North York Moors Local Plan

Transcription

1 North York Moors Local Plan Topic Paper Settlement Hierarchy The paper sets out the background and evidence on the creation of a settlement hierarchy for the forthcoming North York Moors Local Plan. The purpose of the settlement hierarchy is to indicate the locations in which some new development may be acceptable, and if so for what type of development. October 2017

2 Topic Paper Settlement hierarchy. September

3 Contents 1. Introduction Policy context The Geography of the North York Moors National Park The exisitng settlement hierarchy Responses to First Steps consultation Reviewing the current settlement hierarchy Settlement hierarchy options Choosing an Option Next Steps Appendix 1 Existing Settlement Hierarchy (Option 1) Appendix 2 Simple Hierarchy (Option 2) Villages included if 35 or more address points Appendix 3 Amended Hierarchy based on size of settlement and facilities (Option 3) Appendix 4 Amended Hierarchy based on location of settlement and facilities (Option 4) Appendix 5: Background Evidence Topic Paper Settlement hierarchy. September

4 Topic Paper Settlement hierarchy. September

5 1. Introduction 1.1 A fundamental objective for all planning authorities is to promote sustainable development and this means considering which locations are suitable for different types of development. Schemes which are suitable in one location are not necessarily acceptable elsewhere. For example, a new housing development that would be appropriate in one of the National Park s villages would not be sustainable in an isolated location because of the lack of facilities within a reasonable distance, the consequent increase in travel and the intrusion of a residential development into a farmed or open landscape. 1.2 The new Local Plan needs to find a way of indicating the best locations for future development and it does this through its settlement hierarchy. This will set out what types of development are appropriate for places in each tier of the hierarchy. The hierarchy can be used both to reflect the existing relationship between different places and to show how the planning authority sees particular villages and areas developing in the future. It directs different types of new development into particular places so that, when assessing individual proposals a view can be taken on whether the location is the right one for the future of the area. 1.3 This paper has been produced to support the October 2017 round of consultation on the new Local Plan ( Current Thinking ) and it intended as a resource for anyone who requires more information to respond to the question on settlement hierarchy we have asked as part of this consultation. Specifically it: Sets out the current geographical and policy context for the North York Moors National Park and its current settlement hierarchy Sets out the opinions we received on settlement hierarchy as part of the First Steps consultation (September 2016) Includes background information on our settlements including their size and the facilities they contain Contains options for a new settlement hierarchy, including a preferred option together with discussion of why we are suggesting this option. 1.4 Please note that drafting new planning policy for the new Local Plan is at an early stage, and nothing in this paper should be taken to indicate that policy is moving in a particular direction, and no weight should be applied to this document in decision making. 2. Policy context 2.1 The new settlement hierarchy must deliver existing policy objectives including those in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 28 of which says that to support a prosperous rural economy local plans should: Support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas; Promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural business; Support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside and diversified farm businesses and Promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages. 2.2 Paragraph 55 of the NPPF also says that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances. Topic Paper Settlement hierarchy. September

6 2.3 Government policy on new housing in National Parks is further articulated in its 2010 Circular English National Parks and the Broads 1. This states that the Parks are not suitable locations for unrestricted housing and that the expectation is that new housing will be focused on meeting affordable housing requirement, supporting local employment opportunities and key services (paragraph 78). 2.4 There also two recently adopted area plans that need to fit in with our new strategy. The Helmsley Plan produced jointly with Ryedale District Council and adopted July 2015 sets out the future development of the town up to The Plan has several housing and employment allocations which amount to a minimum of 150 new homes and up to 1.9ha of employment land. It fits in with our current Core Strategy which identifies Helmsley as our single first tier Local Service Centre. The Whitby Business Park Area Action Plan produced jointly with Scarborough Borough Council and adopted November 2014 identifies the existing role of the Business Park and sets out its future expansion. 3. The Geography of the North York Moors National Park 3.1 The map below shows the geography of the National Park. Map 1: Geography of the North York Moors National Park. 3.2 The North York Moors National Park has a total area of 1,436 sq. km, (143,608 hectares) and is home to around 23,247 residents 2. Its single town is Helmsley which lies at the south west edge and has approximately 1,515 people. There are then around 93 villages scattered throughout the National Park, some of which are very small and do not have any services. One obvious geographic feature is that the bigger settlements tend to be close to or on the edge of the National Park, including Helmsley, Thornton le Dale, West and East Ayton, Sleights, Osmotherley and Swainby. Several of these larger settlements are also split by the National Park boundary. Half of the town of Helmsley (and about two thirds of its residents) lie outside the National Park boundary in Ryedale. Parts of Ampleforth and Thornton Le Dale are also within Ryedale and part 1 Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, English National Parks and the Broads, UK Government Vision and Circular, March Office for National Statistics 2015 Mid-Year Population Estimate. Topic Paper Settlement hierarchy. September

