consultation statement - submission stage · harrogate district sites & policies dpd...

HARROGATE DISTRICT SITES & POLICIES DPD

Consultation Statement: Submission Stage

November 2013

Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................2

2 Methods of Consultation and Overview of the Representations .................................................. 2

3 Key issues .......................................................................................................................................4

Table 3: Response to key Issues........................................................................................................ 12

4 Proposed Amendments ............................................................................................................... 20

Table 4: Minor amendments following Publication Draft Consultation ........................................... 21

Table 5: Typographical and cartographical amendments................................................................. 34

APPENDIX 1 ...........................................................................................................................................36

APPENDIX 2: see separate report

APPENDIX 2(a): see separate report

APPENDIX 3: see separate report

1 | P a g e

1 Introduction

1.1 This report details the findings of a programme of consultation that took place between 10

May and 21 June on the Sites and Policies Publication Draft.

1.2 Section 2 sets out the ‘Methods of Consultation’, Section 3 identifies the key issues

identified during the consultation and Section 4 identifies the proposed minor amendments

to the plan prior to Submission.

1.3 It is considered that this report provides a fair and accurate representation of comments,

but comments from individuals have necessarily been summarised. The Council has

reviewed the comments received and considered that no significant changes were necessary

to make the plan sound. However, the Council has made a number of minor amendments

which will be submitted alongside the Plan. The original representations will be submitted

to the Inspector and these can also be viewed on the Council’s website

www.harrogate.gov.uk/plan/Pages/LP‐Submission.aspx

2 Methods of Consultation and Overview of the Representations

2.1 The Sites and Policies DPD has been prepared through a number of production stages.

Community engagement was undertaken between 2004 and 2009 on the identification of

sites and scope of development control policies with Preferred Options consultation

following in Oct 2010 for the rural areas and Sept 2011 for the urban areas. A number of

additional consultation exercises were undertaken before the Publication Draft consultation

May/June 2013. The Sites and Policies DPD Consultation Statement

www.harrogate.gov.uk/plan/Pages/LP‐Consultation‐Statement.aspx details how Harrogate

Borough Council has undertaken community participation and stakeholder involvement to

produce the Sites and Policies DPD up to Publication Draft stage.

2.2 Consistent with the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012,

the Publication Draft consultation was a formal stage of consultation, This contrasted with

the previous stages of consultation, concerned with exploring a wide range of issues, options

and preferred policy approaches. Within this context, the consultation material comprised

of a range of consultation and evidence base documents which were made available on line,

including:

Publication Draft document

Proposals Map

Sustainability Appraisal

Habitats Regulations Assessment

Consultation Statement

Duty to co‐operate statement

2 | P a g e

Site selection methodology and technical reports

Development limits

Equality and Diversity Assessment

Statement of Representation

2.3 Consultation material was made available to a wide range of organisations and individuals.

These included:

statutory consultees

internal Borough Council stakeholders

developers and agents

Parish and Town Council’s

the general public

local organisations

previous Sites and Policies consultation respondents

Within this context and in relation to the ‘duty to cooperate’, the Borough Council has also

consulted with neighbouring local authorities and bodies such as the Highway Agency and

Environment Agency. The Duty to Cooperate Statement can be viewed at

www.harrogate.gov.uk/plan/Pages/LP‐Submission.aspx (as part of the Core Document list

reference LCD03).

2.4 The Council used the following methods of consultation:

Press Notice Notice in the Advertiser series of newspapers Appendix 1

Press Release Press release distributed to local newspapers Availability of Documents Consultation documents (including response forms –

Appendix 1) were made available for inspection in Council Offices, libraries and on website

Contact with statutory bodies/key stakeholders

Statutory bodies contacted by letter or email and all the Infrastructure providers sent detailed forms to fill in for each Preferred Option

Contact with Parish Councils Parish Councils contacted by letter informing them of the consultation Appendix 1

Contact with Respondents All previous respondents contacted via letter or email informing them of the consultation and how they can view the documents and respond to the consultation Appendix 1

Telephone / email A telephone contact number and dedicated email address provided the opportunity for members of the public to contact the planning policy team to discuss their thoughts and to ask questions regarding the content of the planning documents

Freepost Address A freepost address provided for return of consultation correspondence to encourage a greater response

3 | P a g e

2.5 As noted above this was a formal stage of consultation with emphasis upon requesting

responses in relation to the ‘soundness of the plan’ (i.e Justified, Effective, Consistent with

national Policy and positively prepared). The representation form asked the questions “Do

you consider the Development Plan is (1) Legally compliant and (2) Sound?”; and gave

representors the opportunity to give more details to justify their answer as well as suggest

changes to make the Sites and Policies DPD sound.

2.6 Approximately 1852 individual representations were received from 650 respondents, with

representations split as follows:

Table 1: Nature of Representation

Legally Test Number Soundness Test Number Legally compliant 410 Sound 126 Not Legally Compliant 301 Unsound 1626 Left Blank 1141 Left Blank 100

2.7 The table below further sub‐divides the unsound objections in to the four areas identified in

NPPF.

Table 2: Breakdown of soundness representations

Soundness Issue Number Not Justified 1373 Not Effective 722 Not consistent with national policy 967 Not positively prepared 1107

2.8 The vast majority of representations were received in response to policy SG6: Sites for

Settlement Growth and relate to reasons why sites may or may not be suitable for

allocation. More limited responses were received to the remaining policies.

3 Key issues

3.1 The following list provides a summary of the key issues that have been raised during the

consultation listed under the relevant policies or themes.

Policy SD1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Support the policy approach (SD1a)

Policy too vague to be meaningful (SD1b)

Change suggested to policy wording (SD1c)

Policy is unsound (SD1d)

Policy SG6: Sites for Settlement Growth

Inappropriate site for development (SG6a)

Support this location for development (SG6b)

Support the developer guidelines (SG6c)

4 | P a g e

Housing requirement is too low and not justified by evidence (SG6d)

Housing requirement is too high and not justified by evidence (SG6e)

Approach to windfall allowance not justified (SG6f)

20% buffer should be planned for in line with NPPF (SG6g)

The plan fails to provide an adequate supply of deliverable sites to meet long term

need (SG6h)

Indicative site yield is inappropriate (SG6i)

Development guidelines are inappropriate (SG6j)

Development guidelines ‐ general comment (SG6k)

Group C settlements should take a share of allocations (SG6l)

Suggested new/alternative parcel of land (SG6m)

Inadequate consultation on site options (SG6n)

Policy is unsound (SG6o)

Assumptions about housing completions are incorrect (SG6p)

Approach to managed release is contrary to NPPF (SG6q)

In rural villages allocate according to needs of individual settlements (SG6r)

Approach to housing distribution in the rural areas is inappropriate; shouldn't be

treated as a single location(SG6s)

Delete site from the plan (SG6t)

Non‐compliance with Core Strategy policies (SG6u)

Policy is sound (SG6v)

Change suggested to policy/justification wording (SG6w)

Allocation is contrary to other policies in the Sites and Policies DPD (SG6x)

Rural allocations too large and create negative impacts (SG6y)

Mixed affordable and market sites will not deliver affordable houses needed (SG6z)

Policy doesn’t take account of changes to military bases (SG6za)

Strategic Traffic Assessment: additional work required (SGzb)

Policy SG7: Type, Mix and Density of new Market Homes

Support the policy approach (SG7a)

Policy is unsound (SG7b)

The approach to type and mix is too prescriptive (SG7c)

The 30% requirement for smaller properties is not justified (SG7d)

Dwelling densities are too prescriptive and do not accord with national policy (SG7e)

Conflicts with other polices in the DPD (SG7f)

Change suggested to policy/justification wording (SG7g)

Policy SG8: Development Limits and Replacement Dwellings

Policy is unsound (SG8a)

Should allow greater flexibility for the re‐use of existing buildings (SG8b)

The proposed development limit is supported (SG8c)

