North Yorkshire Council

Community Development Services

Selby and Ainsty Area Planning Committee

16^th April 2025

ZG2023/0774/FULM - The erection of 106 residential dwellings and associated works AT LAND AT South Of Bartlett View And Rochester Row, Milford Road, Sherburn In Elmet, North Yorkshire

by

Redrow Homes Ltd & Persimmon Homes Ltd (Yorkshire)

Report of the Head of Development Management – Community Development Services

1.0 Purpose of the Report

1.1. To determine a full application for the erection of 106 dwellings with associated works on land to the south of Bartlett View and Rochester Row, Milford Road, Sherburn In Elmet by Redrow Homes Ltd & Persimmon Homes Ltd (Yorkshire).

1.2. The application has been called into Committee by Cllr Packham (9^th August 2023) on  grounds which are considered to be valid reasons notwithstanding the cessation of the progression of the Selby Emerging Local Plan which included the application site as part of the proposed SHER-H allocation. Due to the formal decision to discontinue the progression of the emerging Selby Local Plan, the draft allocations and policies no longer hold any status as part of an emerging development plan. Consequently, they would not be able to have weight attributed to them on the basis of being part of that process.  However, weight can still be accorded to the evidence base of an abandoned plan in circumstances where it is relevant.

1.3. Cllr Packham also requested that prior to Committee’s consideration of the application that a Members Site Visit be undertaken to allow Members to assess the scheme including the access arrangements.  The Site Visit is to be on the 16^th April 2025 for Members.

1.4. This application is reported to Committee because the Head of Development Management considers this application to raise significant planning issues such that it is in the public interest for the application to be considered by Committee

2.0       SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to prior completion of a section 106 agreement to secure the matters detailed below and the conditions detailed in Section 12.

2.1. This is an application for full planning permission the erection of 106 no. dwellings with associated works.  The total site area is 6.50 hectares and is currently arable land. The access to the scheme is from Bartlett View and across open space associated with the adjacent development. The main area of the site which will be developed for the housing is 3.1 hectares.

2.2. The site is part of the Safeguarded Land in the Selby Local Plan (2005) to the east of Low Street / Milford Road.

2.3. The scheme for the site has been subject to changes during its consideration.  The latest layout is shown on the Phase 4 Masterplan (ref P22-0969-DE-001-0101 Revision M) as submitted on the 20^th March 2025.  The scheme would deliver the following housing mix:

1 bed	5 units	Affordable Housing
2 beds	17 units	Private Market Housing
	12 units	Affordable Housing
3 beds	38 units	Private Market Housing
	4 units	Affordable Housing
4 beds	30 units	Private Market Housing

2.4. This latest layout represented a minor change to that submitted in December 2024, to facilitate an increase in the number of dwellings to be provided to M4(3) standard. So, the scheme includes three plots identified for Self Build / Custom Build which are Plots 28, 45 and 65 (3% of the units) ) all of which are open market plots and six plots are identified to be built as M4(3) units namely Plots 24, 25, 69, 70, 98 and 99 (6% of the units) all of which are also affordable housing units.   

2.5. The scheme incorporates new recreational open space including an area for equipped play alongside meadow areas and footpath links to adjacent developments.

2.6. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The proposal is contrary to Policy SP2 because it involves major residential development in the countryside. Policy SP5 is out of date because the housing need figure it contains is not calculated based on the required standard method. Development plan policies can still be given weight based on their consistency with the NPPF. SP2 is inconsistent with NPPF paragraph 61 which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing and aims to meet an areas identified housing need. Continued strict application of Policy SP2, which prevents market housing outside development limits in the countryside such as this, would not allow the LPA to meet the identified local housing needs. Furthermore, the weight afforded to conflict with Core Strategy Policy SP2 is diminished as it does not include the more nuanced approach to the consideration of development that is found in the NPPF. Thus, the policy is inconsistent with the NPPF and should be given limited weight.

2.7. The site is also identified as Safeguarded Land in the Selby Local Plan (2005) and is outside the development limits of the settlement.

2.8. However, the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land as required by the NPPF. Therefore, the policies most important for determining the application, SP2 and SP5, are out of date as set out in NPPF paragraph 11. Permission should be granted unless the proposal fails to satisfy the tests in NPPF paragraph 11d. The proposal complies with paragraph 11(d)i because no NPPF policy that protects areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. The requirements of paragraph 11(d)ii are more nuanced as set out below. It requires consideration of whether the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

2.9. Adverse impacts include the modest scale of loss of agricultural land which would result in minor harm to the agricultural economy in the area as well as food self-sufficiency and moderate adverse localised landscape and visual effects; and conflict with the development plan. In addition, there will be a minimal loss of existing open space to the north on the adjacent development to facilitate access to the site.

2.10. Neutral matters include the lack of conflict with mineral policies; density of development; the site specific flood risk implications are acceptable and suitable drainage can be controlled by condition; there would be no harm arising from highway access or capacity issues; there would be no harm to protected species following mitigation or any harm to designated sites; the site can be made safe from contamination; residential amenity would not be harmed; there is no harm to heritage; noise and air pollution matters are acceptable; education, healthcare and bin contributions are secured to ensure no detriment is caused.

2.11. Benefits include the site being in a sustainable location; the scheme is well designed; the proposal makes a significant contribution to needed market and affordable housing (great weight is given to this consideration); a housing mix is secured that will deliver a mixed and balance community with provision for those with mobility problems and those that want to self or custom build their own home; the scheme will deliver open space linked to existing areas of open space, there is a demonstrated biodiversity and ecological enhancements are secured; there are benefits for existing and future residents in terms of open space provision and enhancement; economic benefits both during the construction phase and once the houses are occupied which are afforded moderate weight.

2.12. The adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The proposal benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Therefore, planning permission should be granted subject to conditions and prior completion of a s106 agreement.

3.0       Preliminary Matters

3.1. Access to the case file on Public Access can be found here:-  

3.2. The application was not the subject of any formal pre application discussions prior to the submission of the application.

3.3. Additional information has been provided during the course of this application to address issues concerning technical matters including highways, archaeology, housing mix, landscaping, drainage / flood risk, ecology and affordable housing.  The applicants were afforded the opportunity to set out a case for the application against the NPPF on their scheme but they declined to provide any further information to the Council. They did set out a position in relation to the Emerging Local Plan (ELP) prior to the Authority’s decision to cease work on the plan, however, they declined to supplement this prior to the application coming to committee given the decision to cease work on the ELP.  Clearly the application will be assessed in the context of the NPPF and the position on the ELP.

3.4. There have not been any planning applications made for the application site since it was identified as “safeguarded land” in the Selby Local Plan in 2005.   The site does lie immediately adjacent to development undertaken by the Applicants pursuant to consents issued under Reference 2012/0400/EIA (Outline planning application (accompanied by an Environmental Statement) for the construction of 498 dwellings to include access on Phase 2 land on land between Moor Lane and Low Street) and Reference 2012/0399/EIA (Outline planning application (accompanied by an environmental statement) to include access for the construction of 100 no. dwellings on phase 2 land between Low Street and Moor Lane).  These sites sit to the north of the application site and have been completed by the same developers.  This application secures access from Milford Road / Low Street through these earlier developments across the Public Open Space at the end of Bartlett View and there is also a sales access proposed across the Open Space at the end of Rochester Row proposed as part of the scheme, so allowing each developer to have separate sales areas for the development from the land to the north.

3.5. The site has been promoted for residential use through the Selby Local Plan process and was identified as part of draft housing allocation ref SHER-H in the Emerging Local Plan. The application site forms the northern part of this allocation and the SHER-H allocation was proposed to be a mixed-use allocation to provide approximately 380 dwellings and a community use area. As a result of differing land contracts the applicants have advised that the SHER-H allocation is to be delivered in two parts:

· Northern Part – 106 dwellings accessed off Bartlett View and temporary sales access / emergency access off Rochester Row (subject of Application ZG2023/0774/FULM).

· Southern Part – Circa 270 dwellings and a Community Facility area, accessed off Low Street, Sherburn in Elmet (not subject of a planning application)

3.6. Due to the formal decision to discontinue the progression of the emerging Selby Local Plan, the draft allocations and policies no longer hold any status as part of an emerging development plan. Consequently, the allocations in the ELP are not able to have weight attributed to them on the basis of being part of that process.  However, weight can still be accorded to the evidence base of an abandoned plan in circumstances where it is relevant.

3.7. The submitted Design and Access Statement (rev A) notes that the Council’s August 2022 Housing Technical Paper provides a trajectory for delivery on the assumption that first completions commence in the year 2024/25. They also noted that “The nature and make-up of the community facilities in the southern part of this draft allocation are yet to be determined and will be discussed in more detail with both North Yorkshire Council and Sherburn Town Council” and that “the northern and southern parts of the draft allocation SHER-H are to be connected with walking and cycling links but it is not expected to provide a vehicular link for anything other than emergency vehicles”.  It is also noted that “Both northern and southern parts of SHER-H will provide further areas of public open space and all areas will be linked to the previously constructed greenspace areas in the Redrow and Persimmon development to the north to provide a network of linked areas for wider public use.”

3.8. The application made under ZG2023/0774/FULM is therefore not for the whole of the SHER-H allocation, and in addition the position on the ELP has changed since the application was made and the Design & Access Statement was collated.  The assessment of the Application therefore as set out in the report will consider this context, but no weight can be afforded to the allocation itself in the ELP and weight can only be afforded to the evidence base.  The weight that is afforded to this evidence base is considered within the assessment of the application.

3.9. A negative screening opinion was recorded by the LPA on 14^th August 2023. confirming the proposal is not EIA development. There is no other relevant planning history for the application site.

4.0       Site and Surroundings

4.1. The site area is 6.50 hectares, and is currently arable land or open space associated with the adjacent development to the north, which is in the ownership of the applicants.  The site is a greenfield site under the definition in the NPPF (2024) and there are no existing buildings within the site.

4.2. In terms of the Selby District Local Plan, the application site is part of the area identified as Safeguarded Land under Policy SL1 in the Selby District Local Plan 2005.

Extract from Selby Local Plan (2005)

4.3. The site is triangular with a further area then wrapping around the open space at the eastern end.  There is also a vehicular access for construction traffic within the red line, running south from the main part of the site and then running to the east along an existing farm track which will provide a link to the A162 to the south east of the site but is to be used for construction purposes only.  

4.4. The site is on the edge of the settlement, with its northern boundary adjoining the open space facilitated by the development to the north by the same Developers under earlier phases of development under Reference 2012/0400/EIA and 2012/0399/EIA.

4.5. The southern boundary of the application site aligns within the agricultural field and there is no defined boundary visible on site.  However, the red line of the application site (with the exception of the construction access) follows the line of the site identified as safeguarded land in the Selby Local Plan (2005).   The eastern boundary of the site runs on the rear boundary of the property is facing Low Street / Milford Road and the eastern boundary of the site follows the drainage dike that runs parallel to the A162.

4.6. The site is flat with no defined boundaries along the southern boundary, a defined boundary to the north and the eastern boundary being formed by the drainage dike.

4.7. The applicant also developed the land to the north of the redline boundary which is defined open space for the earlier phases of development undertaken by the developers. 

4.8. Sherburn in Elmet is a designated Local Service Centre as identified by the settlement hierarchy of the Selby District Core Strategy where further housing, employment, retail, commercial and leisure growth will take place appropriate to the size and role of each settlement.  Sherburn in Elmet is therefore regarded as being a sustainable settlement and the latest assessment of the services in the settlement undertaken by the Council as part of the evidence base for the Selby Emerging Local Plan confirmed that the settlement has three village halls / meeting rooms, four convenience stores, two primary schools, a healthcare provider, a post office, two supermarkets, four public houses, eighteen facilities classed as restaurants / café’s or takeaway’s, two hotels / guest houses or B&B, four nursery/preschool groups, one Secondary School, one leisure centre / gym, seven playing fields / playgrounds, two Dental Surgeries, one optician, two railway stations, one Care Home, one industrial/business area, three places of worship and a library. The same evidence base also confirms that there are seven bus routes serving the settlement the most frequent of which has 11 journeys per day which operate Monday to Saturday inclusive. 

4.9. The proposed development is not located within or partly within any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) or Ramsar Site and will not affect the notified interest features of such sites. The proposal is not located within or partly within a National Park, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or Heritage Coast and is unlikely to impact upon the purposes for which these areas are designated or defined. The site is not located within a Conservation Area and there are no designated heritage assets located on site.

4.10. The route to be used for the construction access off the A162 utilises an existing farm access (which runs west from the A162) is within the Green Belt, however this remains unchanged to facilitate the development.  The spur heading off this in a northern direction is partly in the Green Belt and partly in open countryside and will provide the temporary construction access into the site.

4.11. The site lies in a mixture of flood zones, including Flood Zone 2 and 3 as well as land within Flood Zone 1.  The areas of Flood Zone 2 and 3 are within the open space and there are no vehicle accesses or dwellings within these areas.   All access and dwellings (with the exception of the initial section of the construction access off the A162) are in Flood Zone 1.  The site is also within an area of low coal risk and within an area identified in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan as being safeguarded for Black Clay and Limestone.  The site is also within the consultation zone for Leeds East Airport / Sherburn Aero Club and within the impact zone for SSSI (FID 365 and FID 210).   In addition, the proposed construction access road is at the later end in the Green Belt.

5.0       Description of Proposal

5.1. This is an application for full planning permission the erection of 106 no. dwellings with associated works. 

5.2. The site area is 6.50 hectares, and  is currently arable land with the access to the scheme proposed from Bartlett View and across open space associated with the adjacent development.

5.3. The scheme for the site has been subject of changes during its consideration.  The latest layout is shown on the Phase 4 Masterplan (ref P22-0969-DE-001-0101 Revision M) as submitted on the 20^th March 2025.  The scheme would deliver the following housing mix:

1 bed	2 units	Affordable Rent	Plots 48 & 49
	3 units	First Homes	Plots 91, 92 & 93
2 beds	16 units	Market Housing
	4 units	Affordable Rent	Plots 20, 21, 22 & 23
	6 units	Intermediate Homes	Plots 24, 25, 26, 57 58 & 59
	2 units	First Homes	Plots 47 & 48
3 beds	39 units	Market Housing
	4 units	Affordable Rent	Plots 79, 28, 50 & 51
4 beds	30 units	Market Housing

5.4. The scheme is proposed to deliver 20% affordable housing, so 21 units from a total of 106 units.  This is 10 units as Affordable Rent, 6 as Intermediate units and 5 First Homes. In terms of affordable homes the Council will require a cascade clause protect the delivery of all affordable homes.

5.5. In addition, the scheme includes three plots identified for Self Build / Custom Build which are Plot 28, 45 and 65 (3% of the units) all of which are open market plots and six plots are identified to be built as M4(3) units namely Plots 24, 25, 69, 70, 98 and 99 (6% of the units), all of which are affordable housing units.  

5.6. The applicants have confirmed that all dwellings will meet the Nationally Defined Space Standards and the dwellings will be built to the 2021 Building Regulations Part L Standards regarding the conservation of fuel and power.

5.7. The Design and Access Statement (Rev A) (received April 2024) explains the design rationale for the scheme, assesses the site context confirms the site density at 34 dwellings per hectare and that the scheme will be to or to enhance stories in height with the varied materials pallet with open space provision and a mix of housing sizes and design.

5.8. The application has been amended during its consideration, so although the initial application was for 108 units, this has reduced to 106 units and the scheme has been changed to address comments from consultees and Officers in terms of the open space, layout and highways matters including the approach for the accesses into the site and the access approach for sales purposes. The main driver for changes to the layout in March 2025,, which were minor changes over that submitted in December 2024, was to facilitate an increase in the number of dwellings to be provided to M4(3) standard and self build custom build.  Given the nature of this change re-consultation was not done and the scheme has been assessed on the basis of this layout in the report.

5.9. Access to the site is proposed from Low Street onto Bramley Park Road and then down Bartlett View.  There will be a temporary sales access from Rochester Row and emergency access will also be provided once the sales access is closed from Rochester Row.  Construction access will be taken from the A162 travelling west bound along an existing farm track before turning north bound across the agricultural field into the southern part of the application site. This is within the red line for the application and the initial section of this access is within the Green Belt.

5.10. The proposed sales access from Rochester Row would be used by one of the developers for sale purposes and would be closed and reverted to an emergency access.

5.11. The internal highways layout shows the provision of footpaths through the site alongside the areas of road to be adopted with links being in place to the adjacent open space with the adjacent development and the open space that is to be provided by this development.  The road hierarchy is also varied with a main access spine and private drives which are shared surfaces leading off this route. Car parking for the new dwellings is provided largely through parking to the front or sides of dwellings and visitor parking is also provided within the scheme.

5.12. The proposed mix of dwellings on the site is as follows:

1 bed	2 units	Affordable Rent	Plots 48 & 49
	3 units	First Homes	Plots 91, 92 & 93
2 beds	16 units	Market Housing
	4 units	Affordable Rent	Plots 20, 21, 22 & 23
	6 units	Intermediate Homes	Plots 24, 25, 26, 57 58 & 59
	2 units	First Homes	Plots 47 & 48
3 beds	39 units	Market Housing
	4 units	Affordable Rent	Plots 79, 28, 50 & 51
4 beds	30 units	Market Housing

5.13. The design of the dwellings is standard house types which is reflective of those units constructed on the adjacent development by the same developers.  The house types do include features such as door canopies, cobble courses under the eaves and windows, mixes of materials to define the elevations of the properties. All units are two storey or two and half storey construction (as shown on Plan Phase 4 Building Heights Plan (Ref P22-0696-DE-001_0106-C) and are arranged in detached, terrace or semi configurations across the site, with a mix of sixes ranging between 1 and 4 bed.

5.14. The proposed materials for the scheme are shown on submitted drawing “Phase 4 Materials Plan (Ref P22-0696-DE-001_0104-B).  These are noted as being a mix of red multi brick, render, buff brick alongside red or grey roof tiles. The Design and Access Statement notes that the scheme will use UPVC half round gutters with round rain water pipes, UPVC casement windows and UPVC rainwater goods.

5.15. The boundaries are shown on submitted Boundary Treatments Plan (Ref Phase 4 Boundary Treatment Plan (Ref P22-0969-DE-001-0111-A) and are a mix of fences and walls to rear and side boundaries with open frontages. 

5.16. The landscaping strategy for the site was subject of discussions within the life of the application and plans submitted with the application include

· Landscape Masterplan (Ref P22-0969_EN_0005_G)

· 10m Landscape Buffer Red Line Plan (Ref SIE-16-02-01)

· Phase 4 Landscape Management Plan (Ref P22-0969-DE-001-0112).

These plans set out the approach within the site and also confirm provision of a 10m landscape buffer of hedgerow and hedgerow trees along the southern boundary of the site and the eastern edge of the site will be defined with native shrub planting and groups of trees but also the management plan for the landscape areas.

5.17. In terms of open space provision within the site, the scheme incorporates an area of open space within the western sector, which include space for accommodating equipped play but also expands the area of landscaped open space on the eastern sector of the site to link to the existing public open space brought forward on the adjacent site under the 2012 applications.  There are also footpaths through this area and pedestrian links into the eastern area open space to the north from the new development. The areas of open space are proposed to be passed to a management company and total 1.7 hectares (17,095 square metres) of proposed open space and a further 0.42 hectares (4,240 sq. m) of existing open space which will be enhanced, so a total of 2.1 hectares (21,335 sq. m).  In terms of the proposed open space then this equates to 161.2 sq.m per dwelling of new provision which is a mix of types.

5.18. The drainage approach for the site utilises a mix of attenuation with an associated surface water drainage strategy which will connect into the existing systems provided by Yorkshire Water. There would also be a foul water pumping station constructed and some restricted flow into the watercourse on the eastern boundary of the site.