7 of Sleights is within Scarborough. This means that the larger towns and villages serving the National Park area often have a cross boundary influence and serve outside areas as well. 3.3 The main transport routes are the A171 which serves the coast and the north-east part of the Park and the A170 which is the main east-west link to the south of the Park. The A169 and B1257 provide important north-south links across the moors and another important geographic feature is the east-west link provided by the Esk Valley and the railway line between Middlesbrough and Whitby. 4. The existing settlement hierarchy 4.1 Our existing Core Strategy and Development Policies document (2008) divides places within the National Park into five tiers: Local Service Centre Helmsley Service Villages 7 large villages near the edge of the Park with good services Local Service Villages 6 villages with more limited services Other Villages the majority of villages 70 in total with limited or no services Open Countryside 4.2 The top level of the hierarchy (Helmsley) came from the now revoked Yorkshire and Humber Regional Spatial Strategy. Below this, settlements were categorised based their transport links and an audit of services carried out by the Authority. The spatial strategy aimed to focus development in places which would reduce the need to travel, especially for basic services and amenities, while allowing for some flexibility in smaller settlements. 4.2 The table below shows the settlements in the three upper levels of the hierarchy and the types of development supported in each tier. For housing, current policies allow market housing development (with an affordable element) on sites of any size within the main built up areas of Helmsley and the seven Service Villages. In Local Service Villages and Other Villages housing development is restricted to local needs housing on small infill sites (unless it is affordable housing on an exception site). New development for employment and training uses are supported primarily in the three upper tiers of the hierarchy. 4.3 The distribution of planning permissions granted between 2008/9 and March 2016/17 for housing and employment facilities are shown in Appendix 5. They indicate that the current settlement hierarchy has been largely successful in directing housing development as intended but less successful in relation to new employment and training facilities. Points to note are: Nearly 30% of new housing units were in Helmsley and the Service Villages suggesting that development is being focused in the larger settlements as planned. Although 38% of new housing units were in Other Villages (the smallest type of settlement) these were spread among 53 different villages and were generally in small schemes of one or two units. This is a reasonable scale of development for these individual small villages. Open market housing developments in the Service Villages have not delivered the amount of affordable housing anticipated by Core Policy J; 22 affordable units were permitted in Service Villages but these were all on rural exception sites which deliver 100% affordable housing. Employment permissions have been spread across different types of settlement and include a wide range of facilities from shops, micro-breweries, car sales and offices/workshops in Helmsley and the Service and Local Service Villages to light industry, joinery workshops, estate offices, therapy facilities, equestrian and dog care facilities in Other Villages and Open Countryside locations. There have been a considerable number of new employment and training facilities approved within the two lower tiers of the hierarchy, Other Villages and Open Countryside. They were mainly the conversion of traditional rural buildings to form new small-scale economic uses, most as part of farm diversification schemes. Topic Paper Settlement hierarchy. September

8 Tier Settlement What s suitable market and Local Needs Housing (Core Policy J) Local Service Centre (Market town) Service Villages (A shop selling food, a primary school and good public transport links, on the edge of the Park) Local Service Villages (Self-contained settlements within the Park with some limited services) Helmsley Ampleforth Easington Guisborough (part) Scalby Sleights (part) Thornton-le- Dale (part) West and East Ayton Fylingthorpe Hinderwell Osmotherley Lythe Staithes Swainby Open Market Housing with 40% affordable on sites of 0.1 hectares or two or more dwellings Open Market Housing with 40% affordable on sites of 0.1 hectares or two or more dwellings Local needs housing on infill sites/as conversions (local occupancy only) What s suitable - Affordable housing (Core Policy K) Rural exceptions for affordable housing adjacent to the built up area Rural exceptions for affordable housing adjacent to the built up area Rural exceptions for affordable housing adjacent to the built up area on sites of more than one dwelling What s suitable - Employment and Training (Development Policy 10) Reuse of existing buildings or expansion of an existing facility, or new buildings where there is no other suitable accommodation Reuse of existing buildings or expansion of an existing facility, or new buildings where there is no other suitable accommodation Reuse of existing buildings or expansion of an existing facility, or new buildings where there is no other suitable accommodation What s suitable - Community Facilities (Core Policy I) Provision of new health, sport, education and other community facilities within the main built up area. Provision of new health, sport, education and other community facilities within the main built up area. Provision of new health, sport, education and other community facilities within the main built up area. Other villages (Very limited or no facilities.) 48 smaller villages Local needs housing on infill sites/as conversions (local occupancy only) Rural exceptions for affordable housing adjacent to the built up area on sites of more than one dwelling where it contributes to the sustainability of the settlement New development where a suitable site is not available in higher tiers or the immediate area, for expansion of an existing facility, or reuse of an existing building where it would not adversely affect the character of the area. Provision of new health, sport, education and other community facilities within the main built up area where there are no suitable sites in the tiers above. Topic Paper Settlement hierarchy. September