Development limits have been drawn too tightly (SG8d) [limits generally i.e. the

methodology]

5 | P a g e

The proposed development limit has been incorrectly drawn (SG8e) [a particular

limit is not where the representor wants it to be]

Failure to identify a development limit (SG8f)

Change suggested to policy/justification wording (SG8g)

Support the policy approach (SG8h)

Policy SG9: Flood risk and Sustainable Drainage

Support the policy approach (SG9a)

Site incorrectly identified as at risk of flooding (SG9b)

Change suggested to policy/justification wording (SG9c)

Policy SG10: Unstable Land

Policy is unsound (SG10a)

Ground instability has not been proven (SG10b)

Changes required to Appendix C (SG10c)

Change suggested to policy/justification wording (SG10d)

Policy HLP6: Rural Exception Sites

Policy is unsound (HLP6a)

Policy too restrictive (HLP6b)

Plan fails to provide an adequate supply of deliverable sites to meet the long term

need (HLP6c)

Sites in rural areas should only be allocated in those villages where there is a proven

need (HLP6d)

Approach to housing distribution in the rural areas is inappropriate; shouldn't be

treated as a single location (HLP6e)

Support this location for development (HLP6f)

The site should include market housing (HLP6g)

Inappropriate site for development (HLP6h)

Indicative site yield is inappropriate (HLP6i)

Delete the site from the plan (HLP6j)

Suggested new/alternative parcel of land (HLP6k)

Changes suggested to policy/justification wording (HLP6l)

Development guidelines are inappropriate (HLP6m)

Policy is sound (HLP6n)

Policy HLP7: Affordable Housing

Support the policy approach (HLP7a)

Policy is unsound (HLP7b)

The targets are too high and not justified by evidence (HLP7c)

The thresholds are too low and not justified by evidence (HLP7d)

Inadequate viability assessment/evidence base (HLP7e)

Financial contribution approach should be considered for a wider set of cases

(HLP7f)

6 | P a g e

Changes suggested to policy/justification wording (HLP7g)

Policy should be deleted (HLP7h)

Policy JB5: Sites for New Jobs

Policy is unsound (JB5a)

Not enough land is allocated for employment use (JB5b)

Evidence base is out of date (JB5c)

Support this location for development (JB5d)

Support developer guidelines (JB5e)

Inappropriate site for development (JB5f)

Development guidelines are inappropriate (JB5g)

Delete site from the plan (JB5h)

Suggested new/alternative parcel of land (JB5i)

Changes suggested to policy/justification wording (JB5j)

Strategic Traffic Assessment: additional work required (JB5k)

Development guidelines ‐ general comment (JB5l)

Policy JB6: Protection and Enhancement of Existing Employment Areas

Inconsistency with NPPF (JB6a)

The policy is overly restrictive (JB6b)

Changes suggested to policy/justification wording (JB6c)

Support the policy approach (JB6d)

Policy is unsound (JB6e)

Evidence base is out of date (JB6f)

Boundary of site dependent on the implementation of a planning permission, and

therefore premature (JB6g)

Policy JB7: Town and Local Centre Management

Support the policy approach (JB7a)

Additional shopping frontages should be identified (JB7b)

Changes suggested to policy/justification wording (JB7c)

Policy JB8: Protection of Tourist Facilities

The hotel protection is too narrow in scope (JB8a)

Changes suggested to policy/justification wording (JB8b)

Policy JB9: Sustainable Rural Tourism

Support the policy approach (JB9a)

Changes suggested to policy/justification wording (JB9b)

Policy TRA4: Air Quality

Requirement for Air Quality Assessments should be more explicit (TRA4a)

Changes suggested to policy/justification wording (TRA4b)

7 | P a g e

Need to define what significant means in terms of traffic generation (TRAc)

Air Quality assessment should only be required in AQMA (TRAd)

Policy TRA5: Parking Provision

Changes suggested to policy/justification wording (TRA5a)

Policy EQ3: Development within the Greenbelt

Support the policy approach (EQ3a)

Areas of land should be released from Green Belt (EQ3b)

Policy should be deleted (EQ3c)

Policy EQ4: Designated Heritage Assets


Changes suggested to policy/justification wording (EQ4b)

Policy EQ5: Local Distinctiveness

Policy is unsound (EQ5a)

Changes suggested to policy/justification wording (EQ5b)

Policy EQ6: Area Based Natural Assets

Changes suggested to policy/justification wording (EQ6a)

The policy as worded is too onerous (EQ6b)

Policy EQ7: Landscape Protection


Policy is unsound (EQ7b)

Policy is too restrictive (EQ7c)

The policy adds little value to national policy (EQ7d)

Object to inclusion of parcel of land in SLA (EQ7e)

Changes suggested to policy/justification wording (EQ7f)

Policy C4: New Sports, Open Space and Recreation Development

New provision is not justified by the evidence base (C4a)

Inadequate provision for new sports, open space, recreation and green space (C4b)

Insufficient collaboration with external bodies i.e. Natural England (C4c)

Standards not in keeping with existing provision (C4d)

Allocation not based on adequate evidence base, or local need (C4e)

Use of school provision should not reduce requirement on developers (C4f)

Inadequate consultation on site options (C4g)

Support this location for development (C4h)

Inappropriate site for new sport provision (C4i)

Suggested new/alternative parcel of land (C4j)

Changes suggested to policy/justification wording (C4k)

8 | P a g e

Shortfall in sports provision is not being met (C4l)

Policy C5: Protection of Existing Sport, Open Space and Recreation Facilities

Support the policy approach (C5a)

Policy doesn't protect areas amenity open space (C5b)

Fails to take into account recommendations from external bodies i.e. Natural

England (C5c)

Risks a lower standard of provision (C5d)

Changes suggested to policy/justification wording (C5e)

Inadequate protection for sports, open space, recreation and green space (C5f)

Policy C6: Protection and enhancement of Community Facilities

Changes suggested to policy/justification wording (C6a)

Policy C7: Provision of Community Facilities

Policy is unsound (C7a)

New schools are required (C7b)

Changes suggested to policy/justification wording (C7c)

Policy IN1: Infrastructure Delivery

Support the policy approach (IN1a)

Policy is unsound (IN1b)

No reference is made to viability which is a key consideration (IN1c)

Inadequate evidence base (IN1d)

Nature and scale should be clarified (IN1e)

Contributions to infrastructure should not be subject to viability (IN1f)

Changes suggested to policy/justification wording (IN1g)

Policy IN2: Green Infrastructure


Suggest new, or amendment to existing, Green Wedge boundary (IN2b)

Changes suggested to policy/justification wording (IN2c)

Object to changes to Green Wedge Boundaries (inclusion/exclusion) (IN2d)

Policy IN3: Protection of Sites for Transport Infrastructure


New sites or routes identified for protection (IN3b)

Changes suggested to policy/justification wording (IN3c)

Policy IN4: Central Areas

Support improvements proposed (IN4a)

New improvements suggested (IN4b)

Conflict between the policy (and/or justification) and the proposals map (IN4c)

Changes suggested to policy/justification wording (IN4d)

9 | P a g e

Legal Compliance

Failure to comply with Statement of Community Involvement (LC1)

Site not previously identified or consulted on as a preferred option (LC2)

Failure to comply with European SEA Directives and Regulations (LC3)

Duty to co‐operate

Lack of co‐operation with neighbouring authorities (DC1)

Soundness (Whole Plan)

Lack of conformity with NPPF (SND1)

The plan does not meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure

requirements (SND2)

The Plan is not based on an appropriate strategy (SND3)

The evidence base does not justify the plan policies (SND4)

Plan is sound (SND5)

Plan is unsound (SND6)

The plan period should be extended (SND7)

Suggested change to introductory text (SND8)

Evidence Base

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment: comments relating to specific sites

(EVB01)

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment: lack of objectivity/impartiality in the

assessment process (EVB02)