5.19. An Ecological Impact Assessment has been submitted with the application which was made prior to the introduction of mandatory biodiversity net gain requirements.  However, the applicants have provided an assessment of the biodiversity impacts and gains from the development as part of the application information.  The submitted information outlines that there will be a positive net impact associated with the planting of initial net hedgerow habitat alongside tree planting, the creation of woodland and meadow grassland area, creation of wetland meadow and the provision of integrated roosting features into 10% of the houses will also enhance the site’s role in foraging and roosting advance.  In terms of nesting birds, mitigation is set out in terms of avoiding site clearance works within the breeding season, the provision of bird boxes on 10% of the properties to be constructed.  The impact on water vole population is considered with the on-site ditch retained, the use of a landscape buffer to it and recommendation for a re-survey pre-commencement development for water voles.  Although, the Developer was not required to undertake a mandatory BNG Assessment the submitted ecological survey has noted an increase in habitat of 14.36% from the baseline and an increase in linear habitats of 107.83%.

5.20. The route to be used for the construction access off the A162 utilises an existing farm access (which runs west from the A162) is within the Green Belt, however this remains unchanged to facilitate the development.  The spur heading off this in a northern direction is partly in the Green Belt and partly in open countryside and will provide the temporary construction access into the site.

5.21. The applicants are offering an area of land to the south of Altheston Primary School as part of the S106 matters to address the request from Education / Children’s Services and they have confirmed that the S106 will be drafted to align with the very latest Education request.  They have also confirmed that “the developer and owner remain open to resolving the pickup and drop off with the Council.  The Landowner is committed to bringing forward Phase 5 on the remainder of the Safeguarded Land working with NYC Estates and we are pushing NYC for a response” which will facilitate the provision of a parking / drop off and pick up facility for the school.  Such re-configuration will also all space for future expansion of the school.  The area of proposed land related to this application is shown on Plan ref SNB4-16-10 and this will form part of the S106.

6.0       PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

6.1. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that all planning authorities must determine each application under the Planning Acts in accordance with Development Plan so far as material to the application unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Adopted Development Plan

6.2.      The Adopted Development Plan for this site is:

-           Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan (adopted 22nd October 2013)

-           Those policies in the Selby District Local Plan (adopted on 8 February 2005) which were saved by the direction of the Secretary of State and which have not been superseded by the Core Strategy

-           Minerals and Waste Joint Plan (adopted 16 February 2022)

Emerging Development Plan – Material Consideration

6.3. The Emerging Development Plan for this site is:

-      Selby District Council Local Plan publication version 2024 (Reg 19)

6.4. On 17th January 2025, a report was taken to the Selby and Ainsty Area Committee and Development Plans Committee recommending that work on the emerging Selby District Council Local Plan is ceased. This recommendation was taken to North Yorkshire Council's Executive on 4 February and then North Yorkshire Council's Full Council on 26 February where it was resolved that work on this plan will now cease.   Due to the formal decision to discontinue the progression of the emerging Selby Local Plan, the draft allocations and policies no longer hold any status as part of an emerging development plan. Consequently, they would not be able to have weight attributed to them on the basis of being part of that process. Having regard to the above, no weight is to be applied to the Selby District Council Local Plan publication version 2024 (Reg 19), but some weight may be able to be given to the evidence base.

- The North Yorkshire Local Plan

6.5. No weight can be applied in respect of The North Yorkshire Local Plan at the current time as it is at an early stage of preparation.

Guidance - Material Considerations

6.6. Relevant guidance for this application is:

-           National Planning Policy Framework 2024

-           National Planning Practice Guidance

-           National Design Guide 2021

-           Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document, 2013

-           Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document March 2007

-           Sherburn in Elmet Village Design Statement, December 2009

-           Strategic Housing Market Assessment, February 2019

-           Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, September 2022

7.0       Consultation Responses

7.1. The following consultation responses have been received and have been summarised below.

7.2. Sherburn in Elmet Town Council: (Latest comments 28^th January 2025): the Town Council has made a series of comments on the application during its consideration, their comments can be summarised as follows:

Principle of Development and Emerging Selby Local Plan

· Safeguarded land - The site is currently safeguarded land (Selby District Local Plan) and the Committee will want to consider whether the land should be released in advance of the adoption of the new Local Plan, having regard to issues such as the 5 year land supply and the level of public response to the Selby Pre‐ submission Publication Local Plan 2022. Outside development limits - Some or all of the area in question is outside of Development Limits as defined in the Selby District Local Plan, as adopted February 2005.

· The Emerging SLP explicitly stated that any further development (SHER-H) is to be connected with walking and cycling links, but it is not expected to provide a vehicular link for anything. It states categorically that the site will provide vehicle, cycling and pedestrian access from Milford Road to the west. No previous iterations or provision was ever given to have an access off Bartlett View or Rochester Row into SHER-H preferred allocation site in the Emerging Selby Local Plan

Highways

· By creating an additional access road to this safeguarded land, this is a completely at odds with supporting sustainable development whilst not supporting communities’ health and social well-being in our local community. In addition, this opposes NPPF Para 84 (d) which states that the policy should enable the retention and development of accessible local services and community facilities, such as open space which should be maintained.

· North Yorkshire Council Highways has already highlighted that Rochester Row is only suitable for emergency access if Bartlett View is unavailable, and not for general traffic. Any proposed use of this route for sales or residential traffic poses significant safety risks to users of the POS and the public path crossing this area.

· Scheme results in creating unnecessary traffic through residential areas which were not designed to accommodate such volumes.

· Bartlett View, a narrow cul-de-sac not designed for through traffic, is unsuitable for use as a primary access route for 106 new homes. Traffic projections estimate a significant increase of vehicle movements, particularly during peak hours. Such an increase would not only cause congestion but also pose substantial risks to pedestrians, children, and local residents, directly conflicting with NPPF Paragraph 115, which states that developments should be refused on highway safety grounds if the residual cumulative impact is severe – a criterion clearly met in this instance.

· The need for a sales access is not a material consideration and the developer’s pursuit of this demonstrates commercial greed with no corporate responsibility to the residents of Sherburn In Elmet.

· The visibility splays at key junctions, including Conference Court and Rochester Row, fail to meet the required standards, further exacerbating the risks.

· Smaller vehicles visiting the site during the construction stage will use Rochester Row and Bartlett View and this has not been set out clearly in the submitted documents.

· North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue have advised they would not use Rochester Row as an emergency access.

· The Transport Assessment is outdated and uses an outdated baseline for calculation of trip generation and visibility splays are not adequate at junctions of Rochester Row and Conference Court / Rochester Row and Bramley Park Ave and Bartlett View and Bramley Park Ave and doesn’t consider the impact of traffic cutting through surrounding areas such as Garden Lane, Church Hill, Elmtree Avenue Deighton Avenue and Tomlinson Way.

· The impact of the use of the adjacent football pitches on Bartlett View / Bramley Park Avenue and the associated traffic this will generate has not been considered.

· Given the scale of development in Sherburn in Elmet residents are increasingly concerned with the high volume of traffic movements at strategic junctions across the town especially at school run and commuter times: this is affecting junctions at Garden Lane/Church Hill, Bramley Park Ave/Low Street, Braeburn Road/Low Street and Moorland Road/Moor Lane. The residual cumulative impact on the road network of over 800 homes built in the parish over the past 10 years cannot be underestimated.

· There is no presented report for the local census data for commuting journeys to sense check the TRICs average mode split (TRICs challenges and validates assumptions about the transport impacts of new developments).

· For robustness, junction capacity assessment at the two Low Street priority junctions and the B1222 roundabouts with A162 and Moorland Road should be provided, being above or near the extra 30 two-way trips per peak hour threshold. The peak hours used are different to those recommended in the industry standard (i.e. 08:00-09:00 and 17:00- 18:00).

· Transport Assessment does not take account of the developments at Hodgson Gate or Sherburn 2

Impact on Existing Open Space

· The area to the south of Bartlett View and Rochester Row presently offers a strong, positive visual and recreational amenity for local residents. Residents explained at a recent council meeting that they have conducted a survey of usage during August demonstrating high volumes of residents with very positive comments by all who use this open space.

· Significant concerns over the re-routed and raised footpath proposal through the Recreational Open Space and the loss or fragmentation of green space to the north to facilitate access would have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity area, and the benefits it brings to users in terms of both physical health and mental well-being.

· The proximity of unenclosed play equipment so close to both Rochester Row and Bartlett View presents a significant hazard, particularly for young children who may inadvertently wander from the play area into the path of oncoming vehicles. Beyond that, the frequent use of the POS, estimated to be in excess of 100,000 annual users, makes this a critical public safety issue.

· To enable Rochester Row to become a ‘sales’ access and ultimately an emergency link, the developer will need to tear through the existing green space to create a sales/emergency access therefore losing the “connectivity of the existing open green space forever.

Residential Amenity

· The proposed development will lead to increased traffic, noise, pollution, and loss of privacy for residents. The significant rise in vehicle movements will not only disrupt the quiet residential character of the area but also compromise road safety and access to local amenities.

Other Matters

· There should be a site visit by the Committee to review the scheme prior to a decision being made given the level of local comments and to assess the access arrangements for the development.

· The British Geological Survey note that the ground poses a significant future risk of instability, yet the application does not suggest how this risk will be mitigated.

· The archaeological assessment notes the archaeological potential of the site.

· Pre-Application Engagement in the statement of community involvement does not list the significant concerns of Town Council and Cllr Packham: especially in regard to community infrastructure investment.

· Plans do not meet, or make clear, the 20% affordable housing target. Appendices only show 20 out of 108 houses are marked as affordable.

· The scheme results in the loss of well-established immature trees which contribute significantly to carbon capture.

7.3. Active Travel England - (Latest comments 19^th April 2024) – Confirmed that Following a high-level review of the above planning consultation, Active Travel England has determined that standing advice should be issued and would encourage the local planning authority to consider this as part of its assessment of the application.

7.4. NYC Highways (Latest comments 7^th March 2025) – there have been detailed highways discussions on the application since its initial submissions and Road Safety Audits alongside swept path analysis’s.  Final comments from the Highways Officer confirm no objection to the scheme subject to a suite of conditions and a S106 contribution of £2,500 for Travel Plan Monitoring.   The noted conditions cover

· Detailed Plans of Road and Footway Layout (Std Condition MHC-01)

· Construction of Adoptable Roads and Footways (Std Condition MHC-02)

· New and altered Private Access or Verge Crossing at Bartlett View (Std Condition MHC-03)

· Visibility Splays at Bartlett View and Rochester Row (Std Condition MHC-05)

· Pedestrian Visibility Splays at Bartlett View and Rochester Row (Std Condition MHC-06)

· Delivery of Off-site Highway Works (Std Condition MHC-07) which will secure

o Raised table along with associated tactiles and fencing at Rochester Row prior to use of sales access.

o Footway connection from the proposed development to Rochester Row to remain following removal of the sales access prior to completion.

o Footway linking the proposed development to Bartlett View prior to occupation

· Pedestrian Visibility Splays at Bartlett View and Rochester Row (Std Condition MHC-06)

· Details of Access, Turning and Parking (Std Condition MHC-09A)

· Provision of Approved Access, Turning and Parking Areas at land south of Bartlett View (Std Condition MHC-09B)

· Parking for Dwellings (Std Condition MHC-10)

· Removal of Permitted Development Rights for Garage Conversion to Habitable Room all garaged plots (Std Condition MHC-11)

· Travel Plan (Std Condition MHC-13)

· Construction Management Plan (Std Condition MHC-15A)

7.5. NYC Public Rights Of Way (Latest comments 15^th May 2024) – have confirmed no public rights of way are affected by the development.

7.6. Natural England (Latest comments 2^nd May 2024) – advised that Natural England is not able to provide specific advice on this application and therefore has no comment to make on its details. Although we have not been able to assess the potential impacts of this proposal on statutory nature conservation sites or protected landscapes, we offer the further advice and references to Standing Advice.

7.7. NYC Ecology (Latest comments 16^th December 2024) – in response to the update Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) and the Revised Biodiversity Matrix they confirmed that

· Habitat creation would result in an uplift of 14% with a net gain of 108% for hedgerows. This is compliant with policy. There is a technical failure to meet BNG ‘trading rules’ in that a small area of woodland planning would be lost but as the application pre-dates Mandatory BNG procedures.

· Satisfied that the proposed replacement tree planting would be acceptable compensation. Since the application pre-dates Mandatory BNG procedures, approval would not be subject to the ‘deemed condition’ requiring a Biodiversity Gain Plan/Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan. Instead, we recommend that an Ecological Management Plan is submitted for approval prior to commencement (or occupation). This should set out how new and retained habitats will be established, managed and monitored and should be secured for a minimum of 30 years. Recommendations set out in Section 5 of the revised EcIA should be incorporated within this plan.

· Construction phase mitigation measures should be incorporated into a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for the development. Regarding the revised EcIA, I would continue to query whether a single cut in September would suffice to maintain sown meadow areas (EcIA paragraph 5.1.2). As we noted in our response of August 2023, this is likely to result in encroachment of coarse grassland dominated by species such as Cocksfoot and False Oat-grass. Ultimately, it’s up to the applicant’s ecologists to determine the most appropriate management regime but we would suggest again that this is reconsidered when an Ecological Management Plan is prepared.

· Pleased that the Landscape Masterplan takes account of our previous comments regarding wetland planning. We note the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust’s comments of 14 May 2024 regarding Sherburn Willows SSSI and nature reserve. If the Wildlife Trust has no specific concerns, and agrees that the proposed development offers relatively generous access to public open space, which would reduce any additional pressure on the reserve.

7.8. Yorkshire Wildlife Trust (Latest comments 14^th May 2024) – Initial comments noted concern at the potential recreational use impact of the scheme on the Sherburn Willows SSSI to which there is a clear walking route from the site along New Lane and the bridleway.  They indicated that they would like reassurances that the scheme impacts are fully considered in line with the Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment. Noting, that if, after assessment potential impacts are identified, appropriate mitigation/compensation should be proposed as part of the application. They were then reconsulted following the submission of an updated EcIA and they confirmed that whilst they have concerns about the cumulative recreational pressure on Sherburn Willows Nature Reserve as a result of numerous residential developments in recent times, they note that the open green space within the development is above the policy requirements, and therefore they confirmed that they have no further comments to add those we have already submitted and concur with the NY Ecology Unit comments.

7.9. NYC Landscape Officer (Latest comments 31^st January 2025) – has confirmed that the approach to the structure planning, boundary treatments, extent of play areas is acceptable. 

Notes that in terms of the SUDS Drainage (including attenuation basin) that although a note has been added to the Landscape Masterplan suggesting additional planting to soften the overall appearance. We would support this general principle if it could be demonstrated not in conflict with future maintenance and the easement. The submitted maintenance schedule does not demonstrate this. Unless the planting scheme was secured and could be demonstrated that is did not conflict with future de-silting, then we would expect edge screen planting outside the easement, which conflicts with the Landscape Masterplan (currently bounded by meadow mix planting or outside the red line boundary).

Notes also that the Structure Planting (including southern landscape buffer / boundary) – 10m Green buffer “to be included in S106 to be planted at a point in time post completion in the event the southern area is significantly delayed”, (indicated on the Landscape Masterplan). General would support this. The buffer is indicated at 10m depth therefore recommend that this should be woodland screen planting to visually screen the development and create a soft edge to settlement. A further detailed landscape scheme including aftercare will be needed. Once implemented the buffer planting should be a retained for the life of the development and maintained / management consistent with the wider ROS management plan. The timescale for implementation to be agreed but would suggest that this should be prior to completion of the final phase of development to ensure that impacts are reduced and that the proposal is consistent with the wide scheme landscape and part of the wider management.

Street Trees – not clear how these will be managed / maintained

Play Equipment Provision – the location of the play equipment is acceptable subject to there being sufficient Children’s Equipped Play in a given area = Area 11.25 m2 per dwelling and 0.45 per 1000 Pop’n, as per Table 1 of the SPD.

Recommends conditions / legal agreementsrelating to

· Detailed landscaping scheme; to be implemented in the first available planting season following completion of each development phase; min 5 year replacement defects / establishment.

· Long-term maintenance and management plan; ROS and other external landscape areas outside private ownership; for the life of the development (typically through a maintenance management company). This would include all hard and soft landscape, boundary treatments, play equipment, other site furniture, and street trees (where not adopted highway).

7.10. Environment Agency (Latest comments 3^rd May 2024) – referred back to comments from 21^st August 2023 which state that “The proposed development will only meet the National Planning Policy Framework’s requirements in relation to flood risk if the following planning condition is included.

“The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted flood risk assessment by Egorum Limited, referenced 0507/3/1/FRA and dated 11 July 2023, and the following mitigation measures it details:

·No built development in flood zone 2 and 3

·No ground raising in flood zone 2 and

These mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the scheme’s timing/ phasing arrangements. The measures detailed above shall be retained and maintained thereafter throughout the lifetime of the development.

Reason : To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants and to prevent flooding elsewhere”.

7.11. Lead Local Flood Authority / SUDS Officer (Latest comments 28^th October 2024) – confirmed that the information provided is acceptable in terms of surface water management and that they have no objections.

7.12. Yorkshire Water (Latest comments 24^th October 2024) – confirmed that supply can be made available from Bramley Park Avenue and that subject to a condition linking the development to accord with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment to protect the local aquatic environment and YW infrastructure they have no objections.

Comments in August 2024 noted that the “The overall number of properties for this and additional phases needs to be considered at the early stages. The submitted Landscape Masterplan (revision C) dated 11/04/2024 prepared by Pegasus Group shows comments regarding possible future development to the south of the site, if this is being considered then the overall numbers and plan for the area should be discussed with Yorkshire Water Distribution team to confirm a future suitable connection point. The 108 properties can likely be fed from the existing network from Bramley Park Avenue, but to provide suitable connections for future phases then the most suitable connection main would be the 300 mm diameter DI water main located within the A162. Additionally, it would appear the above plan would include creating a wetland area to the east which may pose a future risk for Yorkshire Water providing additional supplies, as this would limit main laying routes from the A162 to this plot”.

7.13. Selby Area Internal Drainage Board (Latest comments24th October 2024)  - suggest a condition on surface water discharge rates and informatives in their initial response from August 2023 – all subsequent comments reference back to this position. 

7.14. Civil Aviation Authority (Latest comments 17^th April 2024) – confirmed that they don’t need to be consulted on this application.

7.15. Civil Aviation Advisory Team (Latest comments 20^th September 2023) – advised “It may be worth noting though that the scheme is sited directly on the extended centreline of SAC’s primary runway. Therefore, at an environmental level, I don’t know whether your environmental colleagues would need to be aware that the flight path over the houses will be highly trafficked.”

7.16. Sherburn Aero Club (Latest comments 24^th August 2023) a series of points are made in their response which can be summarised as follows:

· Concerned about the impact of the scheme on the Club.  Noted that there is no noise assessment with the application and the submission have not given adequate consideration to the exposure of proposed occupants of the residential development to the aircraft noise from the airfield as well as the noise from nearby industrial units to the north-west of the airfield.

· The Aeroclub lease the airfield and operate the Sherburn Airfield and the Sherburn Flight Training School. These are regionally important facilities for recreational flying and the training of pilots for the award of both Private Pilot (PPL) and Commercial Pilot Licences (CPL). The number of annual aircraft movements at the Airfield totals 35,000 – the same as Leeds Bradford Airport. Sherburn is therefore an extremely busy facility. Given the close proximity of the airport to the site, that the flight path of runways 10 and 28 is above the site, the high plane traffic above the site, and the sensitivity of the proposed receptors, and that they consider that the proposed residents are likely to experience noise disturbance.

