Yorkshire Dales National Park's housing issues cannot be solved by 'magic bullet' says chairman
Members of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority dismissed many of the plans set out in a White Paper, which they said would result in local communities having much less say, and at the wrong time, on the types and volume of development around them.
However, the authority also rejected a call by former Richmondshire District Council leader Councillor Yvonne Peacock to give greater weight to parish councils' views and make the social and economic wellbeing of communities of equal importance to the statutory purposes of the national park, following decades of housing policy failure.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe authority's chairman, Neil Heseltine, said the park authority had considered the question of its socio-economic duty in relation to its two statutory purposes on numerous occasions, but had rejected the move as such issues were the responsibility of district and county councils which covered the park.
He said: "Coun Peacock will know better than most that the issues connected with housing development and demographic shifts in the population cannot be solved by some magic bullet. They are complex and they are difficult."
Mr Heseltine added he shared Coun Peacock's concerns over under-occupied properties, such as second hommes, but said the park authority's attempts to discuss the matter with Government had been "thwarted by a lack of support from some local authorities and a luke-warm response by many communities".
He said: "Unless and until these rural issues are taken more seriously by central government that will remain an uphill battle for us all."
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe meeting was told under the Government proposals, the authority would lose control over where properties are built. Members emphasised it was critically important that suggestions all developments would be banned the park did not become a reality.
The authority's planning committee chair, Julie Martin, said the White Paper proposals would lead to a loss of democratic input when planning applications were considered and it would be difficult to get people involved in helping shape earlier stages in the process.
She said while the proposal to automatically grant planning permission in specific areas would create major environmental issues, such as when archaeological remains were unearthed, the Government's assumption that the planning system was broken was misguided.
Mrs Martin said the primary motivation of the overhaul appeared to be lack of housing schemes gaining planning permission, but that was not the issue in the Dales.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdDevelopment management member champion Jim Munday said government and politicians had perpetuated the myth that the failure to meet housing targets was due to the failure of the planning process.
He said there were 600 homes in the park waiting to be built and last year saw the authority pass 118 home planning permissions, but only 45 were built.
Mr Munday said: "The design guide for the Yorkshire Dales will be settled in Whitehall - that fills me with fear and trepidation. What happens if they get the page for the Norfolk Broads mixed up with the Yorkshire Dales? Very easy. That really is a bit of a joke."
A report to the meeting stated the White Paper recognised that monotonous housing estates and poor design had been replicated across England to the dissatisfaction of the public and the proposals aimed to achieve "beauty" in design.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdNorth Yorkshire county and Richmondshire councillor Stuart Parsons questioned how the government would define beauty in construction.
He said: "Their insistence on beauty is quite astounding given that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What Boris might find attractive I might find abhorrent."
-------------------------
Support The Yorkshire Post and become a subscriber today.
Your subscription will help us to continue to bring quality news to the people of Yorkshire. In return, you'll see fewer ads on site, get free access to our app and receive exclusive members-only offers.
So, please - if you can - pay for our work. Just £5 per month is the starting point. If you think that which we are trying to achieve is worth more, you can pay us what you think we are worth. By doing so, you will be investing in something that is becoming increasingly rare. Independent journalism that cares less about right and left and more about right and wrong. Journalism you can trust.
Thank you
James Mitchinson
Comment Guidelines
National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.