1. Purpose - hambleton.gov.uk€¦ · It draws on a technical exercise, included at Appendix 1, which has assessed potential development options against a range of ... “informed

New Hambleton Local Plan

Page 1 of 12

Options Assessment Report

1. Purpose

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform decisions on determining a Preferred Spatial Development Strategy for the new Hambleton Local Plan. It draws on a technical exercise, included at Appendix 1, which has assessed potential development options against a range of factors. 1.2 A spatial development strategy is a key component of a Local Plan. It provides overall direction to the distribution of development across the district and for the policies of the Local Plan. Along with the results of site selection and assessment work, the strategy will help determine which settlements/areas will be the focus of future development and growth. 1.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The technical exercise has therefore looked at different issues which collectively influence and relate to opportunities to promote sustainable development and issues such as the relative sustainability of places, infrastructure capacity and what makes Hambleton special, including features and characteristics that need protection and enhancement. 2. Background 2.1 The new Hambleton Local Plan Issues & Options Consultation document (issued for public consultation in January 2016) set out five development options which could, individually or in combination, provide the basis of the new Local Plan development strategy. Consultation responses have been received on the five development options and a sustainability appraisal has been undertaken. 2.2 The options assessment technical exercise (Appendix 1) examines the findings of different evidence base studies, drawing out key implications for the five development options, pulling all the implications together and forming an overall picture of the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of each spatial development option, based on the evidence. The approach reflects Planning Advisory Service (PAS) advice that the development and testing of options should be “informed by evidence” and “based on a strong understanding of your area” (PAS, Good Plan Making Guide, 2014). 3. The Current Planning Approach

3.1 The new Local Plan provides an opportunity to revisit the current planning approach

for Hambleton. The Issues and Options Document explains the existing development strategy

by way of setting out the three principles that underpin the strategy of the Local Development

Framework (LDF) Core Strategy for Hambleton adopted in 2007, as set out in the following

table:


Page 2 of 12

Spatial Principle 1: An Area of Opportunity - This is an area in the centre of the district where

most of the housing and employment development is directed to. It was defined on the basis

of the scope for development based on the area’s accessibility, location of key settlements,

scale of existing facilities and the relative lack of development constraints.

Spatial Principle 2: Areas of Restraint - There are two areas of restraint, one to the north and

one to the south of the District, where the scale of housing is reduced, to resist further in-

migration and help reduce cross boundary commuting.

Spatial Principle 3: A Settlement Hierarchy - A sustainable hierarchy of settlements provides

the basis for focusing development and service provision across the district, giving the priority

to market towns (Principal Service Centres and Service Centres) supported by a number of

designated Service Villages and then Secondary Villages (but significantly constrained

development in most villages).

3.2 Since the LDF Core Strategy was prepared Interim Policy Guidance has been adopted

by the Council in 2015 for Development Management purposes in the determination of

applications for Planning Permission. The guidance sets out the criteria by which applications

for new small-scale housing development in larger villages but outside of defined

development limits, or in smaller villages without defined development limits, will be

considered.

3.3 The guidance was produced to align the Council’s Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Policy CP4 with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which was introduced in 2012. The interim guidance was informed by consultation with Parish Councils and interested parties. As part of this work, the Settlement Hierarchy was also revised. The Settlement Hierarchy categorises the types of villages to which the guidance applies as either Service Villages, Secondary Villages or Other Settlements, related to their level of ‘sustainability’ based on service provision. The interim guidance recognises that smaller villages can work as ‘clusters’ and explains how these will be defined through the development process.

3.4 The interim guidance envisaged that by allowing appropriate small scale development within the smaller settlements, which is adjacent to and well related to the built form, there will be an increase in housing delivery in the District. The interim guidance is intended to demonstrate how the Council will consider development in and around the smaller settlements to ensure their sustainability in social, economic and environmental terms.