Strategic Housing Market Assessment: agree with the assessment that 830 homes

should be provided per year (EVB03)

Economic Viability Appraisal of Affordable Housing: assumptions on which the

assessment is made are flawed (EVB04)

Economic Viability Appraisal of Affordable Housing: the report does not take account

of prevailing economic conditions (EVB05)

Economic Viability Appraisal of Affordable Housing: recommendations on affordable

housing provision are overly optimistic (EVB06)

Strategic Traffic Assessment: scope of work should cover more rural areas (EVB07)

Strategic Traffic Assessment: methodology and results are flawed (EVB08)

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment: is not credible or robust (EVB09)

Infrastructure Delivery Plan: Infrastructure Profile – further work required (EVB10)

Sports Provision: An Assessment for Harrogate, Knaresborough and Ripon: over

estimates level of sports provision needed. (EVB11)

Strategic Traffic Assessment: additional work required (EVB12)

Cycling Implementation Plan: suggest change to wording (EVB13)

Sustainability Appraisal: further work required (EVB14)

Habitats Regulations Assessment: supported (EVB15)

10 | P a g e

New Policy

Suggest new policy (NP1)

Proposals Map

Change suggested to proposals map (PM1)

3.2 Table 3 below provides a response to the key issues raised. Appendix 2 lists all of the

respondents under each summary key issue, and provides a more detailed summary of

comments where there have been suggested wording changes to the policy/justification. A

response has been provided in these instances. Appendix 2(a) provides further detail in

respect of the following policies (SG6, SG8, HLP6, JB6, C4, IN2, IN3, IN4). These are generally

the allocating policies and the table summarises the key concerns raised by respondents as

to the suitability of the site, designation or suggestions for alternative parcels of land.

Appendix 3 provides a list of all the respondents under each summary key issue, together

with whether they believe the plan to be legally compliant and sound.

11 | P a g e

Table 3: Response to key Issues

Policy/Soundness Key Issue Response Policy SG6: Sites for Settlement Growth:

• Site is inappropriate for development • Indicative site yield is inappropriate • Development guidelines are inappropriate/

general comments and suggested amendments

The bulk of the issues raised here relate to sites being inappropriate for development and a range of factors are highlighted in Appendix 2a. Site yields have always been indicative, and it has been acknowledged that the final figure that emerges through an application may well be governed by factors that the Council was unaware of. Some changes have been made to site yields where these reflect current planning applications and these are shown on the table of amendments in Section 4.

The suggested changes to development guidelines have been assessed (see appendix 2) with minor amendments set out at Section 4.

Policy SG6: Sites for Settlement Growth:

Housing requirement is too low/too high and not justified by evidence

The District’s Housing figure is set out in the adopted Core Strategy (February 2009). The SPDPD identifies sufficient land to meet that need together with a 5% buffer as required by NPPF.

The Housing Background Paper explains how the annual housing figure set out in the adopted Core Strategy was arrived at with particular reference to the urban renaissance agenda within the RSS, which has been adopted as Interim Strategy for the Leeds City Region, and the particular set of infrastructure and environmental constraints identified within Harrogate District. No changes required.


Approach to windfall allowance is not justified and: unrealistically minimised the amount of

windfall development windfalls should be seen as a bonus and not

as a mechanism for not identifying sufficient sites

NPPF allows local authorities to make an allowance for windfalls. The Council’s approach is set out in the Housing Background Paper and is one that is considered to be in line with the NPPF, mindful of the guidance in NPPF in respect of seeking to ‘significantly boosting the supply of housing’. No changes required


20% buffer should be planned for As an authority, Harrogate Borough Council historically does not have a record of persistent under delivery that would necessitate the provision of a 20% buffer in line with NPPF. Whilst there has been some drop off during the

12 | P a g e

Policy/Soundness Key Issue Response recession evidence set out in the Housing Background Paper would indicate that once the recovery is underway levels of housing growth will resume at the normal rate. Indeed there is already evidence that the Housing market in this District is improving as the Council is in receipt of applications on all of its large Urban Extension Sites. No changes required.


Approach to managed release is not compliant with NPPF in terms of the Council desire in the policy to refuse permission if it would result in a 10% or more over provision at the end of the plan period.

Historically Harrogate has experienced significant over provision of housing and potentially could do so again to the detriment of the character of the area and place undue strain on infrastructure. Infrastructure, and in particular transport are potential constraints to development if not properly planned. The Plan has been prepared in consultation with key infrastructure providers to ensure that infrastructure is or can be made available to serve new development. No changes required.


Assumptions on housing completions are incorrect Over estimate the amount of permissions

that turn into completions Assumptions on build out rates are too

optimistic Some of the allocated sites may not be

delivered or yield the anticipated amount of development

Annual monitoring work indicates that the vast majority of permissions turn into completions, the amount that do not is negligible. The build out rates that have been assumed are based on evidence provided by the SHLAA working group. Past histories tell us that sites allocated in Harrogate get developed as evidenced by the existing adopted Local Plan where only one allocated site remains without planning permission. No changes required.


• The plan fails to provide an adequate supply of deliverable sites to meet long term need

• Alternative site suggested (either completely new or one previously discounted).

These 2 key issues are generally related in that it is the contention of the promoters of alternative sites that additional land should be provided to ensure long term need is met. The plan makes sufficient land allocations to meet the annual housing requirement set out in the Core Strategy, together with an appropriate amount of buffer. There is therefore no need to introduce new or additional sites at this stage. The sites that have been selected as draft allocations emerged from a detailed site selection methodology and sustainability appraisal and are considered to be the best performing sites. No changes required.


Inadequate consultation on the site options Responses to earlier consultations have not

All earlier representations have been taken into consideration when drawing up the Draft Plan. Some changes were made as a result of earlier comments

13 | P a g e

Policy/Soundness Key Issue Response been taken into account

All of the alternative sites have not been properly drawn to the attention of the public

received but in some cases the decision was made to continue with a particular site option. All rejected options were available as part of the background evidence base. The purpose of consultation at this formal stage in the process is to consult on the Draft Plan that is intended to be submitted. No changes required.


• Group C settlement should take a share of allocations

• In rural villages allocate according to needs of individual settlements

• Approach to housing distribution in rural areas is inappropriate; should not be treated as a single entity

These comments relate to the strategic approach to growth distribution which has been determined by the adopted Core Strategy (Policy SG1). Any changes to how villages and rural areas will be planned for will be looked at as part of the review of the Core Strategy. No changes required.

Policy SG7: Type, Mix and Density • The approach to type and mix is too prescriptive The main issue here is that greater flexibility should be provided. The basis of New Market Homes • 30% requirement for smaller properties is not

justified • Dwelling densities are too prescriptive and do

not accord with NPPF

for the policy is evidence set out in the SHMA. NPPF requires local planning authorities to ‘identify the size, type and tenure and range of housing that is required…’ [para 50]. The approach is consistent with this. NPPF requires that authorities set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances. This is what this policy does. No changes required.

Policy SG8: Development Limits Development limits have been drawn too tightly The development limits have been drawn in accordance with the criteria and Replacement Dwellings Failure to identify a development limit

The proposed development limit has been incorrectly drawn

adopted by the Council as part of the preparation of the Sites and Policies DPD. A list of all the changes suggested is set out at Appendix 2a. These have been assessed and No changes are required.

Policy SG9: Flood Risk and Sustainable Development

Environment Agency has suggested some amended wording

Section 4 sets out minor amendments to the policy wording

Policy SG10: Unstable Land Policy wording should be amended to address the competent person issue

Amendments have been made to the definition of ‘a competent person’ under Policy SG10 as shown in the table of amendments in Section 4.

Policy HLP6: Rural Exception Sites • Inappropriate site for development • Policy too restrictive – site should include market housing to not do so will limit delivery now and in the longer term.

Most of the responses are made by agents who are promoting alternative sites on behalf of clients. A range of factors are highlighted in Appendix 2a.

