Achieving sustainable communities in the A66 North ... · Richmondshire Area 2.1 The A66 area sits...

Achieving SustainableCommunities in the A66

North Richmondshire Area

A Local Development FrameworkIssues and Options Consultation Paper

November 2009

Richmondshire Local Development Frameworki

What will your town or village be like by 2026?It’s not an easy question, but it is one that weneed to try and answer with your help.Richmondshire’s Local Development framework(LDF) will help shape future development acrossall parts of the District outside of the NationalPark. This includes Richmond, Leyburn, CatterickGarrison and the villages to the north and south.The National Park Authority is responsible fordevelopment in the rest of Richmondshire.

The LDF will be a set of policy documents thatshape an overall direction for development inthese places. These policies will help determinefuture planning applications for, amongst otherthings, housing, economic or green energydevelopments, once the LDF is adopted. Beforewe can write these policies we must understandlocal conditions. We need to find out aboutwhere people live and work and how they travel.We also need to recognise the sensitivity of thelocal environment and our local heritage todevelopment.

This consultation report is one in a series of ten:

1. Achieving Sustainable Communities -Settlement Hierarchy

2. Achieving Sustainable Communities in theCentral Area

3. Achieving Sustainable Communities in LowerWensleydale

4. Achieving Sustainable Communities in theA66 North Richmondshire Area.

5. Scale and Distribution of Development

6. Economy

7. Environmental Assets

8. Housing

9. Infrastructure

10. Climate Change

Each report asks a series of questions aboutissues we need to debate. For example, howshould we treat small villages in terms ofdevelopment? Or how should Richmond andCatterick Garrison grow? You can make detailedresponses to any of the questions using the on-line form on our website or by writing to us usingthe contacts below. Or simply get in touch withus to talk about the LDF.

Please ask if you would like this document in adifferent format or language.

John Hiles 01748 827025, Emma Lundberg 01748 827026

Email: [email protected]

Write LDF, Richmondshire District Council, Swale House, Frenchgate, Richmond, DL10 4JE

Richmondshire District Council Website:www.richmondshire.gov.uk

Foreword

Richmondshire Local Development Framework i

ii Richmondshire Local Development Framework

Contents1. Introduction 1

2. Key features of the A66 NorthRichmondshire Area 2

3. Influences 4

4. Area wide issues for the A66 North Richmondshire Area 5

Relating settlements and communities, the settlement hierarchy 5

5. Service Settlements 7

6. Small Settlements 10

7. The A66 North Richmondshire Area in the wider context 12

Richmondshire Local Development Framework

1.1 This consultation paper, is one of a series.It aims to look in greater detail at the A66North Richmondshire area to guidedecisions about where services and facilitiesare located and where development canbest be delivered to ensure the mostsustainable future for local communities.

1.2 This area was introduced in the AchievingSustainable Communities in Richmondshirepaper, the first in the consultation paperseries. This northern part of Richmondshireextends from the National Park boundaryin the west to the outskirts of Darlington in the in the east. This is a rural area with a distinctive landscape. Although it has asmall population, fundamental decisions

1

1. Introductionneed to be made to determine how thisarea and the settlements in this area willfeel, appear and function into the future.

1.3 This paper outlines our currentunderstanding of the area as based onavailable evidence and consultation. Itposes a series of questions about placeswithin the area. It is primarily concernedwith the:

� future of the A66 area as a whole� need to balance the expectations of

different settlements� role of this area in relation to

neighbouring areas.

National Park Boundary District Boundary

© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved (100018842) (2009).

2. Key features of the A66 North Richmondshire Area

2.1 The A66 area sits in a triangle formed byRichmond, Barnard Castle and Darlington.The river Tees runs along a major part ofits northern boundary and the landscapeextends from the Tees Lowlands in the eastto an extensive area of moorland in thewest. The western part has a major militarytraining area and borders the YorkshireDales National Park.

2.2 It has a fairly remote rural character.Agriculture is the dominant land use, butmineral extraction has also impacted onthe local landscape, particularly at Forcettand Barton. Stanwick Camp is a majorIron Age site.

2.3 7,780 people live in this area. The ageprofile of the population is older than theDistrict as a whole, and has beeninfluenced by immigration from the TeesValley and the loss of younger peoplethrough educational, work and housingopportunities.