4. Development Options

4.1 Five development options were presented in the Issues and Options consultation

document, with a request for people and organisations to express their views and thoughts

on the options. It was recognised that a combination of the options may well provide the way

forward. However, at this consultation stage the options were presented individually so that

their implications could be identified and assessed. The five options are summarised below:


Page 3 of 12

1. Principal Towns - Development focused on Northallerton and Thirsk

2. Central Transport Corridors - Development focused around the main road and rail links

3. Five Towns - Development focused on the five market towns of Northallerton, Thirsk,

Bedale, Easingwold and Stokesley

4. Five Towns and Villages - Development dispersed across the five market towns and

villages within the District

5. A New Settlement - the development of a new settlement or significant expansion of an

existing settlement (this approach would be linked with one or more of the above options).

4.2 Diagrams illustrating the five options were set out in the Issues & Options Consultation

Document, along with a short commentary and summary of strengths and weaknesses.

5. Issues and Options Consultation Feedback

5.1 The Consultation on the Issues and Options for the Local Plan took place between the 11th January and 19th February 2016. As part of the consultation a number of Public Drop in Sessions took place in the five market towns and Officers discussed the options with around 500 local people. The consultation generated a lot of interest from the local community and a total of 268 responses were received. The key issues identified were:

• Need to address infrastructure – drainage, highways & healthcare provision

• Provision of the right types of homes – smaller, affordable homes & downsizing

• New employment opportunities must be accessible by public transport

• Concerns that towns and villages are becoming commuter settlements

• Support for more tourism development

• Improvements to Broadband were essential to support the local economy

• Impact of flooding/climate change

• Need to grow the villages

• The funding of new infrastructure

• Car parking issues

5.2 The consultation document asked respondents to indicate a preference from the five development options set out in section 4 above. The responses are summarised in the following table:


Page 4 of 12

Proposed Growth Option No of Responses

Option 1: Principal Towns – Northallerton and Thirsk 32

Option 2: Central Transport Corridors 16

Option 3: Five Towns 34

Option 4 Five Towns and Villages 71

No Preference Identified 55

Option 1 and a New Settlement 3




5.3 Other responses received were a combination of Options 1 and 2 (10 responses), combination of options 3 and 4 (7 responses) and 19 responses for other combinations of the suggested options. As can be seen by the above table the preferred growth option is for the Five Towns and Villages approach. There were a wide range of respondents, including residents, stakeholder organisations and adjoining authorities. The overall results summarised above therefore serve to mask variations by type of respondent. 6. Sustainability Appraisal Results

6.1 The Sustainability Appraisal has assessed the five development options against

fourteen sustainable development objectives. The appraisal sets out whether the option has

a positive, negative or neutral effect on each objective. The overall results of the Sustainability

Appraisal are that:

Option 1 performs best in the sustainability appraisal with regards to environmental

factors, particularly with regards to access to public transport

Options 3 and 4 score more favourably on social factors such as the provision of

affordable housing, which will be more accessible to more people due to its wider

geographic spread.

The overall conclusions in terms of Option 4 are dependent on the scale of

development which is applied to each level in the spatial strategy (for example if larger

proportions of development take place in the market towns then the sustainability

appraisal score for option 4 will be more akin to those for Options 1, 2 and 3)

The Option for a new settlement, Option 5, has largely scored ‘unknown’ due to the

fact no site has been selected and therefore it is difficult to draw conclusions with

regard to this option

7. Evidence Base

7.1 A range of evidence base work is being undertaken for the new Local Plan. Key studies

and plans/strategies that have informed the Options Assessment Technical Exercise are listed

below:

Strategic Housing Market Assessment – the study was completed during 2016

Employment Land Review – the study was completed during 2016


Page 5 of 12

Industrial Estates Review – this work was completed in March 2016

Hambleton Economic Strategy 2014 to 2024

York North Yorkshire & East Riding Strategic Economic Plan, refreshed in 2016

New Hambleton Local Plan Call for Sites Exercise – around 500 sites were submitted

and then assessed during 2016

Settlement Hierarchy/Audit of Villages Services – 2014 audit, updated in 2016

Transport Study – completed in 2016, scoping key transport characteristics, issues and

opportunities facing the District

Hambleton Landscape Character Assessment and Sensitivity Study – the 2016 study

provides an up-to-date character assessment and analysis of landscape sensitivity

8. Option Assessment Methodology

8.1 The Option Assessment approach looks at how well the options perform, judged

against a series of assessment factors. There are seven assessment factors and these reflect

key requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework – the importance of delivery,

the Duty to Cooperate and the stated economic, social and environmental dimensions of

sustainable development. Under each assessment factor there are a series of assessment

criteria identified, which reflect the evidence base work set out in section 7 above.

