"Yarm for Yorkshire"? Why not rescue Thornaby too...

During this week's Yarm Town Council meeting, a number of residents once again reiterated their desire to see Yarm returned to the control of a North Yorkshire council (read the Gazette's report here).




Yarm Town Hall flying the white rose of Yorkshire

Of course, Yarm - along with neighbouring towns south of the River Tees - forms part of the ceremonial North Riding of Yorkshire, and always has.  That is not the issue.

Whilst once a borough in its own right, and more recently falling under the control of Stokesley Rural District Council, in 1974 Yarm found itself no longer governed by an authority rooted exclusively in North Yorkshire.

On April Fools Day 1974 (an apt date, as it was surely a cruel, cruel joke), Yarm awoke to find itself within the district of Stockton-on-Tees, governed by the newly created Cleveland County Council.

The situation deteriorated further in 1996 when, following the Banham Review, the widely unpopular Cleveland Council was abolished and Yarm found itself governed by one of four newly created unitary authorities in the north east, Stockton Borough Council.

Whilst much of the motivation to have Yarm 'returned to' Yorkshire is driven by enormous public discontent at recent decisions imposed on the town against residents' wishes - Stockton's proposed parking tax and earmarking of land for thousands of new homes being two of the most notable - it is foolish to think this is the only reason.

For many, it is a simple matter of identity.  Towns such as Yarm and Thornaby, not to mention the likes of Redcar and Middlesbrough further afield, remain for the most part fiercely proud of their Yorkshire roots.  The very suggestion that they are no longer, at least administratively, part of Yorkshire is anathema to them.

For others, their motivations are much more pragmatic.

You don't have to speak to many residents of Yarm or Thornaby to hear evidence of the widespread discontent at the way those communities south of the river have been neglected by Stockton. A complaint you'll often hear around Yarm is that Stockton Council treat the town as nothing more than a cash cow.

What better example can there be than the way Ingleby Barwick has been allowed to develop? Stockton Council was quick enough to cash-in and sell land to housing developers, and has since gleefully pocketed ever increasing council tax receipts, but has left the town pitifully short of community facilities, most notably with a chronic shortage of secondary school provision.

Granted, there is nothing new in Labour councils bleeding dry areas where they have scant support in order to subsidise their client base in Labour controlled wards but, as last week's by-election in Thornaby clearly showed, residents have had enough.

That is why this campaign may develop into one to see not just Yarm liberated from Stockton Council's vampiric embrace, but all communities south of the river.

In the next few months, I would hope to see Yarm Town Council approaching its counterparts in Kirklevington, Thornaby, Ingleby Barwick and others with a view to arranging an indicative referendum throughout all communities south of the river.

"Yarm for Yorkshire" is not a new campaign, and it is not going to go away any time soon...

Ingleby Barwick free school bid stalls

On Tuesday Stockton Council’s planning committee voted, in many cases reluctantly, to reject the planning application to build Ingleby Manor free school along with 350 homes on land off Low Lane, at Little Maltby Farm.



The proposed site of Ingleby Manor free school



Without doubt, this was the most difficult planning application so far I have found myself having a hand in determining as a member of the planning committee.

On the one hand, we had the free school element of the application. There can be no doubting the need – an urgent and increasing need – for additional secondary school provision within Ingleby Barwick. The free school bid enjoys the unwavering support of a majority of residents, the plans for which would bring a wealth of community benefits to the wider community with the school’s facilities to be made available for public use. All positive stuff.

On the other hand, however, we come to the proposed new housing. In a quid pro quo for providing the 13 acres of land on which the school would be built, the landowners (Satnam) hoped to build 350 homes on land located within the green wedge, without providing the required 20% affordable housing element, and which would inevitably have put local services, not least the town’s primary schools, under increased strain.

It’s fair to say the stumbling block for the committee – certainly as far as I was concerned – was the housing element of the application.

Had the application been for the free school and associated facilities alone, it would have been much more difficult to resist. It would certainly have changed the way I voted and, I believe, the way some others did too.

In a step that is usually anathema to me, I abstained from Tuesday’s vote – the first, and I would hope the last, time I have felt compelled to do so. Whilst I would have found it desperately difficult to vote against the much needed free school, there was equally no way I could support any application to build 350 homes in the green wedge.

Whilst it’s accurate to point out that Stockton Council has previously approved incursions into the green wedge in years gone by, in recent months the planning committee has consistently resisted approving any further such applications. This is to be applauded (as indeed it was by many residents of Ingleby Barwick when a recent application to build on the green wedge between Yarm and Ingleby Barwick was refused).

As with any major application, there are differing views and opinions. Supporters of the application argued that the site was not in fact within the green wedge; that the housing was unwelcome but a price worth paying; that it should be approved as it is the only viable site available. All perfectly arguable points, even if I do not necessarily agree with them entirely.

They are also arguments worth pursuing at the seemingly inevitable appeal (that is unless the Secretary of State exercises his discretion to call in the application for determination), a move that I not only understand, but would be inclined to welcome and support.　

If I had given years of my life to securing a new school for Ingleby Barwick, as the likes of Steve Fryer and Frances Lynch have admirably done, it would be dishonest of me to pretend I would not now be pursuing an appeal with everything I have.

But there is a better solution than simply successfully appealing Tuesday’s result.

Instead of cynically attempting to engineer approval for 350 new homes by piggy-backing them on to the free school bid, the developer could potentially solve the problem overnight.

So how about it, Satnam? Why not demonstrate some genuine philanthropy and gift the necessary 13 acres of land to the Ingleby Manor Foundation Trust without any strings attached?

Whilst in planning there can be no guarantees (particularly given the committee in Stockton is dominated by Labour councillors representing a party that hates the very principle of free schools), removing the housing hurdle and allowing the Trust to submit their own application for the school would give them the best possible chance of securing the school Ingleby Barwick so desperately needs.

Yes, I know, I know. But hope springs eternal…