· The NPPF sets out that existing business and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. It is important to stress that Sherburn Aeroclub is an important facility which accommodates significant numbers of flights. Given the potential for noise to the proposed residential occupants as a result of the Aeroclub, it is considered that the onus is on the applicant to adequately demonstrate that the proposal will not prejudice the continued viability of existing businesses and infrastructure. Without the submission of a Noise Assessment, we consider that that applicant has not met this requirement

· The applicant’s planning submission has not satisfactorily addressed aviation safety matters in relation to assessment of the impact of the scheme in terms of glint and glare from solar panels, risk of wildlife strike, lighting could impact on aviation activities, there could be interference at the construction stage from dust / smoke / temporary lighting or construction equipment impacting on radar and other navigation equipment and aircraft being put at from the risk of collision with obstacles through appropriate lighting.

· No consideration appears to have been given by the applicant to the possible glare from water in the SUDS pond below the flight path on pilots in terms of distraction/confusion. Little detail has been given too about proposed lighting such that comfort can be taken that there will be no adverse impacts.

· No reference has been made to how construction processes will avoid impacting on radar and other navigational aids.

7.17. NYC Archaeology (Latest comments 21^st October 2024) – Initial comments requested additional site investigations be undertaken by the Applicants including geophysical survey and trial trenching.  A written scheme of investigation for the trail trenching was then agreed with the Developers, and the resultant information was then considered by the NYC Archaeology Officer.  Upon receipt of this further investigation the Officer advised that “The evaluation has provided further evidence of a Romano-British enclosed landscape defined by former field boundaries and a trackway. Although these features are of interest the trial trenching did not suggest that the enclosures contained significant activity and are more likely to represent agricultural or stock enclosures. I therefore have no objection to the physical impact of the proposal upon the features but would recommend that further archaeological recording works take place to enable a fuller understanding of the features and their relationship to the settlement previously recorded to the north.”  As a result a condition has been suggested requiring an archaeological strip, map and record to be undertaken in advance of development, including site preparation works, top soil stripping, excavations for new foundations and new drainage or services, to be followed by appropriate analyses, reporting and archive preparation. This is in order to ensure that a detailed record is made of any deposits/remains that will be disturbed.

7.18. NYC Environmental Health (Latest comments 30^th April 2024) – initial recommended conditions in relation to

· Prior to the site preparation and construction work commencing, a scheme to minimise the impact of noise, vibration, dust and dirt on residential property in close proximity to the site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

· No work relating to the development hereby approved, including works of demolition or preparation prior to building operations, shall take place other than between the hours of 08:00 hours and 18:00 hours Mondays to Fridays and 08:00 hours to 13:00 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank or National Holidays.

· Should any of the proposed foundations be piled and/or any ground compaction works be required, no development shall commence until a schedule of works to identify those plots affected and setting out mitigation measures to protect residents from noise, dust and vibration has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The proposals shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule.

The stated reason for these conditions is noted as “to protect the residential amenity of the locality during construction and to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) and Selby District Council’s Policy’s SP19 and ENV2.”

7.19. North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue (Latest comments 30^th April 2024) – advised that At this stage in the planning approval process the North Yorkshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner Fire and Rescue Authority have no objection/observation to the proposed development. The North Yorkshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner Fire and Rescue Authority will make further comment in relation to the suitability of proposed fire safety measures at the time when the building control body submit a statutory Building Regulations consultation to the Fire Authority.

7.20. Contaminated Land Consultant (Latest comments 23^rd April 2024) – advised that the Phase 1 report provides a good overview of the site’s history, its setting, and its potential to be affected by contamination. Therefore, the Consultant confirmed that the report and the proposed site investigation works are acceptable. If contamination is found, please note that appropriate remedial action will be required to make the site safe and suitable for its proposed use, therefore planning conditions were recommended on the following:

· Condition 1: Investigation of Land Contamination

· Condition 2: Submission of a Remediation Strategy

· Condition 3: Verification of Remediation Works

· Condition 4: Reporting of Unexpected Contamination

7.21. NYC Minerals and Waste Officer (Latest comments 23^rd April 2024) – Confirmed that there are no active quarry sites or waste facilities within 500 metres of the application site, and the site is within a Minerals and Waste Safeguarding Area for Limestone, Brick & Clay, and does fall within the exemption criteria stated in paragraph 8.55 of the MWJP (2022).  On this basis they have advised that “Applications for development on land which is already allocated in an adopted local plan where the plan took account of minerals, waste and minerals and waste transport infrastructure safeguarding requirements, or, in the case of emerging local plan allocations, where the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority has raised no safeguarding concerns during consultation on the emerging plan allocation.”

7.22. Designing Out Crime Officer North Yorkshire Police (Latest comments 10^th August 2023) – confirmed that the overall is design is acceptable noting that the proposed “vehicular access onto the site and movement within it are suitable as it keeps permeability at an appropriate level. This will make it more difficult for offenders to enter the area and move around without being conspicuous and not challenged” and that the design will ensure surveillance, uses active frontages, windows to overlook spaces. 

The response recommends that the lighting scheme for the site is for all roads and segregated footpaths, and accounts for any trees that are to be planted and should be added to each dwelling at the door by way of dawn till dusk lighting. 

Also noted that “The public open space is provided with good levels of natural surveillance from nearby dwellings, which gives a sense of guardianship and can deter criminal and antisocial behaviour” and that “There is clear demarcation of private, semi-private and public space that creates defensible space, where it is clear who has control and ownership”. 

He also notes that plots without garages have been provided cycle storage which he also supports.

7.23. NYC Affordable Housing (Latest comments 8^th May 2024) – consider that the scheme does not meet the requirements of SP9 of the Core Strategy Local Plan, and that viability testing should be undertaken to justify provision under 40% level. 

Also note that

“The tenure of the units is intended to be 10 affordable rent and 5 First Homes and 6 intermediate units, which equates to an 25/29/48 split. Tenure split and the type of housing being sought will be based on the Council’s latest evidence on local need. This comes in the form of the HEDNA (2020) which advises that, as per NPPF 2019 – a minimum of 10% of the homes should be for affordable home ownership, but there is no evidence to increase this amount. In terms of rented accommodation, both social and affordable rent are required, with a need for social rent more prominent”

They also note that the “HEDNA also provides local need information relating to bedroom size. For rented accommodation, preference is towards 1 and 2 bedroom accommodation, with some 3 and few 4 bedroom requirements. For intermediate tenures, preference is 2 and 3 bedroom housing.”

Additional comments note that all units should meet the National Space Standards, should be of the same standard of design and amenity of market housing and early contact should be made with a Registered Provider.

In addition, they have noted that the S106 Agreement will need to include clauses to ensure the affordable properties are allocated to households with a local connection to Sherburn in Elmet, South Milford, Barkston Ash, Little Fenton and Biggin first as a local letting Criteria.

7.24. NYC Education Directorate / Children’s and Young People Services – recommends commuted sums and provision of land to the south of Athelstan Community Primary School (equating to 0.2521 hectares), details are provided later in the report.

7.25. NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Health Board – (Latest comments 19^th April 2024) – Advised that a payment of £124,750 should be made before the development commences for additional primary healthcare provision to mitigate the impact arising from the population associated with the proposed development.  This is noted as split between Sherburn Group Practice and South Milford Surgery where the impact of the development is considered to arise.

7.26. NYC Waste and Recycling Officer - (Latest comments 2^nd May 2024) – advised that they have reviewed the Refuse Vehicle Swept Path Analysis and the vehicle dimensions that were provided previously, have not been used. However, the vehicle dimensions used were larger than our vehicles so this should be sufficient. Confirmed based on the assumption that the roads will be adopted then bin presentation points identified for these private areas are in suitable locations and these presentation points should be large enough to accommodate up to 2 bins per property. Advise that previous comments relating to internal and external bin storage at each property and the requirement for the developer to pay for the bins are still relevant and the developer will be required to purchase the waste and recycling containers for this development which should be covered by the S106 Agreement.

7.27. No response received from Leeds East Airport, or from Sherburn Aero Club following the receipt of additional information from the Applicants in May 2024 and October 2024.

Local Representations

7.28. The application was in the Pontefract and Castleford Express on the 18^th August 2023 and 2^nd May 2024 and via sites notices erected on the 15^th August 2023 and the 17^th April 2024.

7.29. There have been comments received on the application from 227 contributors, with some contributors making more than one comment on the application at various stages. 

7.30. As part of comments made in objection to the application then some objectors have noted that they don’t object to the principle of more housing in the settlement but have noted that an alternative access route must be found that doesn’t utilise access through the existing development, pose a significant threat to children's safety and undermine the open space.

7.31. Comments have been received from Sherburn Medical Practice who requested that the developer provide funding to allow the Practice to enhance car parking provision at the Medical Centre.  Noting that the “Whilst we support the application to access s106 contributions to continue to improve delivery of care the wider issues such as car parking needs to be considered in the very near future to enable us to continue to support local housing developments.”  They have also made submissions noting that the scheme will impact on patient numbers, waiting times for appointments and ability to serve customer needs with staff they are able to have due to constraints in the Centre. As such they have requested a contribution from the developer toward the expansion of healthcare facilities, enabling us to provide additional consulting rooms, staff areas, and necessary amenities. They have also commented the request made by the Integrated Care Board does not reflect the cost of additional car parking at the Medical Centre and in their view this needs to be reflected in the S106 contributions.

7.32. As part of comments received on the application then objectors have provided a traffic count data (Mr Irvin 18^th December 2023) and surveys of use of the open space (Mr Irvin 19^th September 2024).  These can be seen on the website.

7.33. A summary of the comments is provided below, however, please see website for full comments:

Principle of Development

· The loss of green belt in the area will reduce the quality of life that living in a village should bring

· The area has accommodated more than the number of houses agreed in the long term Sherburn in Elmet plan.

· Why is there never any building in Tadcaster? Always Sherburn and the growth is out of control,

· Persimmon & Redrow should be forced to locate land outside the current Sherburn area as it's already been expanded beyond capacity. Many people moved here for the village life & now we're now classified as a town!

· Weight should be afforded to the Emerging Local Plan approach on identifying the site as an allocation

· The developers are trying to jump the gun and develop the land prior to the adoption of the local plan. The Local Plan states that access to the land will be via Milford Road whereas the developers want to route all traffic via the existing estate.

· The application should sensibly be refused and be brought forward in accordance with the emerging Local Plan in a comprehensive manner with all vehicular access being taken directly off Low Street

· If this scheme proceeds, it would bring both the house building industry and the town planning system into disrepute at a time when they need to demonstrate their ability to deliver good quality housing in quality surroundings which respect the communities in which this development occurs. Collectively we need to deliver developments which add quality to a village or town. The application as it stands fails to do this by a long way.

· The proposal does not promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to meet the needs of the area; improve the environment, mitigate climate change and that the adverse impacts of going ahead with the plan will significantly outweigh the benefits of doing so.

Design

· The scheme does not meet the requirements of Policy SG9 on design in the Emerging Local Plan and does not facilitate through its design social inclusion, promote user-friendly environments and provide safe and secure places to live due to the detrimental impact on the existing residents and the impact on the open space.

· The scheme does not provide sufficient private amenity space which is appropriate to the type of development.

· Consider that SHER-H allocation should be subject of a Planning Development Brief which would be the subject of community consultation. This would articulate a vision for the site ensuring that it is developed in a comprehensive and attractive way.

Housing Density and Mix

· Need more affordable housing as there is far too much housing that is no use to local residents.

· The development has not taken into consideration the aging/older population of residents who want to stay in Sherburn in Elmet, that want to downsize from a detached house into a bungalow that can't as there are not enough bungalows to accommodate them. A forgotten age bracket by the developers and again going for their own commercial gains

Character and Appearance and Landscape

· The proposals will impact on the area of public open space and footpaths used by existing residents which is detrimental to the character and appearance of the area

· This application does not avoid significant loss of key characteristics that contribute to the quality of the Locally Important Landscape Area

· The Landscape Officer has not considered the impact of the loss of the open space to create the access into the site in his assessment of the application

Residential amenity

· The massive increase in cars adding to vehicle emissions is hazard to the local population health together with the HGVs accessing the industrial area.

· Results in the loss of privacy for current residents along Rochester Row, Conference Court and Bartlett View

· developing this land and losing this space would have a negative impact on the mental and/or physical health of many Sherburn residents.

· Development will increase noise and pollution from traffic for houses in surrounding area and those located close to back of footpaths and with windows facing the access routes that will be used by the development.

Highways

· Highways Officers have been inconsistent in the advice given particularly in relation to the approach of Rochester Row.

· The junction from Low Street into Bramley Park Avenue is already potentially dangerous due to the layout, if more cars using this access this is an increased risk.

· It is unclear why the builder cannot start with Phase 5, with the planned access from Low Street (the main road), then move onto Phase 4 with access remaining from Low Street. Preventing any of the cars needing to access the new houses through Bramley Park Avenue.

· Support the building of these homes but object to the loss of the path for the community in any way at all via Rochester Row.

· The roads on the estate are already overused and rat run through then with extra volume, site people and potential buyers and staff parking around these areas will increase it more and more.

· The Selby Local Plan already recognises the need for access to the new and future development to come from Low Street/Milford Road. These plans are sensible and considered and the above proposal should be integrated into the plans for the safety of the new and existing residents of the estate.

· The local plan consultation has been amended to reflect no access via Rochester Row having previously stated they would look to use - this shows the unsuitability of Rochester Row following consultation.

· This proposed access to the development is a commercial decision taken by the developers when they should have bought sufficient land to provide independent access to the development onto Milford Road and/or the bypass. No thought has been given to the effect this traffic will have on Bramley Park Avenue and Bartlett View.

· There are traffic problems in South Milford, due to narrow road making 2-way traffic impossible on most of the day, and traffic issues caused by offset junction in the centre of Sherburn in Elmet would be made worse by further traffic from the new site, from residents and deliveries. The intention to make access to Low Street, for further phases of 376 dwellings seems ridiculous - Making the access road from the A162 permanent, with a roundabout, would give further phases [376 dwellings], access to the bypass and remove the issue for the villages and current residents.

· If access was from the A162 this may encourage a new much needed supermarket on the A162 and help access to supermarkets from South Milford, as it is poorly served community for access to shops.

· The congestion in the centre of the town is chaotic and with many young children travelling to and from school additional vehicles from more houses is just an accident waiting to happen.

· Rochester Row is not a suitable access point for the new dwellings with its a narrow chicane, and cars are often parked along the road. Introducing construction or additional traffic in this area creates clear safety hazards.

· Use of Rochester Row for the sales access is not acceptable in places the needs of the developer ahead of those of residents.

· Increasing traffic volumes on Rochester Row, even for a limited period will increase this risk to residents, road users and pedestrians, as well as having adverse environmental impacts

· Provision of an emergency access off Rochester Row which will travel at high speeds, cutting through public footpath with these vehicles will put residents in danger and there is no need for such an access for a development of this scale.

· The developer will come back later and seek to upgrade the access off Rochester Row to an access for the new residents

· NY Fire Service already confirmed it would be removed from their system as an entry point.

· The design of the ramp and raised footpath at Rochester Row is highly likely to have an adverse impact on the safety of those using the public open space.

· The likelihood of the temporary access route / emergency route being downgraded to emergency access only is slim considering the developer could apply for change of use under Section 73(3) Town & Country Act 1990

· Redrow cannot be trusted to provide temporary access. They opened up Baynes Drive on a temporary (max 6 months) basis to allow their new residents access as the hadn't finished building Bramley Park Ave when it was complete, they refused to re-instate the bollards. After 18 months and a lot of complaints, Strata were forced by SDC to re-instate them.

· Bartlett Way isn't suitable for access. When cars are parked, it is too narrow a road for the amount of new traffic

· Access to this development should be from a separate access off Low Street and not via the existing development – this is what the Local Plan was seeking – and the developer owns land to allow this to happen.

· Allowing road access would remove the ability for people to safely use this paths that already in place and installing a raised bump does not address this concern.

· The Transport Assessment and its Addendum is flawed and the data within in it is out of date and not reflective of the position. According to the National Network planning Framework. Para 117 if there is significant movement due to the development then a travel plan should be provided. The application should be supported by a transport statement or transport assessment so that the likely impacts of the proposal can be assessed. A travel assessment was performed over 12 years ago with figures taken from another estate. It would not have considered the impact of 106 houses using Bartlett View as their only means of access. This amount of access would have a considerable effect on traffic though Bartlett View and its residence.

· An approach more in line with the Local Plan should be considered, ensuring designs work as a whole and that roads and access points are designed considerately, in line with longer term investment and development of the area, not in a piecemeal way

· The existing roads on the estate are already very congested in rush hours and school start and finish times. Alternative access for contractor vehicles must be provided directly to the site from Low Street or the Sherburn Bypass.

· Car parking provision needs to be sufficient for the size of the dwellings – 4 bed houses need more than one parking space

· There isn’t even a good bus service for the area which means MORE cars, effecting carbon omissions.

· For at least 18 months, we will have to endure a vast volume of all manor of site traffic passing through the existing estate

· Construction traffic (except HGVs) will have to come through the estate to access the site via Rochester Row & Bartlett View resulting in logjams and chaos. All construction traffic should have to use the access from the A162 HGV or not.

· The road network in the town at the cross roads of Kirkgate Finkle Hill Moor Lane cannot cope with the volume of traffic at the moment . So having the access on the plans as it is would not work with only 2 options to enter and exit the original and new housing scheme

· The Road Safety Audit (November 2023) conclusions should be questioned should have been carried out on different days and at different times in order to see vehicle/people/cyclist movements throughout the day. The RSA is not fit for purpose and NYC should insist that they, or another organisation, go back and carry out the study properly and professionally.

Loss of Open Space

· NPPF 99 - Existing open space should not be built on unless it is surplus to requirements and would be replaced by equivalent or better provision or the benefits outweigh the loss of the current use. Clearly this is not the case, the application should be refused.

· A recent local survey calculated that this path is used 110,000 times a year.

· The provision of the site access and the sales / emergency access across the existing open space and its associated footpaths will alter the way in which is open space can be used by residents and represents a safety concern

· The existing open space should not be lost to facilitate development.

· The walking track is located between 2 children's playgrounds and in which children run freely between the play areas without the threat caused by cars and other vehicles.

· Legal precedent supports the notion that planning decisions must prioritise the preservation of public spaces

Nature Conservation and Protected Species

· The development will destroy part of an existing wild meadow and ecological habitats including that of nesting birds

· The siting of the Pumping Station will impact on existing habitat

· The removal of sections of a public open space area breaches targets to achieve carbon zero as the public open space is now established and has created a new eco system to support wildlife.

· This proposed development will destroy the existing wildlife and character of the current development, it will remove a safe path through a Public Open Space and introduce risk to users of the public open space and also increase traffic with the current estate.

· There will be an impact on bat population which is not minimal, just because the site doesn't have any roosting habitat doesn't mean that the immediate local area doesn't. The bat box provisions should be increased to support the local population.

· The developers have stipulated 10% of houses will have integrated swift bricks and bat boxes. 10 out of 100 houses does not appear enough to sustain and encourage wildlife into a new development, where a pledge of 50% would ensure more of a commitment to biodiversity net gain and is in keeping with other developers.

· Advice on sourcing and placement of swift bricks can be sought from Swift experts at Leeds Swifts, and bat box advice from Bat Conservation Trust.

· Red List Skylarks nesting in the area and the fields which are due to be built on.

· Red kites and buzzards will be impacted and they are seen often over the application site

Flood Risk, Drainage and Climate Change

· The foul drainage system struggles already. We have been unfortunate enough to have had our shared drive covered in foul sewage, blocked drains which have lead to being unable to flush toilets and drain shower and basin wastes. Fortunately so far, nothing has back flowed into any properties yet. And in the hot summer months, the foul drains can provide some very unpleasant aromas.

