North Yorkshire Council
Community Development Services
Selby and Ainsty Area Planning Committee
2023/0097/OUTM- Outline application (all matters reserved except for partial means of access to, but not within, the site) for the development of up to 24 dwellings Land Off Weeland Road Hensall Selby North Yorkshire
Report of the Assistant Director - Planning – Community Development Services
|
1.0 Purpose of the Report
1.1 To determine an outline planning application (all matters reserved except for partial means of access to, but not within the site) for the development of up to 24 dwellings at land off Weeland Road Hensall Selby.
1.2 The 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 outline planning permission be GRANTED subject to the prior completion of a S106 agreement to secure the matters detail below and the conditions detailed below:
2.1. This application is for outline planning permission for up to 24 dwellings on unmaintained grassland at land off Weeland Road Hensall. The application seeks to agree means of access to the site (but not the roadways within the site), with all other matters reserved. The 0.96 ha site is roughly rectangular in shape with residential dwellings to the east and west and an engineering works to the north. Weeland Road runs to the south where the access is taken. The site has had 3 planning applications since 2015 for residential development, 2 of which have been dismissed at appeal.
2.2. The application is accompanied by an illustrative schematic site layout, which shows a compact layout with mix of dwellings at 25 dph. The site lies outside of the development limits for Hensall and is within open countryside.
2.3. The Council does not have a 5-year housing land supply and therefore paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (i.e. the “presumption in favour of sustainable development”) is engaged for applications involving the provision of housing within the Selby legacy area.
2.4. Hensall is a Secondary Village under Core Strategy Policy SP2, which are generally described as smaller and less sustainable villages for growth. Hensall however has previously been described in 2017 by an inspector as sustainable, with its primary school, general store, pub and good access to public transport. The application site is contained by built form to east, west and north, with Weeland Road to the south providing a defensible natural boundary to the countryside. Whilst being outside development limits it is closely related to the existing southern part of the settlement. It is not considered that the development would result in harm to landscape character. There are no technical objections to the proposed development and developer contributions have been negotiated and secured through a legal agreement.
2.5. The provision of up to 24 dwellings (including affordable housing) would contribute to the Council’s supply of housing and the applicant has confirmed that reserved matters would be submitted without delay so is deliverable.
2.6. Therefore, it is not considered that there are any adverse impacts that would outweigh the benefits of granting the application. The proposal is considered acceptable and is recommended for approval.
3.0 PRELIMINARY MATTERS
3.1. Access to the case file on Public Access can be found here:- 2023/0097/OUTM | Outline application (all matters reserved except for partial means of access to, but not within, the site) for the development of up to 24 dwellings | Land Off Weeland Road Hensall Selby North Yorkshire
3.2. The application site has been subject to 4 previous applications for residential development:
3.3. 2014/0452/FUL - Erection of 6no. affordable houses, with associated parking and landscaping. Finally disposed of 14.10.2021.
3.4. 2015/1089/OUT – Outline application to include access for residential development of up to 24 dwellings (all other matter reserved). Refused 16th June 2016.
1. The proposal by virtue of the scale, at approximately 24 dwellings, is not considered to be appropriate to the size and role of Hensall, a settlement, which is designated a Secondary Village in the Core Strategy and therefore would conflict with the Spatial Development Strategy for the District and the overall aim of the development plan to achieve sustainable patterns of growth. The proposal therefore is contrary to Policies SP2(c) and SP4 (a) of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan.
2. The proposed development, by virtue of its location and scale would not be a natural extension to the village and would result in an encroachment into the open countryside which due to its scale, position and indicative layout would be harmful to the character, form and layout of the village as a whole. The proposal would therefore be harmful to the character and form of the area contrary to Policy ENV1 (1) of the Selby District Local Plan and Policies SP18 and SP19 of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan.
Appeal Ref – APP/N2739/W/16/3164906
3.5. Officers note this was dismissed based on no provision for affordable housing. The inspector regarded the site as being sustainable despite it being adjacent to a secondary village, as it has good transport credentials, primary school, store and pub-restaurant. No issue with the impact on the character of the countryside, no highway safety issues. The council at that time didn’t have a 5-year housing land supply so less regard was had for SP2.
3.6. 2016/1310/OUTM – Outline application to include access (all other matters reserved) for residential development up to 24 dwellings. Refused 27th January 2017.
1. The proposal due to the scale, at 24 dwellings, is not considered to be appropriate to the size and role of Hensall, a settlement, which is designated a Secondary Village in the Core Strategy and therefore would conflict with the Spatial Development Strategy for the District and the overall aim of the development plan to achieve sustainable patterns of growth. The proposal therefore is contrary to Policies SP1 of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan and SP2 & SP4 in so far as they relate to a sustainable development and with the NPPF.
2. The proposed development, due to its location and scale would not read as a natural organic extension to the village and would result in a discordant addition and an encroachment into the countryside which would detract from the character and form of the existing village. The proposal would therefore be harmful to the character and form of the area contrary to Policy ENV1 (1) of the Selby District Local Plan and Policies SP1, SP18 and SP19 of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan.
3.7. This wasn’t appealed.
3.8. 2017/0626/OUTM – Outline application to include access for residential development up to 24 dwellings (all other matters reserved). Refused 22nd December 2017.
1. The proposal by virtue of the scale, at approximately 24 dwellings, is not considered to be appropriate to the size and role of Hensall, a settlement, which is designated a secondary Village in the Core Strategy The expansion of the village beyond the development limits would undermine the spatial integrity of the development plan and the ability of the council to deliver a plan led approach. The proposal does not fall within any of the categories of development set out in Policy SP2 (c ) would therefore conflict with the Spatial Development Strategy for the District and the overall aim of the development plan to achieve sustainable patterns of growth. In light of the above, the proposals for residential development are contrary to Policy SP1 and SP2 of the Core Strategy.
Appeal Ref – APP/N2739/W/18/3195392
3.9. Dismissed on the basis of the council having a 5-year land supply and that it was contrary to SP 2. No other material planning issues to withhold permission.
4.0 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
4.1. Hensall is a small village situated to the west of Eggborough. The main part of the village (Hensall North) is located north of the application site. The applicant site adjoins the west boundary of Hensall South, which is a separate small group of houses grouped around the crossing of the main road and railway line to the south. Collectively the two parts form the village of Hensall.
4.2. The site is approximately 0.96ha in size, is rectangular in shape and comprises an area of overgrown open grassland with boundaries comprising hedgerows, category B trees and timber fencing. The surrounding area comprises two storey housing along Station Road to the east/north east, light industrial development to the north and some sporadic housing development to the west with Grade II* Listed St Paul’s Church beyond to the south.
4.3. The site sits in Flood Zone 1. It is located outside the defined development limits (defined within Selby District Local Plan) of Hensall south adjoining its southwest boundary. As such the site lies within open countryside.
4.4. The site sits at a lower level to Weeland Road where its access is taken. There are no statutory national or local landscape or wildlife designation on the application site, nor is the site in a Conservation Area. Listed buildings do however exist opposite the site to the south.
5.0 Description of Proposal
5.1. Outline planning permission is sought for residential development of up to 24 dwellings. Access to the site to be taken via Weeland Road through one main access point. The position of the access is shown on the schematic layout plan and would be fixed by this consent, whereas the site layout of the internal roadway would be the subject of reserved matters and be dependent on the housing layout.
5.2. The proposed schematic site layout plan shows how the site can be developed with the frontage dwellings sitting behind a landscaped boundary hedgerow. The indicative scheme is compact, and 24 units would represent 25 dph, which is a reasonable density and reflective of its surroundings. The dwellings would be conventional two storey and 2 bungalows are shown, comprising a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bed detached, semi-detached and terraced housing. These are arranged around a main central road with a series private driveways. Affordable housing at 10% is proposed. The scheme has no onsite open space and therefore a commuted sum would be necessary.
5.3. Layout and scale are matters reserved, however the Design and Access Statement indicates that dwellings will be predominantly detached and semi-detached. The layout demonstrates that the site could support the proposed quantum of houses (24) and necessary infrastructure. Landscaping is a reserved matter, however the proposed schematic plan shows boundary vegetation retained and enhanced where possible.
5.4. The site was identified as HENS-A in the now withdrawn Emerging Local Plan. This showed an indicative capacity of 24 dwellings and a list of site requirements which have been partially fulfilled by the outline submission and the remainder will be considered when the Reserved Matters is submitted.
5.5. The application is supported by a suite of technical documents that may be viewed on Public Access. These include:
Plans
• Location Plan
• Illustrative Masterplan
Technical Reports
• Transport Statement
• Planning Policy, Design and Access Statement
• Flood Risk Assessment
• Drainage Strategy
• Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
• Preliminary Geo-Environmental Assessment
• Heritage Impact Assessment
5.6. During the processing of the application several further reports were produced to assist the processing namely, a Road Safety Audit, Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation, Landscaping and Planting Schedule, Biodiversity Metric, further Ecological Appraisal, Noise Impact Assessment, Arboricultural Report, Tree Constraints Plan and Development report.
