.Disagree: no change required therefore..The Council feels the NNA accords best withthe Core Strategy and the impact will not be asharmful as contended. Infrastructure issues willbe addressed with the developers concerned.Disagree: no change required therefore..Development Limits• Development Limits should be appliedflexibly to take on public comments. (Mr. &Ms. Wood)NNA• Object as there are other ways to solve theLow Gate Level Crossing problem e.g. Parkand Ride; shuttle buses etc. (Pritchard)NNA• 115/15 West of Stokesley Road. Wesupport the development of this site; wesupport it but it should be planned earlier.(Blackburn; Spawforth Assoc; Wild BennettHomes )NNA• I object, owing to likely traffic impacts andalso there is little need for it because of thelarge number of vacant houses. (Harrison)Development Limits will be adjusted ifnecessary.Noted: no change required therefore..The Council feels the NNA accords best withthe Core Strategy and will alleviate the LowGate problem.Disagree: no change required therefore..Support for the NNA 110/15 is welcomed.Agree: no change required therefore..The NNA complies best with the Core Strategyin terms of scale, location and impact.Regarding vacant homes; there always vacantdwellings within the housing stock.Disagree: no change required therefore..NNA• Object because it conflicts with the Area of The NNA complies best with the Core Strategy61

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONRestraint; sewage and drainage problems;impact on schools; impact on landscape;impact on Brompton Gap; impact onbiodiversity; intrusive new bridge; relief roadwon’t work; loss of open view; needs aMaster Plan or design brief. (A & Mr & Mrs.Stead; Newcombe; Mr. & Mrs. Proudlock;Kennedy; J & A Lawrence; Dawson; Clarke;Manancourt.)NORTHALLERTON SUB-AREAin terms of scale, location and impact. Whilethere are undoubtedly impacts, they areconsidered acceptable by the Council, subjectto mitigation and/or appropriate improvementsto infrastructure. The concept Master Plan issufficiently detailed at this stage.Disagree: no change required therefore..• Comment: new development should beexecutive standard to match existing.(Harrison)NNA• We strongly object because of increasedtraffic; flooding; effect on cycle paths, needto maintain Green Wedges; the scale of it;the risk to children going to school;completely the wrong place and shouldtherefore be abandoned. (Mr. & Mrs. Eyles;Thompson; Mr. & Mrs. Hogg; Barnes)NNA• We object because of the noise andnuisance from 800 dwellings; negativevisual, environmental and economicimpacts; traffic impacts and impact onhouse prices. (S & J Jackson & Charlton)NNA• Comment: We are concerned regardingimpact on schools; hospital and medicalservices. (Mr & Mrs. Hannan & family)NNA• We object because the relief road will dividethe communities of Northallerton andBrompton; increased flooding risk; harm towildlife; object to athletics and footballfacilities; should be located south of thetown; should have effective Park and Ridescheme; lots of other sites are available e.g.Anchorage Lane. (Mr. & Mrs. Craske)NNA• We strongly object because the new sportsfacilities will be very intrusive, reduce houseprices; increase traffic; increase floodingand drainage problems; do we need them?;better solution for Low Gate Level Crossingetc. (T & H Shearman; Court)NNA• Object to the NNA because the housingdevelopment should be spread over anumber of towns and villages; impact onNoted A wide range of development is requiredincluding executive standard.The NNA complies best with the Core Strategyin terms of scale, location and impact. Whilethere are undoubtedly impacts, they areconsidered acceptable by the Council, subjectto mitigation and/or appropriate improvementsto infrastructure.Disagree: no change required therefore..The NNA complies best with the Core Strategyin terms of scale, location and impact. Whilethere are undoubtedly impacts, they areconsidered acceptable by the Council, subjectto mitigation and/or appropriate improvementsto infrastructure. Also impact on house prices isnot normally a planning consideration.Disagree: no change required therefore..Impact on infrastructure has been assessed bythe Council in selecting the NNA as a PreferredOption.Noted: no change required therefore..The NNA complies best with the Core Strategyin terms of scale, location and impact. Whilethere are undoubtedly impacts, they areconsidered acceptable by the Council, subjectto mitigation and/or appropriate improvementsto infrastructure.Disagree: no change required therefore..The NNA complies best with the Core Strategyin terms of scale, location and impact. Whilethere are undoubtedly impacts, they areconsidered acceptable by the Council, subjectto mitigation and/or appropriate improvementsto infrastructure. However, particular careneeds to be taken regarding the impact of theproposed sports facilities.Disagree: no further action is required at thisstage.The NNA complies best with the Core Strategyin terms of scale, location and impact. Whilethere are undoubtedly impacts, they are62

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONgreen space; and extra traffic generation.Also a bridge over Low Gate is essentialbecause the bypass will not solve the LowGate Level Crossing problem. (Wilkinson;M. Harrison; Langthorne; Parrott)NNA• We are strongly opposed to the NNAbecause of its impact on the Brompton Gap.We object particularly to the height of thenew bridge over the railway; noise,sewerage and drainage problems, proposedrecreation facilities; impact of the re-locatedfootball ground and delay to emergencyservices. (Brompton Town Council)NNA• We support the NNA focus but areconcerned about the timing of the link road.(Allertonshire Civic Society)NNA• Concerned about effluent treatment anddisposal; increased surface water run off;increased flood risk; the relief road won’twork; education provision may beinadequate; financial implications should beshared with developers; and also concernedabout increase in population and housingdemand. (Walker)NNA• We object because re-siting our Club Housecould cause objections from local residents.A major road alongside the ground could bea safety issue for us and would not beattractive; and the new road would simplytransfer the bottle-neck to another area.(Ferry/Northallerton RUFC)NNA• Disagree with the NNA as Northallerton andBrompton should have separate identifiesby maintaining a Greenbelt gap. AlsoBrownfields should be used instead.(Calvert/Barber Titley)NORTHALLERTON SUB-AREAconsidered acceptable by the Council, subjectto mitigation and/or appropriate improvementsto infrastructure. Regarding the Low Gate LevelCrossing, the new link road will ease problemsthere.Disagree: no change required therefore..The NNA complies best with the Core Strategyin terms of scale, location and impact. Whilethere are undoubtedly impacts, they areconsidered acceptable by the Council, subjectto mitigation and/or appropriate improvementsto infrastructure.Disagree: no change required therefore..The Council welcomes the support for the NNAand notes the concern about the link roadtiming.Agree/Noted: no change required therefore..The NNA complies best with the Core Strategyin terms of scale, location and impact. Whilethere are undoubtedly impacts, they areconsidered acceptable by the Council, subjectto mitigation and/or appropriate improvementsto infrastructure. Regarding population andhousing increase, the NNA is required in orderto meet the needs arising from Hambleton up to2026 in line with the Regional Spatial Strategy .Disagree: no change required therefore..Details of the link road will be considered at thepre-planning stage. The link road will ease theproblem of the Low Gate Level Crossing.Disagree: no change required therefore..An element of separation will still be retained bythe NNA proposals. Regarding Brownfieldalternatives, there is only a limited supply ofBrownfield land.Disagree/Noted; no change required therefore..• Comment: The relief road would bypassNorthallerton to the town’s detriment.(Calvert/Barber Titley)NNA• We object to the NNA because of the visualdetriment of the railway bridge andembankments; traffic noise and pollution;short cut running through Brompton,intrusive lighting from the recreationfacilities; increased flooding susceptibility;the NNA overturns the inviolability of theBrompton Gap; major overloading of theA684 worsening the Friary Street trafficThe economic impact of the relief road is part ofthe Assessment of Liability of the NNANoted: no change required therefore..The NNA complies best with the Core Strategyin terms of scale, location and impact. Whilethere are undoubtedly impacts, they areconsidered acceptable by the Council, subjectto mitigation and/or appropriate improvementsto infrastructure. Regarding the proposed newbridge; a visual and environmental assessmentindicates a relatively small visual impact. Alsothe Council has worked closely with NYCC63

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONjams and hampering of emergency vehicles.(Mr. & Mrs. Welch)NORTHALLERTON SUB-AREAhighways and consultants to assess the trafficimplications and minimise traffic impacts.Disagree: no change required therefore..• Comment: Suggest alternatives to the NNAbe considered at Skipton on Swale Airfield,Topcliffe/Carlton Miniott; Leeming;Bullamoor. (Mr. & Mrs. Welch)NNA• Object to the NNA because the CoreStrategy says development is to beconcentrated south of Northallerton; it isprone to flooding; there are existingproblems of sewerage/drainage; the reliefroad will add to traffic problems; and thenew football club will have worse accessthan the old one. (Hartley)NNA• Object to the NNA because Brownfield sitesshould be developed before Greenfield; itseems to be driven by the need to fund thenew railway bridge; and the Rugby Clubwould be better sited alongside the CivicCentre. (AJ Webster)NNA• Object to the NNA because it destroys theBrompton Gap; it will ruin our quality of life;increase traffic; increase flooding; increasedemand for services; lead to noise and lightpollution at the Football Ground; and it willturn the area into urban sprawl. (Roberts)NNA• Object to NNA because it is not costedthoroughly; it is located in the flood plain; itrequires substantial public services such asschools; and the traffic surveys andconclusions are superficial and unclear.(Myers)NNA• Rejected sites: 110/07 between BullamoorRoad and Scholla Lane and 110/08 North ofSandy Bank. We support the NNA but havedoubts about its viability and would suggestthese sites instead. (Hatton/SmithGore/Church Commissioners)NNA• We object to the NNA because 800additional dwellings will not enhanceBrompton Village. More HGV traffic will begenerated; shouldn’t build in the flood plain;the relief road will be a ‘rat run’, healthfacilities are already full; and AffordableHousing should be restricted to locals.(Flanagan; McElhoney)NNARegarding the alternatives suggested, none ofthem would comply with the adopted CoreStrategy, unlike the NNA.Disagree: no change required therefore..Regarding the Core Strategy, it states thatdevelopment should be concentrated in thesouthern part of the Northallerton Sub Area andnot south of Northallerton itself. While there areundoubtedly impacts, they are consideredacceptable by the Council, subject to mitigationand/or appropriate improvements toinfrastructure.Disagree: no change required therefore..Brownfield is preferred to Greenfield ifnecessary and appropriate but it is not possiblein this case. Regarding funding the new bridge,the NNA will help fund key infrastructure suchas the bridge. The Council feels the proposedRugby Club site is the best option.Disagree: no change required therefore..The NNA complies best with the Core Strategyin terms of scale, location and impact, althoughit inevitably represents a large area ofdevelopment. While there are undoubtedlyimpacts, they are considered acceptable by theCouncil, subject to mitigation and/or appropriateimprovements to infrastructure.Disagree: no change required therefore.Regarding both costings, traffic surveys andevaluation, these have been prepared byspecialist consultants on behalf of the Councilas part of its evidence base.Disagree: no change required therefore.Support for the NNA is welcome; however, theCouncil’s consultants consider it viable. Thealternatives suggested are much lesssustainable than the NNA.Agree/Disagree: no change required therefore..The impact on services and infrastructure hasbeen assessed and any shortfalls will beaddressed, in part, by developer contributions.Disagree: no change required therefore.64

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTION• Object to NNA site 110/06ii betweenBullamoor Road and Stokesley Roadbecause of traffic issues; increased risk offlooding; and affect on open landscape. (E FAinsley)NNA• Rejected site 123/08 Spittlehouse Farm andEast of Thirsk Road; this site is preferred to110/06ii between Bullamoor Road andStokesley Road, because it is closer tofacilities including the library, railway station,has better road access and will mean lessimpact on wildlife and landscape.(E FAinsley)Development Limits• We object to joining up Brompton andNorthallerton. (G & M Keddie)NNA• 110/15 OS 1407 West of Stokesley Road; Isupport this site but it should be broughtforward into phase 1 from phase 3.(Blackburn)NNA• 110/23 East of Darlington Road Phase Band 110/16 East of Darlington Road PhaseA. We support the mixed use but object tothe ratio of housing to employment whichshould be 70% housing and 30%employment on both sites. (Fordy/Strutt &Parker)NORTHALLERTON SUB-AREAThis site is an important part of the NNA whichcomplies best with the Core Strategy in terms ofscale, location and impacts. The impacts fromdeveloping 110/06ii will not be as great ascontended and infrastructure issues will beaddressed with the developers concerned.Disagree: no change required therefore.Site 123/08 was rejected previously by theCouncil for various reasons including flood risk,and impact on the open countryside and theapproach to Northallerton on the south.Disagree: no change required therefore.The Council feels that the NNA is the best forNorthallerton but concerns about joining upBrompton and Northallerton are noted. TheCouncil’s proposals for Northallerton will,however, still leave a gap between Bromptonand Northallerton.Disagree: no change required therefore.This site forms part of the NNA for which acomprehensive development programme isprepared which shows this site as coming inphase 3. Welcome support in principle for thissite but its phasing in phase 3 will remain.Agree: Disagree: no change requiredtherefore..The ratio of housing and employment landmeets the requirements for Northallerton.Detailed layouts for these two sites will bedetermined later.Noted: Disagree: no change requiredtherefore..• Other site Moor Close Farm should beconsidered for an extension to the StandardWay Industrial Estate. (Fordy/Strutt &Parker)• Development Limits should be extended toinclude Moor Close Farm. (Fordy/Strutt &Parker)NNA• 110/40 OS 9108 West of NorthallertonRoad; we object to allocating this site forrecreation and leisure until the FootballGround is allocated for development.(Calvert/Barber Titley)• Development Limits should be extended toinclude the Football Ground. (Calvert/Barber& Titley)There is no need to develop Moor Close Farmfor employment purposes.Disagree: no change required therefore.There is no need for Moor Close Farm so needto amend the Development Limits either.Disagree: no change required therefore.This site helps maintain the separation ofBrompton and Northallerton and so will remainallocated for recreation and leisure uses.Disagree: no change required therefore.There is no need to extend the DevelopmentLimits.Disagree: no change required therefore.65

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONNNA• 110/40 OS 9108 West of NorthallertonRoad; support allocation for community use,not for Football Club. (Northallerton &Villages Community Plan Forum)NNA• We support the NNA but there will be aneed for more primary school placesalthough secondary school capacity canmeet demand. (Ashton/NYCC Children &Young People’s Services)NORTHALLERTON SUB-AREAPreference for community use is noted.Noted:Support for the NNA is welcome; additionalprimary school places will, in part, be funded bydeveloper contributions.Agree: no change required therefore..• Development Limits; we have no objectionto the Development Limits. (Ashton/NYCCChildren & Young People’s Services)NNA• Slater/Petition against the NNA entitled“Help Save Brompton Gap” with 275signatories.110/10 North of the Bungalow, Bullamoor• Object that this site has not been allocatedas it is closer to town than Brompton andRomanby. (Mr. & Mrs. Lovell)Development Limits• Development Limits should be extended forfirst priority homes. ( Mr. & Mrs. Lovell)110/11 York Trailers• Object to this site on traffic generationgrounds. (Carey)• We support this site but access needsimprovement. (Grainger/Dennis & Perry)• We support this site but are concernedabout phasing, density and AffordableHousing. (Geo. Wimpey/WordsworthHoldings/Yuill Homes/Peacock & Smith)We welcome support for the DevelopmentLimits.Agree: no change required therefore..The NNA complies best with the Core Strategyin terms of scale, location and impact, althoughit inevitably represents a large area ofdevelopment. While there are undoubtedlyimpacts, they are considered acceptable by theCouncil, subject to mitigation and/or appropriateimprovements to infrastructure. Regarding theBrompton Gap specifically, the Council’sproposals retain the separation betweenBrompton and Northallerton but on a reducedscale.Disagree: no change required therefore.Site 110/10 is a remote site which does notcomply with the adopted Core Strategy.Disagree: no change required therefore.It would be quite wrong to extend theDevelopment Limits to include this remote andisolated site.Disagree: no change required therefore.This site will provide a significant number ofhouses on Brownfield land; good accessarrangements will be included as part of thedevelopment requirements for the site.Disagree: no change required therefore.Support for this site is welcomed; access andtransport issues are ongoing interests of theCouncil/NYCC and bus operators.Noted: no change required therefore..Support is welcomed. Regarding density, noaction is to be taken as sufficient provision hasbeen made elsewhere. The site is now includedin phase 1 and the Affordable Housingrequirement will be reduced to 20%.Agree/Disagree: no change regarding density;the site is included in phase 1; the AffordableHousing requirement will be reduced to 20%.66

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONNORTHALLERTON SUB-AREA• Comment: Would prefer mixed use.(Anderson/Northallerton & VillagesCommunity Plan Forum)Noted:• We object to this site being used for housingbecause it should be retained foremployment. (Courcier/Northern Planning;Northallerton Local History Society)110/12 Castle Hills• We object to this site for housing because itwould spoil a pleasant area. ( G & M.Keddie; Allison; Haythornthwaite; Archer)• Object to this site because it would harmarchaeological remains; it would ruin theview towards and away from Castle Hills; itwould require ancient footpaths to be reroutedand traffic generation is likely toincrease. A compromise scheme would bebetter. (Edwards; Archer; NorthallertonLocal History Society)• We are opposed to the Castle Hills proposaland suggest 110/11i is substituted for it andincorporated with 110/11 York Trailers. Thesite should be incorporated instead in theproposed park. (Allertonshire CivicSociety)]• We support this site but the preservationarea should be extended. (NYCCArchaeology Falkingham)• We support this site but are concernedabout phasing, density and AffordableHousing. (Geo. Wimpey/YuillHomes/Smith/Peacock & Smith)• This site should be deleted because ofaccess difficulties and 50% cannot bedeveloped. (Courcier/Northern Planning• Disapprove of this development the siteshould be incorporated instead in theproposed park. (M Thompson; Kennedy;Blair; O’Carroll/REVOLT)• Strongly object to the Castle Hills proposalbecause of archaeological, open space andother reasons. M. Thompson/ Castle HillsPetition Letter of 62 signatoriesThis site is Brownfield; has good access toservices and facilities; is available anddeliverable.Disagree: no change required therefore..Site 110/12 is unlikely to go forward because ofarchaeological concerns and also because it isno longer needed.Agree: this site to be deleted.Site 110/12 is unlikely to go forward because ofarchaeological concerns and also because it isno longer needed.Agree: this site to be deleted.Regarding 110/11i being substituted for CastleHills, the Council feels it is best retained foremployment use.Disagree: no change required therefore.Site 110/12 is unlikely to go ahead because ofarchaeological concerns and because it is notneeded.Noted: but this site to be deleted.Site 110/12 is unlikely to go ahead because ofarchaeological concerns and because it is notneeded.Noted: but this site to be deletedSite 110/12 is unlikely to go ahead because ofarchaeological concerns and because it is notneeded.Noted: but this site to be deletedSite 110/12 is unlikely to go ahead because ofarchaeological concerns and because it is notneeded.Noted: but this site to be deletedSite 110/12 is unlikely to go ahead because ofarchaeological concerns and because it is notneeded.Noted: but this site to be deleted67

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTION110/19 Auction Mart• Support this site for residential use butwould oppose re-location of the AuctionNORTHALLERTON SUB-AREAThe support for this site is welcomed and anacceptable alternative site is required.Agreed: no change required therefore..• Comment: site 110/19 is a replacement sitebeing sought in the North of Northallertonfor the Auction Mart. (Mr. & Mrs. Wood)• Object to residential use as it should stay acar park. (Northallerton Local HistorySociety)Rejected site: 123/08a West of Thirsk Road.• I support the rejection of this site on floodrisk grounds (Frank)Rejected site: 123/09 Castle Hills Dairy Farm.• We object to the rejection of Castle HillsDairy Farm because it is deliverable;accessible; close to services; and there areno environmental constraints. (Hill;Courcier/Northern Planning; NorthallertonLocal History Society)Rejected sites: 123/06 Low Thornborough Farmand 123/08 Spittal House Farm, Thirsk Road.• Object to rejection of these sites as they aresuitable for development and wouldenhance the appearance of this end of townand round it off. Also, these sites are betterthan the NNA. (Harrison; Calvert; Gammon& Bunyan/Strutt & Parker)• 123/08: Spittal House Farm, development ofthis site could adversely affect the Listedfarm building. (Smith/English Heritage)• Development Limits should be amended toinclude 123/06 and 123/08. . (Harrison;Calvert; Gammon & Bunyan/Strutt & Parker)110/29 Kwik Fit Tyre Centre• Object to the rejection to this site whichcould be used for youth purposes.(Anderson/Northallerton & VillagesCommunity Plan Forum)Rejected site: 110/30 Rear of High Street• Object to rejection of this site which ismentioned in the Regional Market TownPlan. (Anderson/Northallerton & VillagesCommunity Plan Forum)• Any development should respect the ListedBuildings and Conservation Area.(Smith/English Heritage)110/21 Jewson’s Builders and 110/04 CrosbyRoad, Fire Station• We support these sites for housing orcommunity use. (Anderson/ Northallerton &Villages Community Plan Forum)Rejected sites/strategic options. NorthallertonSouth, Northallerton West, Northallerton Southwest,Northallerton North-east.A replacement site in the Darlington Road areaseems the most suitable.Noted: the Darlington Road area seems asuitable area for a replacement.Support for rejection of this site is welcome.Agree: no change required therefore..This site forms part of the identified GreenWedge for Northallerton and Romanby andprovides a degree of separation of the twosettlements.Disagree: no change required therefore.These sites have been rejected on flooding andother planning grounds.Disagree: no change required therefore.These sites have been rejected so there is noneed to amend the Development Limits.Disagree: no change required therefore.This site is possibly contaminated, it is alsoliable to flooding and may not be available fordevelopment.Disagree: no change required therefore.This site was rejected because of access andparking issues, environmental constraints andso on.Disagree: no change required therefore.This site is already rejected.Agree: no change required therefore..Support is welcomed.Agree: no change required therefore..68

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTION• We object to the rejection of these strategicoptions because they would be better thanthe northern option.((Anderson/Northallerton & VillagesCommunity Plan Forum)Rejected site 123/12 East of BoroughbridgeRoad• We object to the rejection of this sitebecause it is very suitable and deliverable.(O’Dea/Knight Frank; G & A Hogg)NORTHALLERTON SUB-AREAThese strategic options were rejected in favourof Northallerton North as they are lesssustainable and have greater impacts.Disagree: no change required therefore.This site is not considered suitable for housingand there are better alternatives.Disagree: no change required therefore.110/31 Friarage Street• We object to only retail and offices as thissite is subject to an application for 44 flats,apartments and shops, (Pilcher/ PilcherHomes)• Any development should respect the ListedBuilding and Conservation Area.(Smith/English Heritage)110/33 Land adjacent to Cemetery• We support this site for sport andrecreation. (Hendly/Sport England)• We support the retention of this site as anopen space. (Smith/English Heritage;Northallerton Local History Society)Rejected sites: 123/05 North West of Romanbyand 123/17 Land West of Arla Foods.• We support the rejection of both these sitesbecause of their impact on the ConservationArea and Listed Buildings. (Smith/EnglishHeritage)Noted: but no action required at this stage.This comment is noted but no change isrequired at this stage.Noted: but no action required at this stage.Support for this proposal is welcomed.Agreed: no change required therefore..Support for this proposal is welcomed.Agreed: No change required therefore..Support for the rejection of these sites iswelcomed.Agreed: no change required therefore..BROMPTONSERVICE VILLAGESDevelopment Limits• We support the existing Development Limitsin order to maintain the Brompton Gap.Atkin/Brompton Town Council)• Development Limits should be extended toinclude the Vicarage curtilage.(Jones/Sanderson Weatherall)020/02 Danes Crest• Object to this site as it floods. Also theaccess is poor. (Kirk)• We support 020/02 subject to it respectingthe Conservation Area. (Smith/EnglishHeritage)• We object that Danes Crest providesinsufficient dwellings for Brompton.The new Development Limits retain someseparation between Brompton and Northallertonbut on a reduced scale.Disagree: no change required therefore.Development Limits have been reviewed and itis not proposed to include the Vicaragecurtilage.Disagree: no change required therefore.This site does have access and other issues butthese can be resolved.Disagree: no change required because theissues can be addressed by planning condition.Support for this site is welcomed.Agreed: No change required therefore..Danes Crest and the NNA meet the housingneeds for this area of Brompton and69

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTION(Fordy/Strutt & Parker)Rejected sites, 020/01 The Close and 020/08Bentley House• These properties could be made into flatswith houses behind, thereby retaining theListed Building; both sites should beallocated together to bring forward acomprehensive scheme; and the constraintsaffecting 020/08 can be easily dealt with.(Kirk; Grey/England & Lyle)NORTHALLERTON SUB-AREANorthallerton.Disagree: no change required therefore.Both sites have delivery issues so neither canbe relied on being developed.Disagree: no change required therefore.• We object to the rejection of 202/08 as it ishighly sustainable Brownfield and issurrounded by development.(Litherland/England & Lyle)Rejected site 020/07 Water End Haulage Depot.• Object to its rejection as it is a Brownfieldsite; it can be delivered short term whereasthe relief road is uncertain; and it would notextend beyond the existing footprint.(Livesley)• We support this rejection becausedevelopment would harm the character ofthe Conservation Area. (Smith/EnglishHeritage)Rejected site, 020/11 89a Northallerton Road• We object to the rejection of this sitebecause it is not ribbon development norwould it reduce the Green Wedge. (Mr. &Mrs. Hills)Rejected site, 020/09 Old Factory Coal Yard• Object to the rejection of this unused siteas there is no need to retain it foremployment. (Fordy/Strutt & Parker)Preferred Options• We agree the Preferred Options andBrompton Primary School can absorb thedevelopment. (Ashton/NYCC Children &Young People’s Services)Rejected site, 020/05 Northallerton RUFC• We support rejection of this site until analternative is found. (Hendly/Sport England)EAST COWTON042/42 Bungalow Farm• We object to Bungalow Farm because it istoo small and because it is susceptible toflooding. (Taylor Wimpey/Lyle/England &Lyle)• We object to Bungalow Farm because offlooding and drainage problems.This site has a delivery issue so it cannot berelied on to be developed and 020/02 issufficient for Brompton.Disagree: no change required therefore.There is no need for this site as 020/02 meetsthe Brompton requirement.Disagree: no change required therefore.Support for rejection of this site is welcome.Agree: no change required therefore..Developing this site would further reduce theBrompton Gap.Disagree: no change required therefore.The Council considers it should remain anemployment site in this large Service Village. Itis also liable to flooding so other sites should bedeveloped for housing before it.Disagree: no change required therefore.Support for the Preferred Options is welcome.Education services needs will continue to bediscussed with NYCC.Agreed: no change required therefore.. at thisstage.This site is part of the Brompton Gap andshould remain so until an alternative is found; itis also not available. Support for its rejection iswelcomed.Agree: no change required therefore..Bungalow Farm will meet the housing needs ofEast Cowton as a Service Village. The sitedoes have drainage problems but it is not in theflood plain. Developing the site provides theopportunity to resolve existing drainage issues.It fits in better with the form of the village and70

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONAffordable Housing will not be taken up bylocal residents. (Hedison/East CowtonPC; M & A Whittle; Watson; Mr. & Mrs.Allen; Hull; Mr. & Mrs. Ramsay;Goodwin/Carter Jonas; TaylorWimpey/Lyle/England & Lyle)NORTHALLERTON SUB-AREAaccess is suitable.Disagree: no change required therefore.• We support Bungalow Farm but object toits phasing as the draining and accessissues can all be resolved. (Robinson;Nicholson/Yuill Homes)• We support Bungalow Farm but thePrimary School is over capacity.(Ashton/NYCC)Rejected sites 042/05 to 07 and 15 Old Farm• We object to rejection of Old Farm whichhas better road access and drainage and isless intrusive; and the three owners have ajoint approach etc. (Hedison; East CowtonPC; Watson, Mr. & Mrs. Allen; Hull; Mr. &Mrs. Ramsay; M & A. Whittle)Rejected site 040/03 South of St. Mary’s Close• We object to its rejection because it wouldnot adversely affect the form and characterof East Cowton; it has separate access andwould round off the settlement.(Goodwin/Carter Jonas)Rejected site, 042/14 West of All Saints Church• We support the rejection of this sitebecause of its effect on the Church and itssetting. (Smith/English Heritage)MORTON ON SWALE102/03, North of A684• We object to this site on access grounds;the village is large enough already; it is theonly green area; and the Affordable Housingmay not be needed. (Mr. & Mrs. Roddam;Redmond; Coxon; Mr. & Mrs. Watkinson;Stanforth; Turner; N& V Brown; Mr. & Mrs.Roddy; Herbert; Gee.)• We support this site but are very concernedabout the access from St. Helen’s Close.(Belt/Moreton on Swale PC)• Comment: this site should have access tothe A684 only. (Phillips/Hutton BonvillePC)Rejected site 102/10 East of Rievaulx Drive• Object to rejection of this site as it is smallerand would have less impact. (Stanforth)Development LimitsThe support in principle is welcomed.Regarding phasing, further work is ongoing toaddress the drainage issues so phase 2 isbetter for delivery.Disagree: no change required therefore.Support is welcomed; liaison is continuingregarding the required school places to whichdevelopers will contribute financially.Noted: no change required therefore..Developing Old Farm will lead to surface waterrun off down the hill. Also, the sites are inseveral ownerships and there are accessdifficulties too.Disagree: no change required therefore.The Council believes that this site would have agreater adverse impact on East Cowton andwould not deliver the drainage improvementsthat Bungalow Farm would.Disagree: no change required therefore.Support for the rejection of this site is welcome.Agreed: no change required therefore..Vehicular access will be from the A684 with onlycycle/pedestrian access from St. Helen’s Close.Disagree: no change required therefore.Support is welcomed for this site. The vehicularaccess will be from the A684 only.Agree: no change required therefore..This site will only be accessed from the A684.Agreed: no change required therefore..Although smaller, this site is on the approach tothe village and also its development wouldreduce the separation of Moreton on Swale andAinderby Steeple.Disagree: no change required therefore.71