9 Tier Settlement What s suitable market and Local Needs Housing (Core Policy J) Open countryside (No development, or sporadic development or isolated buildings) Essential dwellings for farming, forestry or other land management activities, replacement of existing dwellings, conversions to holiday lets. What s suitable - Affordable housing (Core Policy K) n/a What s suitable - Employment and Training (Development Policy 10) Re-use of an existing building where local character is not affected, where the building is of sound construction and where access and storage space can be provided. What s suitable - Community Facilities (Core Policy I) Provision of new health, sport, education and other community facilities within the main built up area where there are no suitable sites in the tiers above. Table 1: Current settlement hierarchy Topic Paper Settlement hierarchy. September

10 5. Responses to First Steps consultation 5.1 The main message from the First Steps consultation which was carried out in September last year was that some small scale development was generally seen as a positive to promote a sustainable community. Providing a mix of housing types and sizes where residents have access to local facilities and services whether in the village itself or through provision of good public transport to neighbouring villages and towns was seen as valuable. Providing local employment to encourage the young and working age population to remain in the area was also considered important. The support for small scale development came from both larger and smaller communities and did not seem to be determined by the village s position in the current settlement hierarchy. 5.2 The Main Issues section of this consultation included two specific questions on settlement hierarchy: M6. Are there are issues with our current settlement hierarchy, or anywhere missing? Responses included: Support for Helmsley to remain as the key settlement. Some calls from estates for a more flexible approach to more rural areas. Osmotherley, Castleton, Lythe and Egton all mentioned as villages which should be in a higher tier in the settlement hierarchy - these comments came from estates and planning agents rather than the Parish Councils. Danby and Castleton should be recognised (perhaps as a single entity) as providing a wide range of services to the central zone of the National Park. Further development should be supported since these centres do not have larger settlements within reasonable travel time - the communities are reliant on services derived from the immediate locality. Suggestions that the Other Villages group could be stratified into nucleated and dispersed settlements and different criteria applied. There was one comment that the hierarchy does not easily apply to linear or non-nuclear village such as Staintondale or Ravenscar. Suggestion that there could be a separate category for Villages and settlements with railway stations (both for the Esk Valley line and the North York Moors Railway) with the aim of improving onward travel and linkages. There should be more flexibility - there is as much need, albeit on a smaller scale, for development within Other Villages to support village institutions. M7. Which services or facilities are most important for community vitality and are there any other characteristics of villages (or groups of villages) we should look at in considering any new settlement hierarchy? Many facilities were cited the most frequently mentioned were public transport, a village hall or community centre, a school, modern telecommunications, shops and pubs. 83 sites were put forward in response to our request for development opportunities. Only 19 of these were in the Park s larger settlements i.e. Helmsley or one of the Service or Local Service Villages. The majority (51) were submitted by five local estates and were generally in smaller settlements; for example, Kildale, Roxby, Sandsend, Runswick Bay, Ellerby and Carlton as well as Egton, Lythe and Coxwold. There was only a small response from agents and non-estate landowners suggesting that there is a relatively limited supply of sites across the Park. We will be consulting on housing sites at a later stage. 6. Reviewing the current settlement hierarchy 6.1 In order to inform our discussions, we have carried out research and survey work on the settlement hierarchy. We have looked at the physical size of villages in the National Park, the services they offer and their links with neighbouring communities. Topic Paper Settlement hierarchy. September

11 6.2 Figure 1 below shows the distribution of settlements based on the number of different address points within their main built-up area. It shows that the vast majority of small villages with fewer than 200 address points do not fall naturally into groups but steadily increase in size from smaller to larger settlements. There are 65 villages in this group and, apart from Hinderwell, Lythe and Scalby they all fall within the Other Villages tier in our current hierarchy. 6.3 At the other end of the scale, 4 settlements are notably larger than the next ones in the series Thornton le Dale, Helmsley, Sleights and Staithes. In between there are 13 medium sized villages which include Service Villages (e.g. Easington and Ampleforth), Local Service Villages (e.g. Osmotherley, Fylingthorpe and Swainby) and Other Villages (e.g. Robin Hood s Bay and Goathland). 6.4 Figure 2 shows the number of different types of facilities in each settlement taken from the 2015 Community Facilities Survey this survey is carried out every three years although we have updated it where we know facilities have been lost. Fifteen types of facility have been recorded including primary school, village hall, pub, general store, GP, chemist, bank, garage, ATM, children s play area, other leisure areas and mobile library. The survey shows the range of facilities available in each community but does not distinguish between a village with one shop and another with several shops. As expected the shape of Figure 2 is similar to Figure 1 with the same larger settlements generally having the greatest range of facilities. 6.5 In order to consider the function of villages more closely, we also looked at six key facilities which are particularly important for a thriving and sustainable community. These are primary school, GP, post office, general store, garage and ATM. The following table shows which settlements have these key facilities. A more detailed list of settlement facilities for each of the larger villages is set out in Appendix 5. Helmsley Sleights West and East Ayton Thornton le Dale Castleton Ampleforth Staithes Lythe Glaisdale Goathland Hinderwell Robin Hood s Bay Fylingthorpe Egton Osmotherley Lealholm All 6 key facilities X X X 5 key facilities 4 key facilities 3 key facilities X Table 2: North York Moors Villages with Key Facilities** Key facilities: Primary school, GP, post office, general store, garage, ATM. Excludes Guisborough. Closure of garage and bank at Castleton, the school and shop at Swainby and the Post Office at Staithes which occurred after the 2015 survey have been included. X X X X X X X X X X X X Topic Paper Settlement hierarchy. September