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 the 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
6.3. The Emerging Development Plan for this site is:
- Revised Publication Selby Local Plan 2024 (Reg 19)
6.4. On 17 September 2019, Selby District Council agreed to prepare a new Local Plan. Consultation on issues and options took place early in 2020 and further consultation took place on preferred options and additional sites in 2021. The Pre-submission Publication Local Plan (under Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2012, as amended), including supporting documents, associated evidence base and background papers, was subject to formal consultation that ended on 28th October 2022. The responses have been considered. From 8 March to 19 April 2024 the Council held a six-week consultation on the Pre-Submission Revised Publication Selby Local Plan. The responses have been considered.
6.5. 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 and it was resolved that work on this plan will now cease.
6.6. Having regard to the above, no weight is to be applied to the Emerging Selby District Council Local Plan publication version 2024 (Reg 19), but some weight may be able to be given to the evidence base.
North Yorkshire Emerging Local Plan
6.7. The North Yorkshire Local Plan - no weight can be applied in respect of this document at the current time as it is at an early stage of preparation.
Guidance - Material Considerations
6.8. 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
- 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 Hensall Parish Council – Objection.
· Concerns over the principle of development as its contrary to SP2 and SP4.
· The Parish Council accept that the village can and should accept some small scale growth but do not consider this site to be the most suitable location. There are other sites available on the market, for example on Station Road, which they consider would be more appropriate in terms of safe vehicular and pedestrian access, residential amenity, impact on the character of the village and impacts on the natural and historic environment.
· The submitted Heritage and Ecology Statements are outdated and inaccurate.
· It is accepted that the Council does not have a 5 year housing land supply and that as such policies are considered out of date. Regardless of housing supply, it is a fact that secondary villages are less sustainable. As such large scale development outside of such villages, in the countryside, will clearly also be unsustainable. The harm from such a development, when assessed against the NPPF as a whole, would not be outweighed by the benefits. As such the application should be refused.
· The description should be amended to omit “24 dwellings” and preferably amend it to a much lower number as concerns raised that the site cannot accommodate the 24 with a satisfactory layout, scale and design.
· The Parish Council would prefer to see bungalows and starter homes for which they are aware there is a demand for locally. Starter homes should be rural in appearance, semi-detached or mews style cottages in blocks or no more than 3 or 4 with maximum ridge heights of 8m.
· Concern over tree and hedgerow loss - Space should be incorporated for significant landscape buffers on all boundaries. This will help to preserve the open setting of listed buildings and the rural character of the village from Weeland Road as well as reducing road noise for future residents. To the north and west it will help reduce the impacts on future residents from noise from the railway and the commercial premises and its access.
· Open space should be included on site if more than 10 dwellings are to be permitted.
· Concern over residential amenity for future occupiers by reason of noise.
· Concerns over the impact on the highway, as the A645 is a busy route and the access is close to the junction and the school.
· Concerns over the impact on the Listed Buildings opposite.
7.3 Affordable Housing – No response received.
7.4 Contaminated Land Consultant – No objection subject to conditions covering the need for site investigation, remediation strategy, verification of works and reporting of unexpected contamination.
7.5 NYC Ecology – Initial concerns over the date and content within the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and requested an Ecological Impact Assessment and Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment. The BNG assessment records a net loss of 86% of area based habitat, which is not in accordance with policy. The plan in the EcIA (Appendix V) shows an area of public open space and a much lower density of housing, which is not shown on the landscape/layout plans. The ecological impact needs to be addressed once the layout is undertaken to ensure onsite net gain. Notwithstanding the above, should permission be granted, there will need to be a condition to submit a CEMP: Biodiversity which incorporates avoidance and mitigation measures for species identified within the EcIA.
7.6 Lead Local Flood Authority – No objection. The Drainage officer raised initial concerns that the submitted Drainage Strategy includes infiltration test results which show that Infiltration would be viable. The applicant also states that soakaways with a depth of 2.6m will be used. However, it is noted in the FRA that there is evidence of perched groundwater from a depth of 1m to 2.6m. The FRA states that there is a risk of groundwater flooding and therefore the proposed method of drainage is not acceptable due to the high ground water levels. The applicant should identify an alternate point of discharge for the site. Further information was also required in respect of Peak/Volume Flow Control, Pollution Control, Designing for Exceedance, Climate Change and Urban Creep and maintenance. The applicant responded to the detail in January 2024 and indicated that discharge to a water course wasn’t an option due to none existing surrounding the site, therefore discharge to the public sewer is the final option. The SuDs officer was satisfied that details of this likely connection can be controlled by condition subject to Yorkshire Water’s agreement.
7.7 Yorkshire and Humber Drainage Board – No objections. Full surface water drainage design and maintenance schedule required at detailed planning stage.
7.8 Yorkshire Water – No objection. Comments made on the location of the water supply to the site surface water drainage and the submitted Drainage Strategy. Initially recommends a condition based on the submitted Drainage Strategy, however when it was discovered infiltration wasn’t possibly and sewer disposal was the only option they suggested the submission of a new full drainage strategy showing storage, attenuation and hydrobrake.
7.9 NYC Highways – No objection. The design standard for the site is the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and the required visibility splay is 2.4 metres by 120 metres. The available visibility is 2.4 metres by 120 metres. The Highway officer’s initial response (21.2.23), highlighted concerns regarding accident data and junction spacing. Since then, the applicant has provided a plan showing that junction spacing is in excess of 60 metres, which does address this issue. NYC have confirmed that there have been no additional accidents that have taken place within the study area since the dates provided within the Transport Statement. The applicant has also carried out a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit to determine whether there are any issues surrounding the access, visibility splays and proximity to the signalised junction. The RSA made 3 recommendations, all of which have been addressed. Therefore, the Highway Authority has no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions.
7.10 NYC Education – A Primary Education contribution will be necessary. This will be dependent on the final number and mix of dwellings. As there are less than 25 dwellings no assessment of secondary education has been made. As there are less than 100 dwellings with two or more bedrooms, no assessment for Special Education Needs and Disabilities (SEND) has been made. As there are less than 100 dwellings with two or more bedrooms, no assessment of Early Years Provision has been made.
7.11 NYC Environmental Health – No objections. The proposed site is encompassed by residential properties on both the eastern side along the A645 and the western side along Station Road. There would therefore be a high likelihood that any construction associated with this application would adversely impact upon a number of close residents by way of dust, dirt, noise and vibration.Recommend conditions relating to hours of work, piled foundations and a scheme to minimise noise, vibration and dust on nearby residential properties.
The location of the site is also a concern regarding potential noise impact upon future residents, should this development go ahead. The proposed layout of the site shows that at least 5 of the proposed properties will be located very close to Weeland Road and the junction with Station Road, meaning traffic noise may impact upon the amenity of these properties. The amenity of the properties to the north and north west of the proposed site may also be impacted upon by way of noise as they are nearby to existing industrial processes less than 200 metres away. The officer considers an assessment of potential noise impact would need to be carried out and is controlled by condition.
7.12 NYC Landscape – No objections. Recommended measures which included the need for tree-lined streets, informal landscaping and hedgerow protection and enhancement. The Landscape Officer questioned whether the indicative density would allow for this. Further landscape information was submitted but this didn’t provide any further confidence that a sufficient landscape scheme can be secured or that provision of tree-lined streets can be provided within the current layout in accordance with requirements of the paragraph 136 of the NPPF. As such conditions were suggested covering the need for existing boundary hedgerows and trees to be retained following a tree survey and arboricultural method statement, details of hard and soft landscaping scheme with the provision of a long-term maintenance and management plan.
7.13 NYC Waste and Recycling – Roads need to accommodate refuse vehicles, advice provided. Developer required to purchase the waste and recycling containers for the development.
7.14 NYC Trees – No objection. The main trees in site are the poplars and an oak and these will need to be carefully designed into any proposed scheme with sufficient space to grow, no works within the root protection areas and proposed plots orientated to minimise light loss. There are trees on site that would be removed and replaced as part of an approved application. The landscape scheme will be required to include cellular confinements systems where they are located close to highways infrastructure.
As part of a reserved matters application a tree survey, Arboricultural Impact assessment (AIA) and Arboricultural method statement (AMS) (if required) – ideally not required though if there conflicts within the AIA that cannot be designed then an AMS will required.
7.15 NYC Archaeology – No objection. Initial concerns were raised that the Heritage Statement submitted was not sufficient to identify the archaeological interest at the site and that an archaeological desk-based assessment was necessary. The officer regarded a field evaluation was necessary given its location followed by trial trenching where significant anomalies are revealed. This was undertaken and the applicant has provided the results of archaeological trial trenching. Although the trial trenching identified a number of archaeological features, they were fairly dispersed and poorly preserved. Given the fragmentary nature of the remains it is unlikely that further
archaeological work would be particularly productive and would not advance our understanding. No further work required.
7.16 NYC Minerals and Waste – No objection.
7.17 North Yorkshire Police – No objections. Provided advice and good practice to inform the future layout design. Noted the scheme was in outline if the application is approved, recommend a “Designing out Crime” condition be applied.
