OCTOBER 29 – just one day – and yet three examples of the deeply destructive impact of Ryedale District Council’s Local Plan in our villages and towns.

The plan allocates 3,000 houses for 2012 to 2027 – 1,500 in Malton and Norton, 750 in Pickering, 300 in Kirkbymoorside, 150 in Helmsley and the remaining 10 per cent – 300 – in 10 “service” village. Everywhere else new build has severe restrictions.

Following Councillor Paul Andrews’ letter to the Gazette & Herald in August highlighting his concerns about the Local Plan, I attended Malton Town Council’s meeting on October 29 to hear what councillors had to say about the selection of building sites in Malton.

At the meeting there was representation from the group of Malton residents fiercely fighting against the plan for 500 houses plus an unspecified amount of shops and business units on Castle Howard Road. What became clear was that councillors were having to select sites for an unprecedented level of building in order to comply with the Local Plan.

So to Kirkbymoorside where October 29 saw the opening of a public inquiry for a project to build 225 new homes there. Residents are clearly worried about the impact of large building projects on the character of the town and its resources in the same way that Malton residents were. Kirkbymoorside’s mayor, Councillor Dowie, urged that “developments should be small to medium to allow the town to grow incrementally”.

As if that were not enough, also on October 29, Scagglethorpe’s parish council clerk wrote of the devastating effect of the Local Plan, which he said goes entirely against what the villagers would like to see in order to keep their village alive.

A bit more digging and I hear that Great Habton, according to Councillor Andrews would welcome about 16 or so houses, but this not allowed by the Local Plan. Even infill building in any of the “Non Service” villages will be subject to Local Needs Occupancy Clauses.

Single houses on small plots will not necessarily get permission – gone is the idea of building a retirement home in the village you have lived in because you won’t be able to sell it if you need to at a later date other than to someone who already lives in the village or surrounding villages or leave it to your children unless they live in the village and, even more perplexingly, the Council have reserved the right to themselves to determine that in their view you can live somewhere else in which they think is suitable – gone is choice and individual freedom the Council will determine whether they think you should live there or somewhere else and who you can sell or leave it to. Not many folk would be happy with that degree of intrusion into their private lives.

So if development remains at nil in those areas then the pressure will remain on the towns and service villages. - pressure which could easily be relieved by small developments throughout out the rest of the District allowing those villages who are open to small development being allowed to develop.

Above all it is becoming increasingly clear that the full and deeply negative effects of Ryedale council’s plan are starting to affect people’s daily lives and alarm is spreading – residents of the towns face housing developments and planning applications for developments which will change the nature of their towns and place the already stretched infrastructure under further pressure, while villages where schools and shops struggle to stay open are facing a moratorium on any new houses and are effectively frozen in time.

While there is clearly a need for housing stock and there has to be compliance with central Government’s figures, Ryedale’s Plan is creating friction which could be eased if there were simply more flexibility. The villages, where life is needed, would take the pressure off the towns. Just a small spread of houses built each year would mean that there would not be the pressing need for numbers in the towns.

It would keep more gradual development in both. In the villages shops, schools, pubs would be sustainable and maintain their benefits to the smaller communities which are scattered throughout the 500 + square miles of Ryedale. There is room for both and no need to saturate towns on the one hand and strangle the villages on the other. Ryedale council needs to revisit the Local Plan and listen to the people affected.

Pamela Hudson, Terrington