8.2 A scoring system has been used to assess how well the five options perform against

the different assessment criteria based on the following performance levels:

Very Good Good Reasonable Poor Very Poor

9. Options Assessment Results

9.1 The results of the options assessment technical exercise are set out in Appendix 1. This section summarises and analyses the overall findings, with a view to providing a summary input to the process of making a decision as to a preferred development strategy for the new Local Plan. 9.2 In looking at the results different weight can be given to the seven assessment factors

and criteria in a decision making process. In effect this is a planning balance exercise,

weighing up benefits and harm and the level of importance to attach to the different benefits

and harm. The Options Assessment technical exercise helps to make informed judgments

about the five development options.

Assessment Factor 1: Consultation Feedback

Criterion Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5

Responses in favour

Clear support for Option 4, 71 responses, double the number of responses for other options

Result: Option 4


Page 6 of 12

Assessment Factor 2: Duty to Cooperate

Criterion Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5

DTC responses & views

Duty to Cooperate discussions ongoing. Through the Issues and Options stage the clearest

expressed concerns were from Middlesbrough in relation to growth in the north of the

district.

Result: Not conclusive.

Assessment Factor 3: Deliverability of the Option

Criteria Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5

Sufficient housing sites

Sufficient employment land

Existing commitment levels

Sufficient housing sites have been put forward for all options (whilst no new settlements were

proposed there could be long term opportunities). Greater levels of existing employment land

in Option 1 & 2 areas. Relatively high level of committed development at Northallerton &

Thirsk for Option 1 and reflected in options 2 and 3.

Result: Not conclusive, sufficient sites identified for all options

Assessment Factor 4: Economic Role of the Option


Current employment pattern

Available office/industrial space

Commuting patterns

Demand at industrial estates

Economic growth priorities

There is clear economic focus on the central part of the District, reflecting the larger towns of

Northallerton and Thirsk and industrial estates related to the A1, A168, A19 and East Coast

Mainline, such as Leeming and Dalton. This is reflected in the location of existing employment,

the availability of industrial and office space and the demand identified through the Council’s

Industrial Estates Review. In terms of priorities this is balanced by the scope for growth in

smaller settlements and more rural areas for smaller businesses in growing sectors (reflected

in option 4).

Result: Option 2 comes out the strongest, followed by Option 1


Page 7 of 12

Assessment Factor 5: Social Role of the Option


Access to higher order service

Access to local services

Meeting housing needs

Community infrastructure

The social criteria reflect the extent to which the option is concentrated or dispersed in its

approach and the associated number/range of settlements included. Options 1 and 2 feature

as stronger options for access to high order services, such as superstores and hospitals.

Support for services and facilities across many smaller settlements would serve to support

and retain local services and facilities, particularly schools in rural areas.

Result: Option 4 comes out as the strongest option.

Assessment Factor 6: Environmental Role of the Option


National landscapes & habitats

Avoid areas of high flood risk

Air quality and noise

Landscape character

Built environment

Given the western location of the National Park and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty,

options 1 and 2 perform better. Flood risk important but not a highly influential locational

factor. A more dispersed approach will impact with less trips on a single location, with

better air quality and noise results. Impacts on built character are localised but the options

concentrated on the towns reduce the potential effects on smaller settlements across the

district.

Result: Option 1 is the strongest option, reflecting its concentration approach, followed by

option 5 and option 3 which are also concentrated.

Assessment Factor 7: Transport & Infrastructure


Trip generation impacts

Strategic highway access

Supporting a bus network

Access to rail stations

Promoting walking and cycling

Utility infrastructure capacity


Page 8 of 12

Strategic and sustainable transport infrastructure and services are focussed in the central part

of the district. This includes rail stations and more frequent bus routes. The strategic highway

network is concentrated on the A1, A168 and A19 “H shaped” network to the centre of the

District. Larger settlements tend to support more walking and cycling with the presence of

more facilities. However not sustaining services in smaller settlements could also lead to more

car based trips. Dispersing development across a range of settlements serves to significantly

reduce the intensity of generated trip levels.