7.18 North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue – No objection.
7.19 NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Health Care Partnership – There is an agreement that we won't respond to this level of dwellings, so based on 4 dwellings only, we will not make a submission on this occasion. (Officers pointed out that it’s for up to 24 dwellings and therefore the revised response will be presented to members once received via the committee update note).
7.20 Public Rights of Way – No response received. (No PROW cross the site) The closest is through the church yard opposite.
7.21 Public Health – The officer recognises that the application is in outline and only seeks to set out the principle of a development at the proposed site location, and more detailed proposals would be submitted in the event of this application being granted. Undertaking a Health impact assessment at this stage would help deliver better planning and design outcomes that support and promote health of the future communities. Therefore, we would recommend this development be informed by a full Health impact assessment. Recommendations were made on Housing types and mixes, i.e. Affordable Housing, M4 (3) dwellings, space standards, equipped play areas, digital connectivity, the design of the streetscape and climate change to inform the detailed design stage.
Publicity and Local Representations
7.22 The application was advertised via press (Pontefract and Castleford Express 23.2.23) and site notices (22.3.2023).
7.23 40 letters of OBJECTION were received, which are summarised below. These can be read in full on Public Access. The grounds of objection are:
· Loss of privacy to residents on Station Road.
· Noise and disturbance from the construction period.
· 24 dwellings is too dense and will lead to overcrowding and more vehicle movements. This will make the road even busier.
· Hensall is a secondary village with limited facilities. The amenities are limited to a post office and restaurant and are not capable of meeting a full range of day to day needs. With no footpaths outside the village and public transport limited to 2 trains a day, and an extremely limited bus service, increased car usage would be promoted to access the basics i.e. work, shops, health care and leisure facilities. This isn’t sustainable development in accordance with SP1.
· Hensall village has a small primary school which is almost at capacity and a church. The school and church are grade II listed and any alterations for additional space/ physical expansion are restricted by the impact on listed buildings.
· The village infrastructure is poor and currently struggling to cope with the amount of surface water and sewage drainage.
· Hensall does not need any more houses being built changing the close knit feel of the small village.
· The area is low lying and at risk from flooding.
· This site is located wholly outside the development limits of Hensall and has previously been refused by Selby district council on two occasions. It has also been rejected at the appeal stage. Its contrary to SP2.
· Public transport is limited to 2 buses per day with no bus service direct from Hensall through the weekend. Train service is limited to 2 trains per day (1 in each direction).
· Access to the site would be of the A645 Weeland Road. This is a 40mph road, where speeds are often higher. The access would be close to traffic lights and cars waiting at the lights would block the visibility of drivers turning right out of the site.
· Very little space has been left for landscaping and there is no play area or open space. This would mean children and families wishing to use the play area on Station Road would have to traverse two busy roads in order to access this facility.
8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)
8.1. The development proposed does not fall within Schedule 1 of The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017 (as amended). The development falls within Schedule 2 Category 10(b) Urban Development Projects but does not exceed the thresholds for screening. The LPA is not required to issue a screening opinion. As such, an Environmental Statement is not required.
9.0 MAIN ISSUES
9.1. The key considerations in the assessment of this application are:
· Principle of development
· Housing Density and Mix
· Character and Appearance
· Residential amenity
· Highways
· Ecology
· Trees and Landscaping
· Heritage assets
· Flood Risk and Drainage
· Contamination
· Noise Impacts
· Affordable housing
· Open Space
· Loss of agricultural land
· Minerals and Waste
· Climate Change
· Developer Contributions
10.0 ASSESSMENT
Principle of Development
10.1. 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 the Development Plan so far as material to the application unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
10.2. Core Strategy Policy SP1 provides a presumption in favour of sustainable development which reflects that found within the NPPF. Core Strategy Policy SP2 provides a spatial development strategy for the location of future development within the former District. It directs the majority of new development to the towns and more sustainable villages. Selby, as the Principal Town, will be the focus for new housing. Sherburn in Elmet and Tadcaster are designated as Local Service Centres where further housing growth will take place appropriate to the size and role of each settlement. The supporting text to Policy SP2 at paragraph 4.12 states “villages which are considered capable of accommodating additional limited growth have been identified as ‘Designated Service Villages’”. Paragraph 4.13 states “The remaining villages in the Selby District tend to be smaller with more limited combinations and fewer services, more remote locations away from principal roads and poorer levels of public transport. These are referred to as ‘Secondary Villages’”.
10.3. With regards to Designated Service Villages, paragraph 4.27 states “The overriding strategy of concentrating growth in Selby and to a lesser extent in the Local Service Centres means that there is less scope for continued growth in villages on the scale previously experienced. However, there is insufficient capacity to absorb all future growth in the three towns without compromising environmental and sustainability objectives. Limited further growth in those villages which have a good range of local services…is considered appropriate”.
10.4. Paragraph 4.29 states “Other villages, which are referred to as ‘Secondary Villages’ are generally much smaller and less sustainable or else have no opportunities for continued growth owing to a combination of flood risk and environmental constraints. Consequently, further planned growth would not be appropriate in these settlements, although some housing development inside Development Limits such as conversions, replacement dwellings, and redevelopment of previously developed land, may take place where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Other than filling small gaps in built up frontages and the conversion/redevelopment of farmsteads (which are currently classed as greenfield), development on greenfield land will not be
acceptable (see Policy SP4).”
10.5. The Core Strategy designates Hensall as a Secondary Village. Policy SP2(b) confirms Hensall has some scope for limited amounts of residential development inside development limits where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities which conform with the provisions of SP 4 and SP10. SP4 (a) limits this to conversions, replacement dwellings, development of previously developed land and infill, to which this application site is neither. Therefore, new major housing development is not supported within secondary villages under the current Core Strategy.
10.6. However, the application site is not within the development limits of Hensall and as such is classed as within the countryside, therefore SP2 has less relevance, other than to note the settlement hierarchy and to indicate the how secondary villages are viewed in the Core Strategy for growth purposes.
10.7. The development limits for Hensall are split in 2 parts, the northern part of the settlement has its own development limit and so does the southern parcel. This mainly follows the existing built development along Station Road and includes the school and church south of Weeland Road/Church Lane. The application site does adjoin the development limit on its eastern edge and is closely related to the southern part of the settlement.
10.8. 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.”
10.9. 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.
10.10. The application site was identified as a draft allocation in the 2024 Reg 19 publication version of the emerging Local Plan. This was one of 3 draft allocations with its reference being HENS-A Weeland Road in Policy HG1. HENS-A detailed an indicative capacity of 24 dwellings along with a series of other site requirements that are as follows:
1. Provide a well-designed, visually attractive development which adds to the overall quality of the area and creates a strong sense of place, which acts as a gateway to Hensall from the west and south and as a transition point from the settlement to the open countryside.
2. Provide vehicle, cycling and pedestrian access from Weeland Road. Whilst access should be taken from Weeland Road, it should be sited as far as possible from the existing junction with Station Road and Church Lane.
3. Provide a minimum of 10% affordable dwellings on site.
4. Provide S106 financial contributions for early years, primary, and secondary and Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) school places to meet demand arising as a result of the development on this site, at Hensall Primary, the Snaith School or other schools serving the development.
5. Remediate any contaminated land that is present on the site.
6. Due to the identified heritage assets in this location (two Grade II* and one Grade II Listed Buildings to the south of the site), incorporate the recommended mitigation measures as set out in the Heritage Impact Assessment which has been undertaken to preserve and, where appropriate, enhance these features.
7. Undertake archaeological field evaluation commensurate to the significance of the archaeology and use the scheme to inform the design of the scheme.
8. Retain existing mature trees and hedgerows on the boundaries of the site.
9. Carry out an acoustic assessment to investigate the noise impacts of the nearby A645 road and implement any mitigation measures required.
10.11. The application has fulfilled the site requirements in respect of the outline submission i.e. provided a satisfactory access, 10% affordable housing, contribution towards school places dependant on dwelling numbers, a contamination assessment, archaeological evaluation, noise assessment and a commitment to retain boundary landscaping. Matters such as the layout and design will be controlled by the Reserved Matters.
10.12. Work on the Local Plan ended on the 26th February and 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, but some weight may be able to be given to the evidence base. The refence to HENS-A is included as it is referred to in the planning documents, consultation responses and gave an indication of how the Local Plan may have progressed. Its draft allocation also took account of the sustainability credentials and previous planning decisions/appeals.
Housing Supply
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) and the ‘titled balance’ is engaged.
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”. It is located opposite 3 listed buildings but this impact is discussed later in the report. It is considered that the scheme accords with the NPPF when taken as a whole. The development is adjacent to a secondary village, which has some basic services, and it is making effective use of this site and will also deliver affordable housing provision and contributions towards primary education. The site is also surrounded by existing development such that it’s development is not considered to be harmful to the open countryside. The application site was also previously found to be sustainable at appeal. 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. Local Planning Authorities may take decisions that depart from an up-to-date development plan, but only if material considerations in a particular case indicate that the plan should not be followed.
10.18. Material circumstances in this case are the lack of a five-year housing supply and the wider sustainability benefits of the proposal.