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTION• Object to Development Limits beingextended to include site 102/03. (Stanforth)Rejected site 102/04 Garden and Butcher’sYard• Object to this land being rejected because itis suitable for residential use and it waspreviously allocated. (White)Rejected site 102/02 Swaledale Arms• We object to the rejection of 102/02 as thereasons for rejection apply equally to thePreferred Option, St. Helen’s Close site.102/02 is also Brownfield. (Mr. & Mrs.Watkinson; N & V. Brown)Other sites: Moreton on Swale Autos• This site should be considered as it ispreviously light industrial; has excellentaccess; continues the existing streetscheme and does not intrude into thecountryside. (N & V. Brown)NORTHALLERTON SUB-AREAIt is necessary to amend the DevelopmentLimits to accommodate site 102/03.Disagree: no change required therefore.This site is small and less suitable forcomprehensive development and may not beavailable either.Disagree: no change required therefore.This site is Brownfield and may be developed asa windfall. However, access is inappropriate.Disagree: no change required therefore.These comments are noted but this site isconsidered unavailable for development.Disagree: no change required therefore.AINDERBY STEEPLESECONDARY VILLAGESRejected sites.• We object to the rejection of land South ofthe Rectory purely because it is aSecondary Village. (Goodwin/Carter Jonas)Development Limits• Development Limits should include NDL001as it is really only infill. (Place/Thompson &Place; Phillips/Hutton Bonville PC)• Development Limits should be amendedaround Manor Lane to exclude land on thesouth side of the lane to protect it fromdevelopment. S.Cann)• Development Limits should be amended toinclude land to the rear of Oak House asthe Conservation Area boundary is theobvious Development Limit. (G & HL Place)• Development Limits should be amended toinclude land east of 9 The Green asdevelopment here would be unobtrusive. (GPlace/Thompson & Place)APPLETON WISKEDevelopment Limits• Development Limits are too restrictive inAppleton Wiske and will adversely affect itsfuture. (O’Carroll/REVOLT)GREAT SMEATONLand is not normally allocated in SecondaryVillages such as Ainderby Steeple, in line withthe adopted Core Strategy.Disagree: no change required therefore.The exclusion of area NDL011 is to preventdevelopment spreading too far.Disagree: no change required therefore.This land will be protected under DP10 so thereis no need to exclude it.Disagree: no change required therefore.The Development Limits for Ainderby Steeplehave recently been reviewed and the Councilfeels that the Development Limits should remainwhere they are.Disagree: no change required therefore.The Development Limits for Ainderby Steeplehave recently been reviewed and the Councilfeels that the Development Limits should remainwhere they are.Disagree: no change required therefore.Development Limits for Appleton Wiske haverecently been reviewed and the Councilbelieves they should remain where they are.Disagree: no change required therefore.72

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONNORTHALLERTON SUB-AREADevelopment Limits• I object to extending Development Limits asit will affect my privacy by allowingoverlooking. (Furland)• Agree with Development Limits at thepresent but a further parish survey is to beundertaken. (Mrs.Mann/Smeaton withHornsby PC)• I support the Development Limits as shownin the Preferred Option document. (R.Mann)This amendment is to incorporate existingdevelopment within the Development Limits.Issues such as overlooking are dealt withthrough the planning application process.Disagree: no change required therefore.Development Limits have recently beenreviewed and the Council believes they shouldremain unchanged.Agree: no change required therefore.Support for the Development Limits as shown inthe Preferred Option Report is welcome.Agree: no change required therefore.MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONSTOKESLEYSTOKESLEY SUB AREA142/14e White House Farm• Object to Skate Board Park proposal whichshould be located at local school sportsfield; totally unnecessary, with limitedappeal. (Helm, McGregor; CJ & C Bower;Elphee; Auty; CW Anthony)• We support the Pocket Park and SkateBoard Park if there is an identified need.(Hendly/Sport England)142/14e White House Farm• We support the Preferred Options.(Webster;Morton/Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners)142/14e White House Farm• Object to Skate Board Park because it willcause nuisance to adjoining residents and isnot needed anyway; a better site would beelsewhere on a recreation ground or playingfield. (Grundman; Tinsley)• Object to the White House Farm proposalsbecause they have no natural boundaries;they reduce the green area betweenStokesley and Tame Bridge; there is aRecreational facilities should be provided inappropriate locations and the location of themhas, therefore, been reviewed. Consequently,the Council’s preferred location is now 142/14d;142/14e and 142/19 White House Farm andHebron Road.Disagree/Agree: no change required therefore.regarding the principle of the Pocket Park andSkate Board Park but the proposal is that theybe moved to a new location.The Council welcomes the support from SportEngland. However, recreational facilities shouldbe provided in appropriate locations.Agree: the preferred location for recreationalfacilities is now 142/14d; 142/14e and 142/19White House Farm and Hebron Road.Support for the Preferred Options is welcomed.Agree: no change required therefore..Recreational facilities should be provided inappropriate locations and the location of themhas, therefore, been reviewed.Agree: the preferred location for recreationalfacilities is now 142/14d; 142/14e and 142/19.White House Farm and Hebron Road.The Council does not agree that there is aserious risk of flooding; the employmentprovision will be craft workshops, well suited toconverted farm buildings, the visual impact will73

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONserious risk of flooding; this is not a suitablelocation for industrial units; house priceswould be adversely affected and the SkateBoard Park will cause noise, litter andnuisance.Preferred Options• The Preferred Options are insufficient for aflexible and responsive housing supply e.g.Stokes ley’s phase 1 housing is entirelyfocussed on White House Farm.(Lyle/England & Lyle/Taylor Wimpey)142/14 White House Farm• We object to White House Farm when thereare more sustainable sites such as 142/20North of Hebron Road East. (Lyle/England& Lyle/Taylor Wimpey)Rejection sites 142/18 Land North of the Stripe.• We object to the rejection of Land North ofthe Stripe because we consider it moreaccessible and sustainable than WhiteHouse Farm and it is also less visible.(Lyle/England & Lyle/ Taylor Wimpey)142/14ei White House Farm• Business premises should be on industrialestates on the White House Farm Buildingsconverted to dwellings/restaurant; totallyunsuitable as a Business Park.STOKESLEY SUB AREAbe addressed by landscaping and accessissues have been addressed to the satisfactionof NYCC.Disagree: no action required therefore.The Council does not agree that the PreferredOptions are insufficient to provide a flexible andresponsive housing supply; the fact that WhiteHouse Farm provides much of the phase 1housing for Stokesley is not of itself an issue.Disagree: no action required therefore, inprinciple, to White House Farm.The Council accepts that land North of theStripe is more accessible for cyclists andpedestrians; however, its access is uncertainand there are doubts regarding the site’savailability. In response to representations tothe Preferred Options the Council has reviewedthe White House Farm site which has now beenslightly modified. However, it remains theCouncil’s Preferred Option. (Land subject toflooding has been deleted and a small part ofCrab Tree Farm has been included).Agree/Disagree – no action required as theCouncil prefers the White House Farm proposal(although modified from the original PreferredOption).White House Farm is suitable for craftworkshops but would not be suitable for generalemployment uses.Disagree: no change required to craft workshopproposal.• Comment: Infrastructure (especiallyhighways) is not adequate to cope with thenew development. Good road accessshould be provided to housing developmentareas. (AW and JE Scott; VM Anthony;Auty)142/14e• There is need for Sheltered Housing insteadof employment development at WhiteHouse Farm (Rye; Smith)Preferred Options• General support for Preferred Options(Appletons; Wilson)Development Limits• should amend Development Limits to allowroad link between 142/19 and 142/14e byincluding the South East corner of 142/14d.(Appletons)142/24 Land South of LevensideInfrastructure short falls will be addressed bycontributions from developers so that adequateroad access is provided to development sites.Agree but no change required as developerswill contribute to infrastructure.Agree – road access will be from Westlandsprimarily.Provision for Sheltered Housing is being madeat Great Ayton not Stokesley.Disagree: no action required therefore.General support for the Preferred Options iswelcomedAgree: no change required therefore..The Council agrees that good road access isrequired and that the developer should providethe link from Westlands so no further change isrequired.Agreed: the developer is to provide the linkfrom Westlands so no change is required.74

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTION• Object to client’s land not being included fordevelopment as part of an integratedscheme with Broadacres/Carpenders ParkEstate Ltd. The 1970 Flood Relief Schemehas been ignored and the sites can bescreened from the A172. (Lady Hullock’sCharity/Michael Westgarth & Co.)STOKESLEY SUB AREAThis site is at risk of flooding and otheralternatives are not.Disagree: no action required therefore.• Land South of Levenside is more suitablethan White House Farm and should nothave been rejected because Levenside isnearer schools/services; transport routes;and has never flooded in 35 years. (Tinsley;Breen)Preferred Options• Generally the Preferred Options are to besupported but there is a need for anadditional supermarket and a nursing home.(Hart)Development Limits• I object to the Development Limits as theyprevent development of the newsupermarket and a Nursing Home.142/14 White House Farm; 142/19 & 20. Northof Hebron Road West and North of HebronRoad East.• We object to the Preferred Options becausemore traffic congestion will arise; there willbe access problems; the distance fromschool; flood risk and nuisance from theSkate Park. (Marsay; Blundell; Murray)Rejected Options 142/22 and 142/35• These rejected sites should be includedbecause of limited traffic congestion, betteraccess from the roundabout; location nearerto facilities; no flood risk.(Marsay)• The recreation proposals would be muchbetter adjacent to Strikes Garden Centrethan at White House Farm 142/14e.(Marsay)142/14eiii White House Farm• We have a number of concerns regardingthe Skate Board Park, includingresponsibility for it, its isolated location, themanagement and supervision of it; there isno need for it; a central location would bepreferable and so on. (D & K Heseltine)This site is at risk of flooding, according to thelatest information from the Environment Agency,and other alternatives are not.Disagree: no action required therefore.The general support for the Preferred Options iswelcomed.Agree: no change required therefore.Regarding the possible new supermarket, theCouncil feels that this would be harmful to theTown Centre.Disagree: no change required as a supermarketwould harm the Town Centre.As for the Nursing Home proposals, the Councilis already making provision for this kind ofhousing need at nearby Great Ayton.Disagree: no Nursing Home required asprovision is to be made at Great Ayton.The Council does not accept that there areserious problems with the Preferred Optionsand the access will be from Westlands not theStripe, as approved by NYCC.Disagree: subject to minor changes, referred toabove, no further change is required apart fromthe alternative site or the Pocket Park and SkateBoard Park proposals.Disagree: no action required therefore.These sites are not considered to be superior tothe Preferred Options in these respects.Disagree: no change required therefore..The Council has considered alternatives toWhite House Farm 142/14e and now prefers142/14d and Hebron Road 142/19.Agree: recreation proposals to be transferred toa new site at 142/14d and 142/19.The Council accepts these concerns about aSkate Board Park located at 142/14eiii and isnow proposing part of 142/14d and North of Hebron Road 142/19 instead.Agree: a new site has been identified for thisproposal.75

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTION• Overall, we have no issue with developmentNorth of Westlands and Hebron Road andbusiness units at White House Farm. (D & KHeseltine)STOKESLEY SUB AREASupport for 142/14 White House Farm iswelcomed.Agree: no change required therefore. other thanto the Skate Board Park.Preferred Options• We agree the West of Stokesley options;employment development at the BusinessPark; and small scale employment inredundant farm buildings at White HouseFarm.• However, we object to the Skate Board Parkand Pocket Park proposals at White HouseFarm.• We also share concerns about infrastructurecapacity to service the West of Stokesleydevelopments (Stokesley PC.)• Comment: We have various concernsregarding the capacity of schools, roads, carparking, retailing, impact on footpaths inview of the additional housing andpopulation.• The proposed Skate Board facility atStokesley is totally unnecessary. (CWAnthony; Barker)142/14e, 142/19, 142/20 White House Farm,North of Hebron Road West and North ofHebron Road East.• We object to these sites because they arehighly visible; have poor access off HebronRoad; will encourage growth westwards; area considerable distance from schools andwill encourage traffic through town toaccess the schools and other facilities; andalso to access the main road network.(Tanton Estates/Smith Gore/Wright)The Council welcomes the support for thePreferred Options except for the objection to theSkate Board Park and Pocket Park proposals.Agreed: no change therefore, except to relocatethe Skate Board Park and Pocket Park.The Council agrees with the concerns about theSkate Board Park proposals and is proposingan alternative at 142/14d White House Farm;142/19 North of Hebron Road.Agreed: an alternative site for the Skate BoardPark proposal has been agreed at 142/14dWhite House Farm: 142/19 North of HebronRoadRegarding infrastructure capacity, developerswill be required to contribute to funding the extraprovision.Agree: but no change required as developerswill pay towards infrastructure shortfalls.The Council acknowledges these concerns butthey have been addressed in choosing thePreferred Options.Noted: no change required except for thealternative site for the Skate Board Parkproposal.The Council does not agree that the PreferredOptions will have such adverse effects.Disagree: no change required therefore..Rejection Sites: 142/06a, b. Tanton Estates• We object to these sites being rejectedbecause they would be a logical extensionwhich did not impact on settlementcharacter; they are within easy walkingdistance of schools, etc.; they have easyaccess to the A172 and larger towns; andthey no more encroach on open countrysidethan the Preferred Options do. (TantonEstates/Smith Gore/Wright)These sites are further away from the TownCentre facilities, have a higher risk of floodingissues arising; and there are better alternativeswith fewer disadvantages.Disagree: no action is therefore required.Preferred Options• Object to Preferred Options as they exclude This site is shown as being at risk of flooding in76

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONsite 142/03 which is suitable fordevelopment being close in to the TownCentre and with existing access (Diocese ofYork/Jones/Sanderson Weatherall)STOKESLEY SUB AREAthe Environment Agency Flood Risk Maps andis not therefore a suitable site for developmentwhile other alternatives exist.Disagree: no action is therefore required.142/03 Land to the rear of the Rectory• We object to the rejection of site 142/03 onthe grounds of flood risk, access and builtenvironment because all these issues canbe addressed. Flood risk can be mitigatedand protection achieved; access can beprovided with adjoining sites; EnglishHeritage’s concern regarding the builtenvironment can be addressed byappropriate layout and design. (Diocese ofYork; Jones/ Sanderson Weatherall)Development Limits• Development Limits need to be amended toallow the inclusion of site 142/03. (Dioceseof York; Jones/Sanderson Weatherall)Preferred Options• Comments: the selection criteria have beeninconsistently applied. The White HouseFarm sites are visually prominent, nearer toa water source; light industry in the middleis not appropriate, objections seem to havebeen ignored; and not everyone wants tolive close to the Town Centre. (SexhowParish Meeting)Preferred Options• Preferred Options are distant from keyamenities and routes to them are difficultand dangerous (Henderson)142/18 Land North of the Stripe and 142/21• Object to rejection of land North of theStripe because it is nearer to amenitiessuch as schools and the Town Centre andaccess is better. (Henderson)Preferred Options• Insufficient land is earmarked forEmployment Uses. (Howden)142/33 Land at Broughton Bridge Farm• Site 142/33 adjoins an existing employmentsite through which it could be accessed.The Council does not agree with therespondents’ assessment of the merits of site142/03 and therefore there is no need to amendthe Development Limits to include this site.Disagree: no change required therefore..The comments are noted; however siteselection often has to balance conflicting issueswhich limit the Council’s options.Disagree: no action is therefore required.These comments are noted but the Councilfeels that the Preferred Options are not distantfrom key amenities and routes to them arecertainly not difficult and dangerous and areaccepted by NYCC as of an appropriatestandard.While it is accepted that land North of the Stripemay be nearer to some facilities, questionsremain over access and deliverability; WhiteHouse Farm is, therefore, preferred. Someadjustment to the Preferred Option has beenmade, however.Disagree/Agree: some minor changes havebeen made but the majority of the White HouseFarm proposals remain unchanged.The amount of land proposed for EmploymentUses is based on the Economic DevelopmentStrategy. However part of 142/26ii is no longeravailable because of flood risk and part of142/33 is, therefore, to be allocated.Disagree/Agree: although the quantity ofEmployment Land proposed is sufficient, part ofsite 142/26ii is no longer available so part of142/33 is to be allocated to compensate.Agree: as above, part of this site is to beallocated to compensate for part of 142/26ii77

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTION(Howden)Preferred Options• The Preferred Options are agreed but thereis concern about infrastructure (Cockburn;CJ and C Bower; Faulkner; Elphee)Rejected Options• The Northern Option should not have beenrejected as 200 metres is not too far to walkand access is better than the PreferredOptions. (Cockburn)142/26ii Stokesley Business Park East• We object to the extension to the IndustrialEstate because of its impact on theHelmsley Road Gateway to the NationalPark. (Great & Little Broughton PC; RobSmith/Peacock & Smith)STOKESLEY SUB AREAwhich is no longer available.The Council welcomes support for the PreferredOptions and has addressed the infrastructureissues, site by site.Agree: no change required therefore.The comments about a northern option arenoted; however, access to White House Farm isacceptable to NYCC.Disagree: no action is therefore required.The Council believes extending the existingBusiness Park is the best option.Disagree: no change is therefore required.Rejected Options• Any additional employment capacity shouldbe sited to the North of the Town (Great &Little Broughton PC)Preferred Options• The proposals are over reliant on Greenfieldsites and therefore Greenfield sites shouldbe reduced in favour of Brownfield ones or awindfall allowance. (Middlesbrough BC)• There is an over supply of housing which isdetrimental to the regeneration of Teesside.(Middlesbrough BCRejected Sites - 142/31 Fieldhouse Farm.• This site was incorrectly rejected; however,it has a contiguous boundary with theexisting Business Park and would not resultin visual intrusion unlike the PreferredOptions 142/26ii (Storey/RobSmith/Peacock & Smith)Development Limits• The Development Limits should beamended to include Fieldhouse Farm.(Storey/ Rob Smith/Peacock & Smith)• Comments: site 142/26ii is a logicalextension to the Business Park, however,we do not argue that 142/25; 142/33 and142/34 may be a suitable extension ifneeded. (Storey/Rob Smith/Peacock andSmith)GREAT AYTONThe Council believes extending the existingBusiness Park is the best option.Disagree: no change is therefore required.There are no available and/or suitablepreviously developed sites in Stokesley.Disagree: no action is therefore required.The housing supply is in line with the latestRegional Spatial Strategy figures for 2026. Inaccordance with PPS3, no windfall allowancehas been made.Disagree: no change is therefore required.The Council does not accept that FieldhouseFarm is a suitable site for a Business Park,partly because of flood risk and also because ofvisual intrusion. Site 142/26ii is also to belandscaped to reduce visual impact from theB1725.Disagree: no change is therefore required.The Council does not accept that FieldhouseFarm should be the Preferred Option and thereis, therefore, no need to change theDevelopment Limits to include it.Disagree: no change is therefore required.The Council welcomes support for site 142/26ii;however, because of more recent flood riskinformation, not all of this site is available fordevelopment. Therefore, a part of 142/33 is nowbeing put forward.Agree: Disagree: The support for the PreferredOptions 142/26ii is welcomed but disagreeregarding 142/33, part of which is now putforward for development.78

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONSTOKESLEY SUB AREA058/01a; 01b; 01c and 01d;058/04 Great Ayton Cricket Field• We object to these sites being rejected; wesuggest a new roundabout and link roadand a residential allocation so that theFootball and Cricket Club can be retained.(Close/Strutt & Parker)058/02 Grounds of Cleveland Lodge• We support this development for the elderlybut it should be small scale, and preferablynot private. (Great Ayton PC)Preferred Options and 058/02 Grounds ofCleveland Lodge.• I support everything, especially O58/02(Long)058/02 Grounds of Cleveland Lodge.• Support the Preferred Options especially58/02. Support 58/02 but access to NewtonRoad needs attention; this project should bebrought forward as there is an existingneed(Towler; Cowen; Small; Arkell;Grainge; Richardson Gardner; Southall,Spark, Gloag, Oldfield; Stainsby; Fowler;Poynter; Mr. & Mrs. D. Barker; D & E Gibbs;Willis/Dickinson Dees LLP; Rob Brittain;Broadacres; Housing/ Mr. & Mrs. Award;Long)058/02 Grounds of Cleveland Lodge• We have some reservations about site058/02, Cleveland Lodge, which is a ListedBuilding whose character must beprotected. (Smith; English Heritage)058/02 Grounds of Cleveland Lodge• We object to the proposed development inthe parkland of Cleveland Lodge as it wouldharm the historic landscape. (YorkshireGardens TrustO58/18 Land West of Skottowe Present• This site would be more suitable and only asmall area would be needed so as not toaffect the setting of Ayton Hall. (YorkshireGardens Trust)058/02 Grounds of Cleveland Lodge• Object to the development of 058/02because the sewage system is over-loaded,road access is poor; foot access is alsopoor; and it would encourage moredevelopment in the historic parkland. (P &C Morgan)058/06 Slaughterhouse, Linden Avenue• Object to this site because of poor accessand visual impact on adjacent properties.Great Ayton is a Service Village where onlysmall scale development is appropriate.Development on this scale would be far morethan the village requires.Disagree: no is therefore required.The Council welcomes the strong support forthe proposed Sheltered Accommodationadjacent to Cleveland Lodge.Agree: no change required therefore.The Council welcomes the strong support forthe Preferred Options and the proposedSheltered Accommodation adjacent toCleveland Lodge.Agree: no change required therefore..The Council welcomes the strong support forthe proposed Sheltered Accommodationadjacent to Cleveland Lodge.Agree: no change required therefore..Development affecting a Listed Building’ssetting, must be respectful of that setting.Noted; no change required.The Council does not consider that theSheltered Housing will adversely affectCleveland Lodge and its parkland setting.Disagree: no change is therefore required.Site 058/18 is too far from village facilities.Disagree: no change is therefore required to058/02.The developer would be required to provideadequate drainage and footpaths and thedevelopment is appropriate to Great Ayton.Disagree: no change required therefore..The Council accepts that there are accessdifficulties so 058/06 has been deleted.79

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONSTOKESLEY SUB AREA(Gawthorpe; Great Ayton PC; Daniel; Mr. & Agree: site 058/06 has been deleted.Mrs. CM Larkin; Rafferty; A & K Hibberd)Rejected sites• Object to rejecting 058/16 and 058/18because the access is much better, thehouses could be screened from the Churchand Ayton Hall and it is no further fromamenities; access should be from ChurchDrive/Skottowe Cres. (Daniel)Site 058/16 is too far from the service facilitiesin Great Ayton.Disagree: no change required therefore..058/21 Ayton Station• Rejection of this site should be reconsideredbecause it is less than ¾ mile from thevillage centre; it adjoins the station on theMiddlesbrough/Whitby line; it is Brownfield,it can be developed short term and has newcycle sheds adjoining it to encouragecycling. (Harny)Preferred Options• Object to scale of development withoutregard to access roads; congestion;amenities; quality of life etc. (Stonehouse)Development Limits• Other sites should be allocated andDevelopment Limits amended accordingly.(Cousin)Preferred Options 058/02 Grounds of ClevelandLodge; 058/06 Slaughterhouse, Linden Avenue.• We support the Preferred Options andrejection of 058/13 and 13a and 13b Land tothe East and North of Roseby Crescent.(North Yorkshire Moors MPA)• We support the Preferred Options butSection 106 contribution to school provisionmay be required. (NYCC; Children & YoungPeople’s Services)GREAT BROUGHTONPreferred Options• We support the Preferred Options(Richardson Gardener)057/091 Grange Farm• Object because of poor access; increasedtraffic; poor drainage; effect on popularfootpath; too large for the village an wouldspoil its character; would encourage furtherdevelopment; would overload infrastructuree.g. the Primary School; very visible andwould affect adversely trees andhedgerows. (Great & Little Broughton PC;Johnson, Dixon; Allan; Davis; Eldarbe;Tasker; Mr & Mrs. Williamson; Metcalfe;Tyerman; Young.)057/091 Grange Farm• I object to the Grange Farm site because itwould lead to unacceptable increases inAyton Station is much further than any other sitefrom the village centre and is, therefore,unsustainable.Disagree: no change required therefore..The scale of development is considered to beappropriate to the Service Village of GreatAyton.Disagree: no change required therefore..It is not necessary to allocate other sites andthere is accordingly, no need to amendDevelopment Limits for this reason.Disagree: no change required therefore..The support for the Preferred Options and therejection of Land to the East and North ofRoseby Crescent is welcomed.Agree: no change required therefore.Support welcomed including the reference toSection 106 contributions being required.Agree: no change required therefore.Support for the Preferred Options is welcomed.Agree: no change required therefore.Development of 057/091 is most appropriate inthe south of the village where it would round thevillage off. However, the site area and numberof dwellings will be reduced from 38 to aminimum of 20 dwellings to lessen impact andavoid flooding. Deficiencies in infrastructure willbe addressed by developer contributions.Agree: Disagree: the Council has retained057/091 but reduced it in area and dwellingyield.Development of 057/091 is most appropriate inthe south of the village where it would round the80

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONtraffic, it would alter the village’s characterand increase the risk of flooding.(Waterfield)Rejected sites:057/13 Land at Back Lane South; 057/05 Landat Back Lane; 057/03 Land north of Hall Garth.• It would have been better to allocate thesesites for 10 houses each. (Waterfield)Development Limits• I object to amending the DevelopmentLimits to include Grange Farm; extendingthe Development Limits will simplyencourage more unnecessary development.(Waterfield)Rejected sites: 057/01 Land at Kirkby Lane• I object to 057/01 being rejected on pooraccess and precedent grounds and existingagricultural access could be approved;precedent is not normally a planningargument; and the site is enclosed on threesides. (Davies; Grierson)STOKESLEY SUB AREAvillage off. However, the site area and numberof dwellings will be reduced from 38 to aminimum of 20 dwellings to lessen impact andavoid flooding. Deficiencies in infrastructure willbe addressed by developer contributions.Agree: Disagree: the Council has retained057/091 but reduced it in area and dwellingyield.The Council feels strongly that the mostappropriate site is 057/095 Grange Farm, ratherthan these options.Disagree: no change required therefore. otherthan to reduce the area and dwelling yield ofsite 57/091.It is necessary to extend the DevelopmentLimits to include the Preferred Options site57/091 Grange Farm.Disagree: no change required therefore..The development of site 057/01 could, ifunchecked, lead to Kirkby and Great Broughtonjoining together. Also, the site is not largeenough on its own.Disagree: no change required therefore..• Other sites - land to the north of the village;this is an area of derelict building land whichcould drain to the Broughton Beck and extraroad traffic need not go through the village.(Davies; Grierson)057/91 Grange Farm• We agree the Preferred Option butanticipate a need for developercontributions to provide extra school places.(Ashton/NYCC; Children & Youth Services)• We object to Grange Farm being developedin Phase 1 ahead of Cleveland Lodge058/02 development at Great Ayton.Grange Farm is general housing ascompared with Special Needs Housing forwhich there is a more urgent requirement.(Mr. & Mrs. A Ward/Asquith/Dickinson DeesLLP)Rejected site: 057/03 Land North of Hall Garth.• Disagree with Land North of Hall Garthbeing rejected entirely. Instead the easternhalf should be allocated for about 3dwellings. (Stockley/DKS Architects).Development Limits• Object to proposed changes as theyexclude The Holme (Foster).The alternative site is not so clearly defined andwould not round off the village.Disagree: no change required therefore..Support for the Preferred Option 057/091 iswelcomed.Agree: no change required at this stage.There is a need for Affordable Housing as wellas Special Needs Housing and the GreatBroughton Housing Development would include50% affordable.Disagree: no change to phasing is required asthere is also a need for Affordable Housing.Development on land North of Hall Garth wouldbe much more conspicuous than on land to thesouth of the village.Disagree: no change required therefore..The Holme is not considered to be anappropriate area for further development.Disagree: no change required therefore. to theDevelopment Limits as proposed.81

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTION• Object to amending Development Limits toinclude 057/091 (Waterfield)Development Limits• I object to amending the DevelopmentLimits to exclude my garden. (Walker)STOKESLEY SUB AREA057/091 is the Council’s Preferred Option andthe Development Limits must therefore beamended to include it.Disagree: no change required therefore..The Holme is not the most appropriate area forfurther development in Great BroughtonDisagree: no change required therefore..• We welcome tightening the DevelopmentLimits to exclude land at The Holme butwould also support tightening DevelopmentLimits to exclude land between Blue Halland No. 22 The Holme. (Davies/Great &Little Broughton PC)057/14 Land South of Ingleby Road• Support the rejection of this site as itsdevelopment would probably not be inkeeping with the adjoining ConservationArea. (English Heritage)HUTTON RUDBY073/04 North of Garbutts Lane• Site 07304 is inappropriate for large scaledevelopment because of poor access; it isout of keeping with the village character;and would destroy my aspect. (Rev. & Mrs.Peacock)073/04 North of Garbutts Lane• The Preferred Option is supported.(Hoggarth)• Comment: Managed housing for the elderlyis needed in Hutton Rudby. (Hoggarth)073/04 North of Garbutts Lane• I object to 073/04 because it is subject toflooding and has a dangerous access. Ialso object because other sites on the edgeof the village are better and they have goodaccess. (Sibley)• Rejected Sites are acceptable if they havegood access and are for AffordableHousing. (Sibley)073/04 North of Garbutts Lane .• 073/04 is little different to the rejected sitesbecause it is outside Development Limits; itwould be an undesirable extension of thevillage; it has poor visibility and was twiceThe Council welcomes support for tightening theDevelopment Limits and proposes a furthertightening adjacent to Blue Hall.Agree: Development Limits adjacent to BlueHall to be changed.English Heritage’s support for rejected 057/14 iswelcomed.Agree: no change required therefore.This site’s development would link existingdetached development with the main built uparea and would, therefore, consolidate thevillage at this point. However, the number ofdwellings to be provided has been reduced to30 from 45 at the Preferred OptionsConsultation stage.Disagree/Agree: no change therefore proposedin principle although the number of dwellings isnow 30.The Council welcomes the support for thePreferred Option 073/04.Agree: no change required therefore.Regarding Housing for the elderly, the Councilhas made an allocation for sheltered housing atGreat Ayton.Disagree: No change required as provision forthe elderly is being made in Great Ayton.Site 073/04 is the most appropriate onebecause it links the existing detacheddevelopment with the main built up area. Roadaccess is acceptable to NYCC.Disagree: no action required therefore.:The Council has rejected sites because theywere considered to be less acceptable than073/04, the Preferred Options.Disagree: no change required therefore..Site 073/04 is still the most appropriate onebecause it links the existing detacheddevelopment with the main built up area. Roadaccess is acceptable to NYCC.82