· Need to ensure that surface water drainage is provided

· The assessments of flood risk and drainage are based on out of date information so water will not be able to soak into the ground based on the latest 2024/25 data sets from the EA. So Flood map area on plans will be worse for 2024/2025 due to increasing rainfall and proposed phase 4 and 5 housing [376 dwellings] preventing water soaking into the ground. This will affect the risk of flooding in the sewage containment site and housing at the bottom of Bramley Park Avenue. 

Infrastructure

· Scheme will put extra pressure that will be put on our town amenities and this needs to be considered including doctors, dentists, vets and schools

· Both of the Town's primary schools are full and only one of which can be expanded and surely this would add to the traffic problems currently experienced on weekday's.

· The Doctors surgery is at capacity and there is no scope for them to employ further doctors at the current time

· The area is already over populated in comparison to the available (or lack of available) amenities & this additional development will only make that far worse.

· The high school in Sherburn from what gather is already at capacity so adding another additional 106 dwelling with potential families will push the school past breaking point.

· The Selby Local Plan Revised Publication 2024 concedes that the level of services in Sherburn in Elmet has failed to keep pace with the level of population and housing growth witnessed in recent years. Here is an opportunity to rectify matters.

· Since the village has grown we have seen more crime and anti social behaviour this is not a reflection on the residents more a target for those looking to commit crime and lack of public money will result in less police presence

· The bus service from Sherburn to local areas, is also satisfactory at best. With trains running every 1-2 hours to Leeds or Selby, and not on evenings or weekends.

Other Matters

· Planning Committee should visit the site prior to making a decision on this application

· Residents of have acquired property from the same Developers on the basis of the public open space which is eroded by this development and the developer has shown lack of integrity now looking to remove some of this area post sales on the earlier phase

· There will be a reduction in value of house based on loss of green space, increased traffic and noise

· Pulling down more trees is only acceptable if every single one is replaced in the existing POS (in addition to what will be planted in the new parts of the POS), as we are being charged for the planting of trees by green belt when they are being removed.

· The developer has ignored the comments of the community on this application

· Residents are being charged by the Management company to replace some trees which have not taken it seems morally wrong to remove ones which are established.

· Question why Councillors can object to a development which has 100 % affordable homes yet be supportive of developments on all other areas within our community. The only answer can deduce is that the later does not impact on their places of residence. Reflecting on the Nolan principles of openness and transparency perhaps they should be prioritising the safety of residents.

· We still have heavy construction vehicles using our roads which are still not adopted on the earlier phases.

· An environmental assessment doesn't look have been included within the application.

· Recommend the Council considers the road speeds be reduced to 20mph within the new and existing development

· This constant tinkering by the developers in order to get the land released now is unacceptable and I suspect has got more to do with options to buy the land rather than it being driven by a well thought out and well designed development solution for this important site.

· How the Sherburn aero club sees this development as it makes their 28 and 10 runway circles practically illegal. Planes fly on a too low level and too close to existing houses already. If the town grows more towards south newly built houses the corridor between Sherburn and South Milford will close up slowly.

· It should be noted that the planning documents are difficult to read as the keys are irrelevant to the purpose of the drawing or point of the drawing is lost due to the scale of the information.

· The proposed 'access strategy' goes against resident consultation with Johnson Mowatt.

· If the plans are approved then the developer should not be allowed to change them and should build what they have committed to build.

· Cannot understand how the developer can sell someone a property with comprehensive plans of how the street will be finished which have been delivered and established, only to now amend these plans to suit the next phase of development. This surely reneges on the originally design agreed by the Planning Committee.

8.0       Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)

8.1. The development falls within Schedule 2 Category 10(b) urban development project, of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017 (as amended) and exceeds threshold (iii) due to the site being over 5 hectares.  As such the Council as Local Planning Authority have screened the application upon receipt and found that it is not EIA development, and no Environmental Statement is required to be submitted with the application. A record of the screening on the public file under the application reference ZG2023/0774/FULM and this was added on the 14^th August 2023. Nothing has changed since the screening decision and it remains effective for the purposes of this report.

9.0       Main Issues

9.1. The key considerations in the assessment of this application are as follows:

· Principle of development

· Loss of agricultural land

· Minerals

· Housing density and mix

· Character and appearance including Landscaping

· Flood risk and drainage

· Climate change

· Access and highway safety

· Residential amenity

· Impact upon nature conservation, protected species and ancient woodland

· Recreational open space

· Affordable housing

· Contaminated land and ground conditions

· Archaeology

· Noise and air pollution

· Aviation impacts

· Other Matters arising from Consultations

10.0     ASSESSMENT

Principle of Development

10.1. Policy SP1 of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan outlines that "when considering development proposals the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework" and sets out how this will be undertaken. Policy SP1 is therefore consistent with the guidance in the NPPF.  The Council does not have the required five year housing land supply and therefore Paragraph 11d of the NPPF is engaged and the “tilted balance” applies.

10.2. Policy SP2 of the CS sets out the long-term spatial hierarchy for the distribution of future development within the District, focusing development firstly in the Principal Town of Selby, Local Service Centres, Designated Service Villages and smaller villages. Sherburn in Elmet is a Local Service Centre as defined in Policy SP2A of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan and is noted as a settlement which has a range of services and a range of employment opportunities.

10.3. The site lies outside the Development Limits for the settlement as defined in the Selby District Local Plan (2005).

10.4.    Policy SP2A(c) of the Core Strategy says: “Development in the countryside (outside Development Limits) will be limited to the replacement or extension of existing buildings, the re-use of buildings preferably for employment purposes, and well-designed new buildings of an appropriate scale, which would contribute towards and improve the local economy and where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, in accordance with Policy SP13; or meet rural affordable housing need (which meets the provisions of Policy SP10), or other special circumstances.”

10.5.   The proposal does not constitute any of the forms of development set out under SP2A(c). In light of the above policy context the proposals for residential development are contrary to Policy SP2 of the Core Strategy. Substantial weight to the conflict with the development plan (and the related conflict with the intentions of the Framework) should be given in this case. The proposal should therefore be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

10.6.    Policies SP10 Rural Housing Exception Sites and SP13 Scale and Distribution of Economic Growth do not apply to the proposal nor are there other special circumstances.

Safeguarded Land Designation

10.7.    The application site is part of a site identified as “Safeguarded Land” within the Selby District Local Plan 2005 and is adjacent to Sherburn in Elmet.  The Local Plan states that Safeguarded Land is land excluded from the Green Belt outside Development Limits, but not allocated for development. It will be safeguarded as part of a potential long-term reserve beyond 2006, in accordance with Policy SL1. The release of the “safeguarded land”, if required to meet long-term development needs, would only be made in a controlled and phased manner through future Local Plan or land supply reviews, possibly extending over successive review periods.

10.8.   This is supported by Paragraph 149 of the NPPF (December 2024) which confirms that safeguarded land is identified between the urban area and the Green Belt in order to meet longer term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period. It makes it clear that safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time and planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted following a Local Plan review which proposes its development.

10.9.    Policy SL1 is a carried forward policy from the SDLP. It states that “within areas of safeguarded land as defined on the proposals map, proposals for development which would prejudice long term growth beyond 2006 will not be permitted. It is intended that the release of safeguarded land, if required, will be carried out in a controlled and phased manner extending over successive reviews of the Local Plan.”

10.10.  It is accepted by the Council that other safeguarded land in the district, including areas of land around Sherburn and Hillam, has been released for development including at Hodgsons Gate / Pinfold Garth at appeal and against the background of the Council not having a 5 year housing land supply at the point of determination.  Indeed, the Inspector for the appeal decision on land to the east of the application site at Hodgson’s Gate (APP/N2739/W/16/3144900 dated 06 December 2016) commented that:

“…the appeal site was safeguarded some 11 years ago as a resource for accommodating residential growth beyond 2006.  It has been kept free of permanent development all of this time and its release now reflects the changed circumstances in the District with regard to the slow delivery of new residential development to meet a new housing requirement.”

10.11. The Inspector concluded that in the specific circumstances at the time of determination, being a lack of five year housing land supply, “given its status as a parcel of a larger area of safeguarded land, it is not necessary for the appeal site to be kept free of permanent development at the present time in order to maintain its availability for development in the longer term”.

10.12. In the context of the latest version of the NPPF (December 2024), a five year land supply cannot be demonstrated, as was also the case at the time of the Hodgson’s Gate appeal decision in 2016 and the release of sustainable sites for development has to be considered in this context under Paragraph 11D which is a material consideration that supports the release of a safeguarded site for development at this time.

Housing Supply Requirements

10.13. The NPPF is a material consideration. In this context, currently there is a lack of a five-year housing land supply in the Selby legacy area, due to the increase in housing requirements arising from the NPPF (December 2024) and as such applications are required to make decisions in accordance with Paragraph 11 d of the NPPF (December 2024).

10.14. Paragraph 11D states that in terms of decision-making and the presumption in favour 

of sustainable development:

d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed; or

ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination”

10.15. Footnote 7 notes that the “assets of particular importance” are : habitats sites (and those sites listed in paragraph 189) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, a National Landscape, a National Park (or within the Broads Authority) or defined as Heritage Coast; irreplaceable habitats; designated heritage assets (and other heritage assets of archaeological interest referred to in footnote 75); and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change”.

10.16. In light of the above, the site does not have any “assets of particular importance”, and it is considered that the scheme accords with the NPPF when taken as a whole.  The development is in a sustainable location on the edge of a Local Service Centre and it is making effective use of the land providing a well-designed scheme which is also delivering affordable housing provision.  In this context it is considered under Paragraph 11D of the NPPF that the principle of development on the site should be supported.

Sustainability

10.17. Paragraph 11 of the NPPF (December 2024), sets out the presumption in favour of

sustainable development in determining applications and that Local Plans are the key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the vision and aspirations of local communities as such development that does not accord with an up-to-date plan will not normally constitute sustainable development. However, Paragraph 12 of the NPPF (December 2024), makes clear that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. When a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date plan permission should not normally be granted.

10.18. In terms of sustainability, the application site abuts Sherburn in Elmet which is identified as a Local Service Centre in the Core Strategy. The settlement provides a range of services and as a Local Service Centre is considered to be one of the key settlements in the Selby legacy area for growth.  The settlement includes a range of schools, a GP, library, numerous convenience stores including national retailers. Pharmacy, dentists and Post Office and there is a reasonable access to facilities and a choice of modes of transport to allow access by bus and rail to the wider area including York and Leeds. 

10.19. Paragraph 8 NPPF (December 2024), outlines that there are three overarching objectives which are interdependent and need to be considered in assessing whether a scheme is sustainable development, i.e. the economic objective, social objective, and an environmental objective. Paragraph 9 notes that planning policies and decisions should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions but in doing so should take account of local circumstances to reflect the character needs and opportunities of each area. With Paragraph 10 stating that “sustainable development should be pursued in a positive way and is at the heart of the framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable development”, under Paragraph 11.

10.20. It is noted that the following benefits would arise from the proposed development:

Economic

The proposal would generate employment opportunities in both construction and other sectors linked to the construction market. The proposal will bring additional residents to the area who in turn will contribute to local economies through supporting local facilities. The proposals could enhance provision of local workforce for the employees nearby businesses, although this will depend upon potential employee skill matches and vacancy requirements.

Social

As well as market housing the proposal will deliver affordable housing to meet a defined need in the area.  In addition, the scheme would include provision of on-site recreational open space and will make contributions to provision of ecology and highway improvements.  The site is also able to be delivered and contribute to the five year housing land supply.

Environmental

The proposal will take into account environmental issues such as climate change ecology / biodiversity and will deliver environmental benefits in the form of open space provision. Proposals would provide housing outside the boundaries of the Local Service Centre but this is one of the most sustainable settlements in the district within close proximity to major employment opportunities therefore provides opportunities for shorter travel to work distances. In addition, all properties on the development will have EV charging provision and cycle storage via garages or stores is to be provided to all properties.  

10.21. As a Local Service Centre Sherburn in Elmet is a sustainable location.  The proposal would provide 106 dwellings to boost the 5-year housing land supply and would provide economic, social and environmental benefits. 

10.22. The site is considered to be a site in a sustainable location (on the edge of a Local Service Centre) and given that Paragraph11D is engaged as a result of the housing land supply position, development on the site is considered acceptable.   On this basis, the relevant material factors to be taken into consideration in weighing up whether to release this safeguarded land includes the Council’s position on housing land supply, the level of development witnessed in Sherburn in Elmet to date and whether it is acceptable to allow for more development, taking into specific account the sustainability of the settlement and whether it is appropriate, given the time period since its designation.

10.23. The site is in a sustainable location on the edge of a Local Service Centre, the Council does not have a five year housing land supply and safeguarded land in Sherburn has been released for development when this has been the position previously via Committee decisions and by Inspectors on Appeal.  In addition, although the Council has ceased work on the ELP and draft allocation and policies no longer hold status as part of an emerging plan and they cannot be afforded weight on the basis of them being part of the process, this site is part of a potential allocation (SEHR-H).  Taking all of these factors into account in applying the planning balance in considering the principle of development of the site, there are significant considerations that weigh in favour of the proposal and it is concluded that the location of the site is appropriate for residential development in respect of current housing policies position on housing land supply and the guidance and sustainability contained within the NPPF (December 2024).

Previous levels of growth

10.24.  CS Policy SP5 designates levels of growth to each of the 3 main towns which includes Sherburn in Elmet, the group of Designated Service Villages and the group of Secondary Villages based on their infrastructure capacity and sustainability.  A large number of housing sites have been delivered in Sherburn in Elmet, however, in the context of the increase of housing land requirements arising from the NPPF (December 2024), then there is a need to release sites for development and the locating of development adjacent to the Local Service Centre, which is deemed to be a sustainable location is an opportunity that should be supported by in the context of Paragraph 11D, notwithstanding levels of growth the settlement has already incurred.  The growth of the Local Service Centre is preferable to growth of lower ranking settlements and as such all opportunities should be considered in the context of the guidance in the NPPF (December 2024).

Deliverability

10.25. In terms of deliverability, the application seeks full planning permission and the applicants are national housebuilders.  It is not considered that there is any reason that the site should not come forward in the short term. Ultimately, the NPPF (December 2024), aims to boost and maintain the supply of housing and this is a material consideration when evaluating planning applications.

Section 149 of The Equality Act 2010

10.26. Under Section 148 of the Equality Act 2010 Local Planning Authorities must have due regard to the following when making decisions: (i) eliminating discrimination, harassment and victimisation; (ii) advancing equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; and (iii) fostering good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics are: age (normally young or older people), disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation.

10.27. The development of the site for residential purposes would not result in a negative effect on any persons or on persons with The Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics and could in the longer term have a positive effect.

Conclusion on the Principle of the Development

10.28. The proposal would be the release a greenfield safeguarded site for development which is outside of development limits. It would therefore conflict with the fundamental aims of Policies SP1 and SP2 of the Core Strategy, which should be afforded weight in the context of the Councils position on 5-year housing land supply, and the titled balance of Paragraph 11D.   

Loss of Agricultural Land

10.29. The site is used for arable agricultural purposes. Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy seeks to sustain the natural environment by steering development to areas of least agricultural quality. NPPF paragraph 187 states that decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Policy SP18 is consistent with the NPPF and is given significant weight.

10.30. Agricultural land is classified using grades 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4 and 5. Best and most versatile agricultural land is defined as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification. The Yorkshire and Humber Agricultural Land Classification indicates the site is entirely grade 3 ‘good to moderate’ agricultural land. It does not differentiate between grades 3a and 3b. The application does not include an agricultural land quality assessment. The site is assumed to be BMV. The site area means Natural England is not a statutory consultee for the loss of agricultural land. The scale of loss of best and most versatile agricultural land would result in minor harm to the agricultural economy in the area as well as food self-sufficiency. The loss of agricultural land is contrary to Core Strategy Policy SP18 and NPPF paragraph 187 b). This must be weighed in the planning balance.

Minerals and Coal Risk

10.31. The site is within an area identified in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan as being safeguarded for Black Clay and Limestone.  designated by Policy S01 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan. Policy S02 requires a minerals assessment for non-exempt development and Policy SO7 sets out that exemptions applicable to the requirement for additional information which are then set out in Paragraph 8.55 of the Plan.

10.32. The NYC Minerals and Waste Team have been consulted on the application and advised that as the site was identified in the Emerging Local Plan as an allocation, where they had raised no safeguarding concerns during consultation on the emerging plan allocation then they do not require a Minerals Assessment as the they consider it meets the exemption criterion in Policy S07 and Paragraph 8.55 of the Plan.  

10.33. The site is identified on the Coal Authority interactive map as lying within a low-risk area for which the standing advice is to impose an informative to draw this risk to the developer’s attention.

Housing Density and Mix

Density

10.34. Saved Policy H2B of the Local Plan states “Proposals for residential development will be expected to achieve a minimum net density of 30 dwellings per hectare in order to ensure the efficient use of land. Higher densities will be required where appropriate particularly within the market towns and in locations with good access to services and facilities and/or good public transport. Lower densities will only be acceptable where there is an overriding need to safeguard the existing form and character of the area or other environmental or physical considerations apply”.

10.35. Core Strategy paragraph 7.80 states “The quality of design in its local context is more important than relying on a minimum housing density figure to benchmark development……. Therefore, the Council does not propose to set a development density figure in this strategic plan”. Policy SP19 states residential development should “Positively contribute to an area’s identity and heritage in terms of scale, density and layout”.

10.36. NPPF footnote 9 of paragraphs 7-14 “Achieving Sustainable Development” requires consideration of NPPF paragraph 129 which requires “Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account: (a) the identified need for different types of housing and other forms of development, and the availability of land suitable for accommodating it; (b) local market conditions and viability; (c) the availability and capacity of infrastructure and services – both existing and proposed – as well as their potential for further improvement and the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use; (d) the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting (including residential gardens), or of promoting regeneration and change; and (e) the importance of securing well-designed, attractive and healthy places.”

10.37. Paragraph 130 encourages consideration of minimum densities “where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs”.

10.38. The extent of the application site is 6.50 hectares with the main area of development equating to 3.1 hectares, which results in a density of development of 34 dwellings per hectare.

10.39. The minimum density requirement in Policy H2B is in conflict with the design led approach in Policy SP19. Under section 38(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 if a policy contained in a development plan for an area conflicts with another policy in the development plan, the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy which is contained in the last document to be adopted which is Policy SP19. The proposal would be an efficient use of land as required by NPPF paragraph 129. NPPF paragraph 130 is not engaged because there is no shortage of land to meet housing needs. The proposed housing density is appropriate in these circumstances.

Mix

10.40. The application is a mix of private and affordable scheme and details of the tenure mix, alongside the identification of six units for M4(3) requirements (6% of the units) and three self-build plots (3% of the plots) which has been confirmed on the submitted plans.  The extent of the provision for affordable housing is considered later in this report.

10.41. The basis for the requests arises from the 2020 Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA), Policy SP8 of the Core Strategy and the NPPF.

10.42. Policy SP8 Housing Mix states

All proposals for housing must contribute to the creation of mixed communities by ensuring that the types and sizes of dwellings provided reflect the demand and profile of households evidenced from the most recent strategic housing market assessment and robust housing needs surveys whilst having regard to the existing mix of housing in the locality.

10.43. This policy is consistent with the NPPF and can be given significant weight.

10.44. Paragraph 10.36 of the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) (October 2020) states: “The ‘market’ is to some degree a better judge of what is the most appropriate profile of homes to deliver at any point in time, and demand can change over time linked to macro-economic factors and local supply.” The wording of the HEDNA intends to provide an element of flexibility in the precise mix put forwarded within applications. The table below from the 2020 HEDNA shows the need for sizes of homes per tenure type.