10.19. In terms of sustainability, the application site abuts the development limits of Hensall and could be viewed as an infilling of development in the southern part of the village. Weeland Road to the south provides for a natural defensible boundary as does the housing and commercial premises that surround it, meaning its almost viewed as infill, albeit not just the built-up frontage.
10.20. The suitability and sustainability of the site has been commented on extensively in the objection letters. Also, the history section of report notes an appeal in 2015 (2015/1089/OUT – APP/N2739/W/16/3164906 Decision dated 8.5.2017) which previously considered the sustainability credentials of the site. The Council also did not have a 5 year housing supply at that time, but the appeal was dismissed on the basis of a lack of affordable housing. This scheme now contributes towards affordable housing.
10.21. The inspector’ notesthat the Core Strategy ranks Hensall as one of the smallest populations in the district with a population of between 600-1100. An additional 24 dwellings would therefore be unlikely to result in a significant proportional increase in the total population of the settlement. The inspector states “I have been provided with no evidence that the proposal would place undue demands on existing services and facilities in the village or that existing infrastructure does not have the capacity to accommodate the development.” The inspector suggests it is reasonable to conclude that new residents would maintain, or even enhance, existing facilities through increased use and spending on goods and services.
10.22. The inspector notes that Hensall has the lowest ranking for sustainability. with respect to basic services it ranks as 2 out of 4 with a primary school and a general store, however it also has a pub/restaurant, children’s play area and church within easy walking distance of the application site along well-lit footpaths. The inspector noted that “although the main part of the village is separated to the north of the appeal site and Hensall is ranked as 3 out of 4 for public transport accessibility, noting from that there is a bus stop close to the site on Station Road which offers services between Pontefract and Selby which contain a wider range of services and facilities. In addition, Hensall railway station, albeit with limited services, is within walking distance of the appeal site. As a result, future residents would have reasonable access to basic services and facilities on foot, with a wider range of services and facilities within reach by a choice of sustainable transport modes. Such a factor would contribute towards achieving sustainable patterns of development.”
10.23. The conclusion was that the proposal would promote a sustainable pattern of development which would outweigh the conflict with CS Policies SP2 and SP4.
10.24. Therefore, despite the application site being outside of the Development Limits, the existing services are reasonably accessible on foot. They are not extensive though and the objection letters and issues raised in the consultations note that there is no health provision in the village, education above primary school level is not available, and the shop does not cater for more extensive retail needs. There are also few opportunities for employment, entertainment and restaurants/takeaways. Inevitably, for these facilities, residents would need to travel by car further afield to larger nearby settlements around. Whilst there is a bus and rail service, this is limited. As such, it offers limited opportunity to overcome the village’s deficiencies in relation to these matters. New growth does however present opportunities for new investment and new public transport provision.
10.25. 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”, as stated in Paragraph 11.
10.26. It is noted that the following benefits would arise from development:
Economic
The proposal would generate employment opportunities in both the 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 the existing local facilities and increasing the demand for new facilities that are capable of being sustained. The proposals could enhance provision of local workforce for the employees nearby businesses in the larger settlements, although this will depend upon employee skill matches and vacancy requirements.
Social
As well as market housing the proposal will deliver affordable housing (10% of final dwelling numbers) to meet a defined need in the area and other housing mixes including self-build and homes designed for wheelchairs users. In addition, the scheme will contribute towards the enhancement of Hensall’s existing recreational open space and will make contributions to provision of education once the dwelling numbers are known and possibly health care once the response from the Trust is received. The site is also able to be delivered in the short term given it’s size and contribute to the five year housing land supply requirement. The agent states “In terms of delivery, it would be the case the applicants will immediately be entering into pre-application discussion on reserved matters to get an application in within 2-3 months of the decision being issued.”
Environmental
The proposal will take into account environmental issues such as climate change ecology / biodiversity and will deliver environmental benefits in the form of off-site local open space enhancement. Proposals would provide housing outside the boundaries of the secondary village. Therefore, providing opportunities for shorter travel to work distances. In addition, all properties on the development will have EV charging provision and cycle storage via garages and will be designed with energy efficiency in mind.
10.27. The proposal would provide up to 24 dwellings to boost the 5-year housing land supply and would provide economic, social and environmental benefits. All the above factors weigh in favour of the development. Whilst there are some negative aspects to the development, given that Paragraph11d is engaged as a result of the housing land supply position, the adverse impacts of granting the permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme, when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole. The primary importance being sustainable housing provision which these accords with. Therefore, Planning Officers regard this site as being acceptable for new residential development.
Section 149 of The Equality Act 2010
10.28. Under Section 149 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.
10.29.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.
Housing density and mix
Density
10.30. Policy H2B of the Selby District Local Plan states “Proposals for residential development will be expected to achieve a minimum net density of 30 dwellings per hectare 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.”
10.31. Core Strategy Policy SP8 requires all proposals for housing to contribute to the creation of mixed communities by ensuring that the types and sizes of dwellings are reflected by demand and household profile. Policy SP19 of the Core Strategy states residential development should “Positively contribute to an area’s identity and heritage in terms of scale, density and layout”. The latest HEDNA should be used as the starting point when determining the mix of housing and is considered to have some weight.
10.32. NPPF paragraph 129 requires that decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land. Where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing need, decisions should avoid homes being built at low densities and that development make optimal use of the potential of each site (para.130).
10.33. The former emerging plan allocation HENS-A provided specific commentary on density, stating that the indicative capacity should be up to 24 dwellings. NPPF paragraph 129 requires decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land. Paragraph 130 encourages consideration of minimum densities “where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs”. The proposal puts forward up to 24 dwellings, being 25 dph. This is considered to be acceptable given the location of the site, however this may be reduced as a result of the future design constraints from tree protection, landscaping and highway layout.
Housing Mix
10.34. It is considered that the proposal could achieve an appropriate housing mix at reserved matters stage as identified in the HEDNA in accordance with Policy SP8 and the NPPF. Advice in the 2020 Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) seeks to provide at least 6% of homes to Building Regulation M4(3) wheelchair user standard and all homes to meet the Nationally Described Space Standards. There is no adopted policy for this however the HEDNA carries some weight in assessing this application. As layout and scale is a reserved matter conditions relating to housing mix and provision of M4(3) homes are proposed, in order to create balance communities. The schematic layout also shows a mix of terrace/ semi-detached and bungalow dwellings ranging from 2-4 bedrooms.
Character and appearance
10.35. SDLP Policy ENV1 requires the effect of new development on the character of the area and the standard of design in relation to the site and its surroundings to be taken into account when considering proposals for new development. 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 residential development to “Incorporate 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”. NPPF paragraph 135 states “Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments:… (b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; (c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities)”. At paragraph 187 (b), planning decisions are encouraged to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, inter alia, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.
10.36. The site lies to the south-west of the village and has built form to east, west and north. The southern aspect is relatively more open and agricultural fields exists beyond the church yard opposite. Given the size of the site and its location amongst other built form a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) was not necessary.
10.37. Character and appearance were also considered at appeal in 2017 where the council’s position was that the proposed development, due to its location and scale would not read as a natural organic extension to the village and would result in a discordant addition and an encroachment into the countryside which would detract from the character and form of the existing village. The inspector disagreed and commented that this part of Hensall is characterised by housing of predominately linear form on Station Road, with the settlement having a loose grain with development either side of Weeland Road, both to the east and west of the junction with Station Road. Beyond the loose knit built-up area is predominately open and flat agricultural land.
10.38. The inspector states “the appeal site is an area of flat, grazing land bound in part by trees and hedgerows which are at their most dense on the southern boundary with Weeland Road. The site sits at a lower level to Weeland Road and is bound by housing to the east and west with the premises of an engineering firm to the north. Whilst the appeal site provides an area of open land between existing development, it is of poor quality visually and does not play a particularly positive role in the character or appearance of the area.”
10.39. The inspector recognised that the proposal would indeed inevitably introduce urban form into an area of land which is currently free from development, however, change in character need not necessarily equate to harm. The Inspector notes “the appeal site is distinctly separate from the wider rural landscape, being enclosed by the vegetation on its boundaries. Furthermore, the proposal would be contained within the established confines of the site which has clear, defensible boundaries with housing on both sides, commercial use to the north and Weeland Road to the south. Moreover, the proposal would be largely viewed in the context of the existing development adjacent, as well as the church and primary school to the south. In my view, whilst it lies outside of the defined settlement limits the appeal site would represent infill within the built up area of the settlement and the proposal would not result in a significant erosion of open countryside beyond Hensall.” The appeal decision supercedes the previous view of the Council and the site is considered to be appropriate for residential development.
10.40. The indicative layout demonstrates that 24 dwellings could be accommodated on reasonably sized plots with equal sized dwelling to footprint garden sizes with boundary landscaping enhanced and retained. This would retain open spaces and vegetation within and around the site which will help maintain its character. The density may well have to be adjusted to include all the layout and landscaping requirements needed, however officers are confident a well-designed residential development could be accommodated without having a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal therefore accords with Policies ENV1 (1) of the Selby District Local Plan and Policies SP18 and SP19 of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan (2013) and the NPPF in terms of design.