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONSTOKESLEY SUB AREArefused Planning Permission. TheDisagree: no action required therefore.Preferred Option site should, therefore,have been rejected, like the others. (S & CCurtis)073/06 Land at Deepdale• Part of 073/06 should be allocated becauseit is close to the village centre, does notalter the shape of the village boundary; orspoil valuable agricultural land. Ideal forAffordable Housing. (Honeyman)073/04 North of Garbutts Lane• We object because of access difficulties andthe site’s remoteness from facilities.(Wilson/Appletons)Rejected Site: 073/05 Land South East ofEnterpen.• We object to the rejection of 073/05because it is too large – only 2 acres couldbe developed, leaving scope for windfalls.Otherwise this site is available, accessibleand easily landscaped. (Wilson/Appletons)073/04 North of Garbutts Lane• I object to this site being allocated becauseof its impact on the countryside and thecharacter of the village; poor visibilitysplays; flooding risk and sewage treatmentcapacity issues. (Gaffney)073/04 North of Garbutts Lane• I have no objection to housing in principlebut I do have reservations regardingnumbers of houses because of access andtraffic issues including poor visibility intoGarbutts Lane; flood risk, inadequatesewage treatment capacity and impact onthe character of the village. (Gowland)073/04 North of Garbutts Lane• Object to 073/04 because it is greenfield;outside Development Limits; further fromexisting facilities. (DS & J Simpson)Rejected Site: 073/01 Land South of GarbuttsLane.• Site 073/01 should not have been rejectedbecause it is better than 073/04 in thefollowing respects: it is nearer to somefacilities; it has better access; it has lessvisual impact; and it is not susceptible toflooding. (DS & J Simpson)Rejected Site:• Mr. Jarrett’s property includes extensivelawn gardens adjacent to the new Wimpeydevelopment. The building is very old andcould be demolished for access purposes.(Jarrett/Parker/Thorpe Parker)Site 073/06 has been deleted because it fallsbelow the minimum size threshold for housingsites.Disagree: no action required therefore.:Site 073/04 is the most appropriate onebecause it links the existing detacheddevelopment with the main built up area. Roadaccess is acceptable to NYCC.Disagree: no action required therefore.:Site 073/05 is an open area within theConservation Area and its development wouldbe visually harmful. Also, there was previouslyopposition to this site at the Issues and Optionsstage.Disagree: no action required therefore.Site 073/04 is the most appropriate onebecause it links the existing detacheddevelopment with the main built up area. Roadaccess is acceptable to NYCC.Disagree: no action required therefore.Support for 073/04 in principle is welcomed.Regarding the number of houses, this has beenreduced from 45 to 30. The access isacceptable to the NYCC. Other infrastructureissues will be addressed by developercontributions.Agree: the number of houses has been reducedto 30.Site 073/04 is the most appropriate onebecause it links the existing detacheddevelopment with the main built up area. Roadaccess is acceptable to NYCC.Disagree: no action required therefore.Site 073/01 is a large site with few naturalboundaries and less satisfactory access.Disagree: no change required therefore..Apart from access difficulties, this site is avaluable open area within the ConservationArea. It could, however, at some stage,become a windfall opportunity. However, thesite remains an attractive area within the83

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONPreferred Option• We support the Preferred Option butdeveloper contributions will be needed foradditional school places in the future.(Ashton NYCC; Children & Young People’sService)STOKESLEY SUB AREAConservation Area and should be retained.Disagree: no change required therefore..Support for the Preferred Option is welcomedand the need for developer contributions isnoted.Agree: no change required therefore. at thisstage.073/04 b & c North of Garbutts Lane• I object because it is Greenbelt land,outside of Development Limits and has pooraccess. (Turner)Preferred Options• I support the Preferred Options. (Holmes;Cook)073/04 North of Garbutts Lane• I object to site 073/04 because HuttonRudby would be ruined by such a sizeabledevelopment, also extra congestion wouldbe caused at the access to the site leadingto increased traffic hazards, particularly foryoung children. (Padfield)Preferred Options• We object to the Preferred Options notincluding site 073/15b which is well linked interms of function and appearance with theadjoining properties. (Diocese ofYork/Jones/Sanderson Weatherall)Rejected sites 073/15b Land at Belbrough Lane• We object to the rejection of 073/15b on thegrounds that “to include it would createdevelopment potential in appropriatelocations.” Excluding this site, which is welllinked in terms of function and appearancewith property within the Development Limitsis illogical. (Diocese ofYork/Jones/Sanderson Weatherall)Development Limits• We object to excluding from theDevelopment Limits land (073/15b) which iswell linked in terms of function andappearance with land within theDevelopment Limits. (Diocese ofYork/Jones/Sanderson Weatherall)Preferred Options• We support the Preferred Options.(Pyle/Hutton Rudby PC)Preferred OptionsSite 073/04 is the most appropriate onebecause it links the existing detacheddevelopment with the main built up area. Roadaccess is acceptable to NYCC.Disagree: no action required therefore.Support for the Preferred Options is welcome.Agree: no change required therefore.Site 073/04 is the most appropriate onebecause it links the existing detacheddevelopment with the main built up area.Regarding the size of the development, thenumber of dwellings has been reduced from 45to 30. Road access is acceptable to NYCC.Disagree/Agree: site 073/04 to be retained asthe Preferred Options but reduced to 30dwellings.The objection is noted but the Council still feelsthat site 073/04 is the most appropriate onebecause it links the existing detacheddevelopment with the main built up area. Roadaccess is acceptable to NYCC.Disagree: no action required therefore.The objection to the rejection of 073/15b isnoted but the Council still feels that 073/04 isthe more appropriate one because it links theexisting detached development with the mainbuilt up area. Road access is acceptable toNYCC.Disagree: no action required therefore.:Again, the point is noted about excluding site073/15b from the Development Limits but theCouncil still feels that 073/04 is the moreappropriate one because it links the existingdetached development with the main built uparea. There is, therefore, no justification foramending the Development Limits to includesite 073/15b.Disagree: no action required therefore.Support for the Preferred Options is welcome.Agree: no change required therefore.84

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTION• We suggest land coloured yellow beallocated for development as it adjoins thePreferred Option site; it borders an existingestate; is large enough to cater for futurerequirements and is no longer viable forfarming. (Mr. & Mrs. D Bell)STOKESLEY SUB AREAThere is no justification for this additional site asthe Preferred Option caters for the needs ofHutton Rudby for additional housing.Disagree: no change required therefore..Development Limits• The Development Limits should beamended to include the alternative site weare suggesting. (Mr. & Mrs. D. Bell)Preferred Options• Preferred Options should include part of073/10 North of the Green and 073/06 Landat Deepdale should be also allocated fordevelopment because they are close to thevillage centre; do not alter the shape of thevillage; and do not spoil arable land.(Honeyman)073/04 Land North of Garbutts Lane• I object to the allocation of this site as it isoutside the village limits; is an undesirableextension of the village; has insufficientvisibility splays; and was previously refusedplanning permission because of accessproblems. Flooding is also an issue nowand the site is distant from facilities. (Tribick;Voke)Rejected Site: 073/13 Land North East ofLinden Crescent• Object to this site being rejected because itis very suitable for development; it is closeto facilities; it is not prone to flooding; and itis easily accessed from Linden Avenue.(Tribick; Voke)Rejected site 073/15 Land at Belbrough Lane• This site is no further from facilities than073/04. (Jones)Blue Barn Lane area• Sites in this area should also be considered.073/04 North of Garbutts Lane• We object to 073/04 being within phase 2rather than phase 3 as there is a moreurgent need for sheltered housing atCleveland Lodge, Great Ayton, whichshould take priority therefore overAffordable Housing in Hutton Rudby. (Mr. &Mrs. A. Ward/Asquith/Dickinson Dees LLP)Preferred Options• We support 073/04 in principle but weobject to the Preferred Options becausethey are insufficient. This site should,There is no need for the alternative site so thereis equally no need to extend the DevelopmentLimits to include it.Disagree: no change required therefore.Sites 073/10 and 073/06 are below the sizethreshold for allocation but could be windfallsites in the future.Disagree: these sites are below the minimumsize for allocation and have, therefore, not beenallocated so no change is required.Site 073/04 is the most appropriate onebecause it links the existing detacheddevelopment with the main built up area. Roadaccess is acceptable to NYCC.Disagree: no action required therefore.Site 073/13 is a narrow back land area with pooraccess.Disagree: no change required therefore..Site 073/15 would be much too large for HuttonRudby.Disagree: no change required therefore..Site 073/04 is the most appropriate onebecause it links the existing detacheddevelopment with the main built up area. Roadaccess is acceptable to NYCC.Disagree: no action required thereforeThere is a need for Affordable Housing, as wellas sheltered housing, throughout the Stokesleyarea. It is considered both sites shouldtherefore be delivered in phase 2.Disagree: no change required therefore..The Council has allocated sufficient land tomeet housing needs in line with the RegionalSpatial Strategy figures for up to 2026. 073/0485

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONtherefore, be put in phase 2 rather thanphase 1. (Richardson Jaward/TaylorWimpey/Lyle/England & Lyle)073/14 Hutton Rudby School• We support the rejection of 073/14 untilalternative school playing fields are found.(Hendly/Sport England)STOKESLEY SUB AREAwill be delivered in phase 2 rather than phase 1.Disagree: because the Preferred Options aresufficient.Agree: this site to be in phase 2 not phase 1.The Council welcomes support for the rejectionof 073/14.Agree: no change required therefore.Rejected sites 073/05 Lane South East ofEnterpen.• We support the rejection of this sitebecause of its possible impact on theConservation Area. (Smith; EnglishHeritage)073/09 Land at Allotments• This site is a significant area in theConservation Area and if developed, its losswould be harmful. (Smith: English Heritage)073/10 Land North of the Green• We support the rejection of this sitebecause it is a significant area in theConservation Area and its loss would be ofconsiderable detriment, eroding theseparation of Rudby and Hutton Rudby.(Smith; English Heritage)Development Limits• We agree with the Development Limits.(Skelly/North Yorkshire Moors NPA)KIRKBY IN CLEVELANDDevelopment Limits• We object to the Development Limitsexcluding land to the rear of the OldVicarage and the new Village Hall. (MichaelWestgarth-Taylor)SEAMER128/03 Land at Hilton Road• We object to this site having been rejectedbecause it is in a Secondary Village. It isvery suitable for residential developmentand would connect the western extremitiesof the village to the main settlement.(Willis/Miller Homes/Signet Planning)Development Limits• Site 128/03 should be retained within theDevelopment Limits. (Willis/MillerHomes/Signet Planning)• We disagree with the Development LimitsThe Council welcomes the support of therejection of 173/05 on the grounds of its impacton the Conservation Area.Agree: no change required therefore.We welcome the support for rejection 073/09 onthe grounds of the impact of its loss on theConservation Area.Agree: no change required therefore.The Council welcomes the support for rejecting073/10 on the grounds of the impact of its losson the Conservation Area and it would erodethe separation of Rudby and Hutton Rudby.Agree: no change required therefore.We welcome the support of the North YorkshireMoors NPA for the Development Limits.Agree: no change required therefore..Kirkby in Cleveland is a Secondary Villagewhere allocations are not appropriate in line withthe adopted Core Strategy. Any proven needfor affordable dwellings can be met under therural exceptions policy.Disagree: no change required therefore..:In accordance with the adopted Core Strategysites in Secondary Villages, such as Seamer,are not normally allocated.Disagree: no change required therefore..The Development Limits have been amended toexclude site 128/03 because it has not beendeveloped despite having been allocated in theformer Local Plan some years ago.Disagree: no change required therefore..There is no justification for including Seamer86

MAIN ISSUESTHIRSK (WITH SOWERBY)THIRSK SUB-AREACOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTION152/03i/3ii and 152/04 Rybeck Farm andStonybrough Farm;• Object to these sites as they are notavailable; not suitable; subject to flood risk;better sites elsewhere; too remote fromservices; Greenfield; would spoil approachfrom the north; and Affordable Housingshould be owner occupied. etc.(Wimpey/Peacock & Smith;Barker/Rowe/Signet Planning; England &Lyle; A A and M Bott; Mr. & Mrs. Garside;Ghouri: M & C Bridge; Lancefield/Jenkins &Lancefield; Irving/ID Planning/ Castle Vale;Bierton; Anon etc.)Rejected Sites 137/01 &137/02 Stockton Road• should be allocated because easyaccess/availability etc. (England & Lyle; Mr.& Mrs. Pearson)139/02, 139/15 and 139/16 Depots site, StationRoad• Object because of poor access; and noalternative to this site for residents’ parkingetc. (Webster; Campbell)139/04 Admirals Court;• Object re access issues including roadsafety; and also no infrastructure in place(Thirsk School and College; Pearson; M&GHartley; Mr & Mrs Williams; Backhouse;Harrison; Bish)• We support this site but it should beextended to compensate for the nonavailabilityof Stoneybrough Farm/RybeckFarm. (Wimpey/Peacock & Smith)Development Limits• Object as no need for amendment (Mr. &Mrs. Williams)139/10 South of Austin Reed and 139/03 OldRed House• We object to these sites because ofincreased traffic; the road is unfit; existingcongestion will get worse; environmentalimpact etc. (Coulson/Carlton Miniott PC;Availability and deliverability are key issues forall allocated sites. 152/04 is no longer availableand because of that, 152/03ii would be ratherisolated and would not be suitable fordevelopment as it would not respect the builtform of Thirsk. The major portion of these twosites is no longer available therefore and theCouncil can only retain 152/03i which can bedelivered. .Agree: delete 152/03ii and 152/04 as no longeravailable.Both these sites were rejected by the Council inchoosing Preferred Options, the reasons beingthat they are Greenfield and adversely affectedby flooding (Flood Zones 1 and 2).Disagree: no action required as 137/01 and137/02 have already been rejected becausethey are Greenfield sites at risk of flooding.While there are issues to do with access andalternative land for car parking, they can beresolved. The Council, therefore, wishes toretain this allocation as the site is close to thetown centre and all its facilities.Disagree: retain this allocation.This site has access problems as respondentshave identified. More importantly, the Council’ssupport for the Sowerby Gateway proposalmeans that this site is no longer required.Agree: delete site 139/04 as no longer neededand less suitable than other sites.The Council’s support for the South West ThirskArea (formerly the Sowerby Gateway proposal)means that this site is no longer required.Disagree: delete site 139/04 as no longerneeded and it is less suitable.It is necessary to amend the DevelopmentLimits as the Council no longer wishes toallocate Admirals Court for residential purposes.Disagree: amend the Development Limits toexclude this unallocated site.These sites have had access, environmental,traffic and other problems identified by manyrespondents. More importantly, the Council’ssupport for the South West Thirsk proposal88

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONWatson, Glasby; Thornton; Robinson;Torkington; G & R Merit; Kay; Mr. & Mrs.Wilkinson; Webster; Wake; Cusson;Williams; Hall; Gott; Sanderson/WardHadaway; Cllrs. Dadd/Adamson; CarltonMiniott School; Graves; Irving/IDPlanning/Castle Vale; Alderson; Lambert; S& E Almack; Farndale.)THIRSK SUB-AREAmeans that these sites are not longer required.Agree: delete sites 139/10 and 139/03 owing tostrong public opposition, particularly because oftraffic and access problems, and because theyare no longer needed.319 Standard Objection Letters• Support in principle but object to it not beingmixed use. (Pearson; Goodwin; CarterJonas; O’Dea/Knight Frank)139/11 Saxty Way• object to this site as Green Lane access ispoor and cannot be improved. (Mr. & Mrs.Williams; Thirsk School & College;Collingswood)Rejected site139/06 West of York Road• Objection because the site should beallocated as it is suitable. They do not formpart of the Flatts; do not flood; and theyhave no townscape importance. Also couldbe used for tourism instead.(Calvert/Axe/Barber Titley; Hall)• We support the rejection of this site asdevelopment on this scale could adverselyaffect the Conservation Area.(Smith/English Heritage)139/12 Gravel Hole Lane;• Should be part used for bus facilities andcar parking (Allen)139/18 Long Acre• Object to this site as no justification for it; italso has poor access; it would result in lossof wild life; and concerned also aboutinfrastructure. (Collingswoood; Morris)Rejected sites139/09 Cocked Hat Farm and 139/23 South ofStation Road• Object to the rejection of these sites; theyshould be allocated because of betteraccess to town facilities. (C & M. Bridge;These sites have had access, environmental,traffic and other problems identified by manyrespondents. More importantly, the Council’ssupport for the South West Thirsk proposalmeans that these sites are not longer required.Agree: delete sites 139/10 and 139/03 becauseof strong public opposition and because theyare no longer needed.The Council’s support for the South West Thirskproposal means that this site is no longerrequired.Disagree: delete site 139/11 as no longerneeded.This site has been deleted already by theCouncil from its list of Preferred Options forseveral reasons, including flooding issues, likelyeffects on an attractive area with much wild lifevalue and also significant public opposition atthe Issues and Options stage.Disagree: no further action required as theCouncil has previously decided to reject Site139/06 as it is unsuitable.Agreed: no change required.Gravel Hole Lane is proposed for recreationaluse as part of the South West Thirsk AreaProject.Disagree: no change required.This site is no longer needed in view of theCouncil’s support for the adjacent South WestThirsk Proposal.Agree: delete site 139/18 as it is no longerrequired but retain within Development Limits asthe South West Thirsk allocation immediately tothe west.Regarding 139/09, the Council now accepts thatthis should form part of the South West Thirskmixed use proposal. As for 139/23, this site89

MAIN ISSUESTyson; Wake; Garside etc.)COUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONTHIRSK SUB-AREAwas rejected at the Preferred Options stage onthe grounds that it would result in unacceptableback land development.Disagree/Agree: include site 139/09 as part ofthe South West Thirsk proposal and reject139/23 on planning grounds.• We support 139/09 and are interested in anew church building within this development(Harding, Hambleton Church)Rejected sites139/19 Back Lane, Sowerby and 139/09aCocked Hat Farm East;• Object to rejection of these sites as theyshould be allocated (Webster; Wake;Robinson)Rejected site139/19 Back Lane;• We object to the rejection of this sitebecause it is not of historic significance andit should be allocated. (Wimpey/Peacock &Smith; Willis/Signet Planning; RobBrittain/Broadacres; Wyatt)Rejected sites009/03 and 009/03a East of A19;• Object as they should be allocated (Barker;Coulson/Carlton Miniott PC; Torkington;Gott; Gabler; Brooke/Ryedale Travel)Rejected sites 139/20 West of Woodfield’sFarm;139/22 East of York Road and 139/21East of A168• Object as they should be allocated foremployment (Naisbitt)• Support the rejection. (Cussen)This interest in a new church building as part ofSouth West Thirsk is welcomed.Noted: no change at this stage.139/09a forms part of the South West ThirskProposal which the Council is supporting as anintegrated development package intended toaddress the need for housing, employment andcommunity uses. It will also facilitate upgradingof community infrastructure such as the junctionof the B1448 and the A168. The Back Lane siteis of local historic significance and should not bebuilt on therefore.Disagree reject site 139/19 as unsuitable fordevelopment.Agree: allocate site 139/09a as part of theSouth West Thirsk proposals for recreation andcommunity usesSite 139/19 has local historic significance andshould not be built on.Disagree: no change required as this site isunsuitable for residential development.Sites 009/03 and 009/03a were rejected as partof the Issues and Options appraisal on thegrounds that their development would have anunacceptable impact on the landscape, they donot relate well to the existing urban area andthey are contrary to long-standing policies ofcontaining development within the A19/A168boundary. There are also access problems andviability issues associated with this site.Disagree: no action required as 009/03 and009/03a were rejected from the PreferredOptions for the above reasons.Two of these three sites were previouslyrejected by the Council when selectingPreferred Options for consultation on thegrounds that development of the sites wouldencroach upon the open countryside and theyare unrelated to the urban area. Site 139/21now contains the Auction Mart and is thereforelargely developed.Disagree/Agree: no action required as these90

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTION009/02 Thircon• We support the allocation for employment; itcould be used for other appropriatedevelopments, not just Thircon. (Peacock &Smith; Colman/Thircon)• Objection; this site is too small (Cussen)Rejected sites152/02 41 Station Road and part 139/23OS0027, 8447, 7258 and south of Station Road;• We object as these sites should beallocated because they form natural infill;have good cycle and footpath access;would not impact on the view of theentrance to the town; and have less floodrisk (Garside; Stone/England and Lyle;Bridge)139/09 Cocked Hat Farm; 139/09a Cocked HatFarm East and 139/12 Gravel Hole Lane.• We support this proposal (Broadacres;Bridge;Castle Vale Properties)THIRSK SUB-AREAsites have already been rejected from thePreferred Options for the above reasons.While this site is small, nevertheless, it is verywell located in relation to existing employmentuses, particularly Thircon and also has verygood access to the A19. Other appropriateusers would be acceptable if well-designed andlandscaped.Agree/Disagree: no action required as 009/02is already allocated as one of the Council’sPreferred Options.These sites were rejected by the Council at thePreferred Options stage on the grounds that the152/02 part of the site is a former gravel pit andunsuitable for development and 139/23, ifdeveloped, would result in an unacceptableback land development.Disagree: the sites 152/02 and 139/23 shouldnot be allocated for the reasons referred toabove.Sites 139/09 and 139/09a form part of the SouthWest Thirsk proposal which the Council issupporting as an integrated developmentpackage to address the need for housing,employment and community uses. It will alsofacilitate upgrading community infrastructuresuch as the junction of the B1448 and the A168.Agree: allocate sites 139/09 and 139/09a aspart of the South West Thirsk proposal.Site 139/12 was previously selected as aPreferred Option by the Council and will now beincorporated within the proposal.Agree: no change required as the site hasalready been allocated for recreation purposesto serve adjacent residential areas.• We strongly object to 139/09 and 09abecause its development will damage wildlife; destroy valuable countryside; increasetraffic; and create nuisance for up to 14years. (P & J Barron; Brown; Ovington;Guinness)Rejected sites 139/09 and 139/09a• We object to the rejection of these sitesbecause they are very suitable for acomprehensive development with significantbenefits of housing/ employment/highwayThe Council accepts that this development willhave some impacts. Nevertheless, sites 139/09and 139/09a form part of the South West Thirskproposal which the Council is supporting as anintegrated development package to address theneed for housing, employment and communityuses. It will also facilitate upgrading ofcommunity infrastructure such as the junction ofthe B1448 and the A19.Disagree: allocate sites 139/09 and 139/09a aspart of theSouth West Thirsk proposal.Sites 139/09 and 139/09a form part of the SouthWest Thirsk Proposals (formerly SowerbyGateway) which the Council is supporting as anintegrated development package designed toaddress the need for housing, employment and91

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONimprovements and local facilities(surgery/Pub). (Irving/ID Planning/CastleVale)Development Limits• Development Limits need to be extended toinclude these sites. (Irving/IDPlanning/Castle Vale)139/12 Gravel Hole Lane;• We support this site for recreational use.(Hendly/Sport England)THIRSK SUB-AREAcommunity uses. It will also facilitate upgradingof community infrastructure such as the junctionof the B1448 and the A168.Agree: allocate sites 139/09 and 139/09a aspart of the South West Thirsk Proposals.The Development Limits need to be amended toinclude these sites.Agree: the Development Limits to be amendedaccordingly.Site 139/12 was previously selected as aPreferred Option by the Council and will now beincorporated within the South West Thirskproposal for recreation.Agree: no action required as the site hasalready been allocated for recreation purposesto serve adjacent residential areas.Rejected site 152/06 Austin Reed• Object to rejection of this site. (Tyson) This site was excluded from the PreferredOptions because it is already in employmentuse and therefore, does not need to beallocated.Disagree: no change required therefore.152/05 St. Mary’s Close• We support the retention of this site forrecreation use. (Hendly/Sport England)152/12 Newsham Road• We object to the reason for allocating thissite for housing but are willing to move toanother site if appropriate. (Pearce/GSMGraphic Design Ltd)Support for this recreation proposal iswelcomed.Agree: no change required.This comment is noted: no action will be takenuntil an alternative location has been found forGSM Graphic Design Ltd.• Comment: proposals for Newsham Roadare noted; however, as the Fire Station isoperational, redevelopment could only occurwhen the existing uses are re-located(Roberts/Mouchel Parkman)• Comment: Development of this site mustnot adversely affect the setting of thescheduled Ancient Monument, ThirskCastle. (Smith/English Heritage)Preferred Options;• Object to the scale of development whichwill lead to urban sprawl (Bott)• We support the Preferred Options (J & APollwarth; Smith; Coates; Overston)• Comment: Access to the A19 and AIM isvery bad. (Hinton)The Council fully accepts that the Fire Stationwould require re-location before redevelopmentcould take place.Agree: no change required therefore.Reference to this site’s setting will be made inthe development requirements for it.Agree: a suitable reference is to be added.The scale of development is required to meetthe Regional Spatial Strategy housing needs forHambleton up to 2026.Disagree: no action required therefore.The Preferred Options for Thirsk with Sowerbyhave been substantially amended since thePreferred Options consultation was carried outso it remains to be seen whether theserespondents will support the new preferredsites.Noted: no action required.Access to the A19 will be considerably improvedby the proposed new junction of Topcliffe Road92

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONTHIRSK SUB-AREAand the A19.Noted: no change required.CARLTON MINIOTTSERVICE VILLAGES025/02 Carlton Miniott Park and 025/03Manfield Terrace;• Objection as the roads are not wide enoughfor extra traffic (Tearall)• Support these sites but infrastructure needsto be improved first; and the phasing needsamending so that 025/02 comes before025/03 (Coulson/Carlton Miniott PC;Lancefield/Jenkins & Lancefield )• We support these sites but there will be aneed for more school places. (AshtonNYCC)TOPCLIFFEDevelopment Limits• Development Limits should be amended toinclude land west of School Lane which iswithin the Conservation Area.(Jones/Sanderson Weatherall)Preferred Option, 163/03 Winn Lane Farm• We support the Preferred Option includingthe proposed amendment to theDevelopment Limits. (Ashton/NYCC,Children & Young People’s Service).Both these sites will be accessed from RiponWay which fully meets NYCC Highwaystandards.Disagree: no action required therefore.Both these sites will be accessed from RiponWay which fully meets NYCC Highwaystandards. The phasing has been amendedaccordingly.Agree/Disagree: no action required.Support for these sites is welcome and the needfor developers to fund extra school places isnoted.The Council has recently reviewed theDevelopment Limits for Topcliffe and there is noneed to extend them to include this land.Disagree: no change required.Support for the Preferred Options is welcomed,including the proposed amendment to theDevelopment Limits. However, Winn LaneFarm is no longer available.Noted: but Winn Lane Farm is to be deleted.DALTONSECONDARY VILLAGESRejected Site037/02 Long Acres, Back Lane;• We object to the rejection of this site as it isBrownfield; it would be an environmentalimprovement; and it should be allocated(Carter Jonas; Greenwood)Preferred Options• We support site 037/06, the Turkey Factoryand the proposed Development Limits(Ward, Dalton Parish Council)• We support 137/06 for housing and thereare enough school places. (Ashton/NYCC)Disagree: no action required as it lies within aSecondary Village.Site 037/06, the Preferred Option, is a formerTurkey Factory site, the redevelopment of whichfor housing purposes would be of considerablebenefit for the village as the site is located in aprominent position. The Development Limitshave been amended accordingly.Agree: no action required as the former TurkeyFactory has already been selected as aPreferred Option.Support for the Preferred Option is welcome.Agree: no change required.93

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTION• We support the Preferred Option subject toamendment to allow for more residentialuse while retaining the northern tip foremployment. (Lane/Land & Dev. Planning)Preferred Options;• We support a residential allocation inprinciple but object to not allocating ourclient’s land at Dalton Airfield and agree tothe rejection of the other sites at the Airfield(Cussen/DPP)Rejected site037/03 Hollybank;• Object to this site being rejected; it shouldbe allocated in order to meet a local needand ensure sustainability. (Mr. & Mrs.Anderson)THIRSK SUB-AREASupport for the Preferred Option is welcome it isa Brownfield, derelict site in a prominentlocation and its redevelopment would benefit thevillage. The residential allocation is only a partof the turkey factory site and retaining thenorthern tip for employment is acceptable to theCouncil.Action: no action required as the turkey factoryis the Council’s Preferred Option for the abovereasons.The turkey factory is the best option fordevelopment as it represents an environmentaleyesore in a prominent position in the centre ofthe village. The Council notes the support forrejecting other sites at the Airfield. Employmentland availability has been met within the ServiceCentres (South West Thirsk) and therefore noallocation at Dalton Airfield is required, inaccordance with the Core Strategy.Disagree: no change required therefore.Dalton is a Secondary Village in which, inaccordance with the adopted Core Strategy, sitespecific allocations are not normally made. TheTurkey Factory, by contrast, is an exceptionbecause it is an eyesore in the centre of thevillage and there is little prospect of its re-use.Disagree: no action required.Development Limits• Development Limits should be amended toinclude 037/03. (Mr & Mrs. Anderson)It is not necessary to amend the DevelopmentLimits other than to accommodate the redevelopmentof the former turkey factory site asallocated.Disagree: no action required for this reason.NEWSHAMPreferred Options• The Preferred Options do not address theneeds of the elderly; a site at LeechfieldGrange, Newsham for a Care Village wouldaddress this issue. (Goodwin/Carter Jonas)PICKHILLRejected site: 113/03 Pickhill Engineering;• Object that Pickhill Engineers site has notbeen allocated (Cllr. Webster)Rejected site: 118/04 Chapel Farm PoultryProvision for the elderly is made in theAllocations Development Plan Document butnot in Newsham which is a remote hamlet andtherefore inappropriate for this kind ofaccommodation.Disagree: no change required.In accordance with the Adopted Core Strategy,allocations for residential development are notappropriate in Secondary Villages such asPickhill and no exceptional circumstances applyhere.Action: no action required as Pickhill is aSecondary Village.94