Result: Options 2 and 1 are the stronger performers, options 3 and 4 spread the level of

vehicle trips out.

10. Implications of the Development Options

10.1 The five development options provide differing degrees of concentration and

dispersal. Options 1, 3 and 5 are concentrated on 2 towns, five towns and a new location

respectively. The focus on towns in Options 1 and 3 serves to restrict the need for site

allocations in service and secondary villages. Options 2 and 4 look to spread development,

across just the central part of the district for option 2 and the whole of the district for option

4. The implications of the options are therefore different in terms of the geographic spread

of development across the district.

10.2 A key consideration is the extent to which development takes place in villages. Option

4 would involve more development taking place “further down the settlement hierarchy” i.e.

in villages across the district. Option 2 would also feature more development in villages, but

just in the central area. These options would serve to continue and extend the interim policy

guidance approach.


Page 9 of 12

11. Option Comparison

11.1 The results from the seven assessment factors are drawn together in the following

summary table:

Assessment Factors & Criteria Development Options

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5

1.Consultation Feedback

Responses in favour

2.Duty to Cooperate

DTC responses & views

3.Deliverability

Sufficient housing sites

Sufficient employment land

Existing commitment levels

4.Economic Role

Current employment pattern

Available office/industrial space

Commuting patterns

Demand at industrial estates

Economic growth priorities

5.Social Role

Access to higher order service

Access to local services

Meeting housing needs

Community infrastructure

6.Environmental Role

National landscapes & habitats

Avoid areas of high flood risk

Air quality and noise

Landscape character

Built environment

7.Transport & Infrastructure

Trip generation impacts

Strategic highway access

Supporting a bus network

Access to rail stations

Promoting walking and cycling

Utility infrastructure capacity

11.2 The conclusions for each option are:

Option 1 Principal Towns – Development focussed on Northallerton & Thirsk

Pros - Option 1 performs very well against the transport & infrastructure and well against

both the environmental and economic criteria. This reflects both the location and roles of


Page 10 of 12

Northallerton and Thirsk as the main centres of employment, services and facilities in the

central area of the District.

Cons - Option 1 as an approach concentrates trips and noise/air quality impacts therefore

scoring poorly on these specific transport and environmental criteria. The social criteria for

Option 1 do not come out strongly, as a concentrated approach does not perform well in

terms of meeting housing needs and supporting services across the District. There is also a

high level of development already committed to take place at these towns.

Option 2 Central Transport Corridors – Development focussed around the main road and

rail links

Pros - Option 2 performs very well against both the economic and transport & infrastructure

criteria. This option includes the two larger towns and key industrial sites such as at Leeming

and Dalton. The transport connections and infrastructure including road, rail and bus provide

strategic advantages for this option. With a focus on the central part of the District this option

also performs reasonably well against the environmental criteria.

Cons – Option 2 has many similarities to option 1 but spreads development to a degree across

the central area, as opposed to the District. The option therefore does not perform strongly

against factors such as meeting housing needs and supporting services. It also has weaker

scores than option 1 against the environmental criteria. From options 1-4 this approach had

the lowest level of support from the consultation exercise.

Option 3 Five Towns – Development focussed on the five market towns of Northallerton,

Thirsk, Bedale, Easingwold and Stokesley

Pros – Option 3 has more ‘middle ranking’ scores across the criteria. It performs better against

the environmental and transport & infrastructure criteria, benefitting from the still

concentrated approach to the location of development. Its advantages include promoting

walking and cycling and access to the strategic highway network. Market towns are the focus

of available office/industrial land and premises and initiatives to strengthen their roles as

service centre hubs.

Cons – the disadvantages of this option are focussed on the social and economic assessment

factors. As a concentrated approach this option scores poorly in terms of supporting and

sustaining local services for communities. Some concerns have been expressed about further

development undermining the approaches of adjoining authorities (mainly Middlesbrough)

and there are potential effects on commuting.