10.41. Appearance of the dwellings is a reserved matter.
Residential amenity
10.42. 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.
10.43. 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.
10.44. Dwellings lie to the east and west of the site. Layout is a reserved matter, and it is considered that the site is of sufficient size to allow for dwellings to be laid out to provide adequate separation distances between new and existing dwellings to avoid overlooking, a sense of enclosure and loss of privacy. It is also considered that there is sufficient space to ensure adequate separation distances and an acceptable level of residential amenity between proposed units within the site. Consideration will also need to be given to the boundary landscaping and existing trees to ensure gardens are not dominated by vegetation.
10.45. The schematic layout shows the access laid out centrally with footways and verges to either side and private driveways leading to the corners of the site. It is considered that sufficient residential amenity can be achieved for existing and future residents in accordance with Core Strategy Policy SP19, SDLP Policy ENV 1 and paragraph 135 of the NPPF.
Highways
10.46. 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.
10.47. Core Strategy Policy SP19 requires the proposal to be accessible to all users and easy to get to and move through; 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.
10.48. Local Plan Policy ENV1 requires account is taken of 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. 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”. 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. Policy T7 encourages the provision of cycle routes and parking.
10.49. NPPF 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.”
10.50. 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.”
10.51. The application was accompanied by a Transport Statement to consider the highways and transportation implications raised by the proposed development. The Statement concludes that the site is in a sustainable location and is accessible by appropriate public transport and pedestrian links. This provides future residents with opportunities to travel via alternative modes of transport and minimise trips by the private car.
10.52. The Transport Statement explains how vehicular access into the site will be via a simple priority junction from Weeland Road. The Transport Statement demonstrates that a safe and efficient access can be achieved to serve the site. The location of the entrance is that as per the schematic plan as this was what the Road Safety Audit was based on.
10.53. The scheme was assessed by the Highway Officer and noted that the design standard for the site access is the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges with the required visibility splay is 2.4 metres by 120 metres. The proposed access achieves this in its location shown on the schematic plan to the west of the site. The Highway Officer highlighted initial concerns regarding accident data and junction spacing, and the applicants provided a plan showing that junction spacing is in excess of 60 metres, which addressed the concern. NYC have confirmed that no additional accidents have taken place within the study area since the dates provided within the Transport Statement. The applicant has also carried out a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit to determine whether there are any issues surrounding the access, visibility splays and proximity to the signalised junction. The RSA made 3 recommendations, all of which have been addressed. Therefore, the Highway Officer raised no objections to the scheme and did not require any highway improvements or off site contributions.
10.54. The impact on the highway was also considered by the inspector in the 2017 appeal who states “I have considered the concerns of local residents in respect of highway safety, however, the proposal would provide adequate visibility splays at the access point onto Weeland Road and the proposal would not generate a significant increase in vehicular movements in the context of the existing movements on Weeland Road. In the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied the proposal would not have a harmful effect on highway safety.”
10.55. Therefore, despite the detailed objections raised over highway concerns in the objection letters, the access was regarded as safe and the highway has the capacity for up to an additional 24 dwellings. The Highway Officer suggested a series of conditions relating to detailed plans for the road and footway layout, the construction of adoptable footways, new verge crossing details, visibility splays access, turning and parking details and the removal of permitted development rights for garages on the site. A Construction Management Plan is also required to ensure the construction period does not impact on the highway.
10.56. Finally, all layout parking and bin storage will be considered at the reserved matters stage. Subject to the above conditions the highway aspects of the proposal are considered to be in accordance with both local and national planning policies and therefore should not prevent approval on highway grounds as compliance is achieved against Selby District Local Plan Policies ENV1, T1 and T2, and Core Strategy Polices SP15 and SP 19 section 9 of the NPPF.
Ecology
10.57. Relevant policies in respect of nature conservation include Policy ENV1 (5) of the Selby District Local Plan and Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy which accord with paragraph 187 of the NPPF. Paragraph 187(NPPF) recognises the need for the planning system to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the wider benefits of ecosystems and minimising impacts on and providing net gains in relation to biodiversity.
10.58. The application was supported by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA). The assessment highlights that the site comprises an area of disused and overgrown land which comprises mainly scrub and tall ruderal species. The main species are bramble, rosebay willowherb, sapling ash, sapling goat willow and sapling sycamore. There are a few semi-mature trees around the southern and eastern sides of the site. Within the southern boundary hedge there is a larger semi-mature oak tree with dense ivy.
10.59. The survey concludes the site provides moderate potential for foraging and commuting bats as well as opportunities for nesting birds during the nesting season. The survey area provides low potential habitat for reptiles and no reptiles were identified during the survey. The development would have no impact on designated sites. The hedgerows are of moderate ecological value and will therefore be retained where possible along with the larger oak tree. In order to provide biodiversity enhancements, it is recommended that at least two integrated bat bricks are installed in two of the new buildings to enhance the habitat and provide roosting opportunities.
10.60. The application was assessed by the Local Authority Ecologist who initially considered there to be insufficient ecological information in order to determine the full ecological impacts of the scheme and to demonstrate that the provisions of the NPPF and local policy have been met in terms of mitigation, compensation and biodiversity net gain. The PEA was outdated, and an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) and Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment was requested. Concerns were also raised over the schematic layout which shows all the site developed with little space for habitat creation or retention (except boundary hedges) or creation.
10.61. The applicants undertook an EcIA albeit outside of the optimum time period for some species and as such assumptions have been made about the potential of the site to support nesting birds and foraging bats. The Local Authority Ecologist remained concerned about a number of aspects of this development which included the recording of boundary hedgerows in private gardens as BNG and the accessibility of a pond for great crested newts. The BNG assessment records a net loss of 86% of area based habitat, which is not in accordance with policy. The plan in the EcIA (Appendix V) shows an area of public open space and a much lower density of housing, which is not shown on the landscape/layout plans which is misleading. Developments should seek to secure BNG on site in the first instance. Consideration should be given to reducing the density of housing to provide both better protection to the boundary features and to provide open space which could be used for amenity, and which will contribute to BNG.
10.62. Given the ecological issues are largely dictated by the future layout, many of these issues could be resolved once the layout is finalised through reserved matters, however measures can be included through the Section 106 to ensure this occurs (BNG). If the outline application is approved, a new metric should be submitted at reserved matters stage when a finalised design is available, and the proposed measures secured then.
10.63. Subject to the above the proposal is therefore acceptable in terms of its impact on nature conservation and compliant with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan, Policies SP2 and SP18 of the Core Strategy and the NPPF.
Trees and Landscaping
10.64. Selby District Local Plan Policy ENV1(4) requires development to consider approaches on landscaping within the site and taking account of its surroundings. Core Strategy Policy SP 18 (5) concerns protecting and enhancing the environment including locally distinctive landscapes. Policy SP19(e) requires that proposals look to incorporate new landscaping as an integral part of the scheme. Policy SP13 states that in all cases economic growth should be sustainable and appropriate in scale and type to its location, not harm the character of the area and seek a good standard of amenity.
10.65. The submission contained very little information over trees and landscaping with reference only to keeping the existing boundary landscaping. The Landscape Officer commented that the key considerations for this development are likely to be for providing sufficient space within the development to allow for tree-lined streets, requirements for Recreational Open Space and protection of existing boundary hedgerows (particularly fronting Weeland Road). Tree-lined streets are required by NPPF paragraph 131 and proposed trees within the development will need sufficient space to mature within public open space and the public streets (not in private gardens). The Landscape Officer questioned whether the indicative density would allow for this.
10.66. Conditions were suggested covering the need for existing boundary hedgerows and trees to be retained following a tree survey and arboricultural method statement, details of hard and soft landscaping schemes with the provision of a long-term maintenance and management plan.
10.67. It was agreed that formal open space provision would be provided off site, however the applicant did submit further information in respect of trees and landscaping. This included a Landscape Plan, Soft Landscaping Specification, Planting Schedule, Landscape Design Description, Arboricultural Report and Tree Constraints plan. The landscaping plan was based on the indicative layout which could ultimately change when the reserved matters is submitted. Also, the Landscape Officer considered the additional documents provide no further confidence that a sufficient landscape scheme can be secured or that provision of tree-lined streets can be provided within the current layout in accordance with requirements of NPPF. The Landscape Officer noted the deficiencies i.e including boundary hedgerows in gardens which cannot be secured, no trees within the public street; flowering grassland within front gardens being unrealistic and cannot be secured.
10.68. Given the above it will be important at the reserved matters stage for the layout to be accompanied by a detailed landscaping plan to ensure an effective solution is considered. This is to be controlled by condition to ensure compliance with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy SP18 and NPPF paragraph 135.
Heritage Assets
Archaeology
10.69. Policy ENV28 requires that where development proposals affect sites of known or
possible archaeological interest an archaeological assessment/evaluation will be required to be submitted; 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.
10.70 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.