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONSheds;• Object that the poultry sheds have not beenallocated. (Cllr. Webster;Barningham/Sinderby & Pickhill withRoxby PC)113/05 Lowfields Lane;• We object that part of our land has not beenallocated. (Calvert)KNAYTONTHIRSK SUB-AREAIn accordance with the Adopted Core Strategy,allocations for residential development are notappropriate in Secondary Villages such asPickhill and no exceptional circumstances applyhere.Action: no action required as Pickhill is aSecondary Village.In accordance with the Adopted Core Strategy,allocations for residential development are notappropriate in Secondary Villages such asPickhill.Action: no action required as Pickhill is aSecondary Village.Former playing fields/cricket pitch/transport café• We object to the non-allocation of theseformer playing fields and transport café. (J &C Consett)Southend Buildings• We object that this site was not allocated. (J& C Consett)SKIPTON ON SWALEPreferred Option• Object to no allocations being made inSkipton on Swale (Sanderson/WardHadaway; Skipton on Swale PC))SESSAYRejected site 129/02 North of Sessay• Object to the rejection of this site simplybecause Sessay is a Secondary Village.(Goodwin/Carter Jonas)SOUTH OTTERINGTON139/01 Crosby Lodge• Object because wrongly classified as only80% Brownfield and 20% Greenfield.(Robson)GENERAL• NYCC Children & Young People’sService: We support the Preferred Optionsas they are within walking distances fromschools. Some primary schools will requireexpansion as a result. The South WestIn accordance with the Adopted Core Strategy,allocations for residential development are notappropriate in Secondary Villages such asKnayton.Action: no action required as Knayton is aSecondary Village.See aboveIn accordance with the adopted Core Strategy,allocations for residential development are notappropriate in Secondary Villages such asSkipton on Swale.Action: no action required as Skipton on Swaleis a Secondary Village.In accordance with the adopted Core Strategy,allocations for residential development are notappropriate in Secondary Villages such asSessay.Action: no action required as Sessay is aSecondary Village.The 20% of the site which is Greenfield is apaddock not a garden which would be classifiedas Brownfield.Disagree: no change required.Support for the Preferred Options is welcomeand the need for more places at primary level isnoted. Developer contributions will be soughtas applicable.Agree: no change required.95

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONTHIRSK SUB-AREAThirsk Area Project will mean a new PrimarySchool is required. With regard toSecondary, no additional capacity isrequired to provide for the PreferredOptions.• Hambleton over 50s Forum: Old People’sneeds should be taken into account whenbuilding new mixed housing estates.• Government Office for Yorkshire and theHumber Regional Assembly: Nocomments at this stage.• Northern Planning/Courcier. We object tothe Preferred Options sites; sites should beallocated up to 2025 and should bedeliverable and developable.• Yorkshire and Humber Assembly/PoxonWe support the scale and distribution ofnew development in line with the CoreStrategy and Regional Spatial Strategy.However, the Allocations should ensure theaccessibility of sites is assessed accordingto Regional Spatial Strategy criteria; theBrownfield target of 55% should beachieved; and gypsy and travelleraccommodation needs must be satisfied.• Turley Associates/Wynyard: In theAllocations Development Plan Documentthere is no policy or reference tosafeguarding the Tees Valley Airport. andits role in• Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners/BarrettHomes: We recommend 10% overprovisionof housing land to provideflexibility and suggest 1 or 2 reserve sitesfor this purpose.• National Offender ManagementService/Savage. There is no criteria basedquality regarding prisons and there shouldbe in line with Circular 3/98.• Natural England/Carter. It is not possibleto respond in detail to all the sites. Siteallocation should take into accountDP13 requires developers to work with theCouncil to ensure an appropriate mix of housingtypes, sizes and tenures, including housing forthe elderly.Noted: no change required.The timescale of the Local DevelopmentFramework now extends up to 2026 in line withthe Regional Spatial Strategy. All the sites aredeliverable and developable in accordance withGovernment requirements.Agree: no change required.Support for the scale and distribution ofdevelopments is welcomed. Site accessibility,Brownfield targets and gypsy and travelleraccommodation have been addressed as part ofthe Local Development Framework process andwill also be kept under review as part of theannual monitoring report and other monitoringprocesses.Noted: no further action required at this stage.Policies of this type are appropriate to thedevelopment policies Development PlanDocument rather than Allocations.Safeguarding zones as are shown on the LocalDevelopment Framework proposals map inaccordance with Circular 01/2003.No action required therefore.The housing proposals meet the RegionalSpatial Strategy housing requirement, also,windfalls which are not included in the proposalshave provided 65% of the housing requirementover the last 7 years.Disagree: no change required therefore.The Allocations Development Plan Document isnot the place for such a policy. TheDevelopment Policies Development PlanDocument contains a suitable criteria basedpolicy to deal with future development, includingprisons.Disagree: no change required.Natural England’s comments are noted and siteenvironmental issues have been taken intoaccount in both selecting the Preferred Optionsand defining the development requirements for96

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTIONenvironmental impacts and capacity toaccommodate the growth needed inHambleton.THIRSK SUB-AREAeach site.Noted: no change required.• NYCC Highways and Footpaths/Flowers.The Core Strategy evidence base shouldinclude reference to the Local TransportPlan and the Rights of Way ImprovementPlan which should also inform thedevelopment control process includingSection 106 Agreements• Yorkshire Wildlife Trust/Stagg. Directingdevelopment to urban locations should notlead to the loss of valuable open space.Site allocations need to acknowledge biodiversity.• NYCC Countryside Service. We stronglyrecommend a strategic green infrastructureapproach in making decisions aboutallocations in the interests of sustainability.• One North East/Ritchie. We have nospecific comments regarding the AllocationsPreferred Options.• NYCC Children & Young People’sService. The impact of development onschool provision depends on many factors.However, as a general rule, developercontributions should be sought for additionalplaces where required; the Service Villageshave primary schools and there are noproposals which would affect them; patternsof school provision change over time; andconcentrating development on two majorsites in Northallerton and Thirsk couldimpact on Secondary Schools.• Environment Agency/Lambert All sitesmust be considered in line with PPS25 andif appropriate, the exceptions test must bepassed. Flood risk assessments will berequired as part of planning applicationprocess, where necessary.• Northumbrian Water. We note that noprovision is made for windfalls in theDevelopment Plan Document and supportthe criteria used to assess developmentsites. The Stokesley proposals for 320houses and 5.2 ha. of employment land willmean upgrading the water supply and thiswill be charged to the developmentsconcerned.The Council will continue to liaise with theNYCC and other organisations to take accountof their plans and policies in maintaining an upto date evidence base.Agree: no further change required at this stage.The Council has consulted NYCC and otherrelevant bodies on all sites to check bio-diversityinterests in and around development sites.Ongoing connections between the LocalDevelopment Framework and the Bio-diversityAction Plan are important to the Council.Noted: no change required.Links between development sites and greenspaces have been carefully considered by theCouncil in preparing the AllocationsDevelopment Plan Document.Noted: No further change required at this stage.Noted: no change required.Developer contributions towards individualplaces will continue to be sought where a needarises from proposed developments.Agree: no change required to the PreferredOptions which already refer to developercontributions being required where identified byNYCC.The Council fully acknowledges thesecomments which are reflected in the AllocationsDevelopment Plan Document.Noted: no further change required.The Government requires that no allowance bemade for windfalls in PPS3. Site specificcomments from Northumbrian Water have beenincorporated in development requirements forthe Preferred Options in the Stokesley area.Noted: no action required.97

MAIN ISSUESCOUNCIL’S RESPONSE AND ACTION• Yorkshire Water Services. Site specificcomments have been made regarding watersupply and sewerage. Greenfield sitesshould be retained in phase 2 or 3. Freshwater supplies and surface and foul waterdrainage require improvement in manyareas in the Hambleton District.• Highways Agency. A broad based TrafficImpact Review of the Hambleton DistrictCouncil Preferred Site Allocations has beenundertaken, focussing on a combination ofthe major employment and housing siteswhich would generate in excess of 30 twoway trips during the peak hour on thestrategic road network. Despite proposednetwork changes to improve the A1(T) tomotorway standards, the network wouldoperate over capacity during the plannedperiod, irrespective of proposed siteallocations. The total trip generation fromthe Hambleton housing and unemploymentallocations would materially affect thestrategic road network. The Agencyrecommends major trip generating sites beremoved, reduced in size or changed toother land uses. The Agency should beconsulted with full transport assessments asthe sites are brought forward.• English Heritage. At the Issues andOptions consultation we identified a numberof sites which could have an adverse impacton historic assets in Hambleton. We arepleased to note that the majority of thesesites have not been allocated. There are,however, a few sites where we havereservations about their impact but in mostcases our concerns could be addressedthrough recognising the need to safeguardthe character or setting of historical assets.Detailed comments on the suggested sitesare enclosed with this response.THIRSK SUB-AREAWhere required developer contributions will besought to fund service improvements andappropriate references to that effect areincluded in the development requirements foreach of the Preferred Options sites.Noted: no further action required.The Council has consulted both the HighwaysAgency and NYCC in carrying out its siteselection exercise. The amount of developmentproposed in the Allocations Development PlanDocument is required to meet the housing andemployment needs of the District. However,appropriate measures have been included in thedevelopment requirements for the PreferredOptions in consultation with the appropriatebodies. Further transport assessments will becarried out as planning applications comeforward for the Allocations sites.Agree: no further change required at this stage.The Council welcomes English Heritage’scomment that they have reservations about onlya few sites; comments about individual siteshave been included within the developmentrequirements as appropriate, bearing in mindthat at the planning applications stage furtherstipulations may be made to protect historicassets.Agree: no further change required at this stage.98

3.5 CONCLUSION3.5.1 The consultation on Development Plan Documents is a key aspect of theDevelopment Plan system. In the case of the Allocations Preferred OptionsConsultation, this has been carried out in accordance with the Statement ofCommunity Involvement and the Regulations governing the preparation ofDevelopment Plan Documents. The Council has responded torepresentations made by both the community and major stakeholders,including government bodies such as English Heritage and GovernmentOffice, local government bodies, including Parish Councils, adjoining planningauthorities and at the regional level, the Regional Assembly and other bodies.3.5.2 Many changes have been made in response to these representationsincluding the deletion of sites such as at Thirsk where Preferred Options in theStation Road area in particular were the subject of large numbers ofobjections from the community. At Thirsk the South West Thirsk Areaproposal has emerged as a much better way forward than the originalPreferred Options proposed. At Northallerton, a similar number of objectionswere expressed to the North Northallerton Development Option but, onbalance, the Council has concluded that this strategic proposal is the mostsustainable way forward for Northallerton in line with the Core Strategy andRegional Spatial Strategy while minimising impacts.3.5.3 The consultation responses have also been used to refine the 60 sites interms of development requirements, phasing, justification, and so on. Ofparticular importance in this process were the responses from the serviceproviders such as the County Council as Education and Highway Authority butalso government agencies such as English Heritage. The developmentrequirements, for example, now give very clear guidance as to whatdevelopers will be expected to provide in terms of such things as accessimprovements, affordable housing and enhanced education provision.3.5.4 The consultation responses, in some cases, (and including those inconnection with the Sustainability Appraisal Consultation), have also requiredfurther consideration of the Council’s evidence base which has been refinedand strengthened as appropriate. In particular a landscape assessment hasbeen carried out, the results of which confirm the broad pattern ofdevelopment proposals for the 5 Market Town Sub Areas in terms of theirlandscape impact.3.5.5 With regard to the Preferred Options now included in the SubmissionAllocations Development Plan Document, the sites have been re-numberedand referenced so as to focus on only the 60 or so sites which the Councilproposes should go forward for development in the period up to 2026 incompliance with the Regulations the Council will now present its SubmissionAllocations Development Plan Document in draft for a further 6 week period inwhich representations can be made before the document is submitted.4. SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL CONSULTATION4.1 Who was invited to make representations?4.1.1. Copies of the Allocations Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Reportwere sent to the four SE/SEA statutory consultees and PINS and the99

Government Office. Non-technical summaries of the document were alsoproduced and these were circulated for consultation to Town/Parish Councilsand Parish Meetings and others who were sent the Preferred Optionsdocument.4.2. How they were invited?4.2.1. The Allocations Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Report wasproduced for consultation at the same time as the Allocations PreferredOptions Document. Consultation was carried out during the same six weekperiod during October/November 2007, for both the Sustainability Appraisaland the Preferred Options Reports. The Sustainability Appraisal Report wasmade available for public inspection at the Civic Centre in Northallerton andthe Council Offices at Stokesley and Easingwold. The document was alsoavailable at the libraries at Northallerton, Thirsk, Bedale, Easingwold,Stokesley and Great Ayton.4.2.2. The Sustainability Appraisal Report was available on the websitewww.hambleton.gov.uk4.3 A summary of the main issues raised and action taken.4.3.1 Two responses were received from the Sustainability Appraisal of theAllocations Preferred Options from English Heritage and Natural England, twoof the statutory consultees.4.3.2. English Heritage broadly concurred with the assessment of the likely effectswhich the development of the sites put forward would have upon the historicassets of the area.4.3.3. English Heritage did, however, make the following comments which requireda response.• Page 33, Table 3.4 SA Objective A question 4. In order to ascertain the likely effectswhich the development of a site might have upon the character or setting of one of theDistrict’s Conservation Areas it would have been helpful to have based such judgmentson up to date Conservation Area appraisals. Given that the authority has none, therobustness of any assessment of the effects must be somewhat limited. Given that theDistrict has 47 Conservation Areas in the area covered by the Local DevelopmentFramework (a large number of which have had sites put forward as potential allocations)one might have expected the final column (data/information requirements) to havehighlighted this difficulty.• Page 77, SA Objective C but also SA Objective A. Bedale: we disagree with theconclusions in para. 5.3.3. that “none of the Preferred Options for Bedale Sub Area arepredicted to have significant effects on the historic environment”. Site 011/10 proposedGateway car park north of St. Gregory’s Church, Bedale. There are a number of ListedBuildings immediately to the south of this site, including the Grade 1 Listed Church of St.Gregory and the site abuts the northern edge of the Bedale Conservation Area.Development of a 3.3 ha site as a Gateway car park could have a significant impact onthe northern approach to the town, views into and out of the Conservation Area and,potentially, the setting of nearby Listed Buildings, including that of the Grade 1 Church.The Bedale Conservation Area Assessment (albeit somewhat out of date) specificallynotes the importance of the view of St. Gregory’s as a prominent landmark feature on theapproach road to the town from the north – which is something which could be adverselyaffected by the development of a car park. Appendix 5 of the Sustainability Report doesnot appear to have assessed the suitability of this site for development, consequently,there are no recommendations as to how the potential adverse impact which thedevelopment of this area might have upon the townscape character of this part of thesettlement, might be addressed.100

• SA Objective C Stokesley. We disagree with the conclusions in para. 5.4.2 that “nosignificant effects on the historic environment is expected as a result of development ofany of the Preferred Options sites in Stokesley”. O58/02 grounds of Cleveland Lodge,Great Ayton. Cleveland Lodge is a Grade 2 Listed Building and as the Commentarynotes on page 37, this site lies within the parkland setting of this Listed Building – withinan area which was protected by Policy L8 of the adopted Local Plan. Whilst the loss ofthis site may not cause “significant harm to the character or appearance of the village” itsloss could adversely affect the character and integrity of this parkland area – an areahighlighted by the SA/SEA on Appendix 5 page 143. Indeed, for this particular allocation,there are considerably more adverse impacts identified in the SA/SEA than there arepositive ones. Consequently, having identified a number of adverse impacts (includingone upon the historic environment), it is somewhat surprising that no mitigation was putforward. In view of the recent Inspector’s Report that a specific policy to protect suchlandscapes is not appropriate, the Council should undertake an assessment on the basisof policy DP28iv about whether the loss of this area is significant in terms of impact uponthe “other landscape features” of the District. If it is still considered appropriate tocontinue with the site as an allocation, there should be a requirement within theallocations that the character and landscape setting of the principal building issafeguarded.• There are a number of sites within or which would impact upon the setting of, one of theDistrict’s numerous Conservation Areas. In most cases, there are no up-to-dateConservation Area appraisals so not only is it difficult to adequately assess what theimpact the development of a potential site might be, upon their character but, for thosesites that are allocated, there is nothing against which to assess whether or not theproposals for the development of their locations would actually preserve or enhance thecharacter of the Conservation Area. For all those proposed allocations which are likely toaffect a Conservation Area (sites 141/03; 110/31; 020/02; 011/08; 011/09; 011/10/135/02i and 170/05) the SA/SEA should include as a mitigation measure, thatConservation Area appraisals are produced for each of those settlements, as a matter ofpriority, in order to ensure that schemes will actually preserve or enhance their character.4.3.4 These concerns have been addressed through changes to the SustainabilityAppraisal Report as follows.• Table 3.4 Sustainability Appraisal Objective A Question 4: English Heritage’s comment isagreed and Table 3.4 is to be updated accordingly.• Sustainability Appraisal Objective C (but also Sustainability Appraisal Objective A)Bedale: site 011/10 (now renumbered BC 1) has been reassessed and the potential forsignificant negative adverse effect regarding Objective A has been acknowledged butmitigation measures have been identified (See Table 1.37 in NTS, Table 7.1 andAppendix 6).• Sustainability Appraisal Objective C Stokesley. Mitigation measures have been includedfor site BC1 (previously 011/10) as included in Table 7.1, where there is an identifiedpotential significant adverse impact and it lies in a Market Town with a Conservation AreaAppraisal being prepared. Conservation Area Appraisal work has only recentlycommenced and is limited to the five Market Towns at present. Many of these previouslypreferred sites are in villages and at present there are no plans to prepare ConservationArea Character Appraisals for such settlements, nor do they generate significant adverseeffects. It is, therefore, not considered appropriate to refer to them for other sites atpresent.4.3.5 Natural England also made a response to the Sustainability Appraisal of theAllocations Preferred Options as follows:• Para 1.5.1. We also note the comment in the Sustainability Appraisal Report (page 16para 1.5.1) that uncertainty remains over the effects on bio-diversity given the lack ofdetailed site assessments at this stage of the Local Development Framework process.As such, we will expect that appropriate surveys are undertaken at the detailed planningstage for preferred sites and we would ask your authority to consider making use ofConcept Statements. Concept Statements that are integrated with the LocalDevelopment Framework match core Government aims for the new planning system.They should be seen as an achievable and effective mechanism for deliveringsustainable development.101

• Sustainability Appraisal overall: we are content that the report follows current Governmentguidance on structure, content and approach to Sustainability Appraisal and strategicenvironmental assessment. The report and appendices are clearly set out andunderstandable. However, it should be noted that some of the plans and programmesreferred to in Table 4.1 have been superseded or replaced, as advised to land useconsultants previously. We hope these will be taken into consideration prior to the finalsubmission.4.3.6 These concerns have been addressed through minor changes to theSustainability Appraisal report, as follows:• Para 1.5.1. Agreed, include reference to Concept Statements in recommendations inChapter 7.• Sustainability Appraisal: alterations to the plans and programmes have been included(see Appendices 1 & 2).102

APPENDIX 1ALLOCATIONS ISSUES AND OPTIONSCONSULTEE LISTAinderby Quernhow Parish RepAinderby Steeple Parish MeetingAiskew and Leeming Bar Parish CouncilAislaby & Newsham Parish MeetingAldwark Area Parish CouncilAlne Parish CouncilAngram Grange Parish MeetingAppleton East & West Parish CouncilAppleton Wiske Parish CouncilAsenby Parish CouncilAzerley Parish CouncilBagby & Balk Parish CouncilBaldersby Parish CouncilBedale & Upper Swale Int Drainage BoardBedale Town CouncilBeningbrough Parish MeetingBilsdale Midcable Parish CouncilBirdforth Parish RepBirkby Parish MeetingBoroughbridge Town CouncilBorrowby Parish CouncilBrafferton Parish CouncilBrandsby-cum-Stearsby Parish CouncilBritish Gas PropertiesBritish Telecommunications Plc (NE)Brompton Town CouncilBurneston, Swainby with Allerthorpe &Theakston Parish CouncilBurton on Yore Parish MeetingCarlton Husthwaite Parish MeetingCarlton Miniott Parish CouncilCarlton-in-Cleveland Parish CouncilCarthorpe Parish CouncilCatterick Village Parish CouncilCatton Parish MeetingCawton, Coulton & Grimstone ParishCouncilCommission for Racial EqualityCountryside AgencyCoxwold Parish CouncilCrakehall with Langthorne P CouncilCrathorne Parish MeetingCrayke Parish CouncilCundall with Leckby PCDalby-cum-Skewsby Parish MeetingDalton on Tees Parish CouncilDalton Parish CouncilDanby Wiske Parish CouncilDarlington Borough CouncilDefence EstatesDEFRADeighton Parish RepDepartment for Constitutional AffairsDepartment for Work and PensionsDepartment of Culture Media and SportDepartment of HealthDunsforth Parish MeetingEasby Parish MeetingEasingwold Town CouncilEast Cowton Parish CouncilEast Harlsey Parish CouncilEast Witton Parish CouncilEldmire with Crakehill Parish MeetingEllerton Parish CouncilEllington High & Low Parish CouncilEnglish Heritage, Historic Buildings &Monuments CommissionEnglish NatureEnvironment AgencyEryholme Parish CouncilExelby, Leeming & Newton Parish CouncilFaceby Parish MeetingFarlington Parish MeetingFirby Parish RepForestry CommissionFoss Internal Drainage BoardGatenby Parish RepGirsby Parish MeetingGovernment Office Yorks and the HumberGreat & Little Broughton P CouncilGreat Ayton Parish CouncilGreat Busby Parish MeetingGreat Langton Parish MeetingGreat Ouseburn, Thorpe Underwood and103

Kirby Hall Parish CouncilGrewelthorpe PCGuisborough Town CouncilHackforth & Combined Parish CouncilHambleton Strategic PartnershipHarrogate Borough CouncilHaxby Town CouncilHelperby Parish CouncilHighways AgencyHillside Parish CouncilHM Prison Service HQHood Grange Parish CouncilHornby Parish CouncilHovingham & Shackleton Parish CouncilHowe Parish MeetingHuby Parish CouncilHusthwaite Parish CouncilHutchinson OrangeHutton Bonville Parish RepIngleby Arncliffe Parish CouncilIngleby Greenhow Parish CouncilKilburn Parish CouncilKildale Parish Meeting RepresentativeKillerby Parish repKiplin Parish MeetingKirby Hill & District Parish CouncilKirby Wiske & Newsham WithBreckenbroughKirkby Fleetham with Fencote P CouncilKirkby-in-Cleveland Parish CouncilKirklevington Parish CouncilKirklington with Sutton Howgrave PCKnayton-with-Brawith Parish CouncilKyle and Upper Ouse Drainage BoardLeake Parish RepLinton-on-Ouse Parish CouncilLittle Ayton Parish MeetingLittle Busby Parish MeetingLittle Langton Parish RepLow Dinsdale Parish RepMarton-cum-Moxby Parish MeetingMasham Parish CouncilMaunby, Newby Wiske & SouthOtterington Parish CouncilMiddlesbrough Borough CouncilMiddleton St George Parish CouncilMobile Operators AssociationMoor Monkton Parish CouncilMorton-on-Swale Parish CouncilMyton-on-Swale Parish MeetingNEDLNether Poppleton Parish CouncilNewburgh Parish RepNewby Parish CouncilNewton Le Willows Parish CouncilNewton-on-Ouse Parish CouncilNidderdale AONBNorth Cowton Parish CouncilNorth Kilvington Parish RepNorth Otterington Parish RepNorth Stainley with Sleningford PCNorth York Moors National ParkNorth Yorkshire County Council(Highways)North Yorkshire County Council (SocialServices)North Yorkshire County Council(Education)North Yorkshire County Council (PolicyDevelopment)North Yorkshire County Council -Corporate Policy (NYSP)Northallerton Town CouncilNorthern ElectricNorthumbrian Water LtdNorton Conyers Parish MeetingNun Monkton Parish CouncilNunthorpe Parish CouncilO2One North EastOsmotherley Area Parish CouncilOulston Parish MeetingOver Dinsdale Parish RepOverton Parish MeetingPatrick Brompton Parish CouncilPickhill-with-Roxby Parish CouncilPicton Parish MeetingPlanning InspectoratePotto Parish CouncilRainton with Newby Parish CouncilRand Grange Parish RepRaskelf Parish CouncilRedcar & Cleveland Borough CouncilRichmondshire District Council104

Romanby Parish CouncilRounton Parish CouncilRoyal Mail Property HoldingsRudby Parish CouncilRyedale District CouncilSandhutton Parish CouncilScarborough Borough CouncilScorton Parish CouncilScruton Parish CouncilSeamer Parish CouncilSessay Parish Council,,,,,Sexhow Parish MeetingSherriff Hutton Parish CouncilShipton Parish CouncilSiltons & Kepwick Parish CouncilSkelton Parish CouncilSkipton-on-Swale Parish MeetingSmeaton with Hornby P CouncilSnape with Thorp Parish CouncilSockburn Parish MeetingSouth Cowton Parish RepSouth Kilvington Parish CouncilSouth Tees Hospitals NHS TrustSowerby Parish CouncilSport EnglandStainton & Thornton Parish CouncilStillington Parish CouncilStockton on Tees Borough CouncilStokesley Parish CouncilStrensall & Towthorpe Parish CouncilSutton-on-the-Forest Parish CouncilSutton-under-Whitestonecliffe P CTanfield Parish CouncilTees Valley Joint Strategy UnitTerrington Parish CouncilThirkleby High And Low With Osgodby PCThirlby Parish MeetingThirsk Group of Drainage BoardsThirsk Town CouncilTholthorpe Parish MeetingThormanby Parish MeetingThornborough Parish RepThornton Steward Parish CouncilThornton Watlass, Burrill with Cowling,Thirn, Clifton on Yore & Rookwith ParishCouncilThornton-le-Beans & Crosby/CotcliffeParish CouncilThornton-le-Moor Parish CouncilThornton-on-the-Hill Parish MeetingThrintoft Parish MeetingTollerton Parish CouncilTopcliffe Parish CouncilTranscoVodaphone LtdWarlaby Parish MeetingWath Parish MeetingWelbury Parish CouncilWell Parish CouncilWhenby Parish MeetingWhitwell Parish RepWhorlton Parish CouncilWiggington Parish CouncilWildon Grange Parish MeetingWorsall Parish CouncilYafforth Parish MeetingYarm Town CouncilYearsley Parish MeetingYork City CouncilYorkshire & Humber AssemblyYorkshire & the Humber Strategic HealthAuthorityYorkshire Community HousingYorkshire ForwardYorkshire Water Services Ltd105

106

APPENDIX 2ALLOCATIONS ISSUES AND OPTIONSRESPONDENTS LISTYorkshire WaterNorthumbrian WaterEnvironment AgencyEnglish NatureFoss Internal Drainage BoardNorth Yorkshire County Council (Education Service)North Yorkshire County Council (Heritage Section)English HeritageSport EnglandYorkshire ForwardHighways AgencyNorth Yorkshire County Council (Highways)Danby Wiske with Lazenby Parish CouncilMorton-on-Swale Parish CouncilThirkleby High and Low with Osgodby Parish CouncilBedale Town CouncilScruton Parish CouncilBrompton Town CouncilKirkby-in-Cleveland Parish CouncilKnayton Parish CouncilGreat and Little Broughton Parish CouncilSmeaton with Hornby Parish CouncilWell Parish CouncilKirkby Fleetham with Fencotes Parish CouncilCarlton Miniott Parish CouncilPickhill/Sinderby Parish CouncilSessay Parish CouncilSowerby Parish CouncilExelby Leeming and Newton Parish CouncilDalton Parish CouncilAlne Parish CouncilEasingwold Town CouncilMyton on Swale Parish MeetingThirsk Town CouncilRudby Parish CouncilBorrowby Parish CouncilStokesley Parish CouncilSnape with Thorpe Parish CouncilHuby Parish CouncilEast and West Rounton Parish CouncilLinton-on-Ouse Parish CouncilShipton by Beningbrough Parish CouncilLangthorne Parish CouncilCrakehall Parish CouncilSeamer Parish CouncilHusthwaite Parish CouncilSandhutton Parish CouncilTanfield Parish CouncilBurneston, Swainby with Allerthorpe and Theakston Parish CouncilCatton Village MeetingSutton-on-the-Forest Parish CouncilSutton under Whitestonecliffe Parish CouncilGreat Ayton Parish Council107

