House building numbers and sites: “Give residents the full facts” say Lib Dems

Liberal Democrat councillors say that public consultation on controversial housing plans should be delayed until residents are given the full facts.

Last year Labour run York Council published its ‘Draft Local Plan’ which outlined proposals to build 22,000 houses on sites across York, including 16,000 in the Green Belt. Last week the Labour Cabinet approved a report for public consultation which earmarked further sites and recommended boundary changes on sites identified last year.

However, the public consultation papers do not include housing numbers either for the new sites or amended housing numbers for the revised sites. Consultation papers last year included housing numbers. Controversially, many of the new sites are on Green Belt land.

The Council have also failed to update their plan numbers to take into account over 1000 homes, which have been granted planning permission for housing during the last year, and which are on sites which were not included when the Draft Local Plan was published 12 months ago.

(more…)

Gypsies, Travellers and Showpeople – new sites in York identified

Secret report reveals Labour plans

One of the most controversial aspects of Labours Draft Local Plan for York was the propsed provision for Travellers.

Last year, some landowner’s spotted the opportunity to identify land for use by caravan dwellers but later withdrew them when the “Green Belt” designation of the sites had been undermined.

This happened at both Wetherby Road/Knapton (Showpeople) and Dunnington (Travellers).

The York council was then left with a shortfall of around 60 pitches. If they do not identify sites for them, it is likely that their Plan will not be supported by an Inspector at a Hearing in Public later in the year.

The Labour Councils response was, typically, to table a report at the last minute at a Cabinet meeting held earlier in the week. The highly contentious proposals were not made available to the all party working group which met the previous week, effectively ruling out any chance of consensus on the issue.

Labour propose to establish new traveller sites at:

Osbaldwick – East of Metcalf Lane ST7
Huntington – North of Monks Cross ST8
Rawcliffe – Clifton Moor ST14
Heslington/Wheldrake – Whinthorpe ST15

All these are Green Belt sites.

The principal of housing development on them will be bitterly contested by residents at the public inquiry.

Even if one or two are approved (they don’t need to be as York has more than enough brownfield land to satisfy demand for the next 25 years or more) developers have said that the viability of these huge new housing estates would be jeopardised by the inclusion of traveller camps.

The Council should have included the new industrial areas that it has identified as potential sites for 2 or 3 small caravan sites. Travellers, perhaps more than any other group, typify the need for “live/work” units. Many are involved in salvage or surfacing work which is a use more appropriate for industrial areas. Others may require good access to schools. Essentially these communities need to have a choice of location to meet their differing needs.

The York Council has made a major blunder by slipping its proposals into the public realm in such a way as to avoid any debate.

The decision sheet from the meeting earlier in the week has been published.

The traveller paper was noticeable by its absence. (It has now been added but is very difficult to find and is not included in the “Newly Published” list).

Residents have a right of access to important papers like these.

It is another example of the Council ignoring its constitution and adopting a secretive, bunker mentality.

In the interests of openness you can download a copy of the paper from our web site by clicking here.

York Council publishes Local Plan objections

Largest ever response by residents and businesses

The scale of the opposition, to Labours plan to increase the size of the City by 25% over the next 15 years, is now apparent as all the objections registered have been published on the Councils web site.

View of Minster from Acomb Moor click to enlarge

It would take someone weeks to read through even the summaries which have been provided.

These include one on Acomb Moor Strangely the only identified support for developing the moor comes from the York Diocesan Board of Finance . Quite why they would ant to get involved in such a political argument is difficult to understand. However their support is more than offset by dozens of objections.

In addition to individual responses 21 petitions were submitted by residents.

Some commentary has been provided by officials but it remains unclear when Councillors will get the opportunity to debate the issues raised and, indeed when objectors will get the chance to make representations in person prior to the next draft being published.

The draft plan has already been undermined by the revelation a few days ago that, over the last 18 months, most planning permissions in the City have been granted on brownfield sites not identified for housing development in the Draft Local Plan published last year.