10.71 Also relevant are policies ENV1 and ENV 24 of Selby Local Plan (2005) and policies SP18 and SP19 of Core Strategy. These reflect national policy contained in the NPPF which relates to development affecting the significance of heritage assets and is included in paragraphs 207- 210 and 212-216.
10.72 The initial heritage statement submitted didn’t accurately detail the archaeological impact of the proposals. Further information was requested and following submission of a geophysical survey the Principal Archaeologist has advised that the potential for archaeology on the site is low and has raised no objection to the proposal.
Built Heritage
10.73 When considering proposals for development which affect a Listed Building or its setting, regard is to be made to Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990 which requires the Local Planning Authority to 'have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of a special architectural or historic interest which it possesses’.
10.74 The site does not lie within a conservation area; however 3 listed buildings are opposite to the south of the site, being St Paul’s Church (Grade II*) and beyond this, the former vicarage now known as Red House (Grade II*) and primary school and schoolmaster’s house (Grade II). The three buildings were all constructed in 1854 by the same architect, William Butterfield, and are therefore valued as a group.
10.75 The 2017 appeal adequately dealt with this impact stating “The prevailing openness of the land around the heritage assets makes a significant contribution to their setting. Existing views of the Church and its immediate churchyard setting are seen in the context of Weeland Road and the existing built form of the settlement. Weeland Road and the dense cover of trees in the churchyard separate the appeal site from the listed buildings. As a result, the proposed development would not unduly detract from their setting and, in accordance with Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I find the proposal would preserve the setting of St Paul’s Church and the Primary School listed buildings.”
10.76 There have been no changes in circumstances to deviate from this assessment and as such it is not considered that the proposed development would result in harm to those assets. There is no conflict with Policy SP18 nor national policy contained in the NPPF. As such, the proposal is accordance with the duties placed upon the Authority by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, sections 66 and 72 as they relate to planning applications affecting listed buildings and conservation areas respectively.
Flood Risk and Drainage
10.77 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.” Paragraph 174 states “The aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding.”
10.78 The application site is in flood zone 1 (low probability of flooding) for sea and river flooding. No sequential or exception test is therefore necessary. Given the nature of the development and the size of the site a flood risk assessment and drainage strategy accompanied the submission. The FRA confirms that other flood risks have been reviewed and are either low risks or based upon the proposed site layout will be in areas which can be managed and therefore have a low risk of flooding. It is confirmed that there will be no increase in the risk of flooding to others based upon the implementation of the recommendations of the report.
10.79 The Drainage Strategy submitted with the application proposed to discharge surface water via infiltration and foul water discharged to the public foul sewer within the site as advised by Yorkshire Water.
10.80 The LLFA Officer did not consider infiltration to be suitable due to perched water below the surface of the site. The applicant provided further information to detail how discharge to a watercourse was not possible, therefore discharge to a public sewer is the only option available in the drainage hierarchy. This satisfied the SuDs officer and the final drainage design and details of the consent from Yorkshire Water can be controlled by condition once the layout has been applied for. Yorkshire Water accepted this discharge in principle subject to full details including surface water calculations, storage, attenuation and hydrobreak information being submitted. Conditions 24 and 25 cover the need for full drainage details. The drainage board raised no objection subject to full surface water drainage design and maintenance schedule required at detailed planning stage. Flood risk and drainage matters are acceptable and comply with the aforementioned policies subject to conditions.
Contamination
10.81 SDLP Policy ENV2 and CS Policy SP19 advise that development which would give rise to or would be affected by unacceptable levels of (amongst other things) contamination or other environmental pollution will not be permitted unless satisfactory remedial or preventative measures are incorporated within new development. Paragraph 189 (a) of the NPPF states that development sites should be suitable for the proposed use taking account of ground conditions and risks arising from unstable land and contamination.
10.82 The Preliminary GeoEnvironmental Assessment report submitted with the application shows that the site has previously been used as agricultural land, however it is now overgrown. Several former sand/gravel pits are also located near the site. The conceptual site model and preliminary risk assessment determines that there is a low/moderate risk from ground gas from backfilled former quarries, and states that further assessment is required in respect of the potential presence of ground gas. The potential use of agrochemicals and unregulated waste disposal is also considered to be of low/moderate risk, with further assessment in this respect also recommended.
10.83 The Council’s Contaminated Land Consultant advises that the report and proposed site investigation is acceptable and recommends that conditions are applied to any consent relating to site investigation, remediation, verification of remediation works and reporting of unexpected contamination.
Noise Impacts
10.84 The policies referred to in the contaminated land section above are relevant. Noise and air pollution can arise from an extended construction period all of which are associated with a residential development of this scale. The site is adjacent to residential dwellings and a main road.
10.85 A noise survey was submitted, and this concluded that the ambient noise climate at the site is characterised (dominated) by road traffic on Weeland Road during the daytime and night-time periods, with no other significant noise sources noted. An outline scheme of sound attenuation works (fenestration and ventilation), boundary treatment and layout considerations has been developed to protect the proposed residential development from the ambient noise climate in accordance with guidelines. The report concluded that the ambient noise climate does not pose a constraint to the proposed residential development. Given the nature of the outline a detailed building envelope specification can be provided when the detailed layout is determined.
10.86 The Environmental Health Officer recognised the potential for harm to surrounding residents from construction and future residents from the noise from the road and recommends a series of conditions to control potential nuisance. This includes the need for a written scheme for protecting the proposed noise sensitive development from noise, a scheme to minimise the impact of noise, vibration, dust and dirt on residential property in close proximity to the site and control over working hours. Therefore, whilst a noise survey was submitted, this will have to be tailored to the layout once applied for in terms of mitigation.
10.87 Noise matters are therefore acceptable subject to such conditions. Subject to the above, 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.
Affordable Housing
10.88 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.
10.89 The Developer Contributions SPD (2007) contains a section entitled “affordable housing for local needs” which is considered to have been superseded by the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2014). This later SPD provides detailed guidance for securing affordable housing. SPD paragraph 9.5 confirms the LPA can reduce the affordable housing percentage required if a viability appraisal demonstrates 40% is unviable.
10.90 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.”
10.91 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).
10.92 NPPF paragraph 65 permits affordable housing to be sought on major developments such as this. NPPF footnote 9 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 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.”
10.93 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) that was produced to inform the emerging Local Plan indicates that a minimum of 10% affordable housing should be sought for this area being a lower value area and greenfield. That assessment considers how much affordable housing a site can viably deliver taking into account other ELP policy requirements namely, site allocations and likely development; site density assumptions; biodiversity net gain and local nature recovery strategy cost; electric vehicle charging costs; affordable housing; housing mix based on HEDNA (including First Homes); some dwellings being built to Building Regulations M4(2) and M4(3); and unit sizes based on Nationally Described Space Standards.
10.94 Affordable housing and viability matters were explored in an appeal decision dated 30th January 2025 for a site in Hambleton reference APP/U2750/W/24/3347885. 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 of Thorpe Willoughby.
· 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.
10.95 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.”
10.96 This is an outline application for up to 24 units, therefore the final dwelling number is yet to be determined. The submission was originally made on the basis of a 40% contribution as no layout or developer was involved, such a viability assessment was not produced. Affordable housing was also the sole reason the appeal was dismissed on this site in 2017, as the applicant at that time considered it could be conditioned, however the inspector disagreed and suggested it needed to be secured by a legal agreement.
10.97 This submission was made in 2023 and due to the appeal decisions referenced above, the site requirements of the former Local Plan and the CIL Viability Assessment, this means than the position has now changed. Whilst a 40% contribution would be fully compliant, this is rarely achieved and it has been agreed that a 10% contribution will be necessary in line with recent decisions, given this is regarded as a lower value area. If 24 units are developed this is likely to be 3 affordable dwellings. The legal agreement will control this provision, and the agreed split will be 65% affordable rent (2) and 35% (1) shared ownership. It is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of Policy SP9.
Open Space
10.98 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 NPFA is now known as Fields in Trust. The Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document 2007 provides further guidance on the provision of open space.
10.99 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.
10.100 The site schematic site plan shows no open space within the site and the applicant suggest this be delivered off site via a commuted sum. In terms of formal open space Local Plan Policy RT2 (b) states that the following options would be available subject to negotiation and the existing level of provision in the locality;
o provide open space within the site;
o provide open space within the locality;
o provide open space elsewhere;
o where it is not practical or not deemed desirable for developers to make provision within the site the district council may accept a financial contribution to enable provision to be made elsewhere.
10.101 In this case given the size of the site, a commuted sum is necessary. This can be spent to either upgrade existing POS or contribute towards providing new Public Open Space. The Developer Contributions SPD costs this at £991 (cost per dwelling) for upgrading meaning a total of £61,442 is necessary or £1095 per dwelling (£67,890) for the provision of new facilities. Once the number of dwellings is decided by the reserved matters application the contribution can be calculated and the Parish liaised with to understand where this is best spent. This requirement to contribute towards Open Space will be controlled within the legal agreement. Recreational open space matters are therefore acceptable subject to conditions and a S106 agreement.