Option 4 Five Towns and Villages – Development focussed across the five market towns and

villages within the District

Pros – this option performs very well across many of the social assessment factors. This

reflects the positive likely effects of the option in helping to support and retain local services

and facilities, such as schools, in a greater number of smaller settlements. This dispersed

approach has more of a focus on communities across the District. Transport trips and their


Page 11 of 12

impacts are also spread out across the District. This option was a clear preference from the

consultation responses.

Cons – the dispersed nature of the option means that development is likely to be more car

reliant for access to ‘higher order’ services and facilities with less scope to benefit from rail

services and more frequent bus services. The option has a weak fit against strategic economic

priorities (but does support smaller scale economic growth). More development would take

place across a larger number of small settlements which could impact on their character and

there is more scope for harm to natural assets.

Option 5 A New Settlement – The development of a new settlement or significant expansion

of an existing settlement

Pros – this option would be in combination with one or more of the above options. In terms

of the development approach of a new settlement a planned new development offers the

scope to build in features such as sustainable drainage and integration with the local

landscape from the start. Similarly, new services and facilities and employment land could be

provided to help support a sustainable settlement.

Cons – this option would be in combination with one or more of the above options. No

proposals for a new settlement have been put forward. Concentrating development on a

single new location is unlikely to support higher order services nor support local services

across the District. Intensive trip rates and a lack of guaranteed access to rail, bus and rail links

are significant transport concerns.

12. Conclusions

12.1 The existing planning strategy will continue to have an effect on the new Local Plan

development strategy, particularly in the early years of the new plan period. Existing

commitments will roll forward and continue to be a key part of the supply of housing land.

These very much reflect the approach of option 1 with the concentration on Northallerton

and Thirsk, with an element of option 5 (committed sites at Stokesley, Easingwold and Bedale)

and to a much lesser extent Option 4 (with the interim policy guidance approach).

Assessment Factors Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5

1.Consultation 3 2 3 5 1 2.DTC 3 3 2 2 2 3.Deliverability 3.3 3.7 3 3.7 3.3 4.Economic Role 4 4.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 5.Social Role 3.3 3.3 3 4.3 1.5 6.Environmental Role 3.6 3.6 3.4 3 3.2 7.Transport & Infrastructure 4 4.3 3.7 2.8 1.5

12.2 Different combinations of options can be considered. The table above further

summarises the results of the five options assessed against the seven assessment factors. The

table below groups different assessment factors together. This includes the combination of


Page 12 of 12

economic, social and environmental factors reflecting the emphasis in the NPPF on achieving

sustainable development with its economic, social and environmental dimensions.

Combined Factors Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5

Average of all 25 Criteria 3.6 3.9 3.2 3.2 2.3

Economic, Social & Environmental Criteria

3.6 3.9 3.1 3.3 2.6

Deliverability & Transport/Infrastructure Criteria

3.8 4.1 3.4 3.1 2.1

12.3 To varying degrees, options 1 to 4 could all be taken forward as a sustainable

approach, as all have a score of 3 - ‘reasonable’ in the scoring system. All the options have

relative strengths and weaknesses. As set out at paragraph 9.2 different weight and

importance can be given to the strengths and weaknesses and the assessment factors. In

drawing the findings of this report together there are three (amongst others) broad choices

that emerge:

Choice 1: A consultation led approach would result in option 4 (there were different views

from ‘stakeholders’ and it is based on just over 200 responses)

Choice 2: A single option. From the technical option assessment exercise Option 2 performs

the strongest (largely based on economic and transport criteria), followed by option 1 on

environmental criteria and option 4 on social criteria.

Choice 3: A combination of options. A mixed/balanced/combination of Option 2 (given the

technical economic and transport assessment) and option 4 (given the technical social

assessment and consultation responses). This choice would also reflect the situation that the

current planning strategy (based largely on option 1) will still continue to feature with existing

commitments (which reflect both options 1 and 3).

Documents

1. Purpose - hambleton.gov.uk€¦ · It draws on a technical exercise, included at Appendix 1, which has assessed potential development options against a range of ... “informed