NPPF continues to allow local authorities to use rural exception sites as a means of delivering affordable housing. The Council recognises that

14 | P a g e

Policy/Soundness Key Issue Response delivering these sites can be challenging and has introduced a new approach to delivery of these homes which looks to incentivise landowners. An element of the site can now be Rural Discount Homes, which are homes capped at 80% of market value (either for sale or rent). Full details of this approach are set out in the Housing Background Paper. The approach taken is in line with the growth strategy of the Core Strategy. No changes required

HLP7: Affordable Housing The targets are too high/thresholds too low and not justified by evidence

Inadequate viability assessment/evidence base

The targets and thresholds are based on an Economic Viability Appraisal commissioned in 2009, reported in 2010. The 40% figure was a direct recommendation. The report recommended that the Council could consider a higher figure of up to 50% on greenfield allocations. Whilst the thresholds in the draft policy are at the lower end of the scale recommended by the consultants they are still supported by that work and knowledge and experience of delivering affordable housing in this District. These figures were used as part of the CIL viability work and so have been tested again more recently. All targets are negotiable. No changes required

JB5: Sites for new Jobs Site is inappropriate for development The issues raised here relate to sites being inappropriate for development and a range of factors are highlighted at Appendix 2a.

JB5: Sites for new Jobs Development guidelines are inappropriate/general comments and suggested amendments

The suggested changes to development guidelines have been assessed (see appendix 2) with minor amendments set out at Section 4.

JB5: Sites for new Jobs • Not enough land has been allocated for employment use

• Evidence base is out of date

The amount of land allocated is in excess of that required by the Core Strategy, and takes into account land lost to alternative uses. Whilst the evidence base was published in 2006 this was to determine the amount of land required over the plan period as set out in the Core Strategy. The SPDPD makes allocations to meet this requirement. No changes required.

Policy JB6: Protection and enhancement of Existing Employment Areas

The policy is overly restrictive Alternative uses should include housing, currently the policy wording refers to ‘re‐development where this would create alternative employment opportunities’. Finding suitable land for employment uses, particularly low grade uses is difficult in this district and it is important that land is retained in employment use. The policy does introduce an element of flexibility that is considered proportionate. No required

Policies JB7: Town and Local Centre Management, JB8: Protection of

Limited response to this group of policies with the focus being on suggested wording changes

Wording changes are not required to make the policy sound and therefore no changes required.

15 | P a g e

Policy/Soundness Key Issue Response Tourist Facilities, JB9: Sustainable Rural Tourism Policies TRA4: Air Quality, TRA5: Parking Provision

Limited response to this group of policies with the focus being on suggested wording changes

Some minor amendments have been made to the policy and justification of TRA4 and TRA5 and these are shown in the table of amendments in Section 4.

Policy EQ3: Development within the Green Belt

Land should be released within the Green Belt Policy should be deleted

The approach to Green Belt is set out in the adopted Core Strategy, the purpose of this policy is to define the extent. No changed required.

Policy EQ4: Designated Heritage Assets

Limited response to this policy with the focus being on suggested amendments to wording

Some minor amendments have been made to the justification as shown in the table of amendments in Section 4.

Policies EQ5: Local Distinctiveness, A small number of representations made suggesting: Some minor amendments have been made to the justification as shown in the EQ6: Area Based Natural Assets, that the policy is unsound, table of amendments in Section 4. EQ7: Landscape Protection it adds little to national policy,

too onerous/restrictive suggested wording changes to improve the

clarity of the policy Policy C4: Sites for New Sports, Open space and Recreation Development

Inappropriate site for new provision New provision not justified by the evidence base Inadequate provision being made

In respect of the first two bullets, the key issues here are in respect of Sites HS2a (North of Skipton Road) and HS26 (Adjacent to Dunlopillo). In respect of HS2a the landowner has confirmed that the site is not available for that use. This site should be retained within the Plan and dialogue is on‐going with the landowner as part of the consideration of a planning application that the site is subject to. The Outdoor Sport evidence base identifies both a quantitative and qualitative issue in respect of sports provision and therefore justifies the allocation of HS26 in addition to HS6a.

The third bullet point is raised by BLAG (Bar Lane Action Group) that additional provision should be made and ideally land known as K7 in Knaresborough. Delivering land for new outdoor sports provision can often be difficult. The Council has sought to identify site that have a reasonable prospect of being delivered and the chances of this are improved if they are linked to a wider housing development. Site K7 does not offer these opportunities. No changes required.

Policies C5: Protection of Existing A small number of representations made suggesting: Minor amendments have been made to Policy C5 and are shown in the table

16 | P a g e

Policy/Soundness Key Issue Response Sport, Open Space and Recreation Facilities, C6: Protection and Enhancement of Community Facilities, Provision of New Community Facilities, C7: Provision of New Community Facilities

that the policy is unsound, it adds little to national policy, it does not protect amenity open space, suggested wording changes to improve the

clarity of the policy

of amendments in Section 4.

Policy IN2: Infrastructure Delivery Object to boundary changes of green wedges Suggest new or amended boundary

The main issue relates to the defined boundary of the Green Wedge at Pinewoods and Valley Gardens. The boundary has been pulled back to Harlow Moor Road and now excludes the Pinewoods. The revised boundary is appropriate as it provides a green wedge between two areas of population. Beyond Harlow Moor road a green wedge is not needed as there is not population on both sides of the wedge. No changes required.

With regard to the Bilton Triangle, the main issue relates to the suggestion to reduce the size of the Green Wedge. The boundary and size is appropriate as this Green Wedge is important in helping to define the shape of the town and provides a clearly defined boundary between the neighbourhoods of Bilton, Starbeck and Kingsley Drive. The area comprises a system of open spaces, which provide a strategic corridor, ultimately linking the north‐eastern edge of the town with the Nidd Valley.

IN3: Protection of Sites for A number of new routes and sites have been It has been concluded, for the reasons set out at appendix 2 that the Plan Transport Infrastructure identified together with policy wording changes. does not need to be amended to include any of the suggested routes and

sites. Some minor amendments have been made to the justification as shown in the table of amendments in Section 4.

IN4: Central Areas Two suggested additional improvements suggested in Ripon

It has been concluded, for the reasons set out at appendix 2, that the Plan does not need to be amended to include either of the suggested improvements. No changes required.

Legal Compliance • Failure to comply with SCI • Site not previously identified or consulted on as

preferred option • Failure to comply with EU SEA Directives and

It is considered that in drawing up proposals the SCI and SEA directive have been complied with. The key consultation bodies in respect of preparing sustainability appraisals have been consulted as part of the process and have not raised any fundamental objections to the approach taken.

17 | P a g e

Policy/Soundness Key Issue Response Regulations The second bullet point relates to a site in Darley which was not identified as a

preferred option at the Rural Areas Consultation in 2010, however half of the site had been consulted on as a preferred option in 2007 with the whole of the site consulted on as an alternative site in 2011. No changes required.

Duty to Co‐operate: Lack of co‐operation with neighbouring authorities

This issue is generally raised in respect of the failure of the SPDPD to meet objectively assessed need with those commenting noting that whilst the Duty to Co‐operate paper states that neighbouring authorities are content with HBC’s early review of the Core Strategy as mitigation for this it is notable that none of the adjoining authorities are planning for HBC’s under‐supply in the intervening period. Until or unless they do so the plan should be withdrawn as it fails the Duty.