2.4 The A1 and A66 trunk routes, converge atScotch Corner in the middle of this area.The ease of communications provided bythe A1, A66 and A167 place most of thisarea in the Darlington travel to work andhousing market areas.

2.5 The largest settlements are Barton (900),Melsonby (750) and Middleton Tyas (590),but there is no clear local service centre forthe whole area. Settlements in this areaare more closely aligned to Tees Valleyfrom Barnard Castle to Darlington alongthe A66, A1 and A167 routes. TheSettlement Facilities study (RDC2009)

shows that the four villages with the widestrange of facilities can each offer only asingle shop. But this area does have sevenprimary schools and fourteen village halls,which suggests a dispersed pattern ofsettlements in this area rather than anintegrated network of rural communities.

2.6 Its rural attractiveness sustains a stronghousing market that creates affordabilityissues and limits the available workforce.This housing market operates within theDarlington housing market. The Index ofMultiple deprivation 2007 records thelimited range of services and the difficultyof access to the housing market in thisarea. All wards are in the bottom quartilefor access to services and barriers tohousing and the most extreme is in thebottom 2 percent.

2.7 Employment within the area ispredominantly agricultural. The tourismsector includes a number of high qualityhotels and Croft circuit motor racing track.There has been further diversification withthe development of the Aske Hall businessunits and other smaller units across thearea which takes advantage of the area’sgood communications. This is likely tocontinue with the proposed developmentof the Scotch Corner business park.

2.8 The Plan our Future survey for the A66Area collected information from peopleliving in this area. Their responsesreinforce the picture of this area as havingdispersed settlements lacking in a localservice centre. Poorer access within thearea is balanced by easy access outside.

Richmondshire Local Development Framework2

Richmondshire Local Development Framework 3

Respondents from one settlement soughtimproved community facilities to helpimprove community spirit. Respondentsfrom another village were concerned withthe problems caused by local flooding.Unlike other sparsely populated areas,respondents’ list of issues for improvementdid not highlight employment needs oraffordable housing.

Issue NR1: The A66 NorthRichmondshire Area

NR1aDoes the description above pick upthe essential features of the area?

NR1bDoes the A66 area represent an areawith distinct character and issueswhich should be reflected in the LDFstrategy?

4 Richmondshire Local Development Framework

3. Influences3.1 The following documents give general

spatial policy guidance relevant to the A66 Area:

� Regional Spatial Strategy Yorkshire andHumber (RSS YH)

� Richmondshire Sustainable CommunityStrategy (SCS)

� Richmondshire District CouncilCorporate Plan

We need to build these into our discussionof this area to help create relevant policyfor the future that is both generallycompliant with national and regionaldrivers but also relevant to localconditions.

3.2 The RSS for Yorkshire and the Humber(approved in May 2008) sets the regionaland sub-regional policy context for theRichmondshire LDF. The LDF must be in“general conformity” with the RSS, whichprovides strategic policy guidance thatneeds to be taken into consideration inpreparing the Core Strategy.

3.3 The A66 Area sits within the “Vales andTees Links” sub area established by theRSS. The RSS indicates that this part of theVales and Tees Links sub area is subject topotential development pressures from themain urban areas of the Tees Valley CityRegion. This policy envisages a strategicpattern of development which:

� supports regeneration in the Tees ValleyCity region and reduce long distancecommuting

� focuses development in Richmond andCatterick Garrison

� provides in Richmond, CatterickGarrison an appropriate scale ofaffordable and market housing andemployment opportunities to meet local needs.

3.4 We also need to recognise the impact ofspatial policies in neighbouring areas. TheA66 area also borders the Tees Valley CityRegion of the North East Region and itsdirection is directly shaped by change inthis neighbouring area. The RegionalSpatial Strategy for the North East (RSS NE)sets out the general spatial policy for areasto the north of the A66 area and inparticular expectations for growth inDarlington and Barnard Castle.Darlington’s strong influence onRichmondshire is identified as is theexpectation for it to continue to develop asa sub-regional centre. Barnard Castle isidentified as a Rural Service Centre servinga wide rural hinterland which extendsbeyond administrative area boundaries.