108

APPENDIX 3LDF (Site Allocations DPD Issues & Options)/ CP Exhibitions and Public Meetings October 2005Week 1 Week 2Mon Bedale villages – mobile unit exhibition Mon 24 th Northallerton villages – mobile unit exhibition17 thTue 18 th Bedale Hall10 – 6 Exhibition7 – 9 Public MeetingTue 25 th Easingwold Galtres Centre(downstairs till 1 then upstairs)10 – 6 Exhibition7 – 9 Public MeetingWed Civic Centre, Council Chamber *19 th 10 – 6 ExhibitionNorthallerton Town Hall (downstairs)7 – 9 Public MeetingWed 26 th Stokesley Town Hall10 – 6 Exhibition(downstairs till 12 then upstairs)7 - 9 Public MeetingNorthallerton Town Hall (upstairs, no disabled access)10 – 5 ExhibitionThur Thirsk Town Hall20 th 10 – 6 Exhibition7 – 9 Public MeetingThur 27 th Stokesley villages – mobile unit exhibitionFri 21 st Thirsk villages – mobile unit exhibition Fri 28 th Easingwold villages – mobile unit exhibitionAll exhibitions are 10am – 6pm (except Northallerton 26 th Oct 10 – 5); All public meetings are 7pm – 9pm; * Wednesday 19 th Oct at theCivic Centre is a District-Wide event with all sites being shown.109

ALLOCATIONS ISSUES AND OPTIONSPROGRAMME OF MOBILE EXHIBITIONS – OCTOBER 2005APPENDIX 3 (cont)Date Village Location TimeMonday 17 th Leeming Bar Wensleydale 9 - 11Railway car parkCrakehall Village green 11.30 – 1.30Snape Village hall car 2 - 4parkWest Tanfield Village hall car 4.30 – 6.30parkFriday 21 st Topcliffe Long Street 12 - 2Carlton Miniott Vale of York 2.30 – 4.30public house carparkMonday 24 th Brompton Church View 10 - 12East Cowton Village hall car 12.30 – 2.30parkMorton-on-Swale Dales School lay 3 - 5byThursday 27 th Hutton Rudby Village green 10 – 12Great Broughton Primary School 12.30 – 2.30lay-byGreat Ayton High Green 3 - 5Friday 28 th Husthwaite Primary School 9 – 11lay-byHelperby War memorial 11.30 – 1.30Stillington Village green 2 – 4Shipton Village hall carpark4.30 – 6.30110

APPENDIX 4ALLOCATIONS ISSUES AND OPTIONSNOTES OF AREA MEETINGSAllocations DPD Issues and Options Consultation- Bedale Area MeetingBedale Hall7 pm Tuesday 18 th October 2005Approx 35 people present (see attendance list)Issues raised:• Planners should consider the impending changes in agriculture which will affectprofitability of agricultural land and numbers of livestock. There are likely to beimplications for the number of farm buildings needed and future options for thesesites should be kept open.• Planners may need to be more flexible in allowing affordable housing, new servicesand other development in the ‘other settlements’.• Gatenby has access to a primary school (on RAF Leeming). Should it not thereforebe higher up the settlement hierarchy (it is listed as an ‘other’ settlement).• The car parks in Bedale should not be redeveloped as they are needed (they areidentified as potential development sites due to suggestions made in the TownCentres Study and the Bedale Renaissance Market Town Masterplan).• Firby Road has the primary and secondary schools, the doctors’ surgery and theleisure centre along it. It is narrow and gets congested and is not a suitable locationfor housing development.• BD5 sites (spaces of townscape importance) make an important contribution tomany of our towns and villages. These should be considered at the same time asallocations.• Will the Council take an entrepreneurial view of Leeming Bar and aim to encourageexpansion and inward investment.• Providing housing for the Bedale / Aiskew Service Centre in Aiskew would meanAiskew Parish Council getting the additional precept but Bedale services taking thestrain.• It is important that affordable housing – whether rented or shared equity – remainsaffordable in the future, not just for the first occupants.• Military bases should be taken into account – they are not currently covered in theCore Strategy.• Renaissance Market Town issues need to be picked up both in terms of allocatingsites where appropriate and ensuring detailed policies allow for their aspirations tobe achieved.111

APPENDIX 4 (cont)ALLOCATIONS ISSUES AND OPTIONSNOTES OF AREA MEETINGSAllocations DPD Issues and Options Consultation- Easingwold Area MeetingThe Galtres Centre, Easingwold7 pm Tuesday 25 th October 2005Approx 35 people present (see attendance list)Issues raised:• Why is so much housing needed and how does this compare with past rates ofcompletions and refused developments. What has been the Council’s response toRSS figures• Could the settlement hierarchy change during the Plan period• Need for key worker affordable housing (e.g. Sutton-on-the-Forest)• Linton-on-Ouse should be a service village to allow more sustainable housing forpeople working at RAF Linton who commute from further afield• What is the future of RAF Linton (brownfield redevelopment potential?)• Green Belt could restrict development around Shipton and we need to know whatCity of York and surrounding Districts think of our plans• Need to reduce transport by car• Should consider flexibility to extend dwellings when approved• Should not encourage housing in a village without a school (e.g. Tollerton)• What is affordable housing and how do you control occupation and retain asaffordable in future• Need for housing for first time buyers in Huby• School in Huby is at capacity• How can you achieve cheap housing• What is the future of Tanpit Lodge and the County Council’s depot in Easingwold• The Health Centre could provide a better location for one-stop shop proposals• Infrastructure problems exist in Easingwold e.g. sewerage, temporary schoolclassrooms, doctors and dentists• Many people shop and work outside the town and provide little benefit to localcommunity life• How will community views be balanced with other considerations112

APPENDIX 4 (cont)ALLOCATIONS ISSUES AND OPTIONSNOTES OF AREA MEETINGSAllocations DPD Issues and Options Consultation- Northallerton Area MeetingNorthallerton Town Hall7 pm Wednesday 19 th October 2005Approx 40 people present (see attendance list)Issues raised:• Why is so much housing needed – will encourage more out-commuting (e.g. fromEast Cowton)• Affordable housing – definition, how to provide, retain and control• Problems of existing infrastructure (drainage and flooding) in East Cowton couldmean no site suitable and therefore question whether “service village” designationis appropriate• Concern re adequacy and accuracy of information for East Cowton Flood RiskStudy• Sites suggested don’t always reflect the settlement’s position in the SustainableSettlement Hierarchy (e.g. Great Smeaton)• Car parking in Northallerton doesn’t appear to be covered and should be a priorityfor site allocation• Public transport improvements will be needed• Morton-on-Swale suffers from high volumes of through traffic, and new housing inthe village could add to the problem unless it would lead to greater chance of avillage bypass• Will the Low Gates level crossing be addressed in making allocations• Will the Plan’s requirements be adhered to by the Council in future developmentcontrol• Northallerton RUFC ground has been considered previously and rejected followinghuge public objection to closing the Brompton gap/green wedge and shouldn’thave been resurrected by the planners• Provision should be made for more small shops in the town centre, not more retailwarehouses out of town• Will flood alleviation works in Northallerton and Brompton be in place beforeallocated sites are developed113

APPENDIX 4 (cont)ALLOCATIONS ISSUES AND OPTIONSNOTES OF AREA MEETINGSAllocations DPD Issues and Options Consultation- Stokesley Area MeetingStokesley Town Hall7 pm Wednesday 26 th October 2005Approx 18 people present (see attendance list)Issues raised:• Are sites owned by developers• What is the process for changing development limits• How do we reconcile the need to develop more affordable housing in the Stokesleyarea villages with the need to concentrate development in the service centre ofStokesley where there is little new affordable housing need at present• Affordable housing – definition, how to provide, retain and control• How will we deal with Special Needs Housing – e.g. for the elderly• How will sites be scored to arrive at Preferred Options• Will availability of sites be double checked• Is there a preference for several small sites rather than one large site in asettlement• What is the future of The Manor House in Stokesley• Is there a need for more industrial development in Stokesley – it will attract morebusinesses and commuters from Teesside• Employment sites to the south of the town are well linked to the main highwaynetwork but development is prominent in views from the Cleveland Hills and weneed to respect that the area is popular for tourists. Open views to the south fromthe B1257 Broughton Road should be protected• Is it just housing we need to allocate sites for in villages such as Hutton Rudby orare there other uses to plan for, such as employment114

APPENDIX 4 (cont)ALLOCATIONS ISSUES AND OPTIONSNOTES OF AREA MEETINGSAllocations DPD Issues and Options Consultation- Thirsk Area MeetingThirsk Town Hall7 pm Thursday 20 th October 2005Approx 40 people present (see attendance list)Issues raised:• 80 houses per annum is too many, how can you ensure housing will be for localpeople? New housing will encourage commuters.• Not enough car parking in Thirsk• Concerns over lack of public transport to support new housing• New housing should only be affordable• New housing should be located close to employment sites to discourage travellinglong distances. The aim of planning is for balanced growth.• Is it intended to develop all the area within the red line boundary?• Poultry sheds sites within Pickhill need redeveloping as they are inharmonious withthe surrounding residential area.• Many schools could not cope with additional pupils, however Pickhill school isundersubscribed.• Concerns over additional traffic that new housing in Thirsk would created.Suggestion of a new slip road onto the A170 from bypass without going into thetown.• Can the definition of affordable housing be widened to be available for the elderlypeople with special needs and key workers?• Will the needs of elderly people be taken into account in the provision of newhousing?• Will more cycle tracks be included within the plan? Increased traffic createshazards for cyclists and does not encourage sustainable travel.• Concern that the 3 bridges into and out of Thirsk cannot cope with an increasedlevel of traffic from new homes, particularly Blakey Bridge.• Is there any scope for developments beyond what is allocated in the plan?• How will you practice joined up working with other agencies and departments?• Will affordable housing be just for local people?• How do I contact individual agents to find out more about the proposed sites?• How does the council publicise its LDF meetings and stages of plan production?• Concern that the council is not publicising consultation events widely enough• School fields for housing – shouldn’t lose such land• Planning gain to be maximised• School playing fields require greater protection from development. Development ofThirsk primary school field would be a disaster in case they require additional landin the future.115

• If planning permission has previously been refused on a site, can it be consideredin the new plan?• Concerns over an increase in heavy traffic and the weight limit in Topcliffe• Green wedges should not be used for development. Expansion of towns andvillages is irreversible and countryside should be protected (York Road).• Members of the public should use their parish councils more to find out about whatis happening in their local area. Parish meetings are generally poorly attended.• Doctors and dentist surgeries and schools cannot cope with new patients/pupilsthat new housing would bring.116

Hambleton News October 2005 ,.APPENDIX 5 page 9MAPPING OUT OUR FUTUR~A distinctive di.tinctiv"n_ n_ plan to If2.d lead the ttl" wayCot' r.... d"v"lopmMu developments in Hambleton Ho.mbl""'" up to2021 101t is i.taldnJ taking "'ape. sh:ape.Th" The n"w new LmaJ l.cid., policiesfor the th" district di,trict in four (our m~ioe major dornm",u: documents:A Co", Core StnlIOgy SlntEgy -containi'l: corrt2linil"\l: the thovision, vi>ion, moin main objec.tives objoc~v., and ""d stnteglc. 5tnI.t.gicpc>id"" polic.iesAllocations AlloO>.ti"'" - ,nowing showing sites >it"" wl1.", wherenou,in" housin~ ""'ploymont employment and ""d other oth...­~.v,"opmonti developments should u,ould tab, take place pia.ry Supplementary Planning Docurr"",t< Documerm top"""i~. provide more mo'" d5:ailed d",,"I,,~ >dvioo advic.e to de~lopers. d"""lop.n,Th" The framework f",m.work 1= has b..,n been informed in/ormood by a~,...-i"" series. of recent eocont ind"p.ndont independent studies >t.udi", on"""')'thing everything from Ir"'" noming, housing, town c""""'- centres, co.r carpath par-tG. and ~nd ec.onomc. ""onomic ~.v.lop""'nt development toflooding and ~nd urban poton~~I. potEntial.Initial findings ~nding, VRnO lY8'""'e summarised ""mrm.m"d into the til.co..., c.ore strnt:.egy- rtr£.gy i=J", iMues and ~nd options opti"'" topic.pap""" papers --~nd and the th" public were w.'" asked Mkod...m..t whatthey th"y thought tIlought ofthose ofth",,, this thi, spring. >pring.Consultations Coruulto.~o", loIloW1Od followed this tIli, ""m"",ron summer til. the'p...,r.,rrod 'preferred core cor" 5tnI.t'V' .trategy' - "'>po,"", responses onwl1ith which are ~'" still ,till to be b" considered coo,id"",d bycouncillors.coun.koo> p1>.co place""d and its ~ distribution di,tributioo1lITo'" across th. the rift fIVe mari,et rnart:.ttown areas. a"'M,Witllin V't'ithin the tho next nOOit"" ""'y may be b•needed n"od"d for lor 120 320 home; nom"" a year y= :oem", acrossHambieton Harnbloton ... as well woIl ... as around amund.w 40 h"ct:>.r., hectares of dadditional additi"",,1 .mploym"nt employment land. "-nd, Dotoil> Defait. of d til. thepreferred p",f..-rod ,m.togy""' strat~are outlined"""" outJinod ""'" by area ~"'~butthey tIl"y could change. thltngo,Towm Towns and villogu villages have mv. b••n been cofegorised c"qori>.d­­your no"", home could coufd b" be in a~ ,.rvic" servit.e c"fTtro centre ora or~secondary ""cond>.ry village.vil~,," Mu", Future developmentd"""lopm"ntopportunities opprtlJnitJ., vmy vary according aa:ording to thllt that II>~ng­ Ustingand""'''' more Information inlormatioo on 00 a possible pOMibl" 300 )00""d10t:agod .stagedlater bit....- this till> month.''Th" "The one on. thing thint thllt that will malte mo.k. thl> this p!>.n plandistinctive di5tinctiv. for loe Hambleton Harnbl":on is i, til" the involvementinvolv"",.ntofioGlI local people," poopl..".>aid said Cabin.t Cabinet Member M"mb...- forth" the Enviroom.nt, Environment, Councillor John Morley, Morl"1'"By l'By working woriion;service '''rvioo villag1o' villages - the tn.main 10 needs of d rural t"\J~communiti...;communities;secondary ,uood>.'J vil~"" villages -willsee , ... limited limftrd~.v.lop""'nt development "" tosupport ,upport local need; n".d;:tnd and .~owh"", elsewhere(inciudint (including til" the "",all.e smallervillage;) vilO>.g",,) - wl1"", where~.v.lop""'ntwill development b. be..."tnctod restricted to,,)(oop~ooaI excepti orraI needs, n",.j"117

!()"~ --I Jili ~ II!- ~: (J)';'0~--1~;:;o-~"age 10 October 2005 Hambleton News October 2005>p~f~ioro~" o "• .. • or'BLUEPRINT FOR HAMBLETON DISTRICT~~OJ~rmQ~--1~OI"o ;:;0.....z0'r-c:m-a:-aHOW MUCH DEVELOPMENT AND WHERE••• the c1rclft Core Strategy sClyS:the possible alternative - or mIx of - uses put forward for the sites!~ i!i :J::gi!!'§:g1: 3 ,~~ :~2.ol!i:"_tf ~ ~ g";;;,,"'"9-;;-!I. ~},g ~:~i~lli,.QS-~ ::ifi~a:~3I: IlISg~;'x·~Q"S!I.llsa,",~'" ~ ~ if~ i~~~[f~ ,,"~';!L ~a s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~p. t~ ~!}~.Q3~~g~~g';;!~ :-3" II '"'::I .., 0 ....... ~ ;3- ii1,"~.,".• :;~ 9- s "~ 11: 9- 9- 9- 9- 9-.. '" d 9--tS i'" .. '" .. '"~ Co ~ os g.~~~"o;]-iiii}~!llFrve separate docl.J11ents outline the eurrerK Issues and options for futut'edevelopment sites In Hambleton.ḥ,iIi~ ;'0."~I"3 a"~i~BEDALEAREAthe ways In which each possible ,Ite c.ould be developedthe preference br greenfield over brown'e1d sitesthe phasing of development.through to 2021~ : ~ ~ •-By 2021 the Bedale area requires about three hectares of employment land - on top of the exrstlng commItted land and avallabiesites. land for -40 homes a year divided between the market town and the service villages -including 50"10 for affordable~"~o~~ ~~0.. _ 03 .... Co 0..~~. ~g ~[~~ ""~ ~;~~ a.; ~[~::ll ::I .. 0.. 2'

page 12 October 2005 Hambleton News~KE A CLOSER LOOKKFe""""""; p""'ntial ,;t", ••rA SetiM .,.ri~. of roadshows road.how. willgive Iliv~ lcaI...,opl~ local people a chancechanc~to check ch~ck out how th~ the'UIlIl"IIt~d suggested locations location. ofAnd Iu1d tho the ....,bil~ mobile polio~ police unit.will b. be used to visit th~ the 16villages vilbgos - itwill b. be lr, Kirkby,Middlnon Middlet.on on 0w, !logbr, Bagby,Ultirmtoly Ultimately the tho council oou",il will II,d.ct s elect a~pad",!:e paOOg~ of 01 sites stu., tim. thataccord ~ooo"'; with th~ the Core Co",Strategy Str""'gr"ft.,r after 001UU1t2lti0.I oommulItrcur",ntLurrent work" is j",t just th~ the stare startcommurrty­010. of a proce5S proo"" to identify id..,tify the thoI-b.mbloton'. Hambleton's mMUt market towns town:; tnat thot hav~ have been b""n pet put lorwsrd forward &Ik, Balk, Borrawby, Borrowbr, Gttton, Catton,c""I,,~o realistic site stu. developmentd"""lopm~r1:""d and 16 'service "..-vi.. villages'. vilbg",'. for lor consideration =Mid~",tionsofa,- far will DaltO.kJ, a~previous pnovi"'" 1'''1:"'') pages) but. also "SOSouth Kilvington, Southdonr dose... look": look;at th~ the ,;t", sites where wI1.", thoso those in.rmll~r smaller villages vil~ and ~nd OttorifllltO, council ooun "ro:ll'.riID and Parish Councils. Counoil..And th~", there is stili still soop.lor scope forlurth... further ideas id= - for all US"" uses b. beit hoc.o;i"ll' hous.ing, recreation ro=""uO

120

APPENDIX 6ALLOCATIONS ISSUES AND OPTIONSSITE ASSESSMENT FORMSettlement:Site Ref:Location:Area (ha.):Proposal:Identified by: Owner / Developer / Agent / TC / PC / Planning Officer /TC Study / ED Study / UP Study / NLUDPreliminary Views*:1) Suitability:2) Availability:3) Accessibility:* Views are an expression of officer opinion only at this stage and are based on a detailedsite assessment carried out during July-September 2005. They currently do not have thebenefit of consultees’ responses on such important issues as infrastructure provision andflooding, which is currently being sought from the relevant agencies.121

122

ALLOCATIONS ISSUES & OPTIONS QUESTIONNAIRES APPENDIX 7HAMBLETON LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORKAllocations - Issues and Options Questionnaire - October 2005Northallerton/Romanby1. How many new homes and how much land for industry/business do you think should bedeveloped in Northallerton/Romanby in addition to any existing planning permissions?In answering the question please bear in mind the following information:Housing• The Preferred Core Strategy currently proposes 100 new homes each year (or 1,400 in totalbetween 2007- 2021) in the Northallerton area with the majority in NorthallertonlRomanby andthereafter mainly in the 3 Service Villages ofBrompton, East Cowton and Morton on Swale.• The Housing Needs Survey found a need for at least 19 affordable homes per year inNorthalierton/Romanby over the next 5 years, and a need for few in the surrounding rural area.• Over the last 6 years 233 homes were completed in Northallerton/Romanby town area, averaging39 per year.• An allowance also needs to be made for small-scale developments in other Secondary Villages(within development limits) and elsewhere, including rural conversion schemes.This would suggest a figure for Northallerton/Romanby somewhere within the range of 50 - 70 peryear, or up to 1,000 over the Plan period from 2007 - 2021.Employment• The Preferred Core Strategy currently proposes a need for an additional 20 hectares (49 acres)of land, but.with 12 hectares (30 acres) available there is only a need for 8 hectares (19 acres) ofnew land to be allocated.This is expected to be located in the principal service centre ofNorthallerton/Romanby.This would suggest a need for a new site allocation at NorthallertonlRomanby ofsome 8 hectares(19 acres), unless existing industrial/business premises are planned to be used for other purposes inwhich case this would increase.How many new homes in total need to be allocated in Northallerton/Romanby fordevelopment by 2021? .(NB It is not considered appropriate to allocate sites providing less than 5 homes)How much industrial/business land needs to be allocated in Northallerton/Romanby fordevelopment by 2021 (on top of existing available sites)?............ hectares 2! acres2. Which sites do you prefer for new housing, employment or other uses?Please bear in mind the following:• The scale ofdevelopment you prefer and the amount ofland needed to achieve this.• Priority should be given to previously developed sites (includes gardens) and buildings beforegreenfield sites (includes farm buildings).• Flooding, access or other infrastructure constraints may exist on some sites.• Not all sites may be available.Please indicate which sites you find most and least acceptable for development (using the SiteReference Number shown on the map on the back of this sheet)123

Proposed Use Best sites Worst sites(Add any others to list) (place in order of most preferred) (place in order of least preferred)HousingIndustryBusiness (Offices)ShoppingLeisure/RecreationCommunity-3. Do you think there are there any other preferable and available development sites?If so, where (please outline on the map or give address details) and for what purpose?4. Do you think any sites shown on the map are definitely not available?If so, please give the Site Reference Number and reason(s): 05. Apart from accommodating new allocations, do you see a need to amend the existingdevelopment limits? (see map)Yes 0 No 0If Yes, please indicate where on the map on the back of this sheet and give reason(s):6. Any other comments on the sites presented**************************************************************************************************************FOR THIS RESPONSE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT YOU MUST COMPLETE:Your Name •...•...............................................Your Post Code ....................................•.........**************************************************************************************************************Please return to:Planning Policy TeamHambleton District CouncilCivic CentreStone CrossNORTHALLERTONDL62UUor Email to: planning.policy@hambleton.gov.u~ by Friday 18 November 2005124

.t-/Potential Site AllocationsbC>, t1> ""~rl.1, I I ...,,,• -, ·Ii t~__ i• '1\ \~,!, ~ ~'~~~.. ';,,~ \ \ \N.orthaller\~:/RomanbY_, ';'~ \ \ \Northaller\ton/Romanby~, '~~ ./\/\,~ / \\rII ~'"r..lIt\..,/J(JC.o ~.... ,.I/'\\\','~. ../)1/// \~ .,' ~.>/""'~~;'\ ". ,"\.~. \~/~'i.>-."".'~"';.';,'__\'\ """"'''~\ ,,~'\..d.\ ""-

11.,//.?~.';-'.-:"-:..,:---

HAMBLETON LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORKAllocations - Issues and Options Questionnaire - October 2005Northallerton Rural Area1. How many new homes do you think should be developed in BROMPTON inaddition to any existing outstanding planning permissions?Please bear in mind the following inforination:• The Preferred Core Strategy currently proposes 100 new homes each year(or 1,400 in total between 2007- 2021) in the Northallerton area with themajority in NorthallertonlRomanby and thereafter mainly in the 3 ServiceVillages ofBrompton, East Gowton and Morton on Swa/e.• The Housing Needs Survey found a need for very few affordable hom,es inthis rural area, but a need for at least 19 peryear in NorlhallertonIRomanbyover the next 5 years.--. ,----ever-the-/ast-6-years"1-44h9mes--were completed across this rural area,averaging 24 per year.• An allowance needs to be made for small-scale developments in otherSecondary Villages (within development limits) and elsewhere, including ruralconversion sch"emes.'This would suggest a figure for your village somewhere within the range of 1-7per year, or up to 100 over the Plan period from 2007 - ,2021.How many new homes do you think should be allocated for development inBROMPTON by 2021? ••• •••'2. Which sites do you prefer for new housing in'BROMPTON?Please bear in mind the following:• The scale ofdevelopment you prefer and the amount ofland needed toachieve it.• Priority should be given to previously developed sites and buildings (includesgardens) before greenfif!ld sites (includes farm buildings).• Flooding, access or other infrastructure constraints may exist on some sites.• Not all sites may be available.Please rank the sites:Reference Numbers (see map on the back)1 st choice ..••......•.........•2 nd choice ••.•.••..............3 rd choice •.•..•....••.....•...Which sites do you object to? Reference Numbers: •................•.•..............and Reasons:· .•. IlI •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••Are there any other preferable and available sites in the village? If so,where?(please outline on map also)Are any sites shown definitely not available? .3. Do you see a need to amend the existing development limits? (see map)Yes 0 No 0If Yes, please indicate where on the map on the back.4. Do you think new sites should be allocated for any other uses? If so, whatand where? (please show on the map on the back) ...••.•.•...•...•..•.••.•.......•......................................................................................................FOR THIS RESPONSE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT YOU MUST COMPLETE:Your Name Your Post Code .Please return to: Planning Policy TeamHambleton District CouncilCivic CentreStone CrossNorthallerton, OL6 2UU ' by Friday 18 th November 2005127

128',u,"""".,"".,.,••".,"""",.",\...............................,....,.....v \~u..............~ ,....JlJ~Existing Local 'Plan Development limits'\\ \ \ ~~\ /J'Potential 5ile Allocations •Potential Site Allocations •\-.--"- \ / ..~ \ ~\\ ~l, #~\ )~.~.:,,/\ , ~ ..,~~,.,'/:/}".... ....~.. ":.":.":.":.~~::::::~- ••, • ' ••>••••••••>••••••••••----....---------........-----------....---,,-- -. ...::....../::.....•................ _....~ ....15/~(C) Crown copyrighl. COpyright~· ~ no. 100016555 100018555

HAMBLETON LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORKAllocations - Issues and Options Questionnaire - October 2005Northallerton Rural Area - AINDERBY STEEPLE1. How many new homes do you think should be developed in your village inaddition to any existing outstanding planning permissions?In answering the question please bear in mind the following information:• The Preferred Core Strategy currently proposes 100 new homes each year(or 1,400 in total between 2007- 2021) in the Northallerton area with themajority in Norlhallerton/Romanby and thereafter mainly in the 3 ServiceVillages of Brompton, East Cowton and Morton on Swa/e to ensure the mostsustainable development.• The Preferred Core Strategy currently proposes only small sites for 100%affordable housing be allocated in Secondary Villages and no sites beallocated in the smaller villages and in the countryside.• The Housing Needs Survey found a need for very few affordable homes inthis rural area, but a need for at least 19 per year in NorthallertonlRomanbyover the next 5 years.• Over the last 6 years 144 homes were completed across this rural area,averaging 24 per year.• An allowance needs to be made for small-scale developments in otherSecondary Villages (within development limits) and elsewhere, including ruralconversion schemes.This would suggest little, if any, need for a new housing allocation in your villageover the Plan period from 2007 - 2021.How many new homes do you think need to be allocated for development inyour village by 2021? .•••.•2. Which sites do you prefer for new 1000/0 affordable housing in your village?Please bear in mind the foJ/owing:• Priority should be given to previously developed sites and buildings (includesgardens) before greenfield sites (includes farm buildings).• Flooding, access or other infrastructure constraints may exist on some sites.• Not all sites may be available.Please rank the sites in order of preference using the Site ReferenceNumbers (see map on the back) ..••.....•.•..••...................................•...........Which sites do you object to? Reference Numbers: ..and Reasons: .Are there any other preferable and available sites in the village? If so,where?(please outline on map also)Are any sites shown definitely not available? ..3. Do you see a need to amend the existing development limits? (see map)Yes 0 No 0If Yes, please indicate where on the map on the back4. Do you think new sites should be allocated for any other uses in yourvillage? If so, what and where? (please show on map on the back)FOR THIS RESPONSE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT YOU MUST COMPLETE:Your Name ..........................•...•..Your Post Code .....•.....................Please return to: Planning Policy TeamHambleton District CouncilCivic CentreStone CrossNorthallerton, DL6 2UU by Friday 18 th November 2005129

....................... ' ....................."::>,":::;"::--,8028'.~;~:;:..~;"~~.~;.~~.~;.~~;"> 0.'.;;·0 y~ .~l\ \ ....\ ~ .. ~,.• • • • • • • •~ Existing Local Plan Development limits\.-:::::::>~~:-Potential Site Allocations • Ainderby Steeple8020.> oo~~~~~;:;7483130

HAMBLETON LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORKAllocations - Issues and Options Questionnaire - October 2005Northallerton Rural Area: Non-Service or Secondary villages1. How many new homes do you think should be developed in your village inaddition to any existing outstanding planning permissions?In answering the question please bear in mind the following information:• The Preferred Core Strategy currently proposes 100 new homes each year(or 1,400 in total between 2007- 2021) in the Norlhallerton area with themajority in Northallerton/Romanby and thereafter mainly in the 3 ServiceVillages ofBrompton, East Cowton and Morton on Swale.• The Preferred Core Strategy currently proposes only small sites for 100%affordable housing be allocated in Secondary Villages and no sites beallocated in the sma'ller villages and in the countryside.• The Housing Needs Survey found a need for very few affordable homes inthis rural area, but a need for at least 19 per year in Northallerton/Romanbyover the next 5 years.• Over the last 6 years 144 homes were completed across this rural area,averaging 24 per year.Your village: .How many new homes do you think need to be allocated for development inyour village by 2021? .2. Which sites, if any, do you prefer for housing in your village?Please bear in mind the following:• No allocation or development limits windfall sites are being sought in yourvillage under the current Preferred Core Strategy.• Priority should be given to previously developed sites and buildings (includesgardens) before greenfield sites (includes farm buildings).• Flooding, access or other infrastructure constraints may exist on some sites.• Not all sites may be available.Please rank the sites in order of preference using the Site ReferenceNumbers (see map on the back) ..........................•....................................Which sites do you object to? Reference Number(s): .and Reason(s): .Are there any other preferable and available sites in the village? If so,where? .....................................................•.............•. .....................................................•............... (please outline on map also)Are any sites shown definitely not available? .3. Do you see a need to amend the existing development limits? (see map)Yes 0 No 0If Yes, please indicate where on the map on the back4. Do you think new sites should be allocated for any other uses in yourvillage? If so, what and where? (please show on map on the back)........................................................................•.....................................FOR THIS RESPONSE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT YOU MUST COMPLETE:Your Name ..•.............................. Your Post Code .Please return to: Planning Policy TeamHambleton District CouncilCivic CentreStone CrossNorthallerton, DL6 2UU by Friday 18 th November 2005131