The Council has produced a Duty to Co‐operate statement that provides a full account of the joint working and consultation that has been undertaken in preparing the Sites and Policies DPD. The Housing Background Paper explains how the annual housing figure set out in the adopted Core Strategy was arrived at with particular reference to the urban renaissance agenda within the RSS, which has been adopted as Interim Strategy for the Leeds City Region, and the particular set of infrastructure and environmental constraints identified within Harrogate District. Continuing with the Sites and Policies DPD to adoption is the most effective way of delivering much needed housing land now. To stop and re‐look at the housing figure would simply delay bringing forward land. The Council has committed to an early review of the Core Strategy which will look again at the annual housing figure. The Housing Background Paper includes a Housing Implementation Strategy that Whole Plan soundness: Lack of Again this generally relates to the fact that

Conformity with NPPF Harrogate Borough Council are not meeting objectively assessed need; that the plan has therefore not been positively prepared and that the Core Strategy that the SPDPD is seeking to deliver is itself not compliant with the NPPF

demonstrates that these sites can and will come forward as envisaged which together with evidence from windfalls shows that the Council will be able to deliver the much needed housing. Throughout the preparation of the SPDPD the Council has consulted and worked closely with infrastructure and service providers to identify and deliver infrastructure required to support planned growth. Details of required infrastructure are set out in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. No changes required

Whole Plan soundness: The plan does not meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements

The argument is made that all of the Council’s evidence points to a much higher level of growth than is being planned for. A number of representors also note that the plan does not deliver the appropriate amount of infrastructure to support development

Whole Plan soundness: The plan is not based on an appropriate strategy.

The approach to the release of land in Knaresborough, together with the reliance on a large single site means that very little development

18 | P a g e

Policy/Soundness Key Issue Response happens in the early stages of the plan period, contributing further to pent up demand. The plan does not put in place an effective strategy to ensure Harrogate can deal with its unmet housing needs.

New Policies Suggested Minimum separation distances from wind turbine to houses

Specific policy covering rural settlements within the AONB

Separate policy required on amenity open space.

It is considered that the inclusion of these policies is not required in order to make the plan sound (See Appendix 2 for reasons). No changes required.

19 | P a g e

4 Proposed Amendments

4.1 In response to the issues raised a number of changes to the policies and supporting text have

been proposed as shown in the table overleaf. The changes constitute minor wording changes

or typographical/cartographical amendments and therefore it is considered that they do not

need to form the subject of further public consultation.

20 | P a g e

Policy and/or Site

Table 4: Minor amendments following Publication Draft Consultation

Amendment Reason

Introduction – para 1.3 Add the following to the end of para 1.3 “'These plans, prepared by North Yorkshire County Council, will allocate sites for waste and minerals proposals. These allocations will also need to be illustrated on the Proposals Map that accompanies the Harrogate District Local Plan in due course”.

Reflect change suggested as part of consultation

Introduction – para 1.3 Replace ‘ North Yorkshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan’ with “Joint Minerals and Waste Local Plan”

Update information

Settlement Growth Introduction ‐ para 3.5

The first sentence of Para 3.5 to now read “Given the uncertainty regarding the likely upturn in the economy a windfall allowance has been included based on an analysis of completions over a five year period and expected future trends.”

Update information

Settlement Growth Introduction – para. 3.8

Change ‘Second Review (May 2012)’ to “Update Report (May 2013)” Update information

SG6 Reference to Appendix B should be added to the second sentence so that it reads “The development of these sites should take account of the development guidelines contained in this policy as set out in Appendix B”


SG6 Reference to Appendix B should be added to the second sentence of the Urban Extensions section so that it reads “The development of these sites should take account of the development guidelines contained in this policy as set out in Appendix B”


SG6 – Site – K2b Amend Indicative Capacity of K2b from 700 to 600 to reflect recent planning application Update information SG6 – Site H3(1) Amend Indicative Capacity of H3(1) from 500 to 600 to reflect recent planning

application Update information

SG6 Add sites “H107a: Station Parade, Harrogate” and “K16: Former Cattle Market, Knaresborough” to the schedule in Policy SG6. In the Indicative Yield column, add an * and the following footnote to the table “* ‐ sites allocated for mixed use development under Policy JB5. Housing yield to be determined at application stage.” Reflect change suggested as part of consultation


SG6 Add the following to the end of the Policy SG6 box after ‘The release of housing……………………..necessary infrastructure’

The following sites, as identified on the Proposals Map, are sites with planning


21 | P a g e

Policy and/or Site

Amendment Reason

permission for housing which contributes to the Core Strategy requirement:

Site Ref Site Name Location Indicative Yield

H400 Land S of Bogs Lane Harrogate 74 B12 Farnell Technology Park and land to the

rear Boroughbridge 165

H104 Land at Cornwall Road Harrogate 50 H18 Land N of Eastville Cottage, Ripon Road Harrogate 13 H1071 Land off Princess Royal Way and Spacey

Houses Harrogate 19

H105(1) Land West of Harlow Moor Road Harrogate 46

SG6 Remove Site H400 from the list of draft housing allocations To reflect change of status to a housing commitment

SG6 Replace the existing table in para 3.15 with the following: Total provision of new homes at 1 October 2013 (comprising 4553 Update information homes built 1 April 2004 to 30 September 2013 and homes with permission at 1 October 2013) Requirement to 2023/2024 3247 (7800 – 4553) Requirement to 2023/2024 3410 Including 5% buffer Windfall allowance in years 4 and 5 only 366 Requirement to be met through site allocations (3410 – 366) 3044

SG6 – Evidence box Add reference to “The provision of a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) with proposals for reasonable mitigation” to the list of evidence that may be required from applicants under Policy SG6.

Clarity and completeness

SG6 – para 3.22 Add a further bullet after the ‘tress and hedgerows……..’ bullet to read “sites will be expected to deliver areas of high quality and appropriate structure planting in keeping


22 | P a g e

Policy and/or Site

Amendment Reason

with the landscape character of the area both within the site and on the site boundaries. Where practicable this structure planting will be implemented in advance of the main development”

SG6 – Related Planning Policies

Add “Draft Policy EQ4: Designated Heritage Assets and Archaeology”, “Draft Policy EQ6 : Area Based Natural Assets “ and “Draft Policy EQ7 : Landscape Protection “ to the Related Planning Policies box under Policy SG6


SG7 – Related Planning Policies box

Add “Draft Policy EQ5: Local Distinctiveness” Clarity and completeness

SG8 – Related Planning Policies

Add “Draft Policy EQ7 : Landscape Protection” to the list of related planning policies Clarity and completeness

SG9 – para 3.49 Amend final sentence of paragraph 3.49 to read “the Environment Agency defines flood zones on the basis of their annual probability of flooding without the presence of any defences. The Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework explains in detail how these zones are classified”.


SG9 – para 3.50 Add a new sentence after the 3rd in para 3.50 to read “The FRA should include an assessment of groundwater or fluvial flooding and seek a betterment in the runoff and thereby flood risk; thereby reducing the risk of flooding downstream”


SG9 – para 3.52 Delete reference to level 1 SFRA in para 3.52 Reflect change suggested as part of consultation

SG9 – para. 3.53 Amend the first line of para. 3.53 to read “will vary depending on the scale of development..”


SG9 – para. 3.53 Amend the last sentence of para. 3.53 to read “It also advises developers of which matters they should address in an FRA”.