Loss of Agricultural Land
10.102 Policy SP18 seeks that the high quality and local distinctiveness of natural and manmade environments will be sustained by, amongst other things, steering development to areas of least environmental and agricultural quality. The NPPF advises that decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural environment by recognising the economic and other benefits of the Best and Most Versatile Land (BMVL) (land in Grades 1, 2 and 3a).
10.103 Natural England must be consulted on development proposals that are both: likely to cause the loss (or likely cumulative loss) of 20ha or more of BMV land not in accordance with an approved development plan. The site is 0.91ha in size. As the site is not in accordance with an approved development plan, and the site is less than 20ha in size, there is no requirement to consult Natural England on the proposal.
10.104 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 as Grade 3 which is good -moderate. No agricultural quality assessment has been submitted with the application as the site is not in active agricultural use, nor has it been for many years. This is due to its size, and it being surrounded by development. Therefore, its loss to housing will have no impact on the agricultural economy.
Minerals and Waste
10.105 The site is located within a mineral safeguarding area for sand and gravel designated by the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan (MWJP). The MWJP states that ‘Effective safeguarding of minerals helps to preserve finite resources for the future, although there is no presumption that safeguarded resources will be worked’. Sensitive development in close proximity to minerals resources can also impact on the ability to work a resource in future, as a result of the impacts necessarily involved in working some minerals. Policy S01 states the type of material that will be safeguard from other surface non mineral development. The accompanying maps show that the safeguarded material is building material, sand and gravel. The site is also in an area or ‘low’ risk as identified on the Coal Authority Map.
10.106 Policy S02 sets out where non mineral development will be granted permission in safeguarding areas such as development that would not sterilise the mineral or future extraction, whether the extraction would have an unacceptable impact on the environment or local communities, the need for the non-mineral development would outweigh the need to safeguard the material or that the mineral is no longer valuable. The Minerals and Waste Joint Plan also sets out proposals that are exempt where consideration of safeguarding policies do not require consideration. Policy S04 sets out the types of surface mineral resources that will be safeguarded from other forms of non-mineral development to protect them for the future.
10.107 The application was not accompanied by a Minerals Assessment, however the Minerals and Waste officer assessed the proposal and stated there are no active quarry sites or waste facilities within 500 metres of this site and no sites have been proposed for allocation for minerals or waste activities in the Minerals or Waste Joint Plan within that 500m zone. Hensall Quarry is positioned 600 metres east of the proposal site. The Officer states “The site is within a Minerals and Waste Safeguarding Area for Sand & Gravel, and therefore consideration of MWJP Policy S07 titled “Consideration of applications in Consultation Areas” falls under the following exemption criteria: Infilling in an otherwise built-up frontage within a settlement. Although the site does not fit perfectly into this description it is not considered the application site is viable for minerals extraction due to its proximity to residential properties, local primary school and the settlement of Hensall.
10.108 Given the sites location immediately adjacent to dwellings, it would not be considered practical or suitable to extract sand and gravel in this location without unacceptable impact on local communities. There is no conflict with the Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
Climate Change
10.109 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.
10.110 The applicant hasn’t provided any detail in respect of this given the outline nature of the submission, however the future layout and design can consider this further. All future dwellings will be constructed to Part L of the Building Regulations, which will also cover the provision of the EV charging units for each dwelling.
Other Developer Contributions - Education, Healthcare, Waste and Re-cycling
10.111 Education contributions will be based on the final dwelling numbers and house types. Only a primary school contribution is necessary as the proposal (less than 25 dwellings) falls under the provision for secondary contributions. Likewise, no Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) or Early Years provision is necessary given its under 100 dwellings.
10.112 As an example, if 24 houses come forward in this development, generating 6 pupils, there would be a forecast shortfall of 6 places generated by this development, multiplied by the current cost of £18,648 per primary place, the Education Team would seek primary education contributions of £ 111,888.00 to be used for the provision of primary education facilities at Hensall Primary School and/or another primary school serving the locality of the development. This will be adjusted accordingly when dwelling numbers and house types are established.
10.113 A contribution towards health care is still being discussed and will be available for members to consider as a committee update. This will address any additional primary healthcare needs arising from the development.
10.114 For developments of 4 or more dwellings developers must provide waste and recycling provision at their own cost. This has been agreed with the applicant and will be secured through the Section 106 agreement. The reserved matters application would need to accommodate waste and recycling access, collection and storage facilities.
10.115 The following Heads of Terms have been agreed with the applicant for this application:
|
Category/Type |
Contribution |
Amount & Trigger |
|
Affordable housing |
10.00% of units applied for through reserved matters.
|
Affordable Housing Scheme to be submitted for approval prior to commencement of development with tenure details shown. |
|
Healthcare |
£ awaited ..members will be updated. |
Prior to commencement |
|
Public Open Space |
£991 (cost per dwelling) for upgrading or £1095 per dwelling for the provision of new facilities. This will be dependant on final dwelling numbers. |
As per Selby District Developer Contributions SPD. Contribution prior to occupation. |
|
Biodiversity |
Ecology led landscaping to provide 10% BNG; Biodiversity Enhancement and Monitoring Plan management plan |
Management period of 30 years |
|
Waste & recycling contribution |
To the Council for the provision or improvement of waste facilities within the vicinity of the development |
£65 per dwelling prior to occupation of any dwelling in accordance with the Selby District Developer Contributions SPD |
10.116 It is considered that the above S106 Heads of Terms are necessary, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and as such comply with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010.
11.0 PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
11.2. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 refers to a balance, stating development should be in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Therefore, whilst the primacy of the development plan remains and its status is unaffected, there are circumstances where a scheme can be supported despite development plan conflict. To assess that requires a judgement based on the relative weights afforded to material considerations.
11.3. In favour of the scheme the applicants present that the proposed site forms a natural expansion to the southern part of the settlement and almost viewed as infill given its surrounded by existing built form. The site will cause no encroachment or harm to the countryside. The development will boost the supply of houses in the former District, as well as other contributions mentioned in the main assessment.
11.4. In terms of the Council wider policies on housing delivery, the report above highlights that the Core Strategy in relation to housing is out of date because the housing need figure it contains is not calculated based on the required standard method. Core Strategy Policy 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. A 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 detailed 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.
11.5. The Local Planning Authority acknowledges that it 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 detailed 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.
11.6. The adverse impacts include some moderate adverse localised landscape and visual effects of the development encroaching into the countryside; and conflict with the development plan.
11.7. 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 pollution matters are acceptable; education, healthcare and bin contributions are secured to ensure no detriment is caused.
11.8. The benefits include the site being in a relatively sustainable location, where the provision of new housing can strengthen local services and attract new services; the proposal makes a modest contribution to needed market housing (great weight is given to this consideration); provides 10% affordable housing contributions, contributions towards education and conditions will ensure a good a housing mix is secured. The scheme will deliver biodiversity net gain enhancements and off site public open space enhancements. Finally, the scheme will provide economic benefits both during the construction phase and once the houses are occupied which are afforded moderate weight.
11.9. 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 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions set out below and the prior completion of a Section 106 Agreement.
Conditions
Submission time for Reserved Matters
01. Applications for the approval of the reserved matters referred to in No.2 herein shall be made within a period of three years from the grant of this outline permission and the development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates:
(i) The expiration of five years from the date of the grant of outline planning permission; or
(ii) The expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
Reason:
In order to comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Reserved Matters
02. No development shall take place without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority of all details of the following reserved matters:
(a) appearance;
(b) landscaping;
(c) layout;
(d) Internal access; and
(e) scale.
Thereafter development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
In order to comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Compliance with plans
03. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
Site location plan IN/01 scale 1:1250 received 27.3.25
Reason:
For the avoidance of doubt.
Housing Numbers
04. Any application for the reserved matter of layout shall provide for up to 24 dwellings and accord with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy SP8 and with reference to the latest HEDNA.
Reason:
To ensure that the development contributes to the creation of mixed communities in compliance with Core Strategy Policy SP8.
Highways – Detailed Plans of Road and Footway Layout
05. 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 accordance with Policies ENV1, T1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan and Core Strategy Policy SP15 and SP19.
Construction of Adoptable Roads and Footways
06. 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 usersin accordance with Policies ENV1, T1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan and Core Strategy Policy SP15 and SP19.
New and altered Private Access or Verge Crossing at Land Off, Weeland Road,
Hensall
07. The development must not be brought into use until the access to the site at Land Off, Weeland Road, Hensall 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 access must be formed with 6 metres radius kerbs, to give a minimum carriageway width of 5.5 metres, and that part of the access road extending 20 metres into the site must be constructed in accordance with Standard Detail number A1 and the following requirements.
The crossing of the highway verge and/or footway for individual plots must be constructed in accordance with the approved details and/or Standard Detail number E50, E50D or A1 and the following requirements.
Any gates or barriers must be erected a minimum distance of 6 metres back from the carriageway of the existing highway and must not be able to swing over the existing or proposed highway.
Provision should be made to prevent surface water from the site/plot discharging onto the existing or proposed highway in accordance with the specification of the Local Highway Authority.
The final surfacing of any private access within 6 metres of the existing or proposed public highway must not contain any loose material that is capable of being drawn on to the existing or proposed public highway.