3.5 The current Richmondshire SustainableCommunity Strategy seeks to:

“Support sparsely populated parts of thedistrict to secure, and where appropriateenhance, the vitality and viability of ruralcommunities in sustainable ways throughlow level growth, diversification, andenterprise to meet local needs, building onthe area’s inherent strengths andcharacter.”

3.6 The A66 area has been identified in theRichmondshire District Council CorporatePlan as a discrete area for the organisationof council services and strategy.


4. Area wide issues for the A66 NorthRichmondshire Area

4.1 A series of issues have been identified,following on from the key features outlinedin section 2, and the influences described insection 3. The rural aspects of the A66 areabring with it a range of issues familiar acrossRichmondshire. At the heart of these issues isthe need to balance a high quality livingenvironment with the need to meet localneeds in a fairly sparsely populated area.

4.2 But we need to think of these issues inrelation to this area’s context. Despite theposition of Scotch Corner, the area lacks aclear focus and limited services aredistributed across several villages. Thenearness of Darlington, Barnard Castleand Richmond and the ease of accessprovide many people in this area with awider range of choices for employment,services and education than exists withinthe area. But these opportunities oftenrequire access to private transport toexploit them. It also contributes to a stronghousing market, which can exclude peoplewith lower incomes from this area.

4.3 The following are suggested to be themain spatial issues for the A66 area, whichthe LDF should address:

� How can access to facilities across thisarea and to neighbouring areas beimproved?

� What is the network of communities inthis area?

� How does this area interact withneighbouring areas?

� Should further local employmentopportunities be provided in this area?

� Can this area’s strong housing marketbe better balanced to enable morepeople the choice to live and workhere?

Relating settlements and communities,the settlement hierarchy

4.4 We can use the settlement hierarchyproposed in the Sustainable Communitiesin Richmondshire Paper to help us addressthese issues by giving a framework to thinkabout the role of settlements and howlocal communities relate to them to meetlocal needs. The principle of sustainabilityis built into this hierarchy. It seeks to ensurethat services and facilities are as accessibleas possible across the area. This is not thesame as saying that everyone can or willhave the same access to all services in thearea. In a rural area, like this one,distance is an unavoidable fact of life. Thesize and spread of these settlements makesit difficult to provide many things, likeshops and leisure facilities or workplaces,everywhere.

Issue NR2 : Area wide issues

NR2aDo the issues in para 4.3 pick up themain challenges for the area?

NR2bWhat other issues are there?


4.5 The list of settlements below shows therelatively large number of settlements inthis area and also their population size. Itis important that we think about theimplications of this hierarchy in planningfor the future to make sure we keep thesesettlements in an overall perspective. Thisis started below, together with options thathave been considered in developing thehierarchy for this area.

4.6 The Settlement Facilities Study shows thatnone of these settlements delivers a fullrange of services that would be expectedin higher order settlements in thehierarchy- the Principal Towns and LocalService Centre. The best served onesprovide at best a single shop, tosupplement a church, school and villagehall. There are also other limited publicservices with a single GP surgery in onevillage and mobile library facilities.

Parish Population

Barton 900Melsonby 750Middleton Tyas 590Gilling with Hartforth 530and SedburyNorth Cowton 530Croft on Tees 450Skeeby 380Aldbrough St John 340Eppleby 300Newsham 290Manfield 270Ravensworth 270Dalton on Tees 240Stapleton 220Moulton 200

Parish Population

Dalton 170Stanwick St. John 150Caldwell 140Forcett and Carkin 140Cleasby 130Whashton 130Gayles 120Aske 110Marske 110Eryholme 90East Layton 70Kirby Hill 60West Layton 40Cliffe 30Newton Morrell 30


5. Service Settlements5.1 The Achieving Sustainable Communities in

Richmondshire paper introduced the ideaof Service Settlements. Their selection is amatter for debate, and views are soughtboth on the principle and on potentialcandidate settlements. The selection of a Service Settlement might be based on anumber of considerations, including:

� the availability of a good range ofcommunity facilities and services, forexample a primary school, food shop,community hall and sport andrecreation facilities

� their spread throughout the sub-areaaiming to ensure that all the sub-area iswithin good reach of services

� good public transport access to higherorder settlements (including outside theDistrict), including in the early morningand late afternoon

� potential for some further developmentand local support for such growth

� availability of local employment.