12 Thimbleby Kilburn (High) Ugglebarnby Scawton Rievaulx Houlsyke Ellerby Over Silton (21) Old Byland Kildale Battersby Westerdale Cowesby (19) Spaunton Oldstead Nether Silton (19) Newton under Roseberry Pockley (19) Staintondale Scalby Fadmoor (28) Hawnby Commondale Battersby Junction Cold Kirby Boltby Ingleby Greenhow Ugthorpe Sawdon (34) Lealholm Levisham Chop Gate Wass Egton Bridge Rosedale Abbey Ravenscar Kilburn Low (38) Newton on Rawcliffe (46) Lastingham Sneaton Hutton Village Faceby Mickleby Gillamoor Newholm & Dunsley Coxwold Charltons Appleton le Moors Hutton le Hole Port Mulgrave Grosmont Hawsker Danby Lockton Carlton in Cleveland Hutton Buscel Oswaldkirk (22) Lythe Stainsacre Aislaby Egton Sinnington (76) Hinderwell Runswick Bay Goathland Ainthorpe Swainby Glaisdale Guisborough (within the NP) Fylingthorpe Osmotherley Castleton West & East Ayton Ampleforth (100) Easington Robin Hood's Bay Staithes Sleights (159) Helmsley (574) Thornton le Dale (989) Settlements by size Figure 1 Settlements by size. Topic Paper Settlement hierarchy. September

13 Settlements by number of facilities Kepwick Ugglebarnby Houlsyke Over Silton (21) Battersby Cowesby (19) Spaunton Battersby Junction Boltby Hutton Village Port Mulgrave Thimbleby Littlebeck Goldsborough Rievaulx Ellerby Oldstead Pockley (19) Fadmoor (28) Cold Kirby Runswick Bay Westerdale Kildale Staintondale Commondale Scawton Levisham Wass Egton Bridge Newton on Rawcliffe (46) Lastingham Mickleby Newholm & Dunsley Kilburn High Aislaby Ainthorpe Newton under Roseberry Hackness Ugthorpe Sawdon (34) Chop Gate Sneaton Charltons Appleton le Moors Carlton in Cleveland Hutton Buscel Stainsacre Nether Silton (19) Hawnby Hutton le Hole Grosmont Oswaldkirk (22) Sinnington (76) Easington Swainby Scalby Ingleby Greenhow Ravenscar Faceby Gillamoor Hawsker Lockton Lealholm Rosedale Abbey Coxwold Danby Osmotherley Hinderwell Goathland Staithes Glaisdale Lythe Egton Fylingthorpe Robin Hood's Bay Castleton Ampleforth (100) Thornton le Dale West & East Ayton Sleights (159) Helmsley (574) Guisborough Figure 2 number of key facilities. Topic Paper Settlement hierarchy. September

14 6.6 This evidence suggests that the large group of Other Villages in the current settlement hierarchy is still appropriate. It is still the case that the majority of villages in the National Park are small in size with few facilities and would not be sustainable locations for significant new development. It is less clear how the larger settlements should be grouped in any new hierarchy. 6.7 The evidence on the number of address points also shows Thornton le Dale has a higher number of address points than our Helmsley. In the Autumn of 2016 we carried out an inventory of the Services offered in each of the main settlements, partly to review whether Thornton le Dale should be moved up the hierarchy. The results were as follows: Helmsley Thornton le Dale Sleights West and East Ayton Primary School GP Surgery Clothes Shop 13 1 Café General Store/ Supermarket Butchers/ Greengrocer/Food Stores 6 2 Newsagents 2 Bakery 3 Bank 1 Building Society 1 Cash Machine Garage (Fuel) 1 1 Garage (Repair) 1 Post Office Gallery 4 1 Gift Shops/Jewellers/Antiques 17 2 Hospitality/Pub/Bar Restaurant/Takeaway Other Town/Village Hall TOTAL Castleton Table 3 All facilities 6.8 As expected this revealed that Helmsley has far more and a greater range facilities than other settlements. It also has other facilities such as a market, arts centre and outdoor swimming pool. It is more of an employment centre and has an industrial estate (Sawmill Lane), as well as being the focus for new housing growth in the National Park (as set out in the 2015 Helmsley Local Plan). Development opportunities at Thornton le Dale are far more constrained. We therefore consider that Helmsley s place as the single settlement at the top of the hierarchy is justified. Topic Paper Settlement hierarchy. September