959 housing sites “missed” from draft Local Plan

Nearly two thirds, of the homes granted planning permission since Labours draft Local Plan was drawn up, have been for sites omitted from the Plan.

A total of 1831 new sites for homes have been agreed since October 2012.

This is in addition to the 3231 sites which already had planning permission.

That means developers could now erect 5062 homes in the City – a 6 year supply of land, based on average house building rates over the last decade.

Of the total new permissions granted, 1678 were for brownfield sites. The vast majority – including the former Press offices in Walmgate – were not identified for residential use when the draft Local Plan was published 12 months ago.

The Council’s plans continue to under-estimate the supply of brownfield land. The plan should identify any site – of more that 0.2 ha in size – with potential for housing. The draft Plan failed to do so.

The additional sites which will be considered on 17^th April also fail to do so.

The Council has also said that it does not know how many additional homes could be accommodated on the new sites due to be considered on 17^th April.

It is an important issue as the Council has not made any allowance for “windfall” sites in its calculation of the total build requirement for the next 15 years.

Nor has it identified the potential for conversion of existing commercial property with some very large opportunities – such as Ryedale House, Stonebow and Hillary House – excluded from the calculations.

Promised conversions, of the upper floors of shopping premises, have also been excluded.

A full list of the permissions granted can be downloaded from here

The figures are likely to be of considerable significance when the Local Plan reaches the Examination in Public Inquiry stage.

The make up of the Draft local Plan base numbers is as follows:

The Local Plan Preferred Options was based on a position at 1^st October 2012. The total number of residential net outstanding consents (commitments) at that date was 3,231 dwellings. This is detailed in Chapter 10 of the LPPO document (Housing Growth and Distribution). The table below splits this figure into site categories.

(more…)

Housing building sites – more information released on threats to green field sites

Wetherby Road site. Click to enlarge

The York Council has released more details of the assessments that it has made of requests by landowners for particular sites to be considered for development.

They include assessments for some sites, which were rejected, and are not being considered at its meetings on the 17^th April and 23^rd April 2014

They are relevant though in so far as they provide an indication of the landowner’s development aspirations. They are likely to reappear at the Public Inquiry later in the year when owners will try to have additional development land added to the Plan.

Lowfields school playing fields threat click to enlarge

39 sites, including one off Askham Lane, were rejected because they failed to respect the natural environment; two were rejected because they were on open space, while 21 had poor transport links and/or access to services

The proposals included the land (site ref 220) on Wetherby Road – near Knapton – originally suggested as a “Showman’s Yard” site. Now the owners want to build housing there. Worryingly the reason given by the Council officials for opposing development is the “lack of public transport”. No mention is made of its green belt credentials.

26 sites failed a “technical evaluation”. These included land to the west of Chapelfields (ref 778) which was rejected on grounds of landscape value and potential archaeology.

Land near Chapelfields under threat of development. click to enlarge

There is a similar list of sites rejected for Employment/Retail use.

Askham Bryan freight depot click to enlarge

Council officials have reviewed development boundaries at several sites put forward last year.

Notably a plan by the Council itself to build on the playing fields of Lowfields School (as well as on the previously developed footprint of the school buildings) has been rejected.

Officials point out that the field enjoys a lot of informal recreational use.

They do, however, rather ominously claim that the playing fields may in future be “taken over” by a private sports club!

Officials also rule out the development of even more of the open space between Woodthorpe, Foxwood, Chapelfields and the ring roads (site 791) and the rest of Acomb Moor (site 792) although the partial development of the moor still remains part of the draft Plan.

Approved proposals include a “freight transhipment” and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) site on land between the A1237 and Askham Bryan. Although currently well screened by trees this is an elevated site which would be visible from several miles.

Labour announce plans to build on more Green Belt land

Click to enlarge Boroughbridge Road

It has become clear which additional sections of Green Belt land are now under threat from Labours expansion plans.