5.2 Service Settlements are important becausethey offer a range of basic services that areaccessible from a small hinterland. Theycomplement their local service centres andhelp distribute services over a wider area,which is particularly important in a ruralarea like ours.

5.3 It is important that the choices we make,both in selecting Service Settlements andhelping to sustain them, ensure that they fitinto the overall context of the District andtheir neighbours. For example, to whatextent can housing need and choice berealistically met in each ServiceSettlement? The answer to this will dependon the character of each village, theavailability of appropriate sites and access

to relevant services like schools and work.It could be that some of these choices canbe better met in larger centres.

5.4 The Settlement Facilities Study (RDC 2009)gives information on the services availablein each settlement. The spread of existingservices in this area across severalsettlements suggests that the choice ofService Settlement is complicated. Themain candidates appear to be MiddletonTyas, Barton, Melsonby and Gilling West.But they are grouped closely together andare unlikely to relate strongly to moredistant settlements. Middleton Tyas’sposition alongside Scotch Corner bringswith it additional scope for change inrelation to the proposed A1 upgrade.

5.5 Other settlements that could be consideredare Ravensworth, Eppleby, Aldborough,Croft and North Cowton. All of these, barAldborough, have a primary school, whichcan be a strong driver for aspects of localcommunity identity, but school catchmentareas are small and not contiguous in someparts of this area. Aldborough is unusual inhaving a general practice surgery. But noneoffer the same range of services as the fourmentioned in the previous paragraph. Croftis also closely related to a larger settlementin a neighbouring authority area, whichprovides a wider range of services.

5.6 The difficulty in identifying leading ServiceSettlements in this area may come from theproximity of much larger service centres inneighbouring areas. It may be that therehas been limited need for any to developfurther because need has been metelsewhere. If this is the case then it may bequestionable whether any of thesettlements in this area fulfil the role ofService Settlement for this area.


5.7 The map opposite shows these fourvillages in their local context. We need toconsider the main constraints and thepotential directions which might beconsidered for possible development.

5.8 One way out of the difficulty posed bynone of the villages in this area standingout individually as clear Service Settlementcandidates is to treat the four largestvillages as a cluster for developmentpurposes. In terms of general developmentpolicy we could expect most demand forgrowth in the A66 area to come fromthem. The purpose of this consultationdocument is to identify general directionsfor growth, which will be detailed throughfurther consultation on later sections of theLocal Development Framework.

Issue NR3: Service Settlements

NR3aHow well do the villages of MiddletonTyas, Barton, Melsonby and GillingWest fulfil the role of ServiceSettlements in the A66 NorthRichmondshire Area, as places tosupport the retention andenhancement of facilities capable ofserving a wider neighbourhood?

NR3bShould we consider these villages as acluster for development purposes?

NR3cShould this list of Service Settlementsbe reconsidered?

NR3dWhat should be the general approachtowards designated ServiceSettlements in terms of provision offacilities or scale of new development?

NR3eReferring to the map above, whatscope is there for Middleton Tyas,Barton, Melsonby and Gilling West tophysically grow through newdevelopment?


©C

row

n C

opyr

ight

. All

right

s re

serv

ed (1

0001

8642

) (20

09).

Serv

ice

Settl

emen

ts in

Nor

th R

ichm

onds

hire


6. Small Settlements6.1 In the Service Settlement discussion we

have thought about the case for makingone or more of the larger settlements inthis area a focus for the provision of verylocal services and potentially somedevelopment. So what of the remainingsettlements in the A66 Area? We know,from the Settlement Facilities study thatthey have few facilities and are mainlyplaces to live with a low level of localeconomic activity in, for example,agriculture. These settlements are not veryisolated and the people living in themaccess services in the larger centres.

6.2 The presence of a primary school maycreate a more clustered communitythrough its catchment area. In the A66North Richmondshire area there are anumber of such villages, but is there arealistic possibility of creating sustainablechange amongst these villages?Paragraph 5.5 suggests that this is notstraightforward in this area and catchmentareas are basically administrative units thatcan change, as has been seen with theclosures of Aldborough, Gilling West andManfield schools.