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 accordance with Policies ENV1, T1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan and Core Strategy Policy SP15 and SP19.
Visibility Splays at Land Off, Weeland Road, Hensall
08. There must be no access or egress by any vehicles between the highway and the
application site at Land Off, Weeland Road, Hensall until splays are provided giving clear visibility of 120 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 interests of highway safety in accordance with Policies ENV1, T1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan and Core Strategy Policy SP15 and SP19.
Pedestrian Visibility Splays at Land Off, Weeland Road, Hensall (Individual Plots)
09. There must be no access or egress by any vehicles between the highway and the
application site at Land Off, Weeland Road, Hensall 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 in accordance with Policies ENV1, T1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan and Core Strategy Policy SP15 and SP19.
Details of Access, Turning and Parking at Land Off, Weeland Road, Hensall
location
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) atLand Off, Weeland Road, Hensall 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;
No part of the development must be brought into use until the vehicle access, parking, manoeuvring and turning areas at Land Off, Weeland Road, Hensall 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 Policies ENV1, T1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan and Core Strategy Policy SP15 and SP19.
Garage Conversion to Habitable Room All Plots
11. 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 number and 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 in accordance with Policies ENV1, T1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan and Core Strategy Policy SP15 and SP19.
Detailed Landscaping scheme
12. Accompanying the Reserved Matters a detailed landscape scheme 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. The plan shall also to demonstrate provision of tree lined streets in compliance with NPPF para. 136.
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 in accordance with Policy SP19 of the Selby District Local Plan and Section 12 of the NPPF.
Landscape Management Condition
13. 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.
CEMP
14. No development for any phase of the development must commence until a Construction Environment 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 accesses 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 development and delivery 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. location and type of temporary lighting and methods to prevent light nuisance;
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.
21. details of the means of protecting trees and hedgerows during construction of the development, to be installed prior to the commencement of other elements of the development and to be retained until the development adjacent to the tree or hedgerow is completed.
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.
Hours of working
15. 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 0:800 hours and 18:00 hours Mondays to Fridays and 08:00 to 13:00 hours on Saturdays and at no time 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, the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) and Local Plan Polices SP19 and ENV2.
Piling
16. Should any of the proposed foundations be piled, 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.
Noise protection
17. Construction work shall not begin until a written scheme for protecting the proposed noise sensitive development from noise has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall ensure that the noise level in the gardens of the proposed properties shall not exceed 50dB LAeq (16 hours) be-tween 0700 hours and 2300 hours and all works which form part of this scheme shall be completed before any part of the development is occupied. The works provided as part of the approved scheme shall be permanently retained and maintained as such except as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Construction work shall not begin until a written scheme for protecting the internal environment of the dwellings from noise has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall ensure that the building envelope of each plot is constructed so as to provide sound attenuation against external noise. The internal noise levels achieved shall not exceed 35 dB LAeq (16 hour) inside the dwelling be-tween 0700 hours and 2300 hours and 30 dB LAeq (8 hour) and 45 dB LAmax in the bedrooms between 2300 and 0700 hours. This standard of insulation shall be achieved with adequate ventilation provided. All works which form part of the scheme shall be completed before any part of the development is occupied. The works provided as part of the approved scheme shall be permanently retained and maintained as such except as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The aforementioned written scheme shall demonstrate that the noise levels specified will be achieved.
Reason:
To protect residential amenity of prospective residents 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.
Noise and Construction Mitigation
18. 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 residential amenity of prospective residents and to comply with the NPPF (December 2024), the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) and Selby District Council’s Policy’s SP19 and ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan.
BEMP
19. Prior to the commencement of development, a Biodiversity Enhancement Management and Monitoring Plan (BEMP) for the site detailing how the proposed on site compensation enhancement measures can be delivered as set out in Section 4, Table 3 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. This should include specific locations of bat roost and bird nest boxes and shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The approved BEMP shall be implemented in full in the first available planting season following the commencement of the development and the off site and on site habitats shall thereafter be retained and maintained in accordance with the management prescriptions set out in the BEMP.
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.
Contamination Investigation of land
20. 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 contamination and to accord with Core Strategy Policy SP18.
Remediation
21. 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 and to accord with Core Strategy Policy SP18.
Verification
22. 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. It is strongly recommended that the report is prepared by a suitably qualified and competent person.
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.
Unexpected contamination
23. 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. It is strongly recommended that all reports are 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 contamination and to accord with Core Strategy Policy SP18.
Surface water drainage
24. There shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the development prior to the completion of surface water drainage works, details of which will have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. If discharge to public sewer is proposed, the information shall include, but not be exclusive to:
i) evidence that other means of surface water drainage have been properly considered and why they have been discounted; and
ii) the means of discharging to the public sewer network at a rate to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the statutory sewerage undertaker.
Reason:
To ensure that no surface water discharges take place until proper provision has been made for its disposal and to accord with Core Strategy Policy SP15.
Foul Drainage
25. No development shall take place until details of the proposed means of disposal of foul water drainage for the whole site, including details of any balancing works, off-site works and phasing of the necessary infrastructure, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Furthermore, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no buildings shall be occupied or brought into use prior to completion of the approved foul drainage works.
Reason:
To ensure that no foul water discharges take place until proper provision has been made for their disposal and to accord with Core Strategy Policy SP15.
Housing Mix
26. The reserved matters application(s) shall provide details of the housing mix which is to be agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall demonstrate that, as a minimum, the dwellings meet the Nationally Described Space Standards (2015) or any successor standards or policy; and how 6% of the dwellings will be built to Building Regulations M4(3) 'wheelchair user' standard. Where North Yorkshire Council has nomination rights M4(3) must be wheelchair accessible dwellings (constructed for immediate occupation), and in the market sector they must be wheelchair user adaptable dwellings (constructed to be adjustable for occupation by a wheelchair user). Development shall proceed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
In the interests of creating mixed communities and to comply with Core Strategy Policy SP8.
Ecology
27. The reserved matters application(s) shall include an up-to-date Biodiversity Impact Assessment which shall demonstrate a Biodiversity Net Gain of 10% and a methodology to ensure the submission of regular monitoring reports with remedial actions to achieve the objectives for 30 years from the date of completion of the habitat creation or enhancement. Biodiversity Net Gain shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The developer shall notify the local planning authority in writing within 14 days of the completion of the habitat creation and or enhancements that constitute the approved Biodiversity Net Gain scheme.
Reason:
In the interests on nature conservation and to comply with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan, Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy.
28. The reserved matters application shall include a scheme of ecological enhancements, and means of implementation, for birds and hedgehogs based on the recommendations outlined in the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Mat 2023); lighting to be directed away from surrounding habitats; and protection of trees and hedgerows. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
In the interests on nature conservation and to comply with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan, Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy.
INFORMATIVES
01 The Local Planning Authority worked positively and proactively with the applicant to identify various solutions during the application process to ensure that the proposal comprised sustainable development and would improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area and would accord with the development plan. These were incorporated into the scheme and/or have been secured by planning condition. The Local Planning Authority has therefore implemented the requirement in Paragraph 293 of the NPPF (December 2024).
Other Permissions
02 Applicants are reminded that in addition to securing planning permission other permissions may be required from North Yorkshire Council as Local Highway Authority. These additional permissions can include but are not limited to: Agreements under Sections 278, 38, and 184 of the Highways Act 1980; Section 38 of the Commons Act 2006, permissions through New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991 and Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (as amended and including all instruments, orders, plans, regulations and directions). Further information on these matters can be obtained from the Local Highway Authority. Other permissions may also be required from third parties. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure all necessary permissions are in place.
Detailed Plans of Road and Footway Layouts
03. 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, the Local Highway Authority can provide 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.
New and altered Private Access or Verge Crossing
04. Notwithstanding any valid planning permission for works to amend the existing highway, you are advised that a separate licence will be required from North Yorkshire 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 Council as the Local Highway Authority, is available to download from the Council’s web site: https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/sites/default/files/fileroot/Transport%20and%20streets/Roa ds%2C%20highways%20and%20pavements/Specification_for_housing___ind_est_roadsstreet_works_2nd_edi.pdf .
The Local Highway Authority will also be pleased to provide the detailed constructional specifications referred to in this condition.
Visibility Splays
05. An explanation of the terms used above is available from the Local Highway Authority.
Details of Access, Turning and Parking
06. The proposals should cater for all types of vehicles that will use the site. The parking
standards are set out in North Yorkshire 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__including_parking_standards.pdf.
07 The proposed development lies within a coal mining area which may contain unrecorded coal mining related hazards. If any coal mining feature is encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to the Mining Remediation Authority on 0345 762 6846 or if a hazard is encountered on site call the emergency line 0800 288 4242. Further information is also available on the Mining Remediation Authority website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/mining-remediation-authority
Standing Advice valid from 1st January 2025 until 31st December 2026
08 North Yorkshire Police have provided advice on security measures for the scheme. A copy of their comments are available for viewing online.
09 Please note that there is a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 associated with this approval.
Case Officer: Gareth Stent
Appendix A: Site Location Plans