10.45. The Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment 2020 shows there is predicted to be “A 72% increase in the number of people aged 65+ with dementia and a 60% increase in those aged 65+ with mobility problems (2020-40)”. It recommends 5% of dwellings should meet Building Regulations M4(3)- wheelchair user dwellings. The 5% figure is increased to 6% to account for minor development not making such provision. It is considered necessary to secure such units to ensure housing meets future needs.

10.46. The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Report December 2024 shows, on 30th October 2023, there were 39 individuals on the Selby register. The report also says 188 plots were permissioned between 1 April 2016 and 30 October 2023. However, there is some uncertainty going forward as to whether these permissions would count against need because the most recent appeal decisions show a need to secure self and custom build by s106 for it to count. It is prudent to consider there is a significant unmet meet need in the area and the 3% of all plots as self or custom build suggested in the emerging Selby Local Plan is a reasonable suggestion to secure an appropriate housing mix even with the cessation of the Emerging Plan.

10.47. The offered extent of M4(3) housing is six units (or 6%) and three units as self build / custom build plots which is considered acceptable to the Council and should be covered by the S106. This is considered acceptable.

Character and Appearance including Landscape

10.48. CS Policy SP18 requires the high quality and local distinctiveness of the natural and man-made environment will be sustained by 1. Safeguarding and, where possible, enhancing the historic and natural environment including the landscape character and setting of areas of acknowledged importance. Policy SP19 requires proposals to have regard to local character, identity and context of its surroundings including settlement patterns and the open countryside. Key requirements include incorporating new and existing landscaping as an integral part of the design of schemes, including off-site landscaping for large sites and sites on the edge of settlements where appropriate.

10.49. NPPF footnote 9 of paragraphs 7-14 “Achieving Sustainable Development” requires consideration of paragraph 135 which requires planning decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, provide effective landscaping, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities). Paragraph 139 resists bad design and supports good design.

10.50. The Selby Landscape Character Assessment (November 2019) is given some weight as a material consideration. It puts the application site within character area 11 Sherburn Farmland with key characteristics being flat low-lying predominantly arable farmland with little tree cover and few hedgerows. Alongside, large scale fields often defined by dikes or ditches and irregularly spaced isolated trees. It is also noted that outside the main villages within the area, settlement is sparse with occasional isolated properties and farmsteads and small dispersed areas of broadleaved woodland, including intermittent woodland belts. In addition, the Assessment notes that the area is “Predominantly rural character with a strong sense of openness, however with dominant industrial scale human elements to the west around Sherburn in Elmet” and that “generally the landscape has a rural character with a strong sense of openness, the presence of extensive human intervention, particularly in the west of the character area, introduces large scale human elements which have effects on the perceived rurality and sense of openness. Hambleton Hough and Brayton Barff are landmarks in views to the south”.  In terms of key sensitivities then the Assessment notes that particularly in relation to the areas of existing development around Sherburn in Elmet Airfield then this “may be of reduced sensitivity to further large-scale commercial and industrial development, though providing this does not extend human influence further across the area.”

10.51. The Selby District Landscape Sensitivity Study (October 2021) is given some weight as a material consideration. It puts the application site within land parcel reference SH3 (Land to the west of the Dearne Valley Railway (Sheffield to York line)). It notes this area does not have significant topographical variation, comprises flat low-lying predominately arable farm land with little tree cover or hedgerows and the parcel has a lower landscape sensitivity and that 2-3 Storey Residential Housing would be less sensitive within proximity of Milford Road, continuing the nucleated form and existing density of development.

10.52. The application site comprises a flat arable agricultural field, with a boundary to existing residential development to the north and agricultural land to the south.  The southern Site boundary is presently un-defined and the Site presently forms part of the wider arable farmland which extends southwards towards the Selby-Leeds railway line.

10.53. The application is accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Assessment (dated July 2023 prepared by Pegasus Group) which considers the scheme impacts and the applicants have confirmed provision of a 10m landscape buffer of hedgerow and hedgerow trees along the southern boundary of the site and the eastern edge of the site will be defined with native shrub planting and groups of trees but also the management plan for the landscape areas. The delivery of which can be controlled via the S106 agreement.

10.54. The proposed layout and landscape masterplan drawings also shows the approach within the site and within the adjacent open space.

10.55. The impact of the scheme has been considered by the Councils lLndscape officer alongside an assessment of the proposed landscaping approach.  Subject to Section 106 securing the delivery of the 10m landscape buffer and appropriate clauses to ensure provision of the planting within the scheme and its future maintenance alongside the provision of the public open space then scheme is considered acceptable in terms of the impact on landscape in the area and it is also considered that an appropriate landscaping scheme is deliverable.

10.56. There is considered to be a neutral adverse localised landscape impact and visual effects will be weighed in the planning balance. Alongside the noted requirement for Section 106 clause related to the 10m landscaping buffer there would be a need for conditions to secure the full landscaping scheme for the site which would be required to reflect the Masterplan ensure landscape implementation in accordance with the agreed scheme.

Flood Risk and Drainage

10.57. Relevant policies in respect of flood risk, drainage and climate change include Policy ENV1(3) of the Selby District Local Plan and Policies SP15 “Sustainable Development which seeks to apply sequential and exceptions tests, and Climate Change”, SP16 “improving Resource Efficiency” and SP19 “Design Quality” of the Core Strategy.  NPPF paragraph 170 requires “Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.” NPPF paragraph 173 requires a sequential risk-based approach should also be taken to individual applications in areas known to be at risk now or in future from any form of flooding. The proposal does not benefit from the exemption in NPPF paragraph 175. The aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source. The development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.

10.58. The site is largely in flood zone 1 (low risk) for sea and river flooding, aside from a strip to the west of the application site which is in in flood zones 2 (medium risk) and 3 (high risk), where open space is to be provided.  In addition, the site is in an area of very low risk from surface water flooding. The construction access also utilises an existing farm access from the A162 which is also in Flood Zone 2 and 3. All of the proposed new dwellings are within Flood zone 1 and the actual flood risk is restricted to small parts of the site along the adjacent tributary of Mill Dike which forms the eastern boundary of the site.

10.59. The application is accompanied by a “Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy” (dated July 2023, prepared by Egorum) which confirms the Geoenvironmental Appraisal report and also notes that due to the underlying clayey glacial soils and the relatively shallow groundwater within the limestone bedrock, soakaways were not considered to be a suitable drainage solution. In addition, it considers the possible drainage solutions for the site noting that due to growing conditions the mix of approaches utilising detention basins Swales tank systems oversize pipes box culverts represents the most appropriate approach for the site.   The same report also notes that to mitigate against surface water\overland flow risk from extreme events floor levels will be typically 150 mm above the immediate surrounding ground level and surface water drainage system and storage design to current standards will be provided.  It is also noted that the drainage system will be designed and constructed to adoptable standards for adoption by sewerage network operator.

10.60. The LLFA, Yorkshire Water and the IDB have considered the proposal and the submitted information which includes a proposed drainage layout. The LLFA have confirmed that the surface water management strategy is acceptable to them and Yorkshire Water have also confirmed that they have no objections to the scheme and that this can be served from existing connections from Bramley Park Avenue.  The IDB have also noted suggested conditions and informative in relation to drainage. In this context is considered that the applicants have demonstrated that the scheme can be developed with an appropriate drainage strategy subject to conditions.

Climate Change

10.61.  Core Strategy Policy SP15 (b) ‘Sustainable Development and Climate Change’ states that in order to ensure development contributes towards reducing carbon emissions and are resilient to the effects of climate change, schemes should where necessary, improve energy efficiency, minimise energy consumption, use sustainable construction techniques, water efficient design and sustainable drainage systems. Policy SP16 requires the proposal to provide a minimum of 10% of total predicted energy requirements from renewable, low carbon or decentralised energy sources.

10.62. The developers will have to meet the requirements of the amended Fabric Energy Efficiency Standards. It is also confirmed that each dwelling will be constructed to Part L of the Building Regulations, which will also cover the provision of the EV charging units for each dwelling. 

10.63. It is considered that a condition is appropriate to ensure cycle storage is provided on those units without garaging but the other matters including provision of EV charging for the properties are covered by Building Regulation. Subject to that condition the proposal is considered to meet the policy requirements.

Access, Transport and Highway Safety

10.64. Core Strategy Policy SP15 requires the proposal should minimise traffic growth by providing a range of sustainable travel options (including walking, cycling and public transport) through Travel Plans and Transport Assessments and facilitate advances in travel technology such as Electric Vehicle charging points; and make provision for cycle lanes and cycling facilities, safe pedestrian routes and improved public transport facilities.

10.65.    Core Strategy Policy SP19 requires the proposal to be accessible to all users and easy to get to and move through; and create rights of way or improve them to make them more attractive to users, and facilitate sustainable access modes, including public transport, cycling and walking which minimise conflicts.

10.66.    Local Plan Policy ENV1 requires account is taken on the relationship of the proposal to the highway network, the proposed means of access, the need for road/junction improvements in the vicinity of the site, and the arrangements to be made for car parking.

10.67.    Policy CS6 states “The District Council will expect developers to provide for or contribute to the provision of infrastructure and community facility needs that are directly related to a development, and to ensure that measures are incorporated to mitigate or minimise the consequences of that development”. The foreword to the policy states “It is equally important to ensure that, where appropriate, proposals for development incorporate measures to compensate for the consequences of development including off-site works. These may include the provision of traffic calming, footpath and cycleway links”.

10.68.    Local Plan Policy T1 states “Development proposals should be well related to the existing highways network and will only be permitted where existing roads have adequate capacity and can safely serve the development, unless appropriate off-site highway improvements are undertaken by the developer”.

10.69.    Local Plan Policy T2 states “Development proposals which would result in the creation of a new access or the intensification of the use of an existing access will be permitted provided: 1) There would be no detriment to highway safety; and 2) The access can be created in a location and to a standard acceptable to the highway authority. Proposals which would result in the creation of a new access onto a primary road or district distributor road will not be permitted unless there is no feasible access onto a secondary road and the highway authority is satisfied that the proposal would not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety.” Policy T7 encourages the provision of cycle routes and parking.

10.70.    NPPF paragraph 109 requires “Transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of ……development proposals, using a vision-led approach to identify transport solutions that deliver well-designed, sustainable and popular places. This should involve: a) making transport considerations an important part of early engagement with local communities; b) ensuring patterns of movement, streets, parking and other transport considerations are integral to the design of schemes, and contribute to making high quality places; c) understanding and addressing the potential impacts of development on transport networks; d) realising opportunities from existing or proposed transport infrastructure, and changing transport technology and usage – for example in relation to the scale, location or density of development that can be accommodated; e) identifying and pursuing opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use; and f) identifying, assessing and taking into account the environmental impacts of traffic and transport infrastructure – including appropriate opportunities for avoiding and mitigating any adverse effects, and for net environmental gains.”

10.71.    NPPF footnote 9 of paragraphs 7-14 “Achieving Sustainable Development” requires consideration of paragraph 110 which states “The planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of these objectives. Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. This can help to reduce congestion and emissions, and improve air quality and public health. However, opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making.

10.72.    Paragraph 115 states “In assessing sites that may be allocated for development in plans, or specific applications for development, it should be ensured that: (a) sustainable transport modes are prioritised taking account of the vision for the site, the type of development and its location; (b) safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users; (c) the design of streets, parking areas, other transport elements and the content of associated standards reflects current national guidance, including the National Design Guide and the National Model Design Code 48 ; and (d) any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree through a vision-led approach.”

10.73.    Paragraph 116 states “Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios.”

10.74.    Paragraph 117 states: “Within this context, applications for development should:(a) give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas; and second – so far as possible – to facilitating access to high quality public transport, with layouts that maximise the catchment area for bus or other public transport services, and appropriate facilities that encourage public transport use; (b) address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility in relation to all modes of transport; (c) create places that are safe, secure and attractive – which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, avoid unnecessary street clutter, and respond to local character and design standards; (d) allow for the efficient delivery of goods, and access by service and emergency vehicles; and (e) be designed to enable charging of plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles in safe, accessible and convenient locations.”

10.75.    The aforementioned development plan policies are considered broadly consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.

Sustainability of the Location

10.76.    As outlined in the assessment the suitability of the location for development on the site sits adjacent to the existing built-up area of Sherburn in Elmet which is identified as a local service centre in the development plan.

10.77.   The layout of the scheme facilitates linkages for pedestrians and cyclists between the areas of open space in the existing development from the proposed development.  The site is also located within easy walking distance of public transport provision, as well as a range of infrastructure including shopping, education, open space and medical facilities.

10.78.    All those units without garages will also be provided with sheds to facilitate cycle storage.

10.79.    As such it is considered the site is in a sustainable location, and the developer has taken steps to encourage active travel from the site by future occupiers.

Proposed Access Route

10.80.   The proposed access for this development is to be taken from Bartlett View, so from the development to the north, which is accessed from Low Street into Bramley Park Avenue.  There will be sales access for one of the developers provided from Rochester Row which was subsequently become an emergency access for the development.  Both of these accesses into the application site are taken across land that is currently open space, provided as part of the development to the north undertaken by the same Developers. 

10.81.    During the life of the application the approach to these accesses in terms of whether both would be both permanent accesses for the development, whether an alternative approach should be taken to solely use the access from Rochester Row as an emergency access, whether its use as a sales access was acceptable has been subject to significant discussions between Council Officers and the developer.

10.82.    The accessing of this site via development to the north is a concern noted by objectors both in terms of increased traffic through the estate roads but also in terms of the dissection of the existing open space. This concern is reflected in the comments received on the application as summarised earlier in the report.

10.83.    A significant amount of additional information has been provided by the developers during the life of the application to address questions raised by Officers and in response to the comments of residents / objectors. This has included Road Safety Audits of the access from Bramley Park Avenue but also of the proposed sales / emergency access from Rochester Row, and various swept path analyses in support of the scheme. In addition, Highways Officers have considered the cumulative impact of scheme on the highways network (taking account of consents in the settlement / the latest traffic modelling data) as well as considering the impacts of the traffic generation on a series of junctions through transport sensitivity testing. 

10.84.    Following these detailed discussions in consideration of all information provided by the applicants and those comments made by objectors, Highways Officers have confirmed no objection to the scheme subject to a series of conditions.

10.85.    It is accepted that the proposed access solution for this development will cross an area of open space that is currently utilised by a wide range of users however the extent of loss of open space is considered to be minimal and in the context of the road safety audits work that has been undertaken Officers consider that the accesses have been demonstrated to be safe and as such it is not considered that there are reasonable grounds to refuse the application on the basis of the access coming through the adjacent development on highway safety grounds.

10.86.    The Highways Officer has suggested a suite of conditions, which are considered, subject to minor changing and wording, to be acceptable.  Ultimately, it is considered that the Developers have demonstrated that the site is well related to the existing highways network and it is considered that existing roads have adequate capacity and can safely serve the development, without the need for any off-site improvements. It is also considered that the scheme is acceptable in terms of highway safety and all impacts have been appropriately mitigated so as to support development of the site at this time by the proposed access routes.  In this context the scheme is considered to accord with the noted development plan policies and the approach of the NPPF.

Residential amenity

10.87.    Relevant policies in respect of the effect upon the amenity of adjoining occupiers include Policy ENV1. Significant weight is given to this policy as it is broadly consistent with NPPF paragraph 135 (f) which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

10.88.    The key considerations in respect of residential amenity are considered to be the potential of the proposal to result in overlooking of neighbouring properties, overshadowing of neighbouring properties and whether oppression would occur from the size, scale and massing of the development proposed.

10.89.    The application site lies to the south of an earlier phase of development undertaken by the same developers.  As noted above access to the site will be taken through the existing development so there will be additional traffic flows through the adjacent scheme to facilitate develop into this site. 

10.90.    The proposed site layout utilises the design approach which is considered acceptable by Officers in terms of residential amenity.  It is not considered that the scale of development proposed in the application site will be of significant detriment to existing residents once completed and mitigation can be secured for the construction stage so as to protect residential amenity through a construction management plan and the securing of the HGV traffic flow for construction purposes through the proposed access from the A162.

10.91.    Environmental Health Officers have been consulted on the application and have suggested conditions as have Highways Officers which will ensure that appropriate mitigation is in place to protect amenity at the construction stage.

10.92.    In terms of the proposed layout for the site Officers consider that the scheme provides for a high level of residential amenity for future occupiers of the proposed dwellings and that the scheme will not result in unsatisfactory oppression, overlooking or overshadowing.

10.93.    In this context, subject to conditions, the scheme is considered acceptable in terms of the impact on residential amenity of any existing occupiers adjacent to the site and the future amenity of any new occupiers. As such, the scheme is considered to accord with the noted development plan policies.

Impact on Nature Conservation, and Protected Species

10.94.    Local Plan Policy ENV1 requires account is taken of the potential loss, or adverse effect upon, significant wildlife habitats.

10.95.    The foreword to Core Strategy Policy SP2 states the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and natural resources is a basic principle of national planning guidance, which can also influence the location of development. Policy SP18 requires the high quality and local distinctiveness of the natural and man-made environment will be sustained by promoting effective stewardship of the District’s wildlife by a) safeguarding international, national and locally protected sites for nature conservation, including SINCs, from inappropriate development. b) Ensuring developments retain, protect and enhance features of biological and geological interest and provide appropriate management of these features and that unavoidable impacts are appropriately mitigated and compensated for, on or off-site. c) Ensuring development seeks to produce a net gain in biodiversity by designing-in wildlife and retaining the natural interest of a site where appropriate.

10.96. NPPF paragraph 187 requires decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing sites of biodiversity value in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan; minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures. Paragraph 193 requires when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles: a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons (For example, infrastructure projects (including nationally significant infrastructure projects, orders under the Transport and Works Act and hybrid bills), where the public benefit would clearly outweigh the loss or deterioration of habitat) and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Natural England and Forestry Commission ‘standing advice’ for ancient woodland emphasises this policy and requires consideration of direct and indirect effects. The advice notes the latter includes “increasing damage to habitat, for example trampling of plants and erosion of soil by people accessing the woodland or tree root protection areas; and increasing damaging activities like….the impact of domestic pets”.

10.97. The development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.

10.98. The application predates the mandatory biodiversity net gain requirements, however under Policy SP18 (Core Strategy) and the NPPF, consideration is still required of ecological impact and also includes a requirement to ensure development seeks to produce a net gain in biodiversity by designing in wildlife and retaining a natural interest of the site where appropriate.

10.99.   As noted above the site is currently in agricultural use, and the access routes to the site cross open space laid out by the Developer on the adjacent development. 

10.100. The Ecological Appraisal and Biodiversity Net Gain information submitted with the application considers the scheme’s impact upon receptors of ecological importance and its relationship to ecological assets including local nature sites and SINCs. This identifies such mitigation measures including planting of additional native hedgerows additional trees, creation of woodland and meadow grassland area, provision of bat roosting boxes on 10% of the houses, provision of integrated bird boxes and 10% of the properties landscape buffers and pre-commencement checks for signs of water vole ahead of any works affecting the ditch.  The assessment concludes that there is a predicted increase of 14.36% of habitat, alongside a net increase of 107.83% of linear habitats which is concluded to represent a significant gain locally.

10.101. The application information has been considered by the consultees including the Councils Ecology team and they have advised that they agree the scheme would result in an uplift of 14% with a net gain of 108% for hedgerows and they have also confirmed that as the scheme pre-dates the mandatory BNG procedures there is no requirement for the deemed condition on any consent.  In commenting they have noted that an Ecological Management Plan should be submitted for approval prior to commencement (or occupation) which should set out how new and retained habitats will be established, managed and monitored and should be secured for a minimum of 30 years and that the construction phase mitigation measures should be incorporated into a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for the development.