SG9 – para. 3.55 Amend para 3.55 to read “Green Infrastructure, such as permeable surfaces and open spaces, can be used to reduce flood risk and surface water run‐off. By incorporating sustainable drainage systems, it can help to reduce flood peak flows. The integration of green infrastructure proposals should be considered during the design stage of proposals for development”


SG10 –Further Guidance for Applicant

Add “The Coal Authority – www.coal.decc.gov.uk” to the Further Guidance for Applicants list


23 | P a g e

Policy and/or Site

Amendment Reason

HLP6 ‐ Amend the second sentence of Policy HLP6 to read “Development of these sites should be in accordance with the development guidelines as set out in Appendix D”


HLP6 Insert the following after the sites table:

The following site, as identified on the Proposals Map, has planning permission for housing which contributes to the Core Strategy requirement:


Site Ref Site Name Location Indicative Yield

RL1145 Land adjacent to Sicklinghall Primary School Sicklinghall 7

HLP6 – Related Planning Policies

Add “Draft Policy EQ4 : Designated Heritage Assets and Archaeology”, “Draft Policy EQ6 : Area Based Natural Assets”, “Draft Policy EQ7 : Landscape Protection” “Draft Policy IN2 : Green Infrastructure” to the list of related planning policies


HLP7

HLP7 – para 4.15

JB5

JB5 – Related Planning Policies JB5

In the last paragraph, replace “In very exceptional circumstances” with “If robustly justified”. At the beginning of the third sentence, replace ‘in very exceptional circumstances’ with “where it can be robustly justified” Add the following sentence to the end of the policy “The development of these sites should take account of the development guidelines contained in this policy as set out at Appendix B” Add “Draft Policy EQ6 – Area Based Natural Assets” and “Draft Policy EQ7 : Landscape Protection” to the list of related planning policies. Add “H74a : Dunlopillo Site, Pannal (4.07) ” to the list of mixed use sites under Policy JB5

Reflect change suggested as part of consultation Reflect change suggested as part of consultation Clarity and completeness



JB5

JB5

Add “K2b: Land at Manse Farm, Knaresborough (38.44ha)” as a mixed use site to the schedule in Policy JB5 Add “P3001: Coal Yard, Pateley Bridge (0.4ha)” as a mixed site to the schedule in Policy JB5



JB6 – Related Planning Add “Draft Policy EQ6 : Area Based Heritage Assets” and “Draft Policy EQ7 : Landscape Clarity and completeness

24 | P a g e

Policy and/or Site

Amendment Reason

Policies box Protection” JB7 Sentence above Harrogate local centres subheading in policy text – amend sentence to

read “….sequential test and/or is likely to have a significant impact on a centre(s), it should …”


JB7 – Evidence that may be required box

Add another bullet point to read “Marketing details as set out in the policies supporting text”.

Update information

JB7 – Designations/Boundaries box

Add another bullet point to read “Town Centres”. Clarity and completeness

JB9 Add “and natural assets” to the end of the 2nd paragraph in Policy JB9. Reflect change suggested as part of consultation

JB9 ‐ para. 5.49 Add “and natural assets” to the end of the first sentence in para. 5.49. Reflect change suggested as part of consultation

TRA4 – para. 6.8 “This could include options for offsetting where appropriate in line with Policy EQ1 para 7 and Policy IN2 : green Infrastructure” to be added to the end of para. 6.8.


TRA5 Amend criterion 9 to read “the need to make provision for car club and car share parking spaces where appropriate and viable to do so.”


Environment – Introduction – para 7.5

Change ‘(plants and specieis) in the 3rd line of para 7.5 to “habitats and species” Clarity and completeness

EQ4 – Policy Title Amend policy EQ4 title to read “DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS AND ARCHAEOLOGY” Reflect change suggested as part of consultation

EQ4 Add new second paragraph to read “Non‐designated assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of national interest will be protected as a designated heritage asset. When development would affect other archaeological sites, measures to mitigate the impact of development on the heritage assets should be provided.”


EQ4 Amend existing second paragraph to read “‘Proposals for development should not prejudice future conservation restoration or interpretation of the above listed heritage assets. Development will not be permitted if it would lead to substantial harm to the significance of the asset unless the harm is necessary to provide public benefits that outweigh that harm.”


EQ4 – para 7.17 Add definition to paragraph 7.17: “Archaeological Interest ‐ There will be archaeological Clarity and completeness

25 | P a g e

Policy and/or Site

Amendment Reason

interest in a heritage asset if it holds, or potentially may hold, evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point.”

EQ4 – para 7.20 Remove the following ‘The following information will be required:’ from para. 7.20 Reflect change suggested as part of consultation

EQ4 – para 7.27 Add to start of paragraph 7.27: “Development proposals likely to have an impact on the World Heritage Site or its setting will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated that the scheme will conserve those elements which contribute towards its outstanding universal value.”


EQ4 – para. 7.36 Add new second sentence to paragraph 7.36: “Demolition or other substantial loss to the significance of a building or other feature in a conservation area would be permitted only where the harm is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.”


EQ4 – para 7.38 Change ‘52’ to “53” ‐ Conservation Areas Update information EQ4 – para 7.38 Add to end of paragraph 7.38: “Proposals affecting a conservation area should preserve

or enhance those elements that have been identified as making a positive contribution to the special character or appearance of the Conservation Area. These elements include buildings, boundary features, other structures, landscape features and open space. Development that would result in the loss of space identified as contributing positively to the character of the area will be permitted only where the harm is outweighed by the benefits of the scheme”


EQ4 – para 7.42 Add to start of paragraph 7.42: “Loss of any significance of the listed building should be minimized”


EQ4 – Sub‐title Insert subtitle “Archaeology” after para. 7.49 Reflect change suggested as part of consultation

EQ4 – new para 7.50 New para 7.50 to read “Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution of places, and of the people and cultures that made them.” (wording moved from para 7.51)


EQ4 – new para 7.51 Para 7.51 under the subtitle ‘Archaeology’ to read “National Planning Policy Framework provides protection for non‐designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrated of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments and states that they should be considered subject to policies for designated heritage assets.” (This


26 | P a g e

Policy and/or Site

Amendment Reason

wording moves from para 7.78 under draft Policy EQ5) EQ4 – new para 7.52 Para 7.52 to read “Below ground or hidden archaeology is protected under this policy.

Harrogate District has a wealth of such historic assets, and similar to assets that are visible, there are strong thematic groups that contribute particularly to our understanding of the past. These include: prehistoric settlements; Roman military and civil settlements and communication; medieval settlements; abandoned settlements or those effectively lost to the construction of reservoirs and ancillary infrastructure. Much archaeology is hidden beneath the existing settlements of the District. Hidden archaeology is not strictly limited to that below ground, for example historic buildings that have been altered can reveal features of archaeological interest when opened up such as parts of medieval walls, or historic timber frames. If development is proposed in an area believed to contain important remains, an archaeological investigation will be required. As a minimum the Historic Environment Record (HER) should be consulted before a planning application is made to determine whether there is known archaeological interest or the site has the potential for assets of archaeological interest.” (Most of this wording has transferred from para 7.79 Draft Policy EQ5)


EQ4 –new para 7.53 Move the paragraph starting ‘Where development could affect remains…..’ from para 7.53 to new position para 7.53 and delete the reference to the Scheduled Monument Consent in ()


EQ4 – new para 7.54 New wording to read “When development affecting archaeological assets is acceptable in principal, the Council will seek to ensure mitigation of damage through preservation of the remains in situ as a preferred option. Where in situ preservation is not appropriate, the developer will be required to make adequate provision for exaction and recording before or during development”


EQ4 – new para 7.55 To read “Where development will lead to loss of the significance of a heritage asset, it is important to take the opportunity to advance our understanding of the past before the asset, or the relevant part, is irretrievably lost. Steps to be taken by the developer are: investigation, recording and sampling; analysing the records, artefacts and samples, and where necessary conserve; making the understanding gained publically available and creating and depositing an archive.” (wording moved from para 7.81 – Draft Policy


27 | P a g e

Policy and/or Site

Amendment Reason

EQ5) EQ4 – new para 7.56 To read “Further guidance and information on the content of a written scheme of

investigation will be included in the forthcoming Heritage Management SPD.” (wording moved from para 7.82 – Draft Policy EQ5)


EQ4 – Designations on the Proposals Map

Add “World Heritage Site Buffer Zone” to the list Clarity and completeness

EQ4 – Designations on the Proposals map

Remove ‘ Listed Buildings’ from the list Update information

EQ4 – Related Planning Policies

Add “Draft Policy EQ5: Local Distinctiveness” to the related planning policies list Clarity and completeness

EQ4 – Further Guidance for Applicants

Add “Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Third Edition (The Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment)” to the list under further guidance for applicants.