They announced a year ago that they wanted to increase the size of the City by 25% over the next 15 years.

Now they want to go even further and have identified additional stretches of green belt land that could be developed.

This despite a number of “windfall” opportunities emerging over the last year which has seen planning permission granted in York for around 1500 additional homes on brownfield (previously developed) land.

Click to enlarge A1237

No community is safe from the expansion plans although the Boroughbridge Road (Acomb Ward) and Poppleton (Rural West) area fare particularly badly.

A whole series of residential developments will see virtually all the land lying between the existing built up area in east Acomb and the A1237 developed.

There will also be a huge expansion of the Northminster Business Park on the other side of the A1237. The garden centre site may also be developed.

click to enlarge Boroughbridge Road

Other communities facing additional development include

New Earswick,
Escrick,
Heworth Without,
Fulford,
Elvington,
Designer Centre (expansion and new Park and Ride location),
British Sugar site,
Osbaldwick,
Haxby,
Huntington,

Click to enlarge Manor school

Clifton Moor,
Winthorpe new town,
Dunnington,
Wheldrake,
Copmanthorpe,
Knapton Moor (new solar energy site),
Towthorpe (ditto),
University (further expansion),
Wigginton Road (Park and Ride site),
Askham Bryan (compressed natural gas depot and Freight Transhipment centre)

click to enlarge Boroughbridge Road

Details can be downloaded by clicking here

Breaking News – York Council abandons Traveller and Showman’s site proposals

The York Council is withdrawing its proposals to establish traveller sites at Dunnington and on Malton Road.

The Council is, therefore, still looking for sites for 59 pitches.

It has also confirmed that it will not allocate land on Wetherby Road (near Knapton) for use as a Travelling Showman’s Site.

It is still looking for a suitable Showman’s site but has reduced the requirement to 8 plots of which two would be accommodated by expanding an existing site at Elvington.

Details of the changes can be read by clicking here (Para 8)

Concerns still remain for the sites in question as their inclusion for development, in the first Draft of the Local Plan, has brought into question whether they will be retained in the formal “Green Belt” when it is adopted.

As the Council’s web site papers seem to be inaccessible at the moment a copy of the relevant report can be downloaded by clicking here

Local Plan – Developers jumping the gun?

Freedom of Information revelation

The Council has admitted in a response to a Freedom of Information request that it is discussing building on green field sites on the outskirts of York before a new Local Plan has been agreed (or even discussed publicly)

Some of the sites are in the current Green Belt which is protected by a parliamentary directive.

Civil Service sports ground Boroughbridge Road, York

Some applications are proceeding with undignified haste:

Application at Brecks Lane Strensall (now granted planning permission)

Scoping opinion for Monks Cross North

The council has admitted giving pre application advice for the following sites:

Land at New Lane Huntington

Land at Church Balk Dunnington

Former Civil Service Sports Ground, Boroughbridge Road/ Millfield Lane –“currently invalid”

The Council now charges for pre planning application “advice”. It says that it does not reveal which sites it is giving “advice” on.

This means that residents and other interested parties are effectively precluded for the process and will only become involved when there is a “done deal”.

The York Councils approach to establishing a new “Local Plan” is little short of disgraceful. Residents who made a record number of objections to Labour’s plan have been kept in the dark about the process for nearly 9 months.

Meetings have been scheduled in April at which the views of landowners are expected to be published.

No timetable for dealing with residents objections has been set.

York Local Plan – confusion grows

No sooner had the agenda for York’s Council meeting – to be held next Thursday – been published, than meetings to discuss the Local Plan have appeared in the Council’s diary of events.

The Council agenda had included several questions critical of the delays, and lack of clear milestones, in the preparation of the Local Plan

Yesterday we reported that the Forward Programme of decisions – a legal requirement for all major issues – did not include any reference to an update of the Local Plan.