10.102. The position of the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust is also confirmed in their comments as noted earlier in the report. They have confirmed that that whilst they have concerns about the cumulative recreational pressure on Sherburn Willows Nature Reserve as a result of numerous residential developments in recent times, they note that the open green space within the development is above the policy requirements, and therefore they confirmed that they have no further comments to add to those we have already submitted and concur with the NY Ecology Officer comments.

10.103. In this context and subject to suitably worded conditions it is considered that the scheme is acceptable in ecological terms and demonstrates that all impacts have been considered and that biodiversity net gain is provided notwithstanding the application has been  submitted after the introduction of mandatory BNG.

Open Space Provision and Impact of Existing Provision

10.104. Policy RT2 requires the proposal to provide recreational open space at a rate of 60sqm per dwelling on the following basis “provision within the site will normally be required unless deficiencies elsewhere in the settlement merit a combination of on-site and off-site provision. Depending on the needs of residents and the total amount of space provided, a combination of different types of open space would be appropriate in accordance with NPFA standards.” The Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document 2007 provides further guidance on the provision of open space.

10.105. The NPPF at paragraphs 96 and 98 advises that decisions should aim to achieve healthy places which enable and support healthy lifestyles, especially where this would address identified local health and well-being needs for example through the provision of safe and accessible green infrastructure and the provision and use of shared spaces such as open spaces. Paragraph 103 reinforces the importance of access to open space, sport and physical activity for health and wellbeing. Policies should be based on robust and up to date assessment of needs and opportunities for new provision.

10.106. Policy RT2 is considered consistent with the NPPF and is given significant weight.

10.107. The provision of open space within the development includes the provision of a central area with the main area of housing which will include equipped play provision alongside footpath linkages to the area to the north which is existing open space and the provision of open space in the western part of the site to provide  areas of woodland to reflect the existing proposals on the adjacent site and to allow the creation of footpath recreation links and wider connectivity to the open spaces.  This sits alongside the provision of meadow within the western area of open space.  The applicants have confirmed on the submitted plans that the scheme will create an additional 1.7 ha (17,095 sq. m) of open space and there will also be further enhancement of existing open space equating to 0.424 ha (4240 sq. m), which is a total of 2.1 ha (21,335 sq. m) of provision.

10.108. Amendments have been made to the scheme to ensure connectivity between the existing and proposed play provision. 

10.109. The extent of open space provided by the development is considered acceptable in terms the requirements of RT2 of the Local Plan and its longer-term management and maintenance will be a matter for the Section 106 agreement. 

10.110. The creation of the accesses for the development will result in the loss of open space delivered by early development. However, it is considered that this loss is minimal in terms the total space lost and that the open space will still function notwithstanding the creation of the new accesses through it. In addition, as already noted, there are no highway safety concerns in terms of creation of the accesses via this area into this development through the existing local open space and as such the scheme is on balance considered acceptable to Officers subject to controls through the Section 106 Agreement to secure implementation, ownership and maintenance of play areas and all recreational open space. These matters are acceptable.

Affordable Housing

10.111. Policy SP9 Affordable Housing seeks to achieve a 40/60% affordable/general market housing ratio within overall housing delivery; in pursuit of this aim, the Council will negotiate for on-site provision of affordable housing up to a maximum of 40% of the total new dwellings on all market housing sites at or above the threshold of 10 dwellings (or sites of 0.3 ha) or more; the tenure split and the type of housing being sought will be based on the Council’s latest evidence on local need; and an appropriate agreement will be secured at the time of granting planning permission to secure the long-term future of affordable housing. The actual amount of affordable housing, or commuted sum payment to be provided is a matter for negotiation at the time of a planning application, having regard to any abnormal costs, economic viability and other requirements associated with the development.

10.112. The Developer Contributions SPD (2007) contains a section called “affordable housing for local needs” which is considered to have been superseded by the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2014). The Affordable Housing SPD states “1.4 The latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2009) (“SHMA”) identifies the scale of need for affordable housing in the District over the Local Plan period. The SHMA establishes an overall target of 30-50% intermediate housing and 50-70% social rented housing. To meet identified need, affordable housing needs to be the right kind of housing in the right locations. Following the introduction of the Government’s Affordable Rent category, the Council will be gathering evidence to establish the identified need and tenure split of rented housing. This will be set out through a combination of this SPD, future Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMAs) and future development plan documents (as appropriate).………….6.3 Negotiations on affordable housing provision on specific sites will also be informed by any further up to date evidence, which will include the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), current information from the Selby District / North Yorkshire Housing Register, and evidence of existing affordable housing provision in the locality, including the Census 2011.”

10.113. There is a Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update dated February 2019 but this has been overtaken by the more recent Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment October 2020. Pages 13-15 and 125 of the HEDNA state:

· “When looking at the need for affordable homes to rent, we suggest a need for 141 affordable homes per annum.”

· “The majority of the rented need is for social rented housing, although there is also a role for affordable rent.”

· “It is not recommended that the Council have a rigid policy for the split between social and affordable rented housing.”

· “There are some households likely to be able to afford to rent privately but who cannot afford to buy a suitable home. However, there is also a potential supply of homes within the existing stock that can contribute to meeting this need. It is thus difficult to robustly identify an overall need for affordable home ownership products.”

· “If the Council does seek to provide 10% of housing as affordable home ownership (the default figure suggested in the NPPF), then it is suggested that shared ownership is the most appropriate option. This is due to the lower deposit requirements and lower overall costs (given that the rent would also be subsidised).”

· “There is no basis to increase the provision of affordable home ownership above the 10% figure currently suggested in the NPPF and indeed does provide evidence that the 10% figure could be challenged if the Council wished to do so.”

· “However, it does seem that many households in Selby are being excluded from the owner-occupied sector. The analysis would, therefore, suggest that a key issue in the District is about access to capital (e.g. for deposits, stamp duty, legal costs) as well as potentially mortgage restrictions (e.g. where employment is temporary) rather than simply the cost of housing to buy.” (page 125).

10.114. NPPF paragraph 65 permits affordable housing to be sought on major developments such as this. NPPF footnote 9 of paragraphs 7-14 “Achieving Sustainable Development” requires consideration of Paragraph 66 which expects that the mix of affordable housing required meets identified local needs, across Social Rent, other affordable housing for rent and affordable home ownership tenures. Footnote 31 of paragraphs 61-84 “Delivering a Sufficient Supply of Homes” states “The requirement to deliver a minimum of 25% of affordable housing as First Homes, as set out in ‘Affordable Homes Update’ Written Ministerial Statement dated 24 May 2021, no longer applies. Delivery of First Homes can, however, continue where local planning authorities judge that they meet local need.”

10.115. Policy SP9 provides a broad basis for securing affordable housing and is consistent with the NPPF. The Selby Local Plan and CIL Viability Assessment (August 2022) indicates 20% affordable housing should be sought for this area.

10.116. Affordable housing and viability matters were explored in an appeal decision dated 30^th January 2025 for a site in Hambleton reference APP/U2750/W/24/334788. The Inspector set out:

· The maximum 40% affordable housing in Policy SP9 is derived from an assessment in around 2009.

· However, in 2022 evidence was prepared on behalf of the Council by Aspinall Verdi consultants (Selby Local Plan & CIL Viability Assessment (2022) to inform Policy HG7 in the emerging Selby Local Plan, and this says it considers a greenfield delivery of 20% affordable housing to be viable in this area.

· Core Strategy Policy SP9 could be read as requiring developers to provide 40% affordable housing unless they can show a lesser amount is justified. However, given the recentness of the evidence in the Aspinall Verdi report when compared to that informing the Core Strategy, the Inspector considered this report constitutes a material consideration to which was given significant weight in his assessment of affordable housing delivery, as it better reflects the current situation. Having said that, Core Strategy Policy SP9 seeks ‘up to a maximum’ of 40% affordable housing, so acknowledging a lesser amount could be acceptable. As such, if viability evidence was forthcoming to show accord with the Aspinall Verdi report, the resultant level of delivery would not be contrary to Core Strategy Policy SP9.

· The appellants viability appraisal showed with an 18% profit, 10% affordable housing was viable. The Council considered 30% affordable housing was viable due mainly to differing opinions regarding gross development value and abnormal costs.

· Such appraisals involve subjective judgements. Neither is necessarily wrong. The appellants proposal of 10% would be in line with the Aspinall Verdi report. That report did not say 10% is the starting point for negotiations for a higher percentage. Such an approach would remove any certainty or confidence from the process.

· The Inspector favoured the appellants use of historic sales values from the specific settlement, adjusted by index linking, rather than those from nearby villages.

· The Inspector found in favour of the appellants approach to viability.

· The Inspector dismissed the Council suggestion that affordable housing levels be revisited at reserved matters stage because there would be no need to have undertaken such work at outline stage and in his opinion delivery rates are matters better resolved when outline permission is sought, to bring a degree of certainty to the developer as they move forward.

10.117. The same matter was considered in an appeal decision dated 20th February 2025 at land east of Broadacres, Mill Lane, Carlton reference APP/U2750/W/24/3347833. The Inspector considered “11. Overall, though I note that the appellant and the Council have commissioned viability assessments which both suggest more than 10% is achievable, I consider that only a 10% contribution is necessary to meet policy SP9 in this regard. This would accord with the conclusions of the recent appeal where the Inspector Ref: APPU2750/W/24/3347885 considered that there is nothing in the Aspinall Verdi report to suggest 10% should be the starting point from which negotiations for a higher figure should begin. In addition, an appeal decision relating to a development in Hemingbrough noted that although SP9 required a maximum of 40%, the 20% provided by the development would be acceptable as it would reflect the ELP informed by the Viability Report. There is no suggestion in that decision that it was necessary to demonstrate if a greater proportion could be achieved.”

10.118. The application proposes 20% affordable housing, in accordance with that in the ELP. The new NPPF does not require First Homes but it is possible for applicants to propose them. In light of the recent appeal decisions it is considered appropriate to accept the proposed 20% affordable housing because it aligns with the most up to date viability evidence that supported the now withdrawn emerging local plan. This is in accordance with Policy SP9.

10.119. Overall, affordable housing policy requirements are as follows:

· 20% of the total number of dwellings are to be affordable housing.

· Of these 25% can be First Homes. If the developer is unable to dispose of the FH units a legal clause will require other opportunities to be considered before they are disposed of on the open market. These are: An option for the Council to buy or nominate a purchaser. This is for the Council or said purchaser to utilise the unit as another form of affordable tenure, be that intermediate or rental; or the payment of an additional FH Charge at 30% of the market value of the property to the Council. This allows the property to be sold on the open market and the sum (30%) ring-fenced for the delivery of affordable housing in the locality by the Council.

10.120. The scheme for the site has been subject of changes during its consideration.  The latest layout is shown on the Phase 4 Masterplan (ref P22-0969-DE-001-0101 Revision M) as submitted on the 20^th March 2025.  The scheme would deliver the following housing mix:

1 bed	2 units	Affordable Rent	Plots 48 & 49
	3 units	First Homes	Plots 91, 92 & 93
2 beds	16 units	Market Housing
	4 units	Affordable Rent	Plots 20, 21, 22 & 23
	6 units	Intermediate Homes	Plots 24, 25, 26, 57 58 & 59
	2 units	First Homes	Plots 47 & 48
3 beds	39 units	Market Housing
	4 units	Affordable Rent	Plots 79, 28, 50 & 51
4 beds	30 units	Market Housing

10.121. The scheme is proposed to deliver 20% affordable housing, so 21 units from a total of 106 units.  This is 10 units as Affordable Rent, 6 as Intermediate units and 5 First Homes.  This equates to a 47% of the units being for rent and the remaining being intermediate products including the 5 first home units.   

10.122. The mix offered is considered to be acceptable in policy terms given there is a mix of tenures and that accommodation is provided ranging from 1 bed to 3 bed as affordable units, subject to the noted clauses and clauses to ensure the affordable properties are allocated to households with a local connection to Sherburn in Elmet, South Milford, Barkston Ash, Little Fenton and Biggin first as a local letting criteria.

10.123. A S106 agreement will secure this affordable housing.

Contaminated Land and Ground Conditions

10.124. Policy ENV2 of the Local Plan states “Proposals for development which would give rise to, or would be affected by, unacceptable levels of noise, nuisance, contamination or other environmental pollution including groundwater pollution will not be permitted unless satisfactory remedial or preventative measures are incorporated as an integral element in the scheme.” Part B of the policy allows contaminated land conditions to be attached to permissions.

10.125. Core Strategy Policy SP18 seeks to protect the high quality of the natural and man-made environment by ensuring that new development protects soil, air and water quality from all types of pollution. This is reflected in Policy SP19 (k), which seeks to prevent development from contributing to or being put an unacceptable risk from unacceptable levels of soil or water pollution or land instability.

10.126. NPPF paragraph 187 requires decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate. Paragraph 198 requires decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so Council’s should mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life. Paragraph 199 requires decisions should sustain and contribute towards compliance with relevant limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones, and the cumulative impacts from individual sites in local areas.

10.127. These development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.

10.128. The Preliminary Geo-environmental Investigation (prepared by the LITHOS, dated July 2022) shows that the site currently comprises a greenfield site with possible contaminants associated with agricultural activities.  The report confirms that there are no potential contaminants related to industrial land uses identified for the site however arable farming may have given rise to limited contamination in this context. Ground investigation is required in order to assess the degree and extent of any ground contamination.  This is recommended to include machine excavated trial pits to determine the surface ground conditions including depth of groundwater and stability soil analysis to enable foundation approaches to be clarified and chemical testing on soil to assess the significance of any contamination. 

10.129. The submitted report has been considered by the Councils Contamination adviser who has recommended a suite of conditions relating to contamination. In light of the above and subject to suitable conditions, it is considered that the proposal would not breach Convention rights contained in the Human Rights Act 1998 in terms of the right to health and right to private and family life.

Archaeology

10.130. Policy ENV28 requires that where development proposals affect sites of known or possible archaeological interest, the District Council will require an archaeological assessment/evaluation to be submitted as part of the planning application; where development affecting archaeological remains is acceptable in principle, the Council will require that archaeological remains are preserved in situ through careful design and layout of new development; where preservation in situ is not justified, the Council will require that arrangements are made by the developer to ensure that adequate time and resources are available to allow archaeological investigation and recording by a competent archaeological organisation prior to or during development.

10.131. NPPF paragraph 207 requires that where a site on which development is proposed includes, or has the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, Local Planning Authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. The development plan policy is consistent with the NPPF and is given significant weight.

10.132.  Following the submission of further investigation works by the developer during the life of the application the councils Archaeology Officer has confirmed no objections to the scheme subject to a condition to secure an archaeological strip, map and record to be undertaken in advance of development, including site preparation works, top soil stripping, excavations for new foundations and new drainage or services, to be followed by appropriate analyses, reporting and archive preparation. This is in order to ensure that a detailed record is made of any deposits/remains that will be disturbed

10.133. In this context subject to the noted condition the scheme is considered acceptable in terms of archaeology matters.

Noise and Air Pollution

10.134. The policies referred to in the contaminated land section above are relevant.

10.135. Environmental Health Officers have considered the scheme impacts at both the construction stage and following completion of the development, as well as the site relationship to surrounding land uses such as the industrial estate and the aero club In this context they have requested conditions pertaining to submission and agreement of a scheme for minimising noise, vibration, dust and dirt, alongside a condition controlling hours of working and piling works. These conditions are suggested to protect the residential amenity of the locality during construction and to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) and Selby District Council’s Policy’s SP19 and ENV2.

10.136. Noise and air pollution matters are acceptable subject to such conditions. and it is considered that the proposal would not breach Convention rights in the Human Rights Act 1998 in particular the right to health and the right to private and family life.

Aviation Impacts

10.137. The application site lies to the west of the Sherburn Aero Club, and with within the consultation zone for planning applications.

10.138. Comments have been received from the Club on the application in August 2023 as noted above and a response was from received from the Applicants to these comments in July 2024.

10.139. The Applicants response to the comments from the Club considered the short term impacts during the site construction and the long term risks to aircraft once the site is occupied, noting that similar concerns had been raised by the Aero Club to other applications in the area including commercial developments at Gascoigne Wood.

10.140. The applicants argue that:

· The application site is circa 1,400m from the runway

· The buildings are no greater than circa 10m tall and considerably smaller in floorplate and roof space than commercial developments in the area

10.141. In terms of the construction phase the applicants have noted that:

· The Construction Management Plan can set out measures to control dust suppression, burning of waste and low level construction lighting

· That there will be no need for radio based communication systems for the development so there is no risk to aircraft in these terms

· There would no need for lifting equipment above 10m in height so there would be no threat to aircraft in these terms

· Any equipment that is over 10m (such as cranes) would be lit or dropped to below these levels at night time

10.142. In terms of the operational phase then the applicants have noted that:

· Noise from Sherburn light aircraft is a given locally and is largely weather dependent. The new homes in this case are no closer to the flightpath than existing properties on the southern edge of Sherburn in Elmet.

· Given the scale of each roof and the size of gaps between dwellings, any roof solar glare would be only limited in nature.

· All residential areas will be lit with street lighting using the most up to date downward facing LEDs. The location of streetlights is usually a matter for the Highways Authority and agreed through planning condition. On the assumption the proposed streetlights are downward facing, the risk of being confused with airstrip lighting 1,400m from the runway is unlikely and therefore a low risk.

· Glare from water bodies is unlikely in this case. The site proposes an attenuation basin of circa 30mx20m in size. The basin is designed to be dry and only wet during periods of intense rainfall. Even then, full occupation by water would only be for a matter of days. Given the distance this small potential water body is from the runway and its location north of any flight path entry, it would not create any risk of glare to landing aircraft

· The proposed area will be largely dry and would be attractive to small birds and is not designed to attract larger bird species as such the risk of bird strike would not pose a risk to aircraft

· The buildings on site are unlikely to exceed 10m in height and are located circa 1,400m west of the runway and at this height and distance, the new buildings should present no risk to aircraft.

10.143. Comments were sought from the Aero Club on the submissions made by the Applicants, and no response has been received in rebuttal. 

10.144. In this context and having reviewed the applicants submissions it is considered that the inter-relationship with the Aero Club in terms of construction impacts can be mitigated through controls on the hours of construction, through the Construction Management Plan on crane storage heights in non-daylight hours alongside control on construction compound lighting. In addition, that there are no long-term impacts that warrant refusal. Therefore, the scheme is acceptable in terms of the inter-relationship with the aviation use in the area particularly given that the scheme does not bring residential development any closer to the Aero Club than that which already consented and developed.

Developer Contributions (excluding Affordable Housing, Self Build / Custom Build and M4(3) Provision)

10.145. Local Plan Policy ENV1 requires account is taken of the capacity of local services and infrastructure to serve the proposal, or the arrangements to be made for upgrading, or providing services and infrastructure.

10.146. Policy CS6 states “The District Council will expect developers to provide for or contribute to the provision of infrastructure and community facility needs that are directly related to a development, and to ensure that measures are incorporated to mitigate or minimise the consequences of that development”.

10.147. Policy SP12 requires where infrastructure and community facilities are to be implemented in connection with new development, it should be in place or provided in phase with development and scheme viability. They should be provided on site, or if justifiable they can be provided off site or a financial contribution sought. Opportunities to protect, enhance and better join up existing Green Infrastructure, as well as creating new Green Infrastructure will be strongly encouraged, in addition to the incorporation of other measures to mitigate or minimise the consequences of development. This will be secured through conditions or planning obligations.