6.3 The small size and spread of the remainingsettlements in the A66 area may alsorequire a similar approach to the largerones. It is possible, from the local roadnetwork to suggest clusters of these smallersettlements. For example the northernmostsettlements from Caldwell to Stapletonface towards Darlington. Similarly thesettlements from Newsham to Hartforth areclosely aligned to the A66 west of ScotchCorner.

6.4 The purpose of such clusters would besimilar to that for the larger villages. Theycould be used to guide the generaldirection of growth across this area, whichwould be detailed through laterconsultation. In terms of generaldevelopment policy this could meanallocating an amount of developmentacross the villages in the cluster, butdetailed allocations would need furtherwork to determine what was feasible onthe land available within each village ofthe cluster. At this level of the settlementhierarchy we should expect growth to be ata minimal level.

Issue NR4 : Smaller Settlements

NR4aShould all the small villages be treatedequally- or is there an argument toseparate out some, for example withsome facilities, better accessibility, orgreater potential- as a separate tier inthe hierarchy, for which a distinctpolicy approach might be taken?

NR4bShould we group the smallersettlements into geographical clustersand develop a policy approach foreach cluster?

NR4cWhat should be the general approachtowards the small villages- in terms ofprovision of facilities or newdevelopment?


continued

NR4dIs it sustainable to continue to allowdevelopment in these locations, whereaccess to facilities locally or by travelto other settlements, is limited?

NR4eWould allowing some limiteddevelopment in these settlementsmake them more sustainable bymaking some facilities more viable orwould the scale of development beunlikely to make this realistic?


7. The A66 North Richmondshire Area in the wider context

7.1 This paper has concentrated on the A66area and setting out its settlements in anorder based on the extent to which theycan meet local needs, how they relate toeach other and their capacity to develop.But the A66 Area is not an island and wenow have to return to the overall strategiccontext of the District in the LDF. Thecurrent status of our spatial debate is setout on the map below.

7.2 Is it realistic to expect solutions to all of theissues we have been looking at to befound within the area? For examplesecondary health care services are locatedoutside of the area, as are major retail andleisure opportunities. Given what we knowand expect for this area, how should weexpect these needs to be met? Closer tohome, should we seek to tackle affordablehousing issues across all settlements or


seek to locate these homes closer to mainservice centres where access to servicesand facilities is much better?

7.3 It is particularly important that we do notlose sight of the neighbouring Tees ValleyCity Region and the role of Darlington inparticular. Should we explore thecomplementary relationship between thesetwo areas? In general policy terms it isexpected that restraining growth in theRichmondshire, and the A66 area inparticular should help support theexpected growth in the centre ofDarlington. But the A66 area has anumber of assets, whose future needs tobe carefully considered. These includeScotch Corner and developments likethose at Aske Hall. These are well placedto support growth in Richmondshire, but towhat extent?

7.4 We can only begin to look at this questionnow and will need to come back to it whenwe have also debated the Central andLower Wensleydale areas. But at this stageit is reasonable to ask, in general termsabout the general pattern of growthexpected across the three sub areascovered by the Richmondshire LDF. Thiswill be influenced by internal pressures,like the potential growth of CatterickGarrison and external pressures from theTees Valley City region. Possible answers tothese questions are developed in theconsultation Paper on the Scale andDistribution of Development.

Issue NR5 : Strategic Options

NR5aTo what extent can the A66 NorthRichmondshire area change to meetlocal needs in the future?

NR5bTo what extent could these needs bemet outside of this area?

NR5cWhat is the most sustainable balanceof development between the A66North Richmondshire area and the restof the District- in terms of the threeSub Areas and the levels of thehierarchy?

See the paper on the Scale andDistribution of Development for adetailed look at these issues.

14 Richmondshire Local Development Framework

Notes

Richmondshire District CouncilSwale House, Frenchgate, Richmond, North Yorkshire, DL10 4JE

Tel: 01748 829100 Fax: 01748 825071 Email: [email protected]

Achieving sustainable communities in the A66 North ... · Richmondshire Area 2.1 The A66 area sits...

Documents

Transcript of Achieving sustainable communities in the A66 North ... · Richmondshire Area 2.1 The A66 area sits...