EQ5 Change ‘undesignated’ to “non‐designated” In Criterion 4. Clarity and completeness EQ5 ‐ Justification Paragraphs 7.78, 7.79 moved to Policy EQ4 justification. Reflect change suggested as part of

consultation EQ5 – para 7.57 (now para 7.64)

Add “and archaeology” between the words ‘assets’ and ‘is provided’ in paragraph 7.64 (was 7.57)


EQ5 – new para 7.85 Add reference to paras 7.64 – 7.66 to the end of the sentence. Clarity and completeness EQ5 – para 7.81 (now para 7.87)

Add “non‐designated” before ‘heritage asset’ in the first sentence and “hidden or not” after ‘whether’.


EQ5 – para 86 (now para 7.92)

Amend the last sentence to read “The areas in Harrogate, Knaresborough and Ripon excluded from the Area of Special Control are shown on the Proposals Map”


EQ5 – Designations on the Proposals Map box

Add “Areas excluded from the Area of Special Control” Clarity and completeness

EQ6 In the second to last paragraph starting ’Proposals which would involve……’ change the word ‘including’ to “especially”.


EQ6 Add “Biodiversity enhancement will be encouraged” to the beginning of the first paragraph of the policy.


EQ6 Insert the words “designated and proposed” at the start of the second sentence of Policy EQ6 and add “and protected species” between ‘interest’ and ‘receive’ in the first


28 | P a g e

Policy and/or Site

Amendment Reason

sentence. EQ6 – para 7.92 (now para 7.98)

In the last sentence to para 7.92 add “and may be beneficial” between the words ‘necessary’ and ‘to’.


EQ6 – para 7.101 (now para 7.107)

Re‐word paragraph 7.101 to add after ‘irreplaceable habitats’ the words “BAP habitats and hard to create habitats”.


EQ7 – para 7.110 (now para 7.116)

Add “Landscape Character Assessment” before ‘LCA’ which needs to be put in (). Clarity and completeness

EQ7 – para 7.111 (now para 7.117)

Add “as part of the LVIA” to the end of the paragraph. Clarity and completeness

EQ7 – para 7.116 (now 7.122)

Amend para 7.116 to read “It is likely that a suitable qualified Chartered Landscape Architect with previous experience in LVIA will have to be appointed to carry out the Landscape Assessment/LVIA”


EQ7 – para 7.120 (now para 7.126)

Under the bullet starting ‘Ancient broadleaved woodlands……’ remove the words ‘and water voles’ from the last sentence.

Update information

EQ7 – para 7.126 (now para 7.132)

Remove the words ‘in accordance with the Wildlife & Countryside Act’. Update information


Add “Guidelines on Equestrian Development in Nidderdale AONB (2007)” to the list of further guidance



Add “Harrogate District Sites and Policies DPD : Review of Local Landscape Designations : Special Landscape Areas (2011)” to the list of further guidance.


C4 Amend second paragraph of policy to read: "New housing development will be required to provide for new sports, open space and recreational facilities on‐site to cater for the needs arising from the development in line with the provision standards set out in the Provision for Open Space in Connection with New Housing Development Supplementary Planning Document”.


C4 In Criterion 3 amend ‘landscaped’ to “integrated into the landscape” Clarity and comlpeteness C4 – para 8.13 Amend the third paragraph of 8.13 to read “In addition to the site specific guidelines

provided below and satisfying the provisions of criterion 2‐4 of Policy C4, development proposals for sports allocations will be expected….”


C4 – para 8.13 The third bullet point under paragraph 8.13 will be amended to read: "Site HS26: Land SW of Former Dunlopillo Factory (1.82 hectares) – suitable for the provision of low


29 | P a g e

Policy and/or Site

Amendment Reason

intensity community sports facilities (no floodlighting), in part as a replacement of the sports facilities on the adjacent housing allocation site H74a”.

C4 para 8.19 Amend final sentence of paragraph 8.19 to read “The Council intends to review and consult on its open space standards prior to the adoption and implementation of the Sites and Policies DPD”.

Update information

C4 – Related Planning Policy

Add “Draft Policy EQ7 : Landscape Protection” and “Draft Policy EQ5 : Local Distinctiveness” to the list of related planning policies.


C4 – Further guidance box Under Further Guidance for Applicants add the following bullet point “Harrogate Outdoor Sports Strategy (2013)”.


C5 “the benefits of which should clearly outweigh the loss of this land” to be added to criterion four between the words ‘site’ and ‘or’


C5 The fifth criterion to be amended to read “in the case of playing fields, where the proposal involves the development of an alternative indoor or outdoor sports facility that will benefit sports development in the District and clearly outweigh the loss of the playing fields”


C5 – Further guidance box Under Further Guidance for Applicants add the following bullet point “Harrogate Outdoor Sports Strategy (2013)”.


C6 – para 8.40 Remove the word ‘normally’ from the second line of para 7.4 which lies between ‘will’ and ‘be’.


C6 – para 8.41 Add the following wording to the start of para. 7.5 “Licenced premises (ie public houses) should be marketed through specialist licensed property firms in addition to a local property agent.”

Amend the now second sentence to read “The following additional information will also be required for applications involving licensed premises:”

Update information

C6 new para 8.42 Add a new para 8.42 to read “Planning applications involving the loss of land or premises in community use will not be validated until the Council is satisfied that the information required in paragraph 7.4 and 7.5 above is provided in support of the application. Applicants are encouraged to agree the site valuation and marketing arrangements with the Council in advance of making an application to avoid delays in validating an application.”

Update information

30 | P a g e

Policy and/or Site

Amendment Reason

IN1 The second paragraph of the policy will be amended to read: "Depending on the nature and scale of development proposed, and subject to viability, developers will be expected to make reasonable on‐site provision, off‐site provision and/or contributions towards the following types of infrastructure and services in order to cater for the needs generated by development and deliver sustainable development"


IN1 Change the word ’landscaping’ in Criterion 13 to “landscape infrastructure” Clarity and completeness IN1 – para 9.11 The following should be added to the end of para 9.11 "The Council has prepared an

Infrastructure Delivery Plan that identifies the infrastructure and services required to support the level of planned growth in the District. The Council will review this document on a regular basis to ensure that it provides the most up‐to‐date picture of the infrastructure needs of the District"'.

Update information

IN1 – Further Guidance box Add “Harrogate District Infrastructure Delivery Plan (2013)” Clarity and completeness IN1 – Related Planning Policy

Add “Draft Policy IN2 ; Green Infrastructure” to the list of related planning policies. Clarity and completeness

IN2 The final paragraph of the policy should be amended to read “Contribute to the delivery of the case studies, or other suitable opportunities for developing Green infrastructure as detailed in the Harrogate District Green Infrastructure Guide to identify opportunities for improving and creating Green Infrastructure”.


IN2 Add a footnote to the policy to read “*This Guide will be used to prepare a Green Infrastructure SPD to provide further guidance and ensure that proposals for development make the most of opportunities to improve existing and create new green infrastructure.” Add “*” after the word Guide in the amended final paragraph above.


IN2 – para 9.37 Add the following to the end of para 9.37 “and will become SPD to add further detail to policy IN2”

Update information

IN2 – Further Guidance for Applicants

Add “Harrogate District Sites and Policies DPS Review of Local Landscape Designations: Green Wedges (2011)” to the further guidance for applicants.



Delete ‘Landscape Institute Green Infrastructure Position Statement 2009’ and replace with “Green Infrastructure: An integrated approach to land use : Landscape Institute Position Statement (2013)”

Update information

IN2 – Further Guidance for Add “Harrogate District Landscape Character Assessment (2004)” to the list of further Clarity and completeness

31 | P a g e

Policy and/or Site

Amendment Reason

Applicants guidance for applicants. IN3 – para 9.47 Add to the end of para 9.47 the following wording: “However, since this study was

completed work has been undertaken to develop a business case for the improvement of the Harrogate Line as a whole identifying infrastructure requirements which will improve service frequency, reduce journey times and reduce operating costs on the line. Government approval will therefore be sought to commit to the electrification of the route. Further work on potential stations along the route will then be undertaken”


IN3 – para 9.52 In para 9.52, add “for which further work is required” after ‘other routes required to complete the network’



Add “Draft Harrogate District Green Infrastructure Guide 2013” to the list of further guidance for applicants.