10.148. The Developer Contributions SPD provides further guidance regarding contributions towards waste and recycling facilities; education facilities; and primary health care facilities amongst others.

10.149. NPPF paragraph 34 requires plans to set out the contributions expected from development. Paragraph 100 confirms “It is important that a sufficient choice of early years, school and post-16 places are available to meet the needs of existing and new communities.” Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 requires planning obligations must only be sought where they meet all of the following tests: a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b) directly related to the development; and c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

10.150. These development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.

10.151. NYC Children and Young People's Service have been provided a number of comments on the application at various stages, based on the 1^st April 2025 figures they have confirmed they are contributions they are seeking are for primary school provision, secondary provision and for special education needs and disabilities provision, as follows:

· £432,387.50 to be used for school expansion places at Athelstan Primary School or another serving the development.

· £342,916.21   to be used for school expansion places at Sherburn High School or another serving the development.

· £75,960 towards Special Educational Needs and Disabilities provision serving the locality of the development.

10.152.  Alongside these contributions an area of land is also being sort adjacent to Athelstan Community Primary as shown on Plan Ref  SNB-16-02-10, equating to 0.2521 hectares.

10.153. In terms of bringing more land forward to facilitate the provision of a pick-up point for the scheme then the developer and owner remain open to resolving the pick-up and drop off with the Council. They have also advised that the Landowner is committed to bringing forward Phase 5 on the remainder of the Safeguarded Land working with NYC Estates with whom they are in discussions which underpin being able to not only bring forward an application for the remainder of the safeguarded land but also the provision of the additional land to facilitate the pick-up and drop off land.

10.154. In this context the developer has confirmed that they agree to the payment of these monies and provision of the land at the scale noted via the S106 Agreement

10.155. NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board have commented on the application and have requested a contribution of £127,206 to mitigate the impacts of the development on healthcare provision at Sherburn Group Practice and South Milford Surgery.   The ICB note that the S106 contribution secured from this development would fund works at the named practice and/or contribute towards a new development related to the Primary Care Network (PCN) that will accommodate the additional population created by the proposed development. They also request that payment should be made before the development commences and that this is secured via a Section 106 Agreement.

10.156. As noted in the report submissions have been made by Sherburn in Elmet Medical Practice during the life of the application seeking a specific contribution in addition in the request from the NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board. Although the comments of the Practice are noted it is not considered that the development should be required to provide land or funding to secure additional car parking and their contribution as defined in the comments from the NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board is appropriate.

10.157. The Developer Contributions SPD requires a S106 agreement requiring the developer to pay for 4 x 240 litre wheeled bins at a price of £65 per dwelling.

10.158. As such, the scope of financial contributions are therefore as follows:

Primary Education	£432,387.50 to be used for school expansion places at Athelstan Primary School or another serving the development.
Secondary Education	£342,916.21   to be used for school expansion places at Sherburn High School or another serving the development.
Special Educational Needs and Disabilities provision	£75,960 towards Special Educational Needs and Disabilities provision serving the locality of the development.
Healthcare	£127,206 to mitigate the impacts of the development on healthcare provision at Sherburn Group Practice and South Milford Surgery
Travel Plan Monitoring Fee	£2,500
Waste & Recycling	4 x 240 litre wheeled bins at a price of £65 per dwelling

Other matters including those arising from Consultations

10.159. As noted earlier the report there have been a range of issues noted in local representation on the application.  The majority of these are considered in the assessment of the scheme, however, there are a number of aspects that have not been covered in Officers advice as follows.

10.160. Objectors have raised concerns that Sherburn in Elmet continues to grow due to the constraints of Tadcaster and Selby even though Sherburn is a rural area. Officers would advise that every application for development has to be considered in the context of the Development Plan and the NPPF. There has been significant development in the settlement but all applications have been assessed against the relevant policy at the time.

10.161. Representations draw attention to the lack of inclusion of bungalows and so the scheme is unsuitable for people with restricted mobility. Officers would advise although, it would be preferable to secure such accommodation, it is not considered that the scheme can be refused on the basis that no such unit types are included.

10.162. Objectors have commented that the SHER-H allocation should be subject of a Development Brief and have also indicated that the site should only come forward once allocation in the Emerging Local Plan is confirmed.  As explained in the report the Emerging Local Plan is not progressing and in addition any application has to be considered in the context of the development plan and the relevant NPPF guidance at the time of determination.  As such the ELP has no weight and weight can only be apportioned to the evidence for the ELP, which has been considered in the report.

10.163. Comments have been raised that facilities in the area are limited and transport links are limited. Officers would advise that the site is located within a settlement which is a Local Service Centre and as such it is considered to be a sustainable location with a range of services.

10.164. Objectors raise a view that fire services will not be able to gain access to the site. Officers would advise that the scheme has been considered by Highways Officers in terms of access for such vehicles and consultation have also been undertaken with the Fire Service. Access for such appliances is considered to be possible and no objections are noted by the Fire Service.

10.165.  Objectors have noted that the development of the site will result in the loss of Green Belt and result in the loss of key characteristics which contribute to the quality of the Locally Important Landscape Area. The site is not within the green belt apart from the initial sections of the construction access road which is already partly in situ as a farm access.  In addition the site is not in the locally important landscape area.  There is a section of the construction access within the Green Belt which is not already in place in terms of the new temporary route as engineering works and given it is a temporary route this is considered acceptable in principle.  The impact of in landscape terms has been considered earlier in the report and is not considered that the development proposals impact on the landscape of the area so as to warrant refusal.

10.166.  Objectors suggested that the scheme should be accessed from the A162.  The application does not propose access from this direction and the site does not have a frontage to this road, and as such this is not an option before members. The access that is to be considered is from Bartlett view with the sales/emergency access from Rochester Way. 

10.167. Objectors of raised concern that the developer will come back at a later date to seek the upgrade of the access off Rochester Road so as to allow it to be used by new residents.  Should such an application be submitted to the Authority then this would be subject to consultation but also detailed consideration by Highways Officers.  The possibility of such an application is not material to this decision.

10.168. Officers would advise members, that assurances given by the developer at the point in time when houses were purchased on the adjacent development and their overall trustworthiness are not material considerations in the determination of this application.

10.169. Objections have requested a site visit is made prior to the determination of this application. Site visits are held if the Head of Planning or Senior Planning Officers in consultation with the Chair of the relevant Committee consider it will assist the Planning Committee in reaching their decision.   As noted at the start of the report, a site visit will be held on 16 April 2025, which will be attended by Members of the Planning Committee and Officers.

10.170. Objectors have noted that they are being charged by the management company to replace some of the trees which have been taken down as a result of this development once they have been established.  This is not material plan planning consideration and arrangement for management fees are a matter for the developer.

10.171. Objectors have noted the access roads within the early phases of development by this developer have not yet been adopted.  Again, this is not a relevant material consideration of the determination of this application and formal adoption is undertaken under highways legislation subsequent to the granting of planning permission.

10.172. Objectors have requested that the council considers the reduction of road speeds within the new and existing developments 20 mph.  Highways officers have considered the design of the internal layout and have confirmed that it is acceptable. It is not for this application to consider whether or not speeds should be reduced to 20 mph on this site or on the adjacent sites that have already been constructed.  This would be considered under separate legislation and national guidance..

10.173. Objectors raise concern in terms of being able to understand and read the planning documents online due to the scale of the drawings and the keys not been legible.  All documents have been provided at a scale that was deemed appropriate to the Authority and meet our current validation requirements.

10.174. Objectors have noted that if the development is approved the developer shall not be allowed to change them and should build what they have committed to build.  It is not within the power of the Local Authority to restrict the developer’s right to submit revised proposals for the site subsequent to the granting of any planning permission or to make submissions under Section 73 the Town & Country Planning Act if the revisions meet the scope of what is permitted under this legislation.

11.0     PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION

11.1. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The proposal is contrary to Policy SP2 because it involves major residential development in the countryside. Policy SP5 is out of date because the housing need figure it contains is not calculated based on the required standard method. Development plan policies can still be given weight based on their consistency with the NPPF. SP2 is inconsistent with NPPF paragraph 61 which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing and aims to meet an areas identified housing need. Continued strict application of Policy SP2, which prevents market housing outside development limits in the countryside such as this, would not allow the LPA to meet the identified local housing needs. Furthermore, the weight afforded to conflict with Core Strategy Policy SP2 is diminished as it does not include the more nuanced approach to the consideration of development that is found in the NPPF. Thus, the policy is inconsistent with the NPPF and should be given limited weight.

11.2. However, the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land as required by the NPPF. Therefore, the policies most important for determining the application, SP2 and SP5, are out of date as set out in NPPF paragraph 11. Permission should be granted unless the proposal fails to satisfy the tests in NPPF paragraph 11d. The proposal complies with paragraph 11d)i  because no NPPF policy that protects areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. The requirements of paragraph 11d)ii are more nuanced as set out below. It requires consideration of whether the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

11.3. Adverse impacts include the modest scale of loss of best and most versatile agricultural land which would result in minor harm to the agricultural economy in the area as well as food self-sufficiency and moderate adverse localised landscape and visual effects; and conflict with the development plan. In addition, there will be a minimal loss of existing open space to the north on the adjacent development to facilitate access to the site.

11.4. Neutral matters include the lack of conflict with mineral policies; density of development; the site specific flood risk implications are acceptable and suitable drainage can be controlled by condition; there would be no harm arising from highway access or capacity issues; there would be no harm to protected species following mitigation or any harm to designated sites; the site can be made safe from contamination; residential amenity would not be harmed; there is no harm to heritage; noise and air pollution matters are acceptable; education financial contributions and additional land, healthcare and bin contributions are secured to ensure no detriment is caused.

11.5. Benefits include the site being in a sustainable location; the scheme is well designed; the proposal makes a significant contribution to needed market and affordable housing (great weight it given to this consideration); a housing mix is secured that will deliver a mixed and balance community with provision for those with mobility problems and those that want to self or custom build their own home; the scheme will deliver open space linked to existing areas of open space, there is a demonstrated biodiversity net gain and ecological enhancements are secured; that benefits existing and future residents; economic benefits both during the construction phase and once the houses are occupied which are afforded moderate weight.

11.6. The adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The proposal benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Therefore, planning permission should be granted subject to conditions and prior completion of a S106 agreement.

12.0 RECOMMENDATION

12.1. It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to prior completion of a Section 106 agreement securing the matters listed below and the conditions listed below:

S106

· 20% of the total number of dwellings are to be affordable housing based on the following splits

o Affordable Rent – Plots 48, 49, 20, 21, 22, 23, 79, 28, 50 and 51 with a cascade clause in a legal agreement to protect the delivery of all affordable homes and clauses to ensure the affordable properties are allocated to households with a local connection to Sherburn in Elmet, South Milford, Barkston Ash, Little Fenton and Biggin first as a local letting Criteria.

o Intermediate Homes – Plots 24, 25, 26, 57, 58 and 59 with a cascade clause in a legal agreement to protect the delivery of all affordable homes and clauses to ensure the affordable properties are allocated to households with a local connection to Sherburn in Elmet, South Milford, Barkston Ash, Little Fenton and Biggin first as a local letting Criteria.

o First Homes. – Plots 91, 92, 93 47, and 48 - If the developer is unable to dispose of the FH units a legal clause will require other opportunities to be considered before they are disposed of on the open market. These are: An option for the Council to buy or nominate a purchaser. This is for the Council or said purchaser to utilise the unit as another form of affordable tenure, be that intermediate or rental; or the payment of an additional FH Charge at 30% of the market value of the property to the Council. This allows the property to be sold on the open market and the sum (30%) ring-fenced for the delivery of affordable housing in the locality by the Council.

· Three plots to be available as self or custom build dwelling plot (Plots 28, 45 and 65).

· Implementation, ownership and maintenance of play areas and all recreational open space.

· £2500 travel plan monitoring fee.

· £432,387.50 to be used for school expansion places at Athelstan Primary School or another serving the development.

· £342,916.21   to be used for school expansion places at Sherburn High School or another serving the development.

· £75,960 towards Special Educational Needs and Disabilities provision serving the locality of the development.

· Provision of an area of land to the south of Athelstan Primary School as shown on Plan SNB-16-02-10 for use by the School equating to 0.2521 hectares

· £127,206 to mitigate the impacts of the development on healthcare provision at Sherburn Group Practice and South Milford Surgery This amounts to £1,200.05 per dwelling.

· 4 x 240 litre wheeled bins at a price of £65 per dwelling.

· Long-term maintenance and management plan; of ROS and other external landscape areas outside private ownership; for the life of the development (typically through a maintenance management company). This would include all hard and soft landscape, boundary treatments, play equipment, other site furniture, and street trees (where not adopted highway) and provision of the 10m landscape buffer along the site boundary as shown on Plan Ref 10m Landscape Buffer Red Line Plan (Ref SIE-16-02-01)

Conditions

01        The development for which permission is hereby granted shall be begun within a period of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

02.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in complete accordance with the plans/drawings listed below:

· Site Location Plan (Ref P22-0969-DE-001-0100-A)

· Phase 4 Masterplan (Ref P22-0969-DE-001-0101-M)

· Proposed Levels Plan (Ref SHB4-16-06-902 Rev B)

· Occupation Phasing Plan (06.12.14 / CTP Rev A) 

· Phase 4 Local Play Masterplan (Ref P22-0969_DE_001_0115)

· Phase 4 Existing and Proposed Open Space (Ref P22-0696-DE-001_0110-A)

· Street Scenes A & B (Ref P22-0696-DE-001_0108-B)

· Street Scenes C & D (Ref P22-0696-DE-001_0109-B)

· Phase 4 Building Heights Plan (Ref P22-0696-DE-001_0106-C)

· Phase 4 Adoption & Management Plan (Ref P22-0696-DE-001_0105-B)

· Phase 4 Materials Plan (Ref P22-0696-DE-001_0104-C)

· Phase 4 Parking Plan (Ref P22-0696-DE-001_0103-B)

· Phase 4 Housing Tenure and Mix Plan (Ref P22-0696-DE-001_0102-C)

· Persimmon Temporary Sales Access (Ref P22-0696-DE-001_094)

· Landscape Masterplan (Ref P22-0969_EN_0005_G)

· 10m Landscape Buffer Red Line Plan (Ref SIE-16-02-01)

· Phase 4 Landscape Management Plan (Ref P22-0969-DE-001-0112)

· Phase 4 Boundary Treatment Plan (Ref P22-0969-DE-001-0111-A)

· Phase 4 Refuse Plan (Ref P22-0969-DE-001-0107-C)

· Refuse Vehicle Swept Path Analysis (Ref LTP/2949/T1/01.04 Rev O)

· Fire Tender Swept Path Analysis (Ref LTP/2949/T1/01.02 Rev G)

· Yorkshire Water Pumping Station Swept Path Analysis (Ref LTP/2949/T1/01.03 Rev A)

· Danbury 3 Block Terrace Red Brick & Red Roof & Elevations (Ref P22-0969.0301_3 Rev A)

· Tavy 4 Block - Red Brick & Grey Roof & Elevations (Ref P22-0969.0411 Rev A)

· Tavy & Spey  - Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0410 Rev A)

· Tavy - Red Brick & Grey Roof & Elevations & Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0407 Rev A)

· Haldon - Red Brick & Red Roof & Elevations (Ref P22-0969.0403 Rev A)

· Haldon Terrace Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0402 Rev A)

· Alnmouth Terrace – Red Brick and Grey Roof & Elevations (Ref P22-0969.0401_2 Rev A)

· Alnmouth Terrace – Terrace Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0401_1 Rev A)

· Alnmouth – Red Brick & Red Roof & Elevations & Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0400 Rev A)

· Welwyn – House Type Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0324 Rev A)

· Chester – Red Brick & Grey Roof & Elevations & Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0323_2 Rev A)

· Chester – Red Brick & Red with Render Elevations and Floorplans (Ref P22-0969.0323_1 Rev A)

· Shaftsbury Det – Red Brick & Red Roof with Render Elevations and Floorplans (Ref P22-0969.0322 Rev A)

· Oxford Lifestyle – Red Brick & Red Roof with Render Elevations and Floorplans (Ref P22-0969.0320_2 Rev A)

· Oxford Lifestyle – Red Brick & Grey Roof Elevations and Floorplans (Ref P22-0969.0320_1 Rev A)

· Marlow Det – Red Brick & Grey Roof with Render Elevations and Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0319 Rev A)

· Stratford Lifestyle - Red Brick & Grey Roof Elevations and Floorplans (Ref P22-0969.0318_2 Rev A)

· Stratford Lifestyle - Red Brick & Red Roof with Render Elevations and Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0318_1 Rev A)

· Shrewsbury - Red Brick & Red Roof with Render Elevations and Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0317_2 Rev A)

· Shrewsbury - Red Brick & Grey Roof & Elevations & Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0317_1 Rev A)

· Bakewell Semi - Red Brick & Grey Roof & Elevations & Floor Plan (Ref P22-0969.0316 Rev A)

· Marston - Buff Brick & Red Roof & Elevations & Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0315_3 Rev A)

· Marston - Red Brick & Grey Roof & Elevations & Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0315_2 Rev A)

· Marston - Red Brick & Red Roof & Elevations & Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0315_1 Rev A)

· Burnham Det -Buff Brick & Red Roof & Elevations (Ref P22-0969.0314_1 Rev A)

· Saunton Terrace - Buff Brick & Red Roof & Elevations (Ref P22-0969.0311 Rev A)

· Saunton Semi - Buff Brick & Grey Roof & Elevations (Ref P22-0969.0309_1 Rev A)

· Saunton Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0308 Rev A)

· Barnwood Red Brick & Red Roof & Elevations & Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0307_2 Rev A)

· Barnwood Buff Brick & Red Roof & Elevations & Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0307_1 Rev A)

· Kingley Red Brick & Red Roof & Elevations & Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0306_3 Rev A)

· Kingley Buff Brick & Grey Roof Elevations and Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0306_1 Rev A)

· Danbury - Silverdale Buff Brick & Red Roof Elevations (Ref P22-0969.0305 Rev A)

· Danbury - Silverdale Semi Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0304 Rev A)

· Galloway Semi – Buff Brick & Grey Roof Elevations and Floorplans (Ref P22-0969.0303_1 Rev A)

· Danbury – Chiltern Red Brick & Grey Roof Elevations and Floorplans (Ref P22-0969.0302_1 Rev A)

· Danbury 3 Block Terrace Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0301_1 Rev A)

· Galloway Semi – Buff Brick & Red Roof Elevations and Floorplans (Ref P22-0969.0303_2)

· Barnwood Red Brick & Grey Roof Elevations and Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0307_3)

· Saunton Terrace Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0310)

· Burnham Det -Buff Brick & Grey Roof Elevations and Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0314_2)

· Burnham Det -Red Brick & Grey Roof Elevations and Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0314_3)

· Harrogate Lifestyle – Red Brick & Grey Roof Elevations and Floorplans (Ref P22-0969.0321)

· Welwyn Det – Red Brick and Grey Roof with Render Elevations (Ref P22-0969.0325_1)

· Welwyn Det – Red Brick and Grey Roof Elevations (Ref P22-0969.0325_2)

· Henley Housetype Floor Plans (Ref P22-0969.0326)

· Henley – Red Brick and Grey Roof Elevations (P22-0969.0327)

· Leamington Lifestyle, Red Brick and Red Roof with Render Elevations and Floorplans (P22-0969.0328)

· Winterfold Semi M4(3), Red Brick and Grey Roof Elevations and Floorplans (P22-0969.0329)

· Winterfold M4(3), Red Brick and Grey Roof Elevations and Floorplans (P22-0969.0330)

· Winterfold Elevations and Floor Plan (P22-0969.0406)

· Saunton Plans (P22-0969.0309-2)

· Saunton Elevations (P22-0969.0309-2)

· Barnwood Elevations and Floor Plans (P22-0969.0307-4)

· Calder Semi M4(3), Red Brick and Grey Roof Elevations and Floorplans (P22-0969.0412)

· Braunton Semi, Floor Plans (PP22-0969.0413_1)

· Braunton Semi, Red Brick and Grey Roof Elevations (P22-0969.0413_2)

· Rendlesham Semi, Buff Brick and Grey Roof Elevations and Floor Plans (P22-0969.0414)

Reason: For the sake of clarity and in the interests of proper planning

03.       Notwithstanding the submitted materials plans reference Phase 4 Materials Plan (Ref P22-0696-DE-001_0104-C), before any work proceeds above slab level further details shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority for all external materials and a sample panel erected on site for the external walls and roof materials for inspection. Thereafter the approved details only shall be used and retained for the lifetime of the dwellings.