15 6.9 However, it is not clear that the distinction between Service Villages and Local Service Villages is still justified most of the Local Service Villages have between 8 and 10 different types of facilities, nearly as wide a range as the majority of Service Villages (10 13). The only policy distinction between the two in the current Core Strategy and Development Policies document is that some open market housing may be acceptable in the Service Villages to cross subsidise affordable housing (it is treated the same as Helmsley with 40% affordable housing sought in new housing developments). In reality, since 2008 no affordable housing has been delivered via this route, instead it has come forward on rural exceptions sites. This is likely to be due to the lack of availability of suitable sites and hence developer interest. There is therefore arguably no apparent justification for treating the two differently based on past evidence It is also apparent that there are some individual cases which should be reviewed in any new hierarchy: Castleton is a medium sized village which has a good range of facilities (9) and serves other communities in the Esk Valley but was categorised as an Other Village because of poor public transport links. It arguably should be in a higher tier to reflect its role in the local area. Egton, Robin Hood s Bay, Glaisdale, and Goathland are also medium sized Other Villages where the number of facilities they offer (8 or 9) suggests they may be in the wrong place in the settlement hierarchy. Swainby is a Local Service Village but has in recent years lost its post office, only shop and school. It now has just 4 facilities Easington is a Service Village because of its size, position at the north east boundary of the Park and reasonable transport links to Loftus and Teesside but has only 4 facilities, none of which are key facilities. Scalby and the part of Guisborough located in the Park are both urban fringe communities which look to their larger centres (Scarborough and Guisborough) for their facilities and services. Scalby is one of the smallest settlements in the Park. In the case of Guisborough a small part of the Hunters Hill housing estate lie within the Park boundaries (excluding Hutton Village), and there very limited (or no) opportunities for new development. Both are categorised as Service Villages but should be reviewed as there is an argument that any further development that is needed should take place outside the Park boundary We have also carried out some work on transport links and other linkages between communities. Most villages do have a bus service but in many cases (particularly along the Esk Valley) it is a limited service, operating for example on alternate Thursdays or as a seasonal service or community bus which requires pre-booking. The vast majority of bus services within the Park do not operate at times to get people to and from work at the beginning and end of the day. Commuter services tend to follow the periphery of the Park, for example there are services from Scarborough to Pickering, Thornton le Dale to Malton and York, Scarborough to Whitby, Whitby to Middlesbrough and Swainby to Northallerton. However, services on the Esk Valley railway (Middlesbrough to Whitby) have been extended and now provide better links to Whitby for villages along the valley Figure 4 below shows where people go to access services that are not available in their own village. It is taken from the Community Facilities Survey and shows that: As was the case in 2008, communities generally use the larger centres just outside the Park boundary for services that are not available locally Thirsk, Northallerton, Pickering, Stokesley, Kirbymoorside, Scarborough, Whitby and Redcar are all used by residents of the National Park and have an important role in providing a wider range of facilities in one place and the larger supermarkets that people use for a weekly shop. Our settlement hierarchy needs to reflect the fact that larger centres outside the National Park will have a Topic Paper Settlement hierarchy. September

16 major impact on where people access services, and take this into account when identifying settlements within it. Whitby in particular is a key service centre for the north-east of the Park. As well as being used by residents from a wide area, its tourism function means that there is a strong interdependence between the town and the surrounding parts of the National Park. Within the Park, Helmsley, Ampleforth, Sleights, Lythe, Hinderwell and Castleton act as service centres for neighbouring villages. Villages along the Esk valley seem to act as a group or cluster. Although individual settlements have few services, as a group they provide all 6 key services for the wider locality. Figure 4 shows the services and linkages in more detail and the interdependence of this group of villages could be recognised in any new hierarchy. Figure 3: North York Moors National Park: Centres used for services not available locally Topic Paper Settlement hierarchy. September