Residents protest against Local Plan

So far, residents have not even had an opportunity to speak out about Labour’s plan – announced a year ago – to increase the size of the City.

Now a mysterious “special” meeting of the Councils “Cabinet” has been scheduled for Wednesday 23^rd April. The Councils web site has been amended today to say that;

“During the consultation additional information on sites was submitted by landowners and developers. Before making any final decision on sites to be included in the Local Plan, the Council would like to understand the public views on this additional information. Reports relating to this will be considered at the Local Plan Working Group and a special cabinet in late April and this will be followed by public consultation”.

Whether landowner’s comments will do anything to reassure residents about the Councils expansion plans remains to be seen.

The Council has still not published the 4000+ objections made by residents to the original plan.

Any new information is due to be considered by the (all party) “Local Plan Working Group”, a meeting of which has now been scheduled for Tuesday 22^nd April. As this is the day before the Cabinet meeting, it is unlikely that the working groups views – much less any views expressed by residents – would be reported to a meeting which is taking place the next day.

Legally the Cabinet cannot take any decisions on “key” matters – like the Local Plan – without giving 4 months notice in their Forward Programme.

They have still not published a timetable of milestone dates which will lead up to the inevitable Public Inquiry into their plans, which is now unlikely to take place before next year.

Local Plan and York immigration numbers

Cllr Laing was challenged at the last Council meeting to justify her claim that 22,000 additional homes were required to house existing York families.

A few weeks ago she published numbers which suggested that there were around 1000 more births in the City, than deaths, each year.

Year	Births	Deaths	Dif	Housing Rqmt (2.2 people per dwelling)	Housing completions
2003	3021	2381	640	291	525
2004	3270	2236	1034	470	1160
2005	3311	2292	1019	463	906
2006	3247	2247	1000	455	798
2007	3255	2240	1015	461	523
2008	3565	2320	1245	566	451
2009	3495	2408	1087	494	507
2010	3404	2303	1101	500	514
2011	3461	2416	1045	475	321
2012	3481	2378	1103	501	482
Total	33510	23221	10289	4677	6187
Ave	3351	2322	1029	468	619
Census 2001 -2011 Ave			1691	769
Forecast growth pa to 2026 (16 years)Base 2010 197K 2026 216.8K Total population increase 19,800 (source Council Local Plan/ONS)			1238	563
Additional homes required to meet natural population growth in perod to 2026				9000

This would have produced a net requirement for around 500 additional homes per year.

This is very much in line with the Office of National Statistics (ONS) figures which show the City to have grown in population size by 1% pa over the last decade.

The ONS forecast is similar for the next 2 decades, confirming that the Council, in its Local Plan, needs to allocate land for around 12,000 additional homes over the next 25 years.

This would allow for some inward migration given the need to attract people with the right skills to sustain the buoyant York economy.

The Councillor was unable – or reluctant – at the meeting to explain who would occupy the other 10,000 homes that Labour hopes to build. While admitting that the figures were not influenced by the numbers of the housing waiting list, Cllr Laing – who has responsibility for housing policy in the City – said that it was Cllr Merrett who made the decisions on building numbers!

So, although they are desperate not to admit it publicly, Labour plan to accommodate the largest number of inward migrants to the City since Eric Bloodaxe sailed into view on the river Ouse.

When will residents get their chance to express their views to the Councils Local Plan working group?

That also attracted a stonewall response from Cllr Merrett. “Officers are currently analysing and summarising all of the responses received”. Residents will be able to address the committee when proposed changes to the draft plan are debated.

This is the clearest indication yet that Labour plan to backtrack on some of their plans.

Every planning permission granted over the last 6 months, for sites mentioned in the Draft Local Plan, has produced many more housing units than forecast.

There is no reason why green belt sites should be developed, a sentiment that 89% of residents responding to our survey agree with.

« Previous
1
…
6
7
8
9
Next »