Reason: In accordance with SP18 of the Core Strategy and the NPPF.

Highways

04.       Except for investigative works, no excavation or other groundworks or the depositing of material on site in connection with the construction of any road or any structure or apparatus which will lie beneath the road must take place on any phase of the road construction works, until full detailed engineering drawings of all aspects of roads and sewers for that phase, including any structures which affect or form part of the highway network, and a programme for delivery of such works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development must only be carried out in compliance with the approved engineering drawings.

Reason : To secure an appropriate highway constructed to an adoptable standard in the interests of highway safety and the amenity and convenience of all highway users.in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.

Informative - It is recommended that in order to avoid abortive work, discussions are held between the applicant, the Local Planning Authority and the Local Highway Authority before a draft layout is produced and any detailed planning submission is made. To assist, a full list of information required to discharge this condition. It should be noted that approval to discharge the condition does not automatically confer approval for the purposes of entering any Agreement with the Local Highway Authority.

The agreed drawings must be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for the purpose of discharging this condition.

(1) Detailed engineering drawings to a scale of not less than 1:500 and based upon an accurate survey showing:

(a) the proposed highway layout including the highway boundary

(b) dimensions of any carriageway, cycleway, footway, and verges

(c) visibility splays

(d) the proposed buildings and site layout, including levels

(e) accesses and driveways

(f) drainage and sewerage system (with 100mm level contours and flow direction arrows shown)

(g) Road Marking and Signage Layout together with Sign Schedules

(h) traffic calming / traffic engineering measures

(i) all types of surfacing (including tactiles), kerbing and edging.

(j) an A4 or A3 ‘Stick Diagram’ of the Road Layout showing all roads to be constructed marked with a road number eg Road 1, Road 2, Road 2A, Road 3 etc

(k) details of street furniture including bollards, fencing, seating, bins, bus stop infrastructure

(l) details of vehicle restraint systems

(m) details of existing utility services apparatus (overhead and underground)

(n) details and specification of traffic signals, electronic systems, communications equipment

(o) landscaping and planting details including all trees, hedges and low level planting

(p) details of wayleaves, public rights of way

(q) details of bin storage and bin collection points

(2) Longitudinal sections to a scale of not less than 1:500 horizontal and not less than 1:50 vertical along the centre line of each proposed road showing:

(a) the existing ground level

(b) the proposed road channel and centre line levels

(c) full details of surface water drainage proposals, including SuDS features, storage tanks and attenuation systems

(3) Full highway construction details including:

(a) typical highway cross-sections to scale of not less than 1:50 showing a specification for all the types of construction proposed for carriageways, cycleways and footways/footpaths

(b) when requested cross sections at regular intervals along the proposed roads showing the existing and proposed ground levels

(c) kerb and edging construction standard details (d) typical drainage construction standard details.

(4) Details of the method and means of surface water disposal.

(5) Details of all proposed street lighting. (This plan is also to show New Trees (green); Existing Trees (Greyscale) and Removed Trees (red))

(6) Drawings for the proposed new roads and footways/footpaths giving all relevant dimensions for their setting out including reference dimensions to existing features.

(7) Full working drawings for any structures including retaining wall features which affect or form part of the highway network. (8) A programme for completing the works.

05        No part of the development to which this permission relates must be brought into use until the carriageway and any footway or footpath from which it gains access is constructed to binder course macadam level or block paved (as approved) and kerbed and connected to the existing highway network with any street lighting installed and in operation. The completion of all road works, including any phasing, must be in accordance with a programme submitted to and approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is brought into use.

Reason To ensure safe and appropriate access and egress to the premises, in the interests of highway safety and the convenience of all prospective highway users in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.

06        The development must not be brought into use until the access to the site off Bartlett View has been set out and constructed in accordance with the ‘Specification for Housing and Industrial Estate Roads and Private Street Works” published by the Local Highway Authority and the following requirements:

· The crossing of the highway verge and/or footway must be constructed in accordance with North Yorkshire Councils Standard Detail and the following requirements.

· That part of the access extending 10m metres into the site from the carriageway of the existing highway must be at a gradient not exceeding 1 in 30.

· Provision to prevent surface water from the site/plot discharging onto the existing or proposed highway must be constructed in accordance with the LHA’s specification and maintained thereafter to prevent such discharges. •

· The final surfacing of any private access within 3 metres of the public highway must not contain any loose material that is capable of being drawn on to the existing or proposed public highway

· Measures to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear.

All works must accord with the approved details.

Reason - To ensure a satisfactory means of access to the site from the public highway in the interests of highway safety and the convenience of all highway users in pursuance of Policy ENV1 and Policy T2 of the Selby District Local Plan.

Informative - Notwithstanding any valid planning permission for works to amend the existing highway, you are advised that a separate S184 licence will be required from North Yorkshire County Council as the Local Highway Authority in order to allow any works in the existing public highway to be carried out. The ‘Specification for Housing and Industrial Estate Roads and Private Street Works’ published by North Yorkshire County Council as the Local Highway Authority, is available to download from the County Council’s web site: https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/sites/default/files/fileroot/Transport%20and%20streets/Roads %2C%20highways%20and%20pavements/Specification_for_housing___ind_est_roads___str eet_works_2nd_edi.pdf. The Local Highway Authority will also be pleased to provide the detailed constructional specifications referred to in this condition.

07        There must be no access or egress by any vehicles between the highway and the application site at Bartlett View and Rochester Row until splays are provided giving clear visibility of 43 metres measured along both channel lines of the major road from a point measured 2.4 metres down the centre line of the access road. In measuring the splays, the eye height must be 1.05 metres and the object height must be 0.6 metres. Once created, these visibility splays must be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained for their intended purpose at all times.

            Reason: In the interest of highway safety and in accordance with Policy ENV1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan.

Informative - An explanation of the terms used above is available from the Local Highway Authority.

08        There must be no access or egress by any vehicles between the highway and the application site until visibility splays providing clear visibility of 2.0 metres x 2.0 metres measured down each side of the access and the back edge of the footway of the major road have been provided. In measuring the splays the eye height must be 1.05 metres and the object height must be 0.6 metres. Once created, these visibility splays must be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained for their intended purpose at all times.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with PolicyT2 of the Selby District Local Plan.

Informative - An explanation of the terms used above is available from the Local Highway Authority

09        The following schemes of off-site highway mitigation measures must be completed as indicated below:

i) Raised table along with associated tactiles and fencing at Rochester Row prior to use of sales access.

ii) Footway connection from the proposed development to Rochester Row to remain following removal of the sales access prior to completion.

iii) Footway linking the proposed development to Bartlett View prior to occupation.

For each scheme of off-site highway mitigation, except for investigative works, no excavation or other groundworks or the depositing of material on site in connection with the construction of any scheme of off-site highway mitigation or any structure or apparatus which will lie beneath that scheme must take place, until full detailed engineering drawings of all aspects of that scheme including any structures which affect or form part of the scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

An independent Stage 2 Road Safety Audit [commissioned in accordance with NYCC protocol] carried out in accordance with GG119 - Road Safety Audits or any superseding regulations must be included in the submission and the design proposals must be amended in accordance with the recommendations of the submitted Safety Audit prior to the commencement of works on site.

A programme for the delivery of that scheme and its interaction with delivery of the other identified schemes must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to construction works commencing on site. Each item of the off-site highway works must be completed in accordance with the approved engineering details and programme.

Reason: To ensure that the design is appropriate in the interests of the safety and convenience of highway users and in accordance with Policy T2 of the Selby District Local Plan.

Informative: Notwithstanding any valid planning permission for works to amend the existing highway, there must be no works in the existing highway until an Agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 has been entered into between the Developer and North Yorkshire County Council as the Local Highway Authority. To carry out works within the highway without a formal Agreement in place is an offence.

10        There must be no excavation or other groundworks, except for investigative works, or the depositing of material on the site in connection with the construction of the access road or building(s) at land south of Bartlett View until full details of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

· vehicular, cycle, and pedestrian accesses;

· vehicular and cycle parking;

· vehicular turning arrangements including measures to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear, and;

· loading and unloading arrangements.

No part of the development must be brought into use until the vehicle access, parking, manoeuvring and turning areas at the development south of Bartlett View have been constructed in accordance with the details approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once created these areas must be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained for their intended purpose at all times.

Reason: To ensure appropriate on-site facilities in the interests of highway safety and the general amenity of the development in accordance with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.

Informative: The proposals should cater for all types of vehicles that will use the site. The parking standards are set out in North Yorkshire County Council’s ‘Interim guidance on transport issues, including parking standards’ and subsequent amendments available at https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/sites/default/files/fileroot/Transport%20and%20streets/Roads %2C%20highways%20and%20pavements/Interim_guidance_on_transport_issues__includin g_parking_standards.pdf

11        No part of the development must be brought into use until the access, parking, manoeuvring and turning areas for all users at land south of Bartlett View have been constructed in accordance with the details approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once created these areas must be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained for their intended purpose at all times.

Reason: To provide for appropriate on-site vehicle facilities in the interests of highway safety and the general amenity of the development in accordance with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.

12        No dwelling must be occupied until the related parking facilities have been constructed in accordance with the details approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once created these areas must be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained for their intended purpose at all times.

Reason: To provide for adequate and satisfactory provision of off-street accommodation for vehicles in the interest of safety and the general amenity of the development and in accordance with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.

13        Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) or any subsequent Order, the garage(s) shall not be converted into domestic accommodation without the granting of an appropriate planning permission.

Reason In accordance with policy to ensure the retention of adequate and satisfactory provision of off street accommodation for vehicles generated by occupiers of the dwelling and visitors to it, in the interest of safety and the general amenity the development and in accordance with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.

14        Prior to the first occupation of the development, a Travel Plan must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan will include: agreed targets to promote sustainable travel and reduce vehicle trips and emissions within specified timescales and a programme for delivery;

· a programme for the delivery of any proposed physical works;

· effective measures for the on-going monitoring and review of the travel plan;

· a commitment to delivering the Travel Plan objectives for a period of at least five years from first occupation of the development, and;

· effective mechanisms to achieve the objectives of the Travel Plan by both present and future occupiers of the development.

The development must be carried out and operated in accordance with the approved Travel Plan. Those parts of the Approved Travel Plan that are identified therein as being capable of implementation after occupation must be implemented in accordance with the timetable contained therein and must continue to be implemented as long as any part of the development is occupied.

Reason: To establish measures to encourage more sustainable non-car modes of transport and in accordance with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan and Core Strategy Policy SP15.

Informative: Details of issues to be covered in a Travel Plan can be found in Interim Guidance on Transport Issues, including Parking Standards at: https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/sites/default/files/fileroot/Transport%20and%20streets/Roads %2C%20highways%20and%20pavements/Interim_guidance_on_transport_issues__includin g_parking_standards.pdf

15        The development must be carried out and operated in accordance with the approved Travel Plan. Those parts of the Approved Travel Plan that are identified therein as being capable of implementation after occupation must be implemented in accordance with the timetable contained therein and must continue to be implemented as long as any part of the development is occupied.

Reason: To establish measures to encourage more sustainable non-car modes of transport and in accordance with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan and Core Strategy Policy SP15.

16        No development for any phase of the development must commence until a Construction Management Plan for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Construction of the permitted development must be undertaken in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan.

The Plan must include, but not be limited, to arrangements for the following in respect of each phase of the works:

1. details of any temporary construction access to the site including measures for removal following completion of construction works;

2. restriction on the use of Bartlett View and Rochester Row for construction purposes;

3. wheel and chassis underside washing facilities on site to ensure that mud and debris is not spread onto the adjacent public highway;

4. the parking of contractors’ site operatives and visitor’s vehicles;

5. areas for storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development clear of the highway;

6. measures to manage the delivery of materials and plant to the site including routing and timing of deliveries and loading and unloading areas;

7. details of the routes to be used by HGV construction traffic and highway condition surveys on these routes;

8. protection of carriageway and footway users at all times during demolition and construction;

9. protection of contractors working adjacent to the highway;

10.details of site working hours;

11.erection and maintenance of hoardings including decorative displays, security fencing and scaffolding on/over the footway & carriageway and facilities for public viewing where appropriate;

12.means of minimising dust emissions arising from construction activities on the site, including details of all dust suppression measures and the methods to monitor emissions of dust arising from the development;

13.measures to control and monitor construction noise;

14.an undertaking that there must be no burning of materials on site at any time during construction;

15.removal of materials from site including a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works;

16.details of the measures to be taken for the protection of trees;

17.details of external lighting equipment;

18.details of ditches to be piped during the construction phases;

19.a detailed method statement and programme for the building works; and

20.contact details for the responsible person (site manager/office) who can be contacted in the event of any issue.

Reason: In the interest of public safety and amenity and in accordance with Policy ENV1 and ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan.

Drainage and Flood Risk

17        The drainage scheme for the development shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy 0507/3/1/FRA (Revision 6) dated 11/07/2023 prepared by Egorum,

Reason - In the interest of satisfactory and sustainable drainage in pursuance of Policy SP15 of the Core Strategy.

18        In terms of flood risk mitigation the development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted flood risk assessment by Egorum Limited, referenced 0507/3/1/FRA and dated 11 July 2023, and the following mitigation measures it details:

·No built development in flood zone 2 and 3

·No ground raising in flood zone 2 and 3

These mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the scheme’s timing/ phasing arrangements. The measures detailed above shall be retained and maintained thereafter throughout the lifetime of the development.

Reason : To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants and to prevent flooding elsewhere in pursuance of Policy SP15 of the Core Strategy.

Contamination

19        Prior to development (excluding demolition), a site investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken to assess the nature, scale and extent of any land contamination and the potential risks to human health, groundwater, surface water and other receptors. A written report of the findings must be produced and is subject to approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. It is strongly recommended that the report is prepared by a suitably qualified and competent person.

Reason: To ensure that the site is suitable for its proposed use taking account of ground conditions and any risks arising from land in pursuance of Policy ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan.

20        Where remediation works are shown to be necessary, development (excluding demolition) shall not commence until a detailed remediation strategy has been be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The remediation strategy must demonstrate how the site will be made suitable for its intended use and must include proposals for the verification of the remediation works. It is strongly recommended that the report is prepared by a suitably qualified and competent person.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed remediation works are appropriate and will remove unacceptable risks to identified receptors in pursuance of Policy ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan.

21        Prior to first occupation or use, remediation works should be carried out in accordance with the approved remediation strategy. On completion of those works, a verification report (which demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out) must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the agreed remediation works are fully implemented and to demonstrate that the site is suitable for its proposed use with respect to land contamination. After remediation, as a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in pursuance of Policy ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan.

22        In the event that unexpected land contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken and, if remediation is necessary, a remediation strategy must be prepared, which is subject to approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation strategy, a verification report must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the site is suitable for its proposed use taking account of ground conditions and any risks arising from land contamination in pursuance of Policy ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan.

Archaeology

23        No demolition/development shall commence until a Written Scheme of Investigation has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and:

1. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording

2. Community involvement and/or outreach proposals

3. The programme for post investigation assessment

4. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording

5. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation

6. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation

7. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.

Reason This condition is imposed in accordance with Section 16 of the NPPF (paragraph 211) as the site is of archaeological significance

24        No demolition/development shall take place other than in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under Condition 23.

Reason This condition is imposed in accordance with Section 16 of the NPPF (paragraph 211) as the site is of archaeological significance

25        The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post investigationassessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under Condition 24 and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured

Reason: In accordance with Section 16 of the NPPF (paragraph 211) as the site is of archaeological significance

Landscape

26.       Within three months of commencement of development a detailed landscape scheme (in accordance with the approved Landscape Masterplan (Ref P22-0969_EN_0005_G), 10m Landscape Buffer Red Line Plan (Ref SIE-16-02-01) and Phase 4 Landscape Management Plan (Ref P22-0969-DE-001-0112) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include the species, stock size, density/spacing, and position of trees, shrubs and other plants; and seed mixes, sowing rates and mowing regimes. It will also include details of ground preparation and tree planting details, including means of support and protection and watering. The proposed tree planting shall be compatible with existing and proposed utilities. This scheme shall be implemented within a period of six months of the practical completion of the development. Any trees or plants which within a period of ten years from the substantial completion of the planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority agrees alternatives in writing. This also applies to any existing plants that are shown to be retained within the approved landscape scheme.

Reason: So that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the variety, suitability and disposition of species across the site, since the landscape scheme, is integral to the setting and amenity of the development and the immediate area.

26        Before the development is occupied a landscape management plan including long term design objectives management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all communal landscape areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The management plan shall include measures for 10 years maintenance following the first 5 years from establishment. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To ensure the scheme is developed and managed for future years in accordance with the approved detail and therefore maintained. This will ensure the development accords with Policies SP18, SP19 of the Core Strategy and Local Plan Policy ENV1

Ecology

27.       The scheme hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. The scheme shall be implemented and retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of safeguarding local ecology and to accord with Core Strategy Policy SP18 and the NPPF

28.       Prior to the commencement of development, an Ecological Management Plan should be prepared to implement relevant recommendations Preliminary Ecological Appraisal should be for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. This should also confirm how the new and retained habitats will be established, managed and monitored for a minimum of 30 years and should incorporate the recommendations in Section 5 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. The agreed scheme shall be implemented and retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of safeguarding local ecology and to accord with Core Strategy Policy SP18 and the NPPF

Noise and Amenity

29.       Prior to the site preparation and construction work commencing, a scheme to minimise the impact of noise, vibration, dust and dirt on residential property in close proximity to the site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of the locality during construction and to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) and Selby District Council’s Policy’s SP19 and ENV2.

30        No work relating to the development hereby approved, including works of demolition or preparation prior to building operations, shall take place other than between the hours of 08:00 hours and 18:00 hours Mondays to Fridays and 08:00 hours to 13:00 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank or National Holidays.

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of the locality during construction and to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) and Selby District Council’s Policy’s SP19 and ENV2.

31        Should any of the proposed foundations be piled and/or any ground compaction works be required, no development shall commence until a schedule of works to identify those plots affected and setting out mitigation measures to protect residents from noise, dust and vibration has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The proposals shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule.

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of the locality during construction and to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) and Selby District Council’s Policy’s SP19 and ENV2.

Sustainability

32.       The cycle storage as shown on Phase 4 Masterplan (Ref P22-0969-DE-001-0101-M) are to be installed in strict accordance with the approved details and be available upon occupation of the dwelling to which they relate.

Reason: In order to encourage cycle use by occupiers and provide storage to those units without garaging in accordance with Core Strategy Policy SP15.

Target Determination Date:Extension of time agreed 23^rd April 2025

Case Officer: Yvonne Naylor,yvonne.naylor@northyorks.gov.uk

Appendix A – Phase 4 Masterplan (ref P22-0969-DE-001-0101 Revision M)