17 7. Settlement hierarchy options Figure 4: Services and linkages in the Esk Valley villages 7.1 Having reviewed our settlements and our current settlement hierarchy we now move on to thinking about options for a future settlement hierarchy. Do we still need a settlement hierarchy? 7.2 Firstly we thought about whether we still need a settlement hierarchy. When the Core Strategy was adopted in 2008, identifying a settlement hierarchy was a requirement imposed via the Regional Spatial Strategy for the Yorkshire and Humber. This has now been revoked so the Authority could choose not to have a settlement hierarchy and articulate its spatial strategy in other ways, for example: Having an area based approach similar to the South Downs which would be based on landscape character and sensitivity to development; Looking at groups of villages rather than individual settlements, recognising their interdependence and relationship with one another and considering the whole group in terms of suitability for different types of development; Not categorising different areas or settlements at all but adopting an approach similar to the Peak District with policies that require all development within the National Park to be justified as having an exceptional need for the location within a protected area. 7.3 We consider however that continuing with a traditional settlement hierarchy would have a number of advantages. It is a way of directing development into appropriate locations without having to allocate individual sites and gives a clear message to potential developers about what types of proposal would be acceptable in different places. It is also a way of ensuring that existing villages with services continue to have development activity/population to maintain those services. It could be used to implement particular policy objectives e.g. supporting development that would allow a particular village to become a service hub for surrounding smaller settlements. Helmsley Topic Paper Settlement hierarchy. September

18 is also identified as a Local Service Centre in the adopted Ryedale Local Plan Strategy and Helmsley Plan Options for a new settlement hierarchy 7.4 Four options are presented in the following sections with advantages and disadvantages set out for each. The lists of settlements for each option are in Appendices 1, 2, 3 and 4. There are, however, some general points to be made before looking at each option in detail: 7.5 All hierarchies present Helmsley as the single top-tier settlement based on the analysis of facilities in the largest settlements carried out in October 2016 and the confirmation in the First Steps responses that this is still appropriate. 7.6 In Options 2, 3 and 4 a settlement is included as a village if there are at least thirty-five address points in a coherent or nuclear group. We have chosen this cut-off point to protect the very smallest settlements (which often have a dispersed form where it is difficult to integrate new development) and give priority to landscape and tranquillity considerations in these locations. The 35 dwelling limit is felt to reflect an appropriate mark where the character of these smaller villages change, and is based on a village by village assessment of character. This has led to 20 Other Villages being taken out of the settlement hierarchy altogether: 1. Battersby (28 address points), 2. Cowesby (30), 3. Ellerby (26), 4. Goldsborough (15), 5. High Kilburn (18), 6. Houlsyke (26), 7. Kepwick (8), 8. Kildale (27), 9. Littlebeck (14), 10. Nether Silton (32), 11. Newton under Roseberry (33), 12. Old Byland (27), 13. Oldstead (31), 14. Over Silton (27), 15. Rievaulx (24), 16. Scawton (23), 17. Spaunton (31), 18. Thimbleby (17), 19. Ugglebarnby (23) and 20. Westerdale (29). 7.6 These settlements would be regarded as Open Countryside for planning purposes. 7.7 Settlements which are split by the National Park boundary have been placed into the appropriate tier taking into account the size and number of facilities in the settlement as a whole with the following exceptions: Guisborough (part within National Park) Scalby (part within National Park) 7.8 These are treated as Open Countryside in the new settlement hierarchy options, the rationale being they are small areas at the edge of the urban centres of Guisborough and Scarborough which happen to fall within the National Park. They have a suburban character which is not typical of the National Park and it is not considered appropriate for their future development needs to be accommodated within the Park the overriding objective of conservation of the National Park environment and special qualities should direct future development in these settlements to locations outside the Park boundary. 7.9 In total, this has resulted in 22 settlements being taken out of the current Settlement Hierarchy. Topic Paper Settlement hierarchy. September

19 7.10 We consider the arguments in favour of treating the Esk Valley villages as a group or cluster are strong so this approach is incorporated into Options 3 and 4. However, the suggestion that there could be a separate category for settlements with a railway station has not been incorporated because these include very small and remote places with no key facilities such as Battersby Junction and Kildale which would not represent suitable locations for sustainable new development given the overriding National Park purposes of conservation. In fact, most of the larger settlements with stations are already represented in the upper tiers of the hierarchies shown in Options 3 and 4 because of their facilities Adding a distinction between nucleated and dispersed villages would increase rather than reduce the number of tiers in the hierarchy. We have not incorporated this suggestion although settlement form has been considered in deciding whether the smallest villages should be included in the hierarchy. Where it is important to take the form of the village into account in decisions about particular types of development, a better approach might be to refer to that in the policy wording as appropriate. Option 1 Keep the existing settlement hierarchy 7.12 The existing hierarchy is as follows: 1. Local Service Centre Helmsley. 2. Service Villages 7 large villages near the edge of the Park with good services. 3. Local Service Villages 6 villages with more limited services. 4. Other Villages the majority of villages 70 in total with limited or no services. 5. Open Countryside. Advantages Familiar to residents, officers, Members and applicants. Keeps Helmsley as single top-tier settlement. Retains approach which aims to direct development towards larger settlements to support existing services. Disadvantages Distinction between Service Villages and Local Service Villages difficult to justify. Review indicates some settlements are in wrong tier. Implementation not entirely successful there has been a considerable amount of development in smaller villages. Does not address Esk Valley issue. Does not address edge of settlement issue for Guisborough, Newby and Scalby. Option 2 Adopt the simplest form of settlement hierarchy 7.13 It is not practical for the Authority to pursue an option of having no settlement hierarchy at all since Helmsley s role as a Local Service Centre is established and has been supported in the Helmsley Plan. However, it would be possible to adopt the simplest form of hierarchy: 1. Local Service Centre Helmsley 2. Villages - all other settlements large enough to appear in the hierarchy 61 in total 3. Open Countryside 7.14 Under this option villages would not be identified on the basis that they contain particular services or have good public transport links they are identified on the basis that they contain 35 postal addresses or more. Topic Paper Settlement hierarchy. September