Appendix A Replace with new Housing trajectory Update information Appendix B SG6 – Site H2002

Amend development guideline 2 to read “be subject to the establishment of ‘one stop shop’ facilities in the town centre by North Yorkshire Police”

Reflect the current situation

Appendix B SG6 – Site H32(3)

Amend development guideline 16 to read “ Retain the fields of the Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) quality south of Otley Road”



Add Development guideline 17 to read “Either retain the current route of Harlow Hill Slack, or explore with the Council appropriate options to divert its route, along with providing an appropriate buffer and ensuring it is protected from surrounding development”


Appendix B SG6 – Site H4007

Amend guideline 4 to read “concentrate new development to the north and west of the drive and on the lower ground towards the south east corner on the former cricket pitch”


Appendix B SG6 – Site H4007

Amend guideline 10 to read “maintain and enhance the avenue of trees formed by the drive, incorporating an appropriate setback of buildings from the north side of the drive “



Amend guideline 9 to read “traffic management measures to control traffic speed along Skipton Road should be provided where a need is identified with a Transport Assessment”



Amend guideline 1 to refer to 290 rather than 360 Update inaccurate information

32 | P a g e

Policy and/or Site

Amendment Reason


Amend guideline 1 to refer to 600 rather than 500 to reflect recent planning application Update information

Appendix B SG6 – Site K2b Amend guideline 1 to refer to 600 rather than 700 dwellings to reflect recent planning application


Appendix B SG6 – Site K2b Amend guideline 2 to read “include a neighbourhood centre to accommodate a primary school, local retail facilities, food store and community uses”


Appendix B SG6 – Site K2b Amend guideline 10 to read “consider the context and setting of Manse farm in any development proposals including its appropriate integration”


Appendix B SG6 – Site K2b Amend guideline 17 (now guideline 18) to read “carefully address access from the development to the countryside north of the railway which includes making use of the underpass”


Appendix B SG6 – Site K2b Amend guideline 20 (now guideline 21) to read “Ensure the rail station is conveniently linked to road, bus, cycle and pedestrian networks and will not prejudice reinstatement of a second track and a second platform in the longer term”


Appendix B SG6 – Site K2b Add the following development guideline under the heading ‘Open Spaces and Green Infrastructure’ “Development should seek to avoid significant recreational disturbance to the Hay‐a‐Park SSSI, adequately mitigate, or, as a last resort, compensate for the loss of the breeding birds and wintering wildfowl”


Appendix B SG6 Site R23 Add the following to the end of development guideline 4 “Development of this site should safeguard the setting of the Listed Buildings to the south and west of this area”


Appendix B SG6 Site M3001

Add the following to guideline 3 “In particular, development proposals should safeguard the character and setting of the Grade II* Listed Church”


Appendix B SG6 – Site RL3032a

Add the following development guideline “require the widening of Scarah Lane” Reflect change suggested as part of consultation

Appendix B SG6 – Site P3a Add the following to the end of development guideline 3 “Development proposals should safeguard the character and setting of the Grade II Listed Building to the east of this area”


Appendix C SG10 The definition of a ‘competent person’ in the Notes (1) should be amended to “ A ‘Competent Person’ in this context is a Geotechnical Specialist, as defined by the Site Investigation Steering Group of the Institution of Civil Engineers in Site Investigation in construction 2: Planning Procurement and quality management (1993, republished


33 | P a g e

Policy and/or Site

Policy and/or Site

Amendment Reason

2010).

This advises that ground investigation, field and testing work may be carried out by the Geotechnical Advisor, as an individual or company, or may be carried separately by a Geotechnical Contactor.

Clients and construction professionals are urged to employ only those organisations and individuals who meet the nationally recognised professional and technical standards, and who have experience of the type of work to be carried out.

A geotechnical specialist is a chartered engineer or a chartered geologist with a postgraduate qualification geotechnical engineering or engineering geology, equivalent at least to an MSc and with three years of post‐charter practice in geotechnics; or a chartered engineer or a chartered geologist with five years of post‐charter practice in geotechnics

Appendix D HLP6 – Site RL3041

Add the following additional development guideline “Safeguard the setting of the Listed Building at West Hill Cottages”


Table 5: Typographical and cartographical amendments

Amendment

Policy SD1 – Further Guidance for Applicants

Remove ‘2006’ from the Statement of Community Involvement reference

Settlement Growth – para 3.6 Remove gap in the word ’recent’ SG6 – list of sites (K18) Change ‘Hambleton Road’ to “Hambleton Grove” SG6 Move Site RL1063a Kirkby Malzeard to after the Killinghall sites in the first policy list JB7 Last sentence of second paragraph of policy text before number list – remove return between ‘similar’ and ‘uses’

34 | P a g e

EQ4 Insert comma after ‘….conservation’ in 3rd paragraph EQ4 – para 7.19 Change ‘H’ to “h” in the word heritage where it says ‘significance of the Heritage asset’. EQ4 – para 7.22 Add the word “Management” between ‘Heritage’ and ‘SPD’ EQ5 – para 7.85 Change ‘February 2001 under the Landscape Design Guide’ to “November 2002” EQ5 – Further Guidance for Applicants

Add the word “Management” between ‘Heritage’ and ‘Supplementary’.

EQ7 At the start of the last paragraph, change the ‘e’ of ‘exceptionally to “E”

Travel – para 6.2 Remove the word ‘Forward’ from the second sentence. TR4 – para 6.6 Remove the word ‘are’ from ‘is/are’ part from the 2nd sentence. TR4 – para 6.7 Change ‘www.harrogate.gov.uk/pp/Pages/Air Quality Management‐Area‐(AQMA).aspx’ to

www.harrogate.gov.uk/pp/Pages/Local‐Air‐Quality‐Reports.aspx in the 4th sentence. TR4 – para 6.8 Change ‘ www.harrogate.gov.uk/Pages/Local‐Air‐Quality‐Reports.aspx’ to www.harrogate.gov.uk/pp/Pages/Local‐Air‐

Quality‐Reports.aspx in the 1st sentence. IN3 – para 9.53 The link to the Station Parade Development Brief needs amending to

www.harrogate.gov.uk/plan/Documents/Planning%20Guidance/DS‐P‐LandAtStationParade IN3 – Further Guidance for Applicants

Change website address under Harrogate and Knaresborough Cycling Implementation Plan to “www.harrogate.gov.uk/LPconsult”

IN4 – para 9.57 Under the ‘Harrogate’ heading and the last sentence of the ‘Transport Interchange…. Paragraph, change ‘policy IN3’ to “Policy IN3”

IN4 – Related Planning Policies Change ‘policies’ to “Policies” IN4 – Further Guidance for Applicants

Change website address under Report of Grip… and Harrogate and Knaresborough Cycling Implementation Plan to “www.harrogate.gov.uk/LPconsult”

Proposals Map IN4 Add the Footway Improvement Area (IN4f) designation to the Ripon Proposals Map. Proposals Map JB5/SG6 Show the following sites as ‘Mixed use allocations’ on the Proposals Map rather than just ‘Draft Allocations’

H107a – Station Parade, Harrogate K16 – Former Cattle Market, Knaresborough K2b – Manse Farm, Knaresborough H74a – Dunlopillo, Pannal P3001 – Coal yard, Pateley Bridge

35 | P a g e

APPENDDIX 1 Press Nootice

36 | P a g e

Responsse Form

37 | P a g e

38 | P a g e

39 | P a g e

40 | P a g e

41 | P a g e

42 | P a g e

Consultaation letterss

43 | P a g e

44 | P a g e

Parish CCouncil Letteer

45 | P a g e

46 | P a g e