2477Park HillPark Hili.----- ---- -- --- --- ----.=:::::::--..::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:~::: "2948I • • • • • • •• Existing Local Plan OevelopmentlimitsDeveloprtlent limits......'~~-:.7582,n ':::;'-"~'~'" " , ~ \'./ ',/ :\\'.,

PREFERRED OPTIONS LIST OF CONSULTEESAPPENDIX 8Title Firstname Surname Organisation Title Firstname Surname OrganisationMr Roger Fairholm North Yorkshire County Council Mr T CunniffeMrs Gill Middleton Hambleton Assn of Local Development Agencies Mr G FordMs Cath Hartnett Jobcentre Plus Mr K Hollindrake Hunters Property GroupMr G Hebdon Hebdon and Sons Mr P WhittakerNorth Yorkshire County Council, EconomicDevelopmentMr & Mrs Kendall Hillside Mr Graham Orr Chevin Housing GroupMr P Swiers J G Swiers (Helperby) Ltd Mr A Withers Accent Housing GroupMr & Mrs Bullough Mr Ted Corfield Defence EstateMr B Snoxell Bell Snoxell Associates Ltd Mr B Mason North Yorkshire County Council, HighwaysMr & Mrs Huggins Mr R OwensNorth Yorkshire County Council, Passenger TransportUnitMr P Chapman Mr A Bainbridge North Yorkshire County Council, Local Transport PlanMr J Driver Bryant Homes Mr G Gardner North Yorkshire County Council, TravelwiseMr M Rogers Mr N Revely North Yorkshire County Council, Social ServicesMr J Osgood Mrs K Kay Housing CorporationC C Craggs F Craggs & Sons Mr HarrisonJ A Craggs Walton & CoMr A Shearer Gardner Associates Jos Harbron NYCC Supported Employment ServicesMr R Hansom Hansom Architects Mr David ShieldsMr C Blanchard Rita Lawson NYCC (Economic Development)Ms Pamela Moffat Hambleton Forum for Voluntary Organisations Mr A Davy Northern Dales Farmers MarketMr Greg White National Probation Service – North Yorkshire Mr B C Taylor Sherriff Hutton Parish CouncilMs Roz Brown National Probation Service - North Yorkshire Area Guisborough Town CouncilMr Roy Parsonage (NECC) The Parsonage Consultancy Mrs J Parnet Nunthorpe Parish CouncilSouth Tees Hospitals NHS Trust Mrs M Newbould Stainton & Thornton Parish CouncilSafer Communities Office Mr D Suttill Eryholme Parish CouncilMr John Kelly Hambleton Learning Partnership D E Nixon North Cowton Parish CouncilMs J D Wallin Carver Commercial V A Raven Scorton Parish CouncilMs Francine Haines MTBN J Bell Ellerton Parish CouncilO2 Mrs C F Baker Catterick Village Parish CouncilVodaphone Ltd Mrs Tanja Cook Appleton East & West Parish CouncilPat Ritchie One North East Mr TGB Fish Hornby Parish MeetingMr M O'Carroll Revolt Mr P Smith Patrick Brompton Parish CouncilMr C Blanchard John H Gill & Sons Ltd Mr J M C Johnson Newton Le Willows Parish CouncilRev Dr J Nelson Bendelow Trust Mrs S Nix Thornton Steward Parish CouncilMrs K E Greensit Hackforth & Combined Parish Council Mrs Mary Fawbert East Witton Parish CouncilMr M H Webster Mr S Catterall Aislaby & Newsham Parish MeetingMr Dan Mitchell Barton Wilmore Mr P Woods Yarm Town CouncilMs L Nicholson Yuill Homes Mr R Bleach Kirklevington Parish CouncilMr J Trenholme Mrs A M Robinson Dalton on Tees Parish CouncilMs Karen Hibberd Val Blood HARPMr R Gascoigne Emery Planning Partnership Ltd Ruth Collins Energy Efficiency Advice CentreMr Clive HopkinsonNorth Yorkshire County Council, Passenger TransportUnit Ms F Hutchinson RAF Linton on OuseMr Ronnie Robertson North Yorkshire County Council, Heritage Unit Mrs M Johnson Better Government for Local PeopleMs Jo BurgessNorth Yorkshire County Council, Community EducationService Mr F Johnston-BanksMr Simon Warwick Lower Ure Conservation Group Dr C Macauley St Johns PrioryJo Buffey Yorkshire Rural Community Council Cllr Caroline PatmoreG Falkingham North Yorkshire County Council, County Archaeologist Mr F RitchieMr Tim Coyne North Yorkshire County Council, Highways Mrs L Wagstaff Easingwold District Guides AssocMr K ArkleyCllr John Morley Swainby Councillor Mr J & CPWP ConsettMrs Carol RenhamNorth Yorkshire County Council, EconomicDevelopment Mr A DelamoreMr Hughie Smith The Gypsy Council Mr G DixonCommission for Racial Equality Mrs A JohnsonMrMcVeighMr S Hanley Dialogue Mr M PearsonJudi Scholey Development Planning Partnership Mrs J PeckittMr F W Croft Mrs N SuttonMr J C N Potts Mr I Gillespie Carter Jonas OxfordMr M Barningham Bedale & Villages Community Plan Forum Mrs S J Simpson Ellington High & Low Parish CouncilMr J E Moxon John E Moxon Mr J Ellis Masham Parish CouncilMr H R Verity Mrs S J Simpson Burton on Yore Parish MeetingR F & S E Grierson Mrs B Bradley Grewelthorpe PCCllr Margaret Skilbeck Broughton & Greenhow Councillor Miss Iona Appleyard Azerley Parish CouncilMr A Featherstone Miss Iona Appleyard North Stainley with Sleningford PCMr RV Husband Ms R Wood North York Moors National ParkMr E McCoy McCoys Restaurant National Trust, GoddardsMr G F Waring Ms J Wooler Hambleton CABR & E M Tate Mr R Rowling Thirsk Team MinistryB A Manning Ms S Smith North Yorkshire County Council, Extended SchoolsMr A Heath Tony Christon Youth Clubs North YorkshireMr A Barker DPP Ms S Collison Connexions York & North YorkshireMr J Hodson Sustrans, Ryland JonesHutchinson Orange Cllr Mike Rigby Huby & Sutton CouncillorMr R Pilcher Pilcher Homes Ltd Mrs Betty TysonMrs D Norman Newburgh Parish Rep Mr Ted Jackson Jacksonplan LtdCllr Brian Phillips Hutton Bonville Parish Rep Mrs PJ RidleyCllr Brian Phillips Little Langton Parish Rep Mr B RobinsonCllr Brian Phillips North Otterington Parish Rep Mr P Stokes NEL Power LtdCllr Brian Phillips Whitwell Parish Rep Mr Sean Hedley Sanderson WeatherallMrs M Snaith Kildale Parish Meeting Rep Mr R Taylor Plot of Gold LtdMrs J V Starkey Bilsdale Midcable Parish Council Ms D WilkinsonCllr Denis Howey Thornborough Parish Rep Mrs A AldermanCllr Denis Howey Hood Grange Parish Council Ms J Redfearn Rural Arts North YorkshireCllr Denis Howey North Kilvington Parish Rep Mrs S J Simpson Norton Conyers Parish MeetingCllr Denis Howey Leake Parish Rep Mrs S J Simpson Wath Parish MeetingCllr Graham Arundell Killerby Parish Rep Mrs R A Hawkswell Baldersby Parish CouncilCllr Arthur Barker Gatenby Parish Rep Mrs C Cornmell Rainton with Newby Parish CouncilCllr David Smith Crakehall Councillor Mrs D Walker Asenby Parish CouncilCllr David Smith Firby & Rand Grange Parish Rep Mr T Swiers Cundall with Leckby PCCllr David Webster Ainderby Quernhow Parish Rep Mr M Rae Kirby Hill & District Parish CouncilMr & Mrs R C Hill Mr Harry Nellis Boroughbridge Town CouncilMr C Wrightson Mr P G Thompson Dunsforth Parish MeetingMrs S Dennis Mrs Z HoppsGreat Ouseburn, Thorpe Underwood and Kirby HallParish CouncilMr A Long Andrew Long Building Design Ltd Mr J Mackman Nun Monkton Parish CouncilMr R J Lancefield Mrs K Asquith Moor Monkton Parish CouncilMr & Mrs Dowson Mrs L Harrison Cawton, Coulton & Grimstone Parish CouncilMr P Metcalfe Mrs J Wood Hovingham & Shackleton Parish Council Parish CouncilMr S R Ballard Mrs A Hartas Terrington Parish CouncilMr R L Wilson H StormD W Garland Ms A HodgsonMr R Sykes Azure Investments Ltd Lord JoplingMr T Nicholson E Wood LtdMr D Marwood FPCI LtdMr P Bell Paul Bell Associates Spotlight GuidesMr B Cojeen Inventures FarmwayA R Simpson Marlow Foods LtdMr C Shaw The Trustees of J F Shaw Woodstock DevelopmentsNEDL Mr R Burnham Home Housing AssociationR W & W Atkinson Social Services 'Supporting People'I J Stansfield Katie Harvey York & NY Business Environmental ForumMr M Severs Michael Severs Associates Mr T Turnbull Northallerton Chamber of TradeMr D H Paxton Mr D G Moore Thirsk & District Chamber of TradeS & P A Watson Abbots of LeemingMr R G Nicholson Dales and District133

Title Firstname Surname Organisation Title Firstname Surname OrganisationMr O R D Evans Stephensons of EasingwoldMrs A C Barker Mr T Agar Tanton Hall FarmMrs Umpleby Mr M BowesMr & Mrs N J & J Wilson Mr & Mrs David HartNorth Yorkshire Federation of Women's Institute Ms J KirkMrs Susan Jackson LSP Consultation Forum Mr I Riddell Sockburn Parish MeetingYorkshire Gardens Trust Mr I Murphy Low Dinsdale Parish RepJean Venables Association of Drainage Authorities Mrs C Dawson Middleton St George Parish CouncilDEFRA Mr T FranksDepartment of Health Mr Tim DawsonMr James Paton Department of Culture Media and Sport Mr J Davidson LIDLMr M Bingham Freight Transport Association K Pearson Thirsk Chamber of TradeArriva North East Ltd Mr E Slinger Land & New HomesLearning and Skills Council Mr G BellwoodGypsy Council J & S Dunwell Chamber of TradeDepartment for Constitutional AffairsDepartment for Work and Pensions Ms A Mackerell North Yorkshire County Council, HighwaysHM Prison Service HQ Ms B Harris Northallerton CollegeMr R McMullen North East Chamber of Commerce Ms A Homer-MacPhee Thirsk ClockRev T Richardson North York Moors Churches Together Mr R WhiteMrs J Abbey Ecumenical Network in the Vale of York Mr J Bailey Allertonshire Civic SocietyYorkshire & the Humber TUCThe SlaughterhouseMr T Sander Friends of the Earth Mr C HowdenTransport 2000 Mr S WardMrs Patricia Brown York Georgian Society Mr D WardHW Mawr Trust Mr K HoggCommission for Racial Equality Mr SmithYork Diocesan Board of FinanceMs K Adderley British Wind Energy Association Mr M Dawkins George Dawkins and SonMr R Webb Easingwold & Villages Forum Mr J Ellis Kitchings FurnitureMs S Anderson Northallerton & Villages Community Plan Forum MW Darwin & SonsCllr Peter Sowray Birdforth Parish Rep V J Boyle-RowlattMr W E Preston Deighton Parish Rep Mr M FinkhillMr D Lester Over Dinsdale Parish Rep Mr R PounderCllr Caroline Nixon South Cowton Parish Rep Mr J Hedlow Simply DutchYorkshire & Humber Chambers of Commerce Mr & Mrs BurkeMr David Proctor Yorkshire Forward Mrs R UllmanMr Mark Dicken Terry Dicken Kitchens Mr A Cook Lambert Smith HamptonMr J Wilkinson Wendy Sockett Colliers CRECllr Michael Richardson Stokesley & Villages Community Regeneration Group Mr J L SunterMs A Johnson Hillside LDEP Steering Group Mrs P GodleeEast Thirsk Community Association Mr D Boulton Carter JonasMs C Binns Virsa Village Retail Association Services E Kettle Blackett Hart & PrattMs L Dunn Connexions Young Peoples Network Mr P Broome Dodds BrownMr M I'Anson Thirsk Community Woodlands Group Mr CN Millar Micronized Food Products LtdMs J Oliver Disability Action YorkshireR Pacey Wilf Ward Family Trust Ms R Pierce Sanderson WeatherallMr M Humble Hambleton & District Learning Disability Partnership Mr M Olley Countryside Properties (Northern Ltd)Mr P Stokes Stokesley Industrial Forum Mr N Jenkins Building DesignMr P Pickthall Leeming Bar Industrial Estate Forum Mr Tony Train Clariant UK LtdYorkshire & the Humber Strategic Health Authority Mr & Mrs M FeasbyMr J Stroughair Stroughair Housebuilding Consultant Mr & Mrs Anthony & Helen WoodMr Yasin Raja Government Office Yorks and the Humber S J Atkinson Purdys NewsMr Nick Whitford Highways Agency Mr TAS BrowneMr M A J Watson Defence Estate R R McKnightHome Office M WhillockMr Mick Hoban Forestry Commission Mr YoungThe Royal Town Planning Institute Mr T HendersonMr S Carnaby Planning InspectorateMiss J Stephenson Network Rail R PattersonCrown Estate Commissioners Mr M Sanderson J P Skipton0on-Swale Parish MeetingMs J Sillars North Yorkshire Family Health Services Authority Mr A LidsterYorkshire Tourist Board Sarah Williams Indigo PlanningMrs J Tuck Yorkshire Forward Dr V ConnollyMr Darren Hendley Sport England Mr & Mrs TurnerMr David Carter Natural England Mr HS BarkerCivil Aviation Authority Mr SnowdenNpower Mr EA WardM Barnes British Gas Properties Mr N Waters Petch Waters LtdMr M Dabbs British Telecommunications Plc (NE) Mr & Mrs B GreyMs L Townsend Environment Agency Mr J Collins Hallam Land ManagementMr D Ellerington Northumbrian Water Ltd Jenny Ludman National TrustMs K Johnson Yorkshire Water Services Ltd Dr & Mrs GarsideNorth Yorkshire Police Headquarters Mr G Gibson Austin Reed PlcMr B Huntley Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit Mr E BarkerMr D H Sykes Harrogate Borough Council Mr John A Webster Carter JonasMr D Elliott Richmondshire District Council Mr CB SimpsonMs Jill Thompson Ryedale District Council CLV Foster and SonsMrs S Housden North York Moors National Park Mr KiernanMr C Hawking Middlesbrough Borough Council Mr PG BlundellMr M Mealing Stockton on Tees Borough Council Mrs M HorsmanMrs R J Kidd Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council J C FranklandMr S Petch Darlington Borough Council Mr P Willis Jet MinersMr David Walker Scarborough Borough Council Mr R Irving ID PlanningMr J Roberts York City Council Mrs C AllonbyMr P Jackson Howardian Hills AONB JAC R & E MidgelyMr R Hulmes North Yorkshire Fire Brigade Headquarters J D SparrowMs H Myers Ainderby Steeple Parish Meeting Mr HarrisonMs Allyson Marr Aiskew and Leeming Bar Parish Council Mr A G Black Blacks Property ConsultantsMrs Sue Southall Aldwark Area Parish Council Mr WJ KellyMr E T Lakey Alne Parish Council Mr MDM Jones Armstrong RichardsonMr R F Buffy Angram Grange Parish Meeting Mr D StorryOlwen Young Appleton Wiske Parish Council Mr John Wyatt Signet PlanningMs J M Varey Bagby & Balk Parish Council W E DeansMr R W Howard Bedale Town Council Mr D A CookMr G Wilson Beningbrough Parish Meeting Mr PJ EmmersonMrs Isobel Dalton Hillside Parish Council Mr DR BainbridgeMrs K Crewdson Borrowby Parish Council Mrs KM CookMs Rachael Palmer Brafferton Parish Council Mr J Quinn Quality Roofing SystemsMrs R K Ward Brandsby-cum-Stearsby Parish Council Mr N CarterMr P Atkin Brompton Town Council Mr B WalkerMrs Y BennBurneston, Swainby with Allerthorpe & TheakstonParish Council Mr M Hughes Kirkby Fleetham Neighbourhood WatchMiss C GreensitThornton Watlass, Burrill with Cowling, Thirn, Clifton onYore & Rookwith Parish Council Mr E BrownMrs Linda Scarlett Carlton-in-Cleveland Parish Council Mr D WrayCarlton Husthwaite Parish Meeting Mr R HutchingsMs E Coulson Carlton Miniott Parish Council E J Kettle ENK Planning and Design LtdMrs H Craggs Carthorpe Parish Council Mr RW ReadmanMr J Hare Catton Parish Meeting Mr H KirbyMr S Hague Thornton-le-Beans & Crosby/Cotcliffe Parish Council Mr D Vernon Indigo PlanningMrs J Richardson Coxwold Parish Council Mr N Everard Kyle and Upper Ouse Drainage BoardMrs Anne Kind Crakehall with Langthorne Parish Council Mr J Palmer Yorkshire ForwardMr A R Morden Crathorne Parish Meeting Mr J SwalesMr Ian Dyson Crayke Parish Council Centre for Health and Pastoral CareMr J W Nellis Dalby-cum-Skewsby Parish MeetingMrs B Ward Dalton Parish Council Trac LightingMrs S A Dale Danby Wiske Parish Council Mr M SnellingMs H Moorhouse Easby Parish Meeting Mr A SowerbyMrs C Lane Easingwold Town Council Mr J Dodsworth D&G AutoservicesMrs B Hedison East Cowton Parish Council Mrs R Dawson134

Title Firstname Surname Organisation Title Firstname Surname OrganisationMr P Archer East Harlsey Parish Council Thirsk Hall EstatesMr Glen March Rounton Parish Council Mr B Dodd GSM Graphic Arts LtdMrs P E Richardson Eldmire with Crakehill Parish Meeting Mr John Goodwin Carter JonasMr W L B Cragg Osmotherley Area Parish Council JewsonsMrs M Stead Exelby, Leeming & Newton Parish Council Mr M J Foster Castle Vale PropertiesMr G Belbin Faceby Parish Meeting Mr G GillMr I Akhurst Farlington Parish Meeting Northallerton Heating CentreMrs A Brown Great & Little Broughton Parish Council Motorworld LtdMrs M L Holden Great Ayton Parish CouncilMrs C Martin Great Busby Parish Meeting Mr D ShawMr S Williams Great Langton Parish Meeting Kwik FitMrs W E Mann Smeaton with Hornby Parish Council Northallerton Tyre and Battery Co. LtdMrs S Windross Helperby Parish Council MacKaysMrs J C M Staples Worsall Parish Council Skipton Building SocietyMr G Littleboy Howe Parish Meeting Mr J Smith Stead and SimpsonMrs E A Craddock Kirklington with Sutton Howgrave Parish Council Mr S Thomas Thomas the BakerMrs Sue Bracewell Huby Parish Council CostaMr B Ward Husthwaite Parish Council HamiltonsMrs J A Pyle Rudby Parish Council David R MouleMrs J Wright Ingleby Arncliffe Parish Council Swans JewellersMrs M B Bowes Ingleby Greenhow Parish Council The Tickle Toby InnMrs P Woodhall Siltons & Kepwick Parish Council ThomsonMrs A Shalom Kilburn Parish Council Natural HomeMr R Atkinson Kiplin Parish Meeting O2Mrs Janet Griffiths Kirkby-in-Cleveland Parish Council E Moss LtdMr C G Brown Kirkby Fleetham with Fencote Parish Council Bakers OvenMrs Linda J Gibbon (Chairman) Knayton-with-Brawith Parish Council Martin'sMr W Frost Linton-on-Ouse Parish CouncilMr H Fletcher Little Ayton Parish Meeting CooplandsMrs C Martin Little Busby Parish Meeting HSBCMr B R Cornforth Marton-cum-Moxby Parish Meeting BettysMrs Michelle JudenKirby Wiske, Maunby, Newsham with Breckenbrough,Newby Wiske and South Otterington Parish CouncilWH SmithMrs K J Miller Morton-on-Swale Parish Council Clinton CardsMr R C Bailey Myton-on-Swale Parish Meeting Barclays BankMr Geoff Marron Newby Parish Council TimpsonMrs Karen Morris Newton-on-Ouse Parish Council Prosperity Financial Management LtdMs Sue Fraser Northallerton Town Council SuperdrugDr A V Cowan Oulston Parish Meeting Zion ChurchMrs P Jeffrey Overton Parish Meeting Rev J Parker United Reformed ChurchMrs J Barningham Sinderby and Pickhill-with-Roxby Parish Council The SportsmanMs Yvonne Robinson Picton Parish MeetingR Bullimore South Crescent Residents Association InspirationMrs J A Pyle Potto Parish Council Buenaventura EstatesMrs D Clarke Raskelf Parish Council Northallerton Working Mens ClubMrs A Lambert Romanby Parish CouncilMr J A Follett Sandhutton Parish Council Central Car SalesMrs M Atherton Scruton Parish Council National Tyres and AutocareMrs M Robinson Seamer Parish Council David J Cole and CoMrs J Oyston Sessay Parish Council Anchor Lodge and Masonic HallMrs J Kitching Sexhow Parish Meeting Odana CaféMr W Frost Shipton Parish Council The SalonMr B Wise Skipton-on-Swale Parish MeetingMiss J Smithson & MissB MarriotVisageMrs S Lowe Snape with Thorp Parish Council Good GoingMrs G Fox South Kilvington Parish Council Richard Crosland MenswearMrs I C De Wet Sowerby Parish Council BlockbusterMr R Brown Stillington Parish Council The Tithe Bar and BrasserieMrs J F Wheeler Stokesley Parish Council Brides of NorthallertonMrs S Bracewell Sutton-on-the-Forest Parish Council AshleysMrs I C De Wet Sutton-under-Whitestonecliffe Parish Council Spice of IndiaMrs Caroline Potter Thirkleby High And Low With Osgodby Parish Council Tatoo ArtistMrs M May Thirlby Parish Meeting AutotestMrs E Coulson Thirsk Town Council Mr G CroweMrs C Sturdy Tholthorpe Parish Meeting Mr ReedMr B Dodd (Chairman) Thormanby Parish Meeting Mr JM TaitMr N Cherrett Thornton-le-Moor Parish Council Mr S HoneymanMrs S Raper Thornton-on-the-Hill Parish Meeting Stokesley Show CommitteeMr Tom Hanna Thrintoft Parish Meeting James Hay Administration Company LtdMs Erica Rogers Tollerton Parish Council J N WrightMrs Angela Hook Topcliffe Parish Council Mr RC DalesMr A Hamnett Warlaby Parish Meeting P LivesleyMr Brown Welbury Parish Council Mr R JohnsonMrs J M Kitching Well Parish Council Mr D DennisMiss Iona Appleyard Tanfield Parish Council M & A WhittleMr Peter Barfoot Whenby Parish Meeting E HumphreyMr C B Cook Whorlton Parish Council Mr D HallErica Cornish Wildon Grange Parish Meeting Mr & Mrs TuerMrs C P Brass Yafforth Parish Meeting P L Erbe PE Design ConsultancyMrs M Liddle Yearsley Parish Meeting H & R WalkerMr G W Turnbull Birkby Parish Meeting Mr T PepperRt Hon William Hague MP Mr BW Craven Romanby Golf and Country ClubClubMiss A McIntosh MP Mr P Shuker White Young GreenMr J Juckes Yorkshire Local Councils Association Mrs J TeasdaleMr J Marshall Ramblers Association Mrs J ScorrorMs Lynne Walker Council for British Archaeology Mr P SandersonJ R Chapman Yorkshire Wildlife Trust Ms V Price Prices Paving & Tile LtdMiss D U Fairburn Country Land & Business Association Mr DH KellMr R Healey Cyclists Touring Club Mr GreenwoodMr M Kerby Royal Society for Protection of Birds Mr P SmithMrs L Norris National Farmers Union (NE Region) Mr C BarronCaravan Club Ms S NicholsonOpen Spaces Society Mr & Mrs PybusCamping & Caravan Club Mr D MurdochGeorgian Group Ms S KirkNorthern Caseworker Victorian Society Mr L TwissSociety Protection Ancient Buildings Mr K Wood KC1 Design, Planning & Building Regulation ConsultantK Gibson Garden History Society Mrs J WilkinAncient Monuments Society K J CroftMrs C Stockwell-Brown York & North Yorkshire PFA Mrs SM PearsonMr M Garnett Campaign to Protect Rural England C JacksonA Reeves ACERT Mr SR Mackay Machin Yorkshire LambMrs J Ratcliffe British Horse Society Mr A Wady Thirkleby Livestock LtdMrs R Wrigley Allertonshire Civic Society Mr I DrinkwaterRev R Breckon New Life Bapist Church Mr PH WilsonC Holmes Thirsk & Northallerton Methodist Circuit Mr A KetteringhamMrs I De Wett Thirsk & Sowerby Conservation Area Advisory Group G & I SparrowC/o Malcolm Tempest Bedale Conservation Area Advisory Group Mr P NixonYorks Rural Community Council Mr S TyssonMr J Brown North of England Civic Trust Mr J RitchieD Hall Thirsk & Sowerby Civic Society Ms E EllisMr M Gerrard Easingwold Chamber of Trade Mr C ShaftoMs Anne Milne Persimmon Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd Mrs R Shepherd C/O CM WoodMr G Roberts mouchelparkman Richardsons Trailers LtdA A Bedford Thirsk Residents Association Mr AJ ThorntonHelperby Hall EstatesDr H B Charman Stokesley Conservation Area Mr P NelsonMrs M WilkinsonRobert Walpole & Partners Mrs C Stanhope135

Title Firstname Surname Organisation Title Firstname Surname OrganisationA D F Gabb Mrs Freeman-GrenvillePaul Beanland Associates Mrs JA AllenMr C E Rawling C E Rawling & Company Ms E GibsonDr June M Hargreaves MBE MRTPI Ms Julia Judson SmithDavid Kitchen Associates Ltd Mr & Mrs StephensonMs M A Lai BDP Planning Limited Mr & Mrs Nelson C/O Paul GreenWilliamson Hill Mr Maurice CannMr M Tempest Malcolm Tempest Ltd Ms Helen BawnMr D Pontefract Oscar Faber TPA Mr Peter SimpsonMs H Kernahan Weatherall Green & Smith Mr Martyn RichardsMr P H Medcalf Bellway Homes Mr Eric KendallMr Ed Sidley White Young Green Mr David McGloinJ S Jones Unwin Jones Partnership Mr David GoodwinD Ward John G Hills FRICS Ms Lisa WilsonPunch Robson Solicitors Mrs Sam SwinbankTitley Paver-Crow & Feddon Mr Chris VincentHammond Suddards Mrs Helen FieldingCowling Swift & Kitchin Mr David SteeleMr K Haw Huntsman Petrochemicals UK Ltd Mrs Amanda MaddenMr P Buxton Mr Phillip MortonMr J Nicholson Lambert Smith Hampton Mr Geoff HerbertE A Moorey Waites & Moorey Mr John WarrenMr Rob Brittain Broadacres Housing Assn Ltd D W WrightMr S M Newby Barratt Homes Ltd N DouglasW S Atkins Mr Alan McKeeMr M Hill Tees & Hartlepool Port Authority Ltd Mr R BarkerMr P J Atkinson Yorkshire Community Housing Watson Burton LLPMr D Statham Rotary Club of Thirsk RPS Group PlcA J Smith Forest Enterprise England Mark Archer Jeffrey Myers & CoMr T Mudd TJ Mudd & Co Mr J CoatesJ Yarwood Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Mrs H SnodgrassMs Laura O'Dea Knight Frank D BrownleeMr Dixon GVA Grimley Mrs SM KennedyMrs E HarrisonMr M Miller Terence O'Rourke plc Dr J GowerMr G Knowles Drivers Mrs DM StratfordM Gilbert Wainhomes plc S M BoothroydMr T Watson New Aspect Projects Ltd Mrs L MitchellMr C Edgar Cofton Ltd G K DaviesMs N Rowland Scott Wilson Mr Thomas Bentley WardHillier Parker Mrs E MachinC Read Roger Tym & Partners Mr & Mrs MogridgeJ Whittaker MVM Planning Ltd Mrs J JarvisCobbetts Mr A Kirby C/O Mr RR O'Brien Chartered ArchitectR Donson David Wilson Homes Mr R BrownNick Carver Carver Residential Johannes GrundmannMr C Wilson Mr M FaulknerDRA Planning & Regeneration Mr K TurlandJ Tippins Landmark Mr M CanavanMr C C Dent MBIAT Dr I GordonMr TG & H Harper Mrs P SidgwickAndrew Bramley Associates Mr K AndersonAllerton Engineering Limited J & F DaviesMr WH Clarke Pickhill Engineers Ltd F WilliamsFawcett & Fawcett R J Speed Great Ayton Cricket and Football ClubMr N Fordy Walter Thompson (Contractors) Ltd Mrs M HareMr DG Price Power Plastics E AppletonF S Rose Holmes & Rose Mr P ScropeTony Lester Design R B ZellwegerMr R Holmes-Smith P & HS Architects Dr PD RandallMr D Foden Foden Spence Construction Mr & Mrs SillsI Southall Mr RL LappinBlair Place & Hatch Mr & Mrs HutchinsonHunt & Wrigley Mr K HudsonMr Boardall Reed Boardall Cold Storage J & R PorrittMr BP Colman Thircon Ltd G WilliamsMr R Wood Wood Frampton D C HopwoodMr G Metcalfe George Wimpey NE Ltd Mr J CrombieMr Whitby P & C MorganMs J Morris Yorwaste Ltd G HetheringtonMr R Nicholson Tarmac Northern Ltd M GraingerD Marr Joplings Mr & Mrs CampbellMr J Hall Entec UK Ltd W AppleyardMr S Mills Montgomery Watson A & J SkerryMr J Stadden Hilsdown Holdings Mr K HarlandMr RH Parker Thorp Parker Mr R ClayMandale Properties Ltd H A StonehouseMr M Spittle North Yorkshire County Council, Policy Development Mr G SmithMs P Johnson North Yorkshire County Council, Highways A & G CoxMs B Williams Sanderson Townsend & Gilbert Mr RA StorryJohn D Hoddinott Peter Greenwood & Co Dr & Mrs ComiskeyMr K Barker Severfield-Reeve Projects Ltd Dr JP WyllieMrs M Mackinder Cundalls W B PeacockNorth Yorkshire Learning & Skills Council G BairdHealth & Safety Executive T J FawcettMr J R Wilson Appletons B EdmondsonMr Ian Smith English Heritage N & H HughesNational Disability Council Mr J KayMr R Illingsworth Downes, Illingsworth Partnership Ltd Mr MJ HolmesMs S Worthington DTZ Pieda Consulting Mrs I HutchnisonMr A Etchells Peacock & Smith Mr JA TrenholmM W Darwin Darwin & Sons Dr MS JawadA Georgiadou RPS Dr JR PurdyMr Ian Lyle England & Lyle M & SL PeakeMr S Birnbaum Tesco Stores Ltd Mr J MawerJ Hudson Osprey Commercial Properties Ltd Maj J J KyngeMr G Ramsden British Waterways Mr S CrosbieMr S Ashton Bellway Homes R I MawsonMs T Newlove Mr SD MaherMrs J Kirk R K DunnMs D Logan Transco Mr M BloorHigham & Co J & C BurtonMr A Wooddissee Babtie Environmental J & A TheakstonMs N Lavis David Tyldersley and Associates Mr S ByardMr B W Ross Tees Valley Housing Group G J CassonMr R AllenNorth Yorkshire County Council, Children and YoungPeoples Service P WilliamsMs D Bowyer DPDS Consulting Group Mr J F SharpMr Rutland Camra York Pub Conservation Group Mr B EllisMr B Liptrott Morbaine Ltd Mr PS DayMs L Vanderberg Atis Real Weatheralls Mr & Mrs BrogdenMr J Jameson Miller Homes Mrs F WrightPeter Hopley T F EllerayThe Handley Partnership J CowleyJennifer Hubbard BA MRTPI Mr T Gray Agent: England & LyleTony Thorpe Associates R AckroydHileys Solicitors Mrs M HallMr A Hutton Smiths Gore Mr Reed & Miss PrestonMr Robert Steel Strutt & Parker Mr J SandersonPaul Elm Dip TP MRTPI Mr G Archer136