20 Advantages Keeps Helmsley as top tier settlement. Easy to understand. Is tailored to the strategic objective of a focus on meeting affordable housing needs wherever they occur - why overcomplicate? Allows flexible approach which can respond to appropriate development proposals in all villages - employment and tourism development as well as housing. Disadvantages Does not distinguish between villages with different levels of services no ability to support retention of existing services by focusing development in larger villages. May lead to pressures for new development in remote villages which could be regarded as unsustainable because of the distance from essential services. Option 3 Amend the existing hierarchy based on size of settlement and facilities 7.15 This Option would have: 1. Local Service Centre Helmsley 2. Larger Villages 9 larger villages with a primary school and a reasonable range of service, together with the five Esk Valley Group of villages making a total of 14 villages 3. Smaller Villages the majority of villages with more limited or no services 47 in total 4. Open Countryside 7.16 Larger Villages were selected on the basis of their number of address points, whether they have a primary school and whether they have at least two of the other facilities considered most important for a thriving and sustainable community GP, general store, post office, garage selling fuel and ATM The presence of a primary school is important because it enables young families to live in the settlement and provides a focus for activities within the community. The size of settlement has also been taken into account but given a lower priority than whether key facilities are available. So Lythe is included as a Larger Village because it has a school, general store and Post Office even though it has only 141 address points whereas Easington with 477 address points and Robin Hood s Bay with 621 are excluded because they do not have a school. Fylingthorpe (271 address points) and Swainby (243) have primary schools but are excluded because they do not have two of the other key facilities Eleven settlements were identified using this method, including Castleton and Glaisdale, two of the villages in the Esk Valley group. The central core of this group is Castleton and Danby which have five of the key facilities mentioned above between them. There is also a grouping to the east including Lealholm, Glaisdale and Egton which have five key facilities between them. In order to recognise the interdependence of these villages, Danby, Lealholm and Egton have been added to Castleton and Glaisdale to become the Esk Valley Group. Advantages Keeps Helmsley as top tier settlement. Supports retention of existing services in larger villages. Simplifies the existing hierarchy. Recognises interdependence of Esk Valley group of villages. Disadvantages Tick box approach based on presence of existing facilities which may change can quickly become outdated. Not useful if we want to pursue similar policies in all villages. Perpetuates the status quo not flexible. Contrary to community aspirations as set out in First Steps consultation responses - suggests approach which would resist development in smaller villages. Topic Paper Settlement hierarchy. September

21 Two large villages with primary schools are excluded because of lack of other facilities. Option 4 Adopt a layered approach based on location of settlements and facilities 7.19 This option distinguishes between peripheral service villages and service villages in the Esk Valley. Villages which have at least two of the six key facilities are regarded as service villages and this includes two villages (Robin Hood s Bay and Grosmont) which do not have primary schools. The remaining villages are grouped together as Other Villages: 1. Local Service Centre Helmsley 2. Peripheral Service Villages 10 villages located at or near the boundary of the National Park which fulfil a role in serving both their resident population and surrounding settlements but also have good access to service centres outside the Park. 3. Esk Valley Service Villages 7 villages located in the Esk Valley which fulfil an essential role in serving their resident population and surrounding settlements and are more remote from service centres outside the Park. 4. Other Villages the majority of villages with more limited or no services - 44 in total 5. Open Countryside 7.20 The Esk Valley group of villages has been widened in this option to include Goathland and Grosmont, which have four and two key facilities respectively. Advantages Keeps Helmsley as single top-tier settlement. Supports retention of existing services in larger villages. Takes account of needs of wider Esk Valley population which is more remote from centres outside the National Park allows separate policy approach for these villages if required. 8. Choosing an Option. Disadvantages More complex settlement hierarchy. Still based on presence of existing facilities which may change can quickly become outdated. Not useful if we want to pursue similar policies in all villages. Contrary to community aspirations as set out in First Steps consultation responses even with lower threshold for service villages (2 key services only), total number still only 17 - does not support a policy approach which can respond to development aspirations of smaller settlements. 8.1 It is difficult to look at settlement hierarchy in isolation from other policies (particularly housing) as these policies will have a bearing on what is developed in each tier of the hierarchy. Work on housing policies is underway. In the meantime it may be helpful to set out scenarios for the types of housing that may be directed to tiers in the hierarchy. Putting Helmsley to one side for a moment possible options for the villages could include: Allowing a mix of market and affordable housing in villages. Our current Core Strategy takes this approach for the seven larger Service Villages. If this approach was to be taken Option 1 (retain the current hierarchy) would allow for some market housing in larger villages. Alternatively this approach could be rolled out to all villages Allowing for a mix of local connection and affordable housing in all villages, with no unrestricted market element (except possibly on exceptions sites where it is needed to subsidise affordable housing where there is particular need). If this approach was to be taken Option 2 (a simpler hierarchy) may be appropriate Topic Paper Settlement hierarchy. September