Title Firstname Surname Organisation Title Firstname Surname OrganisationW R Smith Stephenson & Son Mr SH CavellMr Mr Courcier Northern Planning Mr & Mrs AllenMr K Hale Campaign to Protect Rural England J A AndersonMr M Twigg Colin Buchanan & Partners G D A LaverickMr N Collar Brodies Solicitors C W JohnsonEdwin Trotter Associates Mrs J KennedyMr ME Lindley Ripon & Leeds Diocese Board Of Finance Mr & Mrs RoddyMr P Hopkin Shepherd Homes A R SandersonMrs H M Kirk Forest of Galtres Society Mr & Mrs RoddamDr P Coomer Coomer Harrow K & E A LoweMr S Hesmondhalgh JHS Planning P R J HoskinsonStephensons J DonovanMr Fife Quercus Developments Dr & Mrs HixsonKebbell Homes D & R AingerMr M Massey Ian Darby Parnership K & D M SnellHogg Builders (York) Ltd Mrs V DrewMs Gina Bourne Home Builders Federation Mr OvenstonTim Axe Barber Titleys Mr & Mrs M InghamJ M O'Neill Mr T RichardsMr P Thompson Planning Bureau E M LoganMr D Lindley Boulton & Cooper Agricultural Mr R HirstMr N Bunn WSPDevelopment A EnglandMr J Sturdy 1st Kyle Valley Scout GroupD R Lawton H ThompsonMr S Bell GVA GrimleyMichael Powell The Land and Development PracticeKatherine Britton Entec UK Ltd Dr J KinnellMr Solomon Mr AW DickMr & Mrs A Ward Agent - Dickinson Dees LLP Mr & Mrs PearsonMr G Arrowsmith Arrowsmith Associates K & J H WalkerMr LD Simmonds Post Office Property Holdings Mr C BrewsterMr B Howe Mr & Mrs ColemanMr D Lamb Eddisons Commercial Mr G McQuillenMr R Storey Lithgow Sons & Partners B & D HorsfordMr N Brooke David Walker R & L O'NeilMr G Bee The Emerson Group G HolderMs J Bessell Dickinson Dees Mr D DobsonM Sheppard Turley Associates Mr & Mrs WagstaffMr R Newlove Scott Wilson A & H MooreMr D Thompson Peel Holdings Mr & Mrs HardingMr R Ellis ORS Mr & Mrs McMasterGeneral Secretary Showmen's Guild of Great Britain Mr & Mrs BurnsideMr S Copeland Stuart Copeland Associates Chris Ward Bryan Jezeph ConsultancyMr G Staddon Lafarge Aggregates N R GrahamMr ME Ward E Ward & Sons (Easingwold) Ltd Mr & Mrs BratcherMr C Garner Gleeson Homes Mr B WinnMr D Stovell Stovell & Milwater F & P RossJenny Poxon Yorkshire & Humber Assembly Mr G DunningMs FJ Wye Malcolm Judd & Partners Mr & Mrs McGregorAddisons Mr A Bower Npower Renewables LtdMr A Spawforth Spawforth Associates Ms Annette Elliott The Co-operative Group LtdDavid Ward MBIAT Sarah Housden North York Moors National ParkMs J Dunn University of Newcastle Mr S Wilcock George WimpeyMr John Exley Mr D EylesClarion HomesTaylor Woodrow Developments LtdDr M Bell Ward Hadaway Wordsworth Holdings PlcEccles Heddon, Solicitors Mrs FM DodgsonMs S Courtney Storey Sons & Parker Mr G ElstobMr T Hardwick Thirsk Group of Drainage Boards Mr T SowerbyMr C Barker Barkers Northallerton Ltd Mr & Mrs HallMr P Fisher Better Govt For Older People Mr D SandersonMr P Harding Mr P Williams Esprit Estates on behalf of Austin ReedMr R G Johnson Mr M HarlandMs H Seymour Hambleton & Richmondshire Primary Care Trust Mr S LancasterMs S Howitt Yorkshire Forward Mr JR Wilson Emery Planning Partnership LtdMr N Cockbill English Golf Union Miss RPierce, KeylandDevelopments Ltd C/O Sanderson WeatherallRaymond BarnesSeverfield Reeve ProjectsMr S Saddler Walker Morris Wild Bennett Homes LtdETSU Mr Martin FosterThirsk Renaissance Prk Ptnshp, C/O SpawforthAssociatesMr R Preston Mr R Holmes-SmithMr & Mrs DA Walker Laura Ross Stewart Ross AssociatesMr Coning John Coning & Sons Mr J Lewis TUCMr RM Battle Jas Martin & Co Mr M Ratcliff Charis Consultancy LtdMr D Winterbotham L Green & A BarnesMr J Driver Betts Homes Mr A Steele Dale SportMiss J Denton Rollits Mrs CS Jarmain Bonhams North YorkshireMr D Gardiner Mrs N PritchardMr J Potter Mrs EJ EylesMrs F Roberts W R HorrellMrs L Gibbon Mr R SpillerMr EJ Jarman CJ BowerMr & Mrs P & J Hutchinson Mr J Dennis Northallerton College of GovernorsMr E Pomfret The Woodland Trust Mr & Mrs HillsDr T J Hutchinson Cllr Brian Phillips Morton on Swale CouncillorJBA Consulting Bedale & Upper Swale Int Drainage Board Mr JW LowtherD Fullwood Foss Internal Drainage Board Mr G MartinMr C Foxton Mr D McCormackKerfoot Group Mr D SmithTarget Express Ms J Hugill Stokesley Agricultural SocietyT Dicken Mr Andrew Marsay GW Marsay & SonCSRT Secretary Cleveland Search & Rescue Mr M Barningham Building Design ServicesFoden Construction Ltd Mr A Wood LNT Construction LtdLabman Automation LtdBarker Business Park LtdTim Brown & Son Cllr Arthur Barker Leeming CouncillorAnalox Sensory Technology D McKinlayMr R Fishwick Cleveland Steel and Tubes Mr F E JonesMr B Page Wagg Foods GP Robinson & PartnersMr M Greenwood Dorton Packaging Ltd Mr M SharpeMr J Boyd Firmenich K NoottNational Tube Stockholders Ltd Mr & Mrs HoldenSCA Nutrition Ltd Wendy Saunders North Yorkshire County Council - Corporate PolicyTalking Pictures Ltd Mr D Kerfoot The Kerfoot Group LtdMr Randall Mr Jason Tait Planning Prospects LtdMoody Bros Mr R Smith NYCC, Minerals & Waste PlanningMr C Walker Chopsticks Mrs K LumleyWensleydale Bacon J B TewMr W Calvert Calverts Carpets Mr BC TaylorCG & EH KerridgeSam Turner & Sons Ltd Mr R HallB & Q Ltd J Deptford GVA GrimleyBoulton (PlanningMr W Alderson Girsby Parish Meeting AConsultant)Mr S Dolman Mr R Thornton Hill WoolhouseE Parsons FPD Savills Mr D Johnson O'Neill AssociatesTanfield Engineering Services P & J HarrisonPrecision Labelling Systems Mr A RobinsonDalepak Mr J Garnham Leonard CheshireMr J Lambert Richmond Ice Cream Mr G Doyle Pozzoni Design GroupMs M Dawson D PatmoreJewsons Mr K Scott137

Title Firstname Surname Organisation Title Firstname Surname OrganisationMadeira Threads G & M WoodRNLI Mr R CotterillSt John Ambulance County HQ Dr & Mrs McDonaldF D Todd & SonsWilson Kennett PartnershipGuidance Enterprises Group Ltd Mr DempseySkeldale Veterinary Surgery Dr D MaudsleyTeleware Cllr Bridget Fortune Rudby CouncillorRoyal Mail Mr GV HendersonLangver EngineeringHarron HomesHerriot Country Attractions Group Mr E SmithMrs V Gamon & Mrs EMs L Webb-Thorius Hambleton & Richmond Carers AssociationBunyanC/O Simon Philpotts, Strutt and ParkerMrs S Lear Northallerton & Dales MENCAP Society Mr & Mrs WellsMr M Dodds Road Haulage Association (Northern) Cllr Andrew Robinson Thirsk CouncillorMr S Cross Northdale Horticulture Cllr Derek Adamson Thirsk CouncillorMs K Ledder Workcrafts Mr GE WrightMr E Matthews Brompton Village Design Group Mr A RobinsonMr A Taylor Stokesley Village Design Group McCarthy and StoneMr M Burgess Northminister Properties Ltd Cllr David Webster Tanfield CouncillorDenise Jones York & Selby Primary Care Trust Mr M Sanders The Friends of Thornborough HengesBaker Associates Mr N KitchingBE Group Mr CanneyMcNeil Beechey O'Neill Architects Dr G Brownlee Hambleton District CPREDouglas Slater S IsonMr T Fletcher Mr S Parker CarplusMr T Jackson Tilley Bailey & Irvine Mr D Willis P & W Land,Wardell ArmstrongLoxley HomesMr I Henderson Mr J MonsonMs C Shipperlee Hepher Dixon Ltd Mr O Hurlock BidwellsMr N BellNorth Yorkshire County Council, Community EducationC/O Continuing Education Unit Mrs HRM Gee York House CaravansMs A Hayward Rural Arts North Yorkshire Mr RE SmallwoodMr S Watson Redrow Homes Mr K Warr Donaldsons LLPM J Townsend Mrs V MoverleyMs A McCue Drivers Jonas Mr R BarughMr E Barker Barlow Wilson Ltd Dr K AppleyardMr L Wilson Len Wilson (Steel Fabrications) Mrs A O'ConnorMr GJ Richardson Mr J HughesMr B Charlton Thirsk Community Education Mr A SaundersMrs E Storm Thirsk Over 50s Forum Mrs J RichardsonMr P Theakston North East & Yorkshire Beer & Pubs Association Mrs G SaltonMr A Hayes Business Support & Development Ltd J Earle and J CornishMr G Clark Mr J GroomDavis Planning Partnership Mr & Mrs RoutledgeMrs JM Hunton Mr E JonesMrs Christine Fields Hambleton Community Safety Partnership Mr D FrowMs A Purbrick BTCV Mrs S McLaurinMrs E Calvert Mr T L CaneMrs P Collins Easingwold Community Education Centre Mr D MoselyMr C Brown Wensleydale Railway Company Mr P HarrisMr I Marr Bedale School (Community Education Dept) Mrs G HarrisMr R Stead Mr R KarlssonCushman & Wakefield Mrs S KarlssonMr & Mrs B Anderson Mr J RatcliffeMr B Woodhouse Business Link York & N Yorks Mr G JonesN J R Wilson Dalton Transport & Storage Ltd Mr D MacKerronP & PM Shirt Mrs J DentMrs PA Blackburn Mr A BoulbyMr P Bell Paul Bell Associates Mr A StottMs J Grey Mrs C BowerMr I T Dykes Dip TP MRTPI Planning and Design Associates Mr WI PattisonMr J Jameson Dr J Van Der VoetMr G E Slinger Mr RE RedfernMr C Sorby Sutton Developments Mr JW PatersonMr K Robson Mr J ParkinsonTilley Bailey & Irvine Mr D ChalkMrs E Imeson J NobleMr & Mrs Batey Mrs A MorrisonMr D E Rochetti Mr & Mrs SankeyMrs K Currie Westfield Music School Mr N KitchingKaye Consultancy Mrs L CarverMrs N Hedley Mr & Mrs H SissenMr A Cooke Galtres Timber Company Mr John Trueman North Yorkshire PoliceMr P Lyth FWAG North Yorkshire K Brooks North Yorkshire PoliceT F Lancaster & Son Jemma Benson Future Energy YorkshireMr A Sedgwick Mr & Mrs WilliamsonJan Bezemer & Sons Mr Alastair Willis Signet PlanningMrs R Taylor Miss C M CornerK J Milburn Mr Andrew Rose Spawforth AssociatesMr L Twiss John Smith & Sons Mr S Barker Blackett Hart & PrattMs D Gallon Easingwold & District Community Care Association Mrs Denise MathersMs H Kirby Northallerton & District VSA Mr Mike BownessMrs H Murfin Stokesley & District Community Care Association Mr & Mrs G BurdisMr D Millar Hambleton & Richmondshire Gay Men Talking Mr J WhittakerMs G Middleton Thirsk, Sowerby & District Community Care Assoc. Mr Rob Close Northallerton RUFCMr K Holt Hambleton & Richmondshire Rural Transport Ptship Mr Paul Dennison Northallerton RUFCMr J Yates Mr J A WelshMr C Hall Bedale Scout Association Mr Rob Smith Peacock & SmithMr T Booth Sam Murray Barratt HomesMr N Gillan Mobile Operators Association Mr Andrew Sedgewick Barratt HomesMrs G Brown Bedale Golf Club Alex McLean Barratt HomesMr NJ Smith Ms Sarah Whittington David Wilson EstatesMr Walls Mr Nigel Bell Yuill Homes LtdMr P P Hogan Mr Paul Barrow George Wimpey NY LtdMs Paula BroadbentNorth Yorkshire County Council, Social Services,Supporting People Mr Allan Short FairhurstsRural Housing Trust Mr Adrian Crossdale MorbaineMuir Housing Association Mr Chris Fordy Strutt & ParkerYMCA Mrs R M Heather York House LeisureNorthallerton Community Care Association Mr C Evans Strutt & ParkerHarewood Housing Association LtdEasby Parish CouncilMr R Pocklington Cllr John Weighell Bedale CouncillorMr R Barker Cllr Carl Les Bedale CouncillorD W Freeborn University of the Third Age Cllr Herbert Langthorne Brompton CouncillorMs C Knights Easingwold & Villages Forum Cllr Caroline Nixon Cowtons CouncillorMs P Heal Endeavour Housing Association J E Morton Northallerton RUFCRev K M Phipps Mr James RamsdenMr M Thompson Mr Jennifer Ray Spawforth AssociatesV & B Taylor Mr Ralph AldersonMr R Alexander Ainley Alexander Parternship Ltd. Mr Robin McMillanMr WG Hardie Mr Steve Barker Blackett Hart & PrattMr M R Stirk Cllr Geoff EllisMrs S Stephenson Cllr Shirley ShepherdJ Parrot Cllr John Fletcher Great Ayton CouncillorNext Generation Ltd Cllr Frances Greenwell Great Ayton CouncillorB Wilkinson Cllr Ron Kirk Great Ayton CouncillorMr J Seymour Cllr Graham Arundell Leeming Bar CouncillorMr S Challis Cllr David Blades Northallerton Broomfield CouncillorMr Len Cruddas York & North Yorkshire Chamber of CommerceEmily Penn Arts Council England, Yorkshire Cllr John Coulson Northallerton CentralMr P Fisher Hambleton Over 50s Forum Cllr Tony Hall Northallerton Central CouncillorMr J French York & North Yorkshire Partnership Unit Cllr Ralph Andrew Northallerton North Councillor138

Title Firstname Surname Organisation Title Firstname Surname OrganisationL Ross Thirsk Regeneration Initiative Cllr John Prest Northallerton North CouncillorMr M Burgess Sutton-on-the-Forest Village Design Group Cllr Tim Swales Osmotherley CouncillorA E Spink & Son Cllr Peter Brown Romanby CouncillorMr S Hesmondhalgh Blackett Hart & Pratt Cllr John Smith Romanby CouncillorMr C Hall Scout Association Cllr Stephen Dickins Rudby CouncillorMs M Frew Kirkby-in-Cleveland Village Design Group Cllr Phillip Huntington Shipton CouncillorA & J Ferguson Cllr David Murkett Sowerby CouncillorMr H Dawson Appleton Wiske Preservation Society Cllr Mark Robson Sowerby CouncillorRapleys Cllr Peter Sowray Helperby Parish RepMrs D Fearnside Cllr Christine Cookman Stillington CouncillorMr G S Stapleton Cllr Bryn Griffiths Stokesley CouncillorMrs PE Davison Cllr Jacqueline Griffiths Stokesley CouncillorL Cahill Cllr Michael Richardson Stokesley CouncillorD Fawcett Mr Alexander Bateman The Planning Bureau LimitedMrs I Morton Cllr Gareth Dadd Thirsk CouncillorMr T Smirthwaite Cllr Robert Baker Thorntons CouncillorMr P Blanchard Cllr David Campbell Tollerton CouncillorMr & Mrs AC Ancell Cllr Neville Huxtable Topcliffe CouncillorMs A Brown Storey Sons & Parker Cllr Percy Featherstone White Horse CouncillorMr S Towers Sustainable Development Theme Group Cllr Denis Howey Whitestonecliffe CouncillorMr P Burgess Nidderdale AONB Ashley Dodgson Knight FrankMs R Tombe GMA Planning Mr Miles Crossley Banks DevelopmentsMr R N Thomson Mr Adrian HemsleyMr P Gibson Terry Bates HomegroupTarmac Northern Ltd Mr Barrie Westbrook North Star HGMr G Choat Commercial Estate Projects Ltd Mr Simon Garnett-Spence Accent GroupMr A Hillerby Mr Richard Panter Housing CorporationMs S Poxon Strata Homes Ltd Paula Broadbent NYCCMr B R Denley Ms Marcia Cunningham GOYHMr M W Woodliffe Mr Chris StanekMr D Tyson Northallerton Estate Agency Cllr Peter Sowray Helperby CouncillorMr R Pulleyn Mr I Rowe Signet PlanningMr Michael Jones Sanderson Weatherall Mr Steve QuartermainMr J Walker Mr Mick JewittMs S Janney Mrs Clare BoothPaul Gaughan (Building Consultants) Mr Andrew McCormackMr P W Wilson Mr Glen RobinsonMr P E M Cockburn Mr Ken BurleyDr & Mrs J Settle Mr Tim WoodMr D Bellerby Hunton Grange Developments Mr Jonathan SaddingtonRenton & Renton Helen LawsCSH Property Consultants Bridget RobinsonGateway Lightowler Estate Agents Mr Tony HarperR L Cordingley Joplings Sally LeemingLuke Miller & Associates Emma StevensNorthallerton Auctions Ltd Mr John HoweMr Robin Jessop Robin Jessop Ltd Mr Andrew CunninghamSandersons Alex PeelYour Move Allen & Lowe Mr Graham BanksBenchmark Properties Ltd Mr Rob GreavesNational Grid UK TransmissionLand and DevelopmentMr J Fife James Fife Northern Gas BetworksHunters Estate Agents Mr Sam Thistlethwaite Banks DevelopmentsGateway Lightowler Estate Agents Mr Bob Tait Room for DesignNorman F Brown Ms Fiona Coleman Yorkshire Rural Community CouncilStephensons MRs CornerYour Move Allen & Lowe Mr Charlie Webber RedrowGeorge F White Mr C ThompsonMs R Pierce Royal Mail Property Holdings Mr Peter Morris Barratt HomesMr A A Edwards c/o Mr K Reagon Mr S Wildman Fusion Online LimitedMr JHowe FInstD LLBBarrister Mr Christopher Whitmore Andrew Martin AssociatesMrs J Robinson Mr Ben Logan Quick Move PropertiesMr T Jopling, Val Hepworth The Yorkshire Gardens TrustA C Hill & Sons,Mr J Hick, Withers LLPMr D McMillan, Mr Jules Hall Indigo PlanningMr Robert HaytonMr & Mrs S Green Mr Simon Roberts Burgess GroupMr I Harrison The Plan Shop Beanland IllingworthMr F.W. Iveson Mrs Y Wainwright Baldersby Parish CouncilMr M V Watts Dunlop Haywards Planning Mrs Suzanne Beattie Dishforth Parish CouncilMs Clair Tupling Cyclists Touring Club Mr P MorrisonMr D Miller Bovis Homes Ltd Alison KnoppWetherby Stone Products Ltd Mr & Mrs GregoryJ & J Ward Ltd Mr P W Hedley Hares of SnapeVale of Mowbray Bacon Co Ltd Dr & Mrs R E BlaggProctors Coaches Ltd H BloggSayers Road Tanker Services Helen GardinerMr I Drake Skelton Parish Council Nita SullivanMr I Cuthbertson Wiggington Parish Council Ian & Christine PeelMrs M Moran Haxby Town Council Fiona WalkerMr MacMan Nether Poppleton Parish Council Mr Keith AtkinsonMrs J Thethi John Harrison Easingwold Parish ChurchMr D Warhurst Mr & Mrs G BruceMr P Watt Stokesley School P GlossopMrs J Aird Northallerton College R M DawsonMr E Hayward North Yorkshire County Council Sandie Tanner-SmithMr A Howard Lewis and Coopers Mrs S Thompson CachetMrs L Shaw Mrs E Denton North Back Lane Residents AssociationMr J Sheehan Northallerton & District Local History Society David Wharton-StreetMr A Wake Mr S MarkMrs J Wooler Citizens Advice Bureau Helen KirkMs C Megson St Gregory's Church Mrs Joanne FisherMr J Noone Brian StanforthMs Y Rose Bedale Financial Services J ThurlandMr K Allen CPRE Mrs Paula HallMr P Brown Easingwold Villages Forum Mr G M Keddie139

140

PREFERRED OPTIONS LIST OF RESPONDENTSAPPENDIX 9Title Firstname Surname Organisation Title Firstname Surname OrganisationMr P Swiers J G Swiers (Helperby) Ltd Mr George JohnsonMr R Hansom Hansom Architects Ms Rachel WebsterPat Ritchie One North East Mr Andrew PaulMr M O'Carroll Revolt Mr David BlundellMrs K E GreensitHackforth & Combined ParishCouncil Mr Tony GeeMr Dan Mitchell Barton Wilmore Mr Richard O'NeillMs L Nicholson Yuill Homes Mr Tarek GhouriGFalkinghamNorth Yorkshire County Council,County Archaeologist Mr Timothy WakeMr M BarninghamBedale & Villages Community PlanForum Mr & Mrs Anthony WilliamsMr R Pilcher Pilcher Homes Ltd Mr Keith BarnesCllr Brian Phillips Hutton Bonville Parish Rep Mrs Marion ArcherMs S AndersonNorthallerton & Villages CommunityPlan Forum Mr Richard BarkerMr Nick Whitford Highways Agency Mr Richard TanfieldMr Darren Hendley Sport England Mr Paul MorrisMr David Carter Natural England Mr & Mrs Andrew & Karen HibberdMr D Ellerington Northumbrian Water Ltd Mr Bryan DixonMs K Johnson Yorkshire Water Services Ltd Dr Euan SpinkRoberts Mouchel Parkman Ms Bethan Stagg Yorkshire Wildlife TrustMs Allyson MarrAiskew and Leeming Bar ParishCouncil Ms Elizabeth McGeehan Newton HouseMs Rachael Palmer Brafferton Parish Council Mr Nigel Cussen DPPMr P Atkin Brompton Town Council Mr Malcolm BarnettNYCCCountryside ServiceMs E Coulson Carlton Miniott Parish Council Mr Dan GriersonMrs H Craggs Carthorpe Parish Council P L WilsonMrs Anne KindCrakehall with Langthorne ParishCouncil Mr C A AllanMrs B Ward Dalton Parish Council Mrs Carol ClarkOakwood Enterprises and Big SheepLittle Cow FarmMrs B Hedison East Cowton Parish Council Mr Charles TorkingtonMrs M L Holden Great Ayton Parish Council Mr & Mrs Peter & Chris RobinsonMrs W E Mann Smeaton with Hornby Parish Council Mrs Hazel Bruce StevensMr B Ward Husthwaite Parish Council P ChapmanMrs J A Pyle Rudby Parish Council Mr Cyril Keith StevensMrs Janet Griffiths Kirkby-in-Cleveland Parish Council Mr John ReynardMrs J BarninghamSinderby and Pickhill-with-RoxbyParish Council Rebecca ReynardMrs J A Pyle Potto Parish Council Mr Francis William ReynardMr David Carter Scruton Parish Council Kathleen ReynardMrs S Lowe Snape with Thorp Parish Council Dr Lisa CotterillMr R Brown Stillington Parish Council Michelle GlassMrs J F Wheeler Stokesley Parish Council Mr Peter YoungMrs S Bracewell Sutton-on-the-Forest Parish Council Mr Alan DochertyMrs E Coulson Thirsk Town Council Mr & Mrs Richard LawMiss Iona Appleyard Tanfield Parish Council Mrs Joan HaywoodMr Rob Brittain Broadacres Housing Assn Ltd Noreen MastertonMs Laura O'Dea Knight Frank Mr John ScottMr BP Colman Thircon Ltd Mr Graham MerrittMr RH Parker Thorp Parker Ms Rebecca MerrittMr J R Wilson Appletons Mr & Mrs S IrvineMr Ian Smith English Heritage Mr & Mrs AM & P SuffieldTaylor Wimpey Ian Lyle, England & Lyle Thelma ThompsonMr G Ramsden British Waterways Mr Brian MossJ S Kirk Mr & Mrs C & S ButlerMr A Hutton Smiths Gore Mr Christopher S D Dalton RatcliffeMr Mr Courcier Northern Planning Mr Alistair William RatcliffMrs H M Kirk Forest of Galtres Society Mr & Mrs Jeremy & Tracy LenighanHogg Builders (York) Ltd Mr Kevin AndrewTim Axe Barber Titleys Alice ReidMichael Powell The Land and Development Practice Mrs F C CooperMr & Mrs A Ward Jennifer Asquith/Dickinson Dees LLP Sarah ThwaitesJenny Poxon Yorkshire & Humber Assembly Mrs O D KilvingtonDr M Bell Ward Hadaway Mr K KilvingtonMr D Winterbotham K WhitingF D Todd & Sons Mr David AshtonMr T Jackson Tilley Bailey & Irvine Mr Raymond BageMr I Henderson Mr A M NicholsonMr E Barker Barlow Wilson Ltd Mr Ian AshtonMrs E Calvert Dr & Mrs Gareth & Joanne HeaddockMr & Mrs B Anderson Mr & Mrs David & Joan ShorrocksMr K Robson Laura ShorrocksMrs N Hedley Lisa LovellMr P Fisher Hambleton Over 50s Forum Mr Steven LovellMr R N Thomson Mrs R ReedMr Michael Jones Sanderson Weatherall Mr D ReedMr Robin Jessop Robin Jessop Ltd Dorothy DowsonMr E HaywardNorth Yorkshire County CouncilHighways North Yorkshire Mr & Mrs P D SpenceMr John SheehanNorthallerton & District Local HistorySociety June WilsonMr Harrison Ann MetcalfeMr J & CPWP Consett Mr Ian SmithMr Ted JacksonJacksonplan Ltd/Tilley Bailey &Irvine Mr & Mrs Jonathan & Diane BrownMr B Robinson Sandra PollardH Storm Deborah PollardMr David Hart Kathryn Frances HaxbyMr T Franks Mr Arthur MorleyMr Tim Dawson Mr & Mrs Stephen & Caroline SissonMr R White Mr Michael SissonMr J Bailey Allertonshire Civic Society Emma SissonMr C Howden Mr Brian Andrew OxleyMr & Mrs M Feasby Kay OxleyMr & Mrs Anthony & Helen Wood Mrs Mavis OxtobyMr M Sanderson J P Skipton-on-Swale Parish Meeting A B E & G CroserMrs Sue Garside Mr & Mrs S & V AimerMr R Irving ID Planning Marion Elizabeth BlackhallMr D Storry Rob Smith/Peacock & Smith Mr Derek W BlackhallMr John Wyatt Signet Planning Mr & Mrs CM & PV RogersMr J A Cook Mr & Mrs L A & G E HillMr J Palmer Yorkshire Forward Mrs Margaret A ClarkeMr John Goodwin Carter Jonas Mary O'SullivanMr S Honeyman Mrs Ann Morrish141

Title Firstname Surname Organisation Title Firstname Surname OrganisationP Livesley Mr & Mrs Anthony & Christine WhitingM & A Whittle Mr & Mrs RustageMrs J Scorror Mrs Gladys LewisMr D Murdoch Mrs Eirwen BoxellMrs SM Pearson Kelly Marie WaltonMr Alan McKee Mr Robert ChorltonMr John Coates Lesley TaylorDr J Gower Mr John TaylorMrs DM Stratford Mr Alan GulliverS M Boothroyd Mrs B A Y WestthorpJohannes Grundmann Mr & Mrs Brian & Christine WoodMr M Faulkner Mr Nicholas HillP & C Morgan Mr Samuel PrestonH A Stonehouse Mr Daniel PrestonMr MJ Holmes Mr & Mrs Christopher & Pamela PrestonMr T Gray Agent: England & Lyle Mr & Mrs Gordon & Hilda HandR Ackroyd Alison HeskMr & Mrs Allen Mr & Mrs K & S BanksMr & Mrs Roddy Carol BaragwanathMr & Mrs Roddam Mr John BaragwanathK & D M Snell Mr Adam BaragwanathMr Ovenston Mrs B BowyerMr & Mrs M Ingham Catherine RossE M Logan Mr Ian William PottsMr Rob SmithWordsworth Holdings Plc/Peacock &Smith Ita J T PhillipsMr D Sanderson Beverley JohnstoneMr S Lancaster Mr & Mrs Graham J & Dorothy WilsonMr JR Wilson Emery Planning Partnership Ltd Mr John W NaylorWild Bennett Homes Ltd Mr David DodsworthL Green & A Barnes Chris DodsworthMrs N Pritchard Laura DodsworthMr and Mrs EJ Eyles Ms Margaret IngleCJ Bower Mr Philip S PiddMr & Mrs Hills Elizabeth PiddMr D Smith Mr & Mrs W Grieve Chez NousMr Andrew Marsay GW Marsay & Son Karen HodgsonMr R Hall Mr Kevin HodgsonMrs V Gamon & Mrs EBunyanC/O Simon Philpotts, Strutt andParker Mr Nigel HodgsonCllr David Webster Tanfield Councillor Mr Geoffrey BrookeDr G Brownlee Hambleton District CPRE Mr & Mrs William & Tracey RussellMrs C Bower Mr & Mrs B ChapmanMr Alastair Willis Signet Planning Ms H AldersonMr Andrew Rose Spawforth Associates Mr Paul Samuel RuncimanMr & Mrs G Burdis Mr Stewart RuncimanMr Rob Smith Peacock & Smith Mr & Mrs Paul & Gloria RuncimanMr Paul Barrow George Wimpey NY Ltd Jane MarshallMr Chris Fordy Strutt & Parker Mr Roy Charles HollandCllr Carl Les Bedale Councillor Joyce WilcockCllr Herbert Langthorne Brompton Councillor George LambertCllr John Coulson Northallerton Central Esther YoungCllr Christine Cookman Stillington Councillor Mrs Josephine DaszkiewiczMr I Rowe Signet Planning Mr & Mrs Paul & Kathy CookeMr Tim Wood Mr Alwyn FirthVal Hepworth The Yorkshire Gardens Trust Mr Simon BartonMr Robert Hayton Mr & Mrs D & M SpenceMr P Morrison Mr & Mrs George BrooksAlison Knopp Mr Ian WarnockMr & Mrs Gregory Ms Kathryn E KendallMr P W Hedley Hares of Snape Mr A P AylingDr & Mrs R E Blagg Mrs S E AylingH Blogg Mr & Mrs Simon & Elaine AlmackHelen Gardiner Mr Alistair LynchNita Sullivan Beverley FosterIan & Christine Peel Barbara CrossFiona Walker Deirdre NaughtonMr Keith Atkinson Miss Darion GarnettJohn Harrison Easingwold Parish Church Mr Robert MarshallMr & Mrs G Bruce Mr M H GillP Glossop Mr D W GillR M Dawson Mrs S M GillSandie Tanner-Smith Rascals Mr & Mrs B J & J OuttrimMrs S Thompson Cachet Mr & Mrs Steven & Stephanie HoyleMrs E DentonNorth Back Lane ResidentsAssociation Mr & Mrs William & Joyce ScottDavid Wharton-Street Mr John BellMr S Mark Mr Antony Mark HoweyHelen Kirk Mr & Mrs M W & T E WilkinsonMrs Joanne Fisher Mr Geoffrey Stuart WhiteleyBrian Stanforth Miss Joan MetcalfeJ Thurland Mr Graham JohnsonMrs Paula Hall Nicola PartonMr G M Keddie Mark CockerillRobert F Beaver Janette KitchingM J Keddie Mrs Brenda PhillipsJennifer Allison Marcus WatsonMr D Hawthornethwaite Lindsay MitchellC Morton Mrs Joan DawsonRichard & Gill Robinson Miles Anthony PattisonMrs S Somasundram Ashley LawsonMrs C Small Mr CD KE BosomworthRev Graham Peacock Mr & Mrs J GP A Cowen Mrs Jill TaylorMrs E Rye Mr Glenn TaylorMrs J A Sibley Mr & Mrs Leslie & Maureen HowarthStuart Helm Mr David S FarndaleRichardson Gardner Joyce Mary FarndalePeter Webster Mr Peter ThompsonNO DETAILSPROVIDED Mr Philip SteadMr E Naisbitt Ms Amanda RogersonJ Callingswood Mrs P V FurleyMr Arthur Bierton Mr K A GrayJim Polwarth Mr & Mrs N R SmithJ Merritt Mr & Mrs WatkinsonAA & M Bott An Currach Mrs S A StevensAlice Polwarth Mr S E RichardsonS Smith Mr G RichardsonMr & Mrs Job Mrs A RichardsonP Tearall Mr & Mrs K S Lee142

Title Firstname Surname Organisation Title Firstname Surname OrganisationMr J E White Mr & Mrs Simon & Susan BakerMr Rudy Pearce GSM Graphic Arts limited Mrs Lorna ScottMrs V M Anthony Mrs E A ThorntonMrs P Southall R A & U BrennanMiss Ethel Gowland Sylvia CockerillMr & Mrs Pearson Mr George CockerillM Gawthorpe John & Annette RoseJennifer Hadland Smiths Gore Mr Andrew WilkinsonMrs S Barnes Mr & Mrs George & June WoodMr & Mrs John & Dorothy Wood Mr Alan Keith GrahamNeil Spink Mrs M Monica HaireMrs J Tyson Mr & Mrs Derrick & Christine JenkinsonMrs Olive Backhouse Mr & Mrs E R WartersMrs C M Bridge Mr & Mrs John & Louise BowmanMr M S Bridge Louie PerkinsG Gaudian Alne Parish Council Y McCarthyDavid Spark K B McCarthyMr & Mrs Lovell Freda BarnettMrs A Grainge D H & B M StephensonMrs J Gillian Gloag Ann MossSteve Harding Mr John MossMrs E R Towler Mr Gordon WiseMr M C Clarke Mr Stephen WiseRichard Daniel Rachel HulseKay Turner Mr & Mrs Michael & Esme VarleyMr & Mrs G Andrews Mr Andrew FawcettE J Harrison Liz FawcettMr & Mrs N Boast Sheila FawcettMrs S H Graves Eileen BrookeDavid & Kay Heseltine Margaret MorleyJP Hull N I LowtherMr & Mrs J Race Mr Alan William ReedF C Foster G L MiddlemistDr D A Edwards Mr & Mrs I T CookMr & Mrs Ramsay Mr Eric WalkerMike Blackburn Kathryn WalkerCaroline Tasker Mr & Mrs G A BrownS Harrison Dr & Mrs G M & A C PurvisLynne Boyce R D A StokeMalcolm S Tribick Mary E BoothCaroline Skelly North York Moors NP Mr David MitchellMikeStoneEngland & Lyle Chartered TownPlanners Julie TarnRichard Hill Mr & Mrs Michael & Maureen GibbsR W Close Strutt & Parker Mr & Mrs Kevin & Jane CookS & J Jackson & Charlton Miss D MillerMrs D Redmond Mr & Mrs G & S MillerMr & Mrs Hannon and family Diane MillerMr & Mrs J Craske Mr Ray WalkerRichard J Lancefield Jankins & Lancefield D J WarnerTMJ & HL Shearman Heather BartonS Crocker Carlton Miniott Primary School Mr David BakerMark Southerton Edwardson Associates Sonia RoseMichael Webster Mr Michael JonesKeith Wilkinson Mr Noel PorterMark Harrison Mark Harrison JP Sheila AtkinsonJohn Mainwaring-Taylor Mrs P JacksonD R Coxon Mr & Mrs Malcolm & Caroline PetersMr & Mrs D J Bell Mr & Mrs D T & P J WedgewoodMrs Patricia Oldfield Mr Alfred MyattMrs B Gilling Mr & Mrs John & Joyce StapyltonMrs Doreen Newcombe Mary Ramsden DickinsonMr & Mrs R N Proudlock Mr Maurice William KnowlsonRichard Stainsby Richard Stainsby Valerie CravenC S Walker Stuart CravenD M Ferry Northallerton RUFC Mr Simon GaborMr Rob Kennedy April LishmanMr Ian Calvert Mr & Mrs S G PrenticeMrs C Brennan Mr & Mrs John & Christabel CliftonCherylynn Spink Mrs Brenda PotterMrs E M Graves Mrs Edith CoxCherylynn Offersen-Christensen Mr & Mrs M & E CarterMr & Mrs P J Welch Mrs J HemingwayW Hartley Mr & Mrs Dennis & Jane TeasdaleA J Webster Mr Roger EtheringtonZoe Crighton Mr & Mrs P J & A N MaloneyMr Simon Roberts Mr Shaun FletcherMrs A Court Mr & Mrs Geoffrey & Jennifer NewcombeMr & Mrs James Watkinson Mr & Mrs I RandMrs Pamela Morris Mr & Mrs David LeeMike Fox Thirsk School & Sixth Form College Mr & Mrs Elvet & Sheila WainwrightMrs J F Lawrance Mr & Mrs John & Muriel TarnMrs Elizabeth Thompson Jan AustinBarbara Slater HELP SAVE BROMPTON GAP Mr Dean MacartneyNigel & Val Brown Mrs E J FarndaleMr Liam Lincoln Mr & Mrs Gareth & Alison JonesShaun Lincoln Leslie L BenningtonSarah Lincoln Patricia BenningtonMrs Pauline Bearpark Colman Marius RyanCyril Kirby Brompton Town Council Joyce QuinnD V Bowe Miss Natasha TottenhamMr & Mrs Hogg Mr & Mrs P HarrisD W Myers Mr Luke TaylorMrs A Laurance Mrs Margery KavanaghFrank Morritt Karen ScurrStephen Harris Emery Planning Partnership Ltd Mr Paul McDonnellJo Wright Smiths Gore Sarah ScurrMr A Stead Mr & Mrs J & E MorrisMr & Mrs G Stead Mrs S PalfreemanLester Fowler Mr & Mrs Clive & Linda PollittRobert Trewhitt Mrs M JacksonJohn B Padfield Mr & Mrs P & E HollandHogg Builders Mr N Mills, NAI Erinaceous Planning Mr Ivor ShawGovernment Office for Yorkshire andAlisonMundayThe Humber Margaret SugdenSuzanne Bailes The Lodge at Leeming Bar Mrs G BendelowMr Eric Campbell Miss Diana DaleS Russell Philip DargueJ Utley Mr & Mrs Anthony & Lucinda Calvert143

Title Firstname Surname Organisation Title Firstname Surname OrganisationL M Clarke Mr & Mrs John & Susan DoddsK M Travis Ms Wendy Gibson-BrownV Cussons Marion GreenJ Holdem Mr G PensonJ Butcher Mrs M PensonP L Clarke Mr Joseph KnowlsonDr & Mrs U Somasundram Mr Ian Stanley WorrallMr Craig Harrison Bedale Golf Club Helen Pilkington HaysMr J Gaffney V & J J RogersMr & Mrs Hopkins Mrs L A DanielStephen Litherland England & Lyle Mr A DanielGeraldine Poynter B J PyeMalcolm & Ann Watson Mrs E BowersJ Belt Morton on Swale Parish Council Mr John E CarrMrs Ann Arkell Mr & Mrs David & Pamela BugdenMrs H Eldabe A HabbishawMr & Mrs Plummer Mr James J MarleyAndrew Metcalfe Mr Peter BendelowKaren Alderson Kristine StephensonMr & Mrs D R Barker P F & C MidgleyMrs M N Hoggarth MBE Ms Judith Karen WorrallMr & Mrs C M Larkin Mrs G ThorntonJennifer Winyard Turley Associates Timothy & Pamela CooperMrs M Allen Mr & Mrs Ronald & Ann PerigoDavid Padgett Mrs A M StirkeDennis & Elsa Gibbs Mrs J M InghamMichael Watts Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners Emma Louise CallaghanMrs Jean I Herbert Mrs Margaret PentyMr Ian Mckee Carolyn CallaghanMargaret Popplewell Mr & Mrs Malcolm & Margaret GlasbyDavid McElhoney Linda HallKathleen Flanagan Miss Kathleen Marie DaveyJohn & Marigold Wilkinson Two Hoots Michael Westgarth-TaylorEdward and Freda Ainsley Mr Martin ColecloughMiddlesbrough CouncilRegeneration ServiceFreda Ainsley Mr W Calvert Barber TitleysIan Self Ward Hadaway Mr Paul HardyMrs H Wilson Mr Robert DaviesJill Turner Mr Sean WilliamsonPaul MacGregor Mr Mark AshtonChildren & Young Peoples ServiceNorth Yorkshire County CouncilJanetWatsonMr & Mrs Walker All Seasons Lawn Turf John ParrottAiliaSavageNational Offender ManagementService David GottMr Michael Rafferty Neil Morton Nathaniel Lichfield & PartnersMr Andrew Voke Mr Dave Brooke Ryedale TravelMr John G Gresswell Craig Stockley DKS ArchitectsMr Timothy Willis Elizabeth Gabler (Kay)Motel Leeming Gary ClarkeSusan Latter George TinsleyMr Francis John BrownHackforth and Ainderby Miers ParishCouncil Mrs J RobinsonMr & Mrs Stephen & Christine Curtis Gordon MacKayDr Catherine J Williamson Susan CannMrs Wendy Cockburn Mr & Mrs G H L PlaceMrs Wendy Young Graham Place Thompson & PlaceMr Robert Peace Mrs Mary ThompsonDr & Mrs D S & J Simpson Mrs P J BlairMrs Janice Collingswood Mrs B BreenCllr David Crisp Mrs J FisherDr Charles Waterfield Mr W CalvertMr Jonathan Botterell Mr Stan McKeeMr Douglas Elphee Tony William WalkerMr K Archer Mrs Beverley Lambert Environment AgencyMr Malcolm Hartley Miss K AylingMr Jeffrey Metcalfe Mrs Victoria PeacockMrs Gayle Hartley Mr J BurnettMrs Margaret Scarce Mr Bryan DunnMr Michael AlexanderKirkby Fleetham with FencotesParish Council Mr Frank Waterworth EsqMr Jeremy Diskin Mr David WillisShires Land & Property (Northern)LtdMr Christopher Tyerman The Hebdon TrustMr David AshtonGreat and Little Broughton ParishCouncilLindrick HomesDr James Bishop R Taylor Thirsk FabricationsMr John Pingree Mr Michael ChalonerMrs Jayne Tyerman Peter & Yvonne BaronMs A Flowers NYCC P L BrownR F Carey Mr John OvingtonMr Ronald Anthony Call Mr A.E. McKeeMr Steve Watson Mrs S McGuinessMr Jeff Auty Gareth & Adam HoggA W & J E Scott Mr Roger MannMr Russell Hinton Mr C W AnthonyMr Paul John Manancourt Castle Hills Petition - 62 signatoriesMr Christopher Bish Mrs Pauline Westgarth-Taylor Sexhow Parish MeetingMr Kevin Grainger Dennis and Parry Christine WhiteMrs Annette Nelson Mr John GarsideMr Kevin Murray Mr Phil BroomheadNorth Yorkshire County CouncilHighways144

APPENDIX 10PREFERRED OPTIONS - NOTES OF AREA MEETINGSBedale Area Exhibition and Evening Meeting30 th October 2007Bedale HallPrecise numbers who visited the exhibition during the day are not available (as noteveryone signed the attendance sheets) but it is estimated that approximately 100people attended throughout the day.At the evening meeting there were 35 people in attendance.The key issues raised at the meeting are set out in summary below:• Will the infrastructure in Bedale town centre be able to cope with additionaldevelopment – particularly the volume of traffic (i.e. Bridge Street)?• There are issues relating to water run off, water supplies and water treatmentin Bedale• The existing Doctors’ Surgery is close to capacity for patients• Schools will need to cope with this extra development• Youth facilities are required in the Bedale / Aiskew area• No replacement site for allotments has been identified in Bedale / Aiskew• Wilberts Farm site, Aiskew – no reasons given for its rejection. It is abrownfield site which is not identified as such in the document• The Bedale / Aiskew Relief Road needs to be determined as it will have asignificant impact on traffic congestion in Bedale / Aiskew• There is no provision to reroute traffic coming into Bedale from Masham andthe south• With brownfield targets not being met, why is the Council proposing todevelop on Greenfield sites?• Need to take account of the Wensleydale Railway link from Leeming Bar toNorthallerton• What access is there to the South End Avenue site?• Access arrangements for the Masham Road site for construction traffic145

APPENDIX 10 (cont)PREFERRED OPTIONS - NOTES OF AREA MEETINGSEasingwold Area Exhibition and Evening Meeting29 th October 2007Galtres CentrePrecise numbers who visited the exhibition during the day are not available (as noteveryone signed the attendance sheets) but it is estimated that approximately 275people attended throughout the day.At the evening meeting there were 130 people in attendance.The key issues raised at the meeting are set out in summary below:• The infrastructure in Easingwold town can’t cope with the existing situationand needs upgrading. As the sewers can’t cope with existing developmentsatisfactorily no further building should be allowed until improvements aremade• The existing Doctors’ Surgery is at capacity for patients and can’t cope withfurther clients• The town’s only existing Dentist is due to retire soon – what is going to bedone to improve health facilities?• Places at the schools are over-subscribed – are there going to be newschools or extensions provided to cope with this extra development?• There are parking problems in Easingwold already yet there is no long staycar park shown on the plan• Why can’t Easingwold have a swimming pool?• How can we ensure good design at such high densities?• Will further petrol filling stations be provided or steps taken to preventfurther losses?• Shopping in the town is not as good as it was in the past, are steps beingtaken to improve shopping facilities?• Development should be spread around more thinly rather than in large areasin the Market towns146

APPENDIX 10 (cont)PREFERRED OPTIONS - NOTES OF AREA MEETINGSNorthallerton Area Exhibition and Evening Meeting7 th November 2007Northallerton Town HallPrecise numbers who visited the exhibition during the day are not available (as noteveryone signed the attendance sheets) but it is estimated that approximately 260people attended throughout the day.At the evening meeting there were approximately 175 people in attendance.The key issues raised at the meeting are set out in summary below:• Why is so much of the housing proposed going to be developed on theBrompton Gap (Green Wedge)?• The Castle Hills site should not be developed as it has historical value• Brompton Gap should be kept to maintain the separation between Bromptonand Northallerton• Why is the relief road so near to Brompton and how high is the bridge overthe railway line likely to be?• Is the relief road going to be a separate entity to the bypass?• Surface water drainage and flooding must be considered first before anydevelopment happens in the Brompton Gap area• There is concern about emergency road access to and from the Castle Hillssite and cycle tracks. The bridge under the mainline floods in heavy rain• How has the figure of 5,000 homes in the district been decided?• Can a higher percentage of affordable housing be implemented?• Where will the new school go in Brompton to accommodate children living inthese new houses?• How many new houses will be built in Brompton exactly?• Where will access to the proposed site at Morton-on-Swale go?• The Scouts use the Castle Hills site to practice and develop their outwardbound skills. If this site is developed, where will they go?• Traffic congestion in the town centre needs to be addressed• Is the Low Gates level crossing going to be improved to reduce trafficcongestion?• There needs to be more car parking available in the town centre• The potential for a one way traffic system should be considered• If the Fire Station is to be relocated, it should be in a town centre location orif it is to go out to the industrial estate it should wait until the relief road isbuilt for emergency vehicle access• The link between Brompton and Northallerton (particularly for theAllertonshire School) should be retained as a safe route for pedestrians,cyclists and the mobility impaired and not be damaged by the relief road• Employment provision needs to be able to cater for the increase inNorthallerton’s population. Northallerton must not become a dormitory townfor Teesside147

APPENDIX 10 (cont)PREFERRED OPTIONS - NOTES OF AREA MEETINGSStokesley Area Exhibition and Evening Meeting6 th November 2007Stokesley Town HallPrecise numbers who visited the exhibition during the day are not available (as noteveryone signed the attendance sheets) but it is estimated that approximately 250people attended throughout the day.At the evening meeting there were 88 people in attendance.The key issues raised at the meeting are set out in summary below:• The skateboard park should be more centrally placed (e.g. at North Road)• The need for a skateboard park is based on old information – it’s not requirednow• Why is there no car park allocated? – parking is awful at present and canonly get worse as more development is allowed• Infrastructure in Stokesley town can’t cope with the existing situation andneeds upgrading. As the sewers can’t cope with existing developmentsatisfactorily no further building should be allowed until improvements aremade• Another school is required; not just extra places at the existing one (which isalready too large)• The existing roads within Stokesley are not good enough (width andjunctions) to accommodate extra development• The Great Broughton site is liable to flooding• The Great Broughton site would generate more traffic along the narrow mainstreet; a site north of the village would be better for wider access• Newton Road, Great Ayton is not wide enough to accommodate the proposedfurther development• Why is industry proposed at White House Farm? Why not keep it on theindustrial estate?• All new buildings should be made eco-friendly• The Garbutts Lane site in Hutton Rudby has serious highway problems andthere have been previous refusals for that reason.148

APPENDIX 10 (cont)PREFERRED OPTIONS - NOTES OF AREA MEETINGSThirsk Area Exhibition and Evening Meeting31 st October 2007Thirsk Town HallPrecise numbers who visited the exhibition during the day are not available (as noteveryone signed the attendance sheets) but it is estimated that approximately 250people attended throughout the day.At the evening meeting it is estimated that approximately 120 people were in attendance.The key issues raised at the meeting are set out in summary below:• The Housing Needs Study was undertaken in 2004 and is getting out of date;when will this be updated?• Access and traffic circulation issues around the Saxty Way site• Schools within Thirsk and Sowerby are at capacity• Drainage system at capacity• Does the number of proposed new residents equal the number of new jobscreated by the employment allocations?• Traffic problems associated with the Station Road employment sites• How are these employment sites chosen?• Heavy traffic has increased along Station Road following the closure of theAuction Mart• Comprehensive development as opposed to piecemeal development couldmitigate the traffic issues• Does the Council agree with the housing figures from RSS?• Concern for a rat-run being created as a result of development at Cocked HatPark• Informal consultation has taken place around Saxty Way and has causedresidents some confusion as it was not clear it was nothing to do with HDC.• Why has the site east of the bypass been rejected?• How rigorous are the housing phases?• Will the Council review the Station Road sites in the light of objections?• If development went to Dalton Industrial Estate, wouldn’t the road needimproving to deal with the flooding issues?• Will completions be delivered in Thirsk by the end of Phase 1?• General complaints regarding the size of the venue.149

APPENDIX 10 (cont)PREFERRED OPTIONS - NOTES OF AREA MEETINGSAll Areas Exhibition and Evening Meeting8 th November 2007Civic Centre, NorthallertonPrecise numbers who visited the exhibition during the day are not available (as noteveryone signed the attendance sheets) but it is estimated that approximately 50 peopleattended throughout the day.At the evening meeting there were 23 people in attendance.The key issues raised at the meeting are set out in summary below:• If 40% of houses are to be affordable, will the remaining 60% beunaffordable?• Where will affordable housing occupants come from and how many will belocal?• Is the Northern development option considered to be in Brompton orNorthallerton?• Sites between Stone Cross and Brompton considered to have drainageissues which cause problems further down the beck• Not enough time allowed for consultation• Concern for the sustainability of the Northern development option• Why is Northallerton Town Football Club having to relocate from its existingsite?• More guidance required on affordable housing in secondary villages• Support given for sites identified through the Community Plan• More should be done to provide cycle routes• What impact will the additional traffic have in Northallerton?• Are there any provisions being made for people with ill health in the designof new housing?• Will Parish Councils receive training on the LDF?• Has the impact of employment provision on housing been taken into accountin Thirsk?• The Station Road, Thirsk sites would be better for housing• Was the site east of A19, Thirsk rejected during consultation?• Railway alterations could ease traffic congestion• Has consideration been given for a park and ride scheme in Northallerton?• The northern development new road should be proven to reduce trafficcongestion prior to any site allocations• What about a pedestrian bridge over the Low Gates level crossing?• Who pays for the Northern link road - taxpayer or developer?• Will all sites in Northallerton contribute towards the new road?• How can the Council ensure the road is constructed through developercontributions?150

151APPENDIX 11

152

153

154

APPENDIX 12Local Development Framework.,.. ....Allocations Development Plan DocumentPreferred Options2007-2008• '.. Promoting Sustainable• • Communities Through•the Planning ProcessHAMBLETONTRICT COUNQuestionnaireOctober – November 2007THIS FORM CAN BE COMPLETED ONLINE AT: www.hambleton.gov.uk/planning/ldf/allocations.htmAlternatively please complete (using a separate sheet if necessary) and return to the postal or email addressoverleaf by no later than Friday 23 rd November 2007YOUR DETAILS:Name: ____________________________________________Organisation: ____________________________________________Address: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Post Code: ____________________________________________Telephone: ____________________________________________Email: ____________________________________________What town/village are you commenting on?………………………………………………………………………………………………….YOUR VIEWS:1. Do you agree with the Preferred Options Allocation sites for your town/village – anddo you agree with the justifications given?Yes No (If ‘No’ please explain why)………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………….2. Do you agree with the rejection of the other sites considered here – and do youagree with the reasons given for their rejection?Yes No (If ‘No’ please explain why)………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………….155

3. Do you think that any other sites should be allocated – and for what reasons?Yes No (If ‘Yes’ then please provide full site details and map)………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………….………4. Do you agree with the proposed Development Limits – and if not why?Yes No (If ‘No’ then please explain what changes you seek,providing full details with map)………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………….5. If you have any other comments on the content of the Allocations documents(including the Annexes) or the Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats RegulationsAssessment Screening Reports please enter them here.………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………….………THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO ANSWER THIS QUESTIONNAIREAll responses received will be considered and any information providedwill be open to public scrutinyPlanning Policy Team, Hambleton District Council, Civic Centre, Stone Cross,Northallerton, North Yorkshire, DL6 2UUEmail: planning.policy@hambleton.gov.ukA large print version is available on requestTel: 0845 1211 555156

APPENDIX 13Preferred Option Press Notice 1\sSIFIED I,.SSIFIEDDarlington &Stockton& Times53FRIDAY. FRIDAY, OCTOBER OcrOBER 12, l2. 200753,Classified lass. iendstocktontimes.co.ukPLANNING APPUCATIONSAPPUCATlONS:E ;E IS HERE ~RE BY GIVEN 1Ila lMl~ Oartongtgn~ ElonJo..o1lO:u:d Co\J1ci has ~the~~use.greenhouse to resJden useiD :tl BUilDING BUILDING CONSENT:'VI rge Hall~ HIll s.t.:vo RoN Road »k\dIelon MlddIe10n 5l 51 George Dl.2 Dll lRl 1Rll:Gl-..BCl): 07oW9401U!C)~ n to MI.~aM roof, ~ 8/ld RemIll In1e

CowIdl,ClwI~Preferred Option Press Notice 2THE YORK PRESSAPPENDIX 13 (Cont)42 Friday. Friday, OCtober October 12, 2007 classified01904676767classified0'904676767.......nl ~ -..y' UlS t btxf'T..:.>l '~". ,Motherand Baby BabvW1NNI£ ntE POOH«_OJ ",.._\:)I_~1;l(oloiOIOO4:w.l6ol'ClothingBAG IL\G OF 8A8'f' BA8V GIRLS GIlll.S_ t;loIl.._ bn 10 12 ~,.. .. barn Ia 12 m.lnlJlllllllo 0... Om':III1ll:mS ill ........ = £:1111110 I'lO 1oI-1111 l:C ·10110100pmanl Plan Oom.w/lanl """-. ......sutlmittod _ 10 to lhe IflO 5jjVt>o>". 01ll(01f;l .Pl.JbhC NoticesPersonalSE:rVlces SeNlCeS.....1\I1\E il.NO ~IIlI..aJl'Md» nallCO IMI ..... YQrIc Colfego OIl1lclq1omf-.\llI1col'._.-......... _CoIolIO"'-~_NEU­~o.158

Hambleton District CouncilCivic Centre, Stone Cross, Northallerton, North Yorkshire DL6 2UUTel: 0845 1211 555 Fax: 01609 767248 Email: planning.policy@hambleton.gov.ukwww.hambleton.gov.uk© HDC 2009