22 Allow only affordable housing only (with the Government s recent wider definition of affordable housing directing the type). Again, option 2 may be the most appropriate 8.2 We do not favour Option 1 as it does not address the problems that have been identified with the existing settlement hierarchy. Option 2 is the simplest alternative and one that can be immediately understood by all. It reflects the geography of the Park with its many small villages and is consistent with the likely direction of housing and other development policies. 8.3 Options 3 and 4 result in similar lists of settlements and there would be little difference between them in practice there are 14 Larger villages in Option 3 compared with 17 Service villages in Option 4. They are both based on existing facilities which is the conventional approach to establishing settlement hierarchies and the one used for the existing Core Strategy. Either option would be appropriate if we wanted to pursue a different approach to development in larger and smaller settlements, for example, if we wanted to resist new building altogether in small villages in order to conserve the existing landscape and tranquillity in these locations. 8.4 However, in considering the pros and cons of the options, we have been conscious that there are drawbacks to a facilities or transport based approach. We think this because: A hierarchy set at a particular point in time can quickly become out of date as facilities come and go and particular villages putting them to be in the wrong tier. It is an approach which tends to perpetuate the status quo rather than having the flexibility to allow particular settlements to develop and change if opportunities arise. Although the rationale for focusing development in larger villages in 2008 was to ensure the continuation of existing services and reduce the need to travel, in practice this has not prevented the loss of facilities. Despite the Core Strategy policies, facilities have closed in the Park s larger villages in recent years, driven by pressures which are beyond the control of the planning system. To a large extent it is market forces that determine the survival of individual services and, given the priority of our National Park conservation purpose, it is unlikely that the Authority would permit the scale of housing development needed in villages to make uneconomic businesses and services viable. Similarly, the reduction in public transport and the rise of internet shopping means that the travel arguments in favour of focusing development in the Park s larger villages are less convincing now than they were in It is not possibly to really justify public transport as a deciding factor when very few places in the National Park where a daily service exists that would allow travel between home and work on a repeat basis In terms of what s been built on the ground since 2008 there has been no market led affordable housing has come forward in the Service Villages, which means that drawing the distinction between them and the Local Service Villages has had no impact on the ground. In addition the pattern of employment development has not reflected the different tiers of the current hierarchy. 8.5 The only reason for pursuing a facilities or transport based approach would be to apply a mechanism to differentiate spatial policy between villages. The most important consideration is that the settlement hierarchy should support the Authority s objectives in key policy areas, particularly housing, employment and tourism. The consultation exercises carried out within and outside the Authority suggest that key priorities for the Local Plan include: Allowing appropriate small-scale development in villages across the Park in order to sustain communities and encourage people of working age to stay; Conserving valued open green spaces in villages; Topic Paper Settlement hierarchy. September

23 Meeting communities needs for affordable local housing, widening the criteria for local needs housing and restricting the number of second and holiday homes which are often empty for a large part of the time; Promoting tourism which respects the special qualities of the National Park and avoids adverse impacts on local communities; Resisting threats to tranquility from major development proposals. 8.6 In our view these objectives apply equally to villages across the Park - they do not vary between larger and smaller villages or those with or without certain facilities. In practice, in a deeply rural area such as a the North York Moors National Park we have one key or focus settlement in the form of Helmsley and beyond this many small villages we therefore do not think that the traditional approach to sorting settlement by function applies well to the National Park in For all these reasons, we consider that the simple hierarchy which puts all villages above a certain size into one tier (Option 2) would be the most appropriate way forward. It is a flexible option which would enable community aspirations for suitable development in smaller as well as larger villages to be supported and is a practical response to the development opportunities that are likely to be available. 9. Next Steps 9.1 This topic paper has been produced to support our Current Thinking consultation (September 2017). We have posed twelve questions within our main consultation document which summarises our current thinking in terms of settlement hierarchy, housing strategy and important undeveloped and community spaces. One question covers the issues set out in this paper: Question 1: Do you agree with the proposed 3-tier settlement hierarchy? If not, please give your reasons and tell us which alternative you would prefer. 9.2 Pending the results of this consultation we will be consulting on a Preferred Options draft of the Local Plan in the spring of Topic Paper Settlement hierarchy. September