Community Development Services
Selby and Ainsty Area Planning Committee
16th April 2025
ZG2023/1033/FULM - ERECTION OF 62 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS, FORMATION OF ROADS, HARD AND SOFT LANDSCAPING AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE AT LAND EAST AND SOUTH OF, GATEFORTH COURT, HAMBLETON, NORTH YORKSHIRE, ON BEHALF OF BANKS HOMES LIMITED
Report of the Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services
|
1.0 Purpose of the Report 1.1 To determine a full major planning application for the erection of 62 residential dwellings, formation of roads, hard and soft landscaping and associated infrastructure.1.2 This application is reported to Committee because the Head of Development Management considers this application to raise significant planning issues such that it is in the public interest for the application to be considered by Committee. |
2.0 SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Planning Committee are minded to GRANT planning permission with authority delegated to officers at the end of the publicity period, subject to no new issues being raised and the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and conditions.
2.1 This is an application for full planning permission for the erection of 62 residential dwellings including the formation of roads, hard and soft landscaping and the associated infrastructure including a SuDS drainage basin. The proposed residential development will comprise a mix of dwelling types with the following:
|
Description |
No |
|
2 Bedroom Semi-detached Bungalows |
10 |
|
3 Bedroom Semi-detached Houses |
11 |
|
3 Bedroom Detached Houses |
8 |
|
4 Bedroom Detached Houses |
29 |
|
5 Bedroom Detached Houses |
4 |
2.2 The scheme includes 7 affordable dwellings (3-bed semi’s), 2 self-build serviced plots and 4 M4(3) wheelchair user bungalows.
2.3 The site is situated on the edge of the settlement outside of the defined development limit to the south-east of the designated service village of Hambleton, the proposed access to the site is to be taken from Gateforth Lane. Residential development lies to the north, the primary school to the west, Hambleton Parish cemetery to the south and open fields to the east. The site is currently in use as arable agricultural land. The site is currently classed as within the countryside as defined by the current adopted Selby Local Plan. The site is relatively flat and undeveloped with an open frontage to Gateforth Lane and hedgerows to the south and east dividing the fields within the site.
2.4 There are no listed buildings within or adjacent to the site. The site is not located within or adjacent to a Conservation Area.
2.5 There are no local, national or internationally protected nature conservation sites within the site or its immediate vicinity. There are no ponds within the application site and there are no known protected species within the site. The site is not within or adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The site is entirely located in Flood Zone 1 with a low probability of fluvial and surface water flooding. To the south is Locally Important Landscape Area due to the unique character provided by Hambleton Hough.
2.6 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The proposal is contrary to Policy SP2 because it involves major residential development in the countryside. Policy SP5 is out of date because the housing need figure it contains is not calculated based on the required standard method. Development plan policies can still be given weight based on their consistency with the NPPF. SP2 is inconsistent with NPPF paragraph 61 which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing and aims to meet an area’s identified housing need. Continued strict application of Policy SP2, which prevents market housing outside development limits in the countryside such as this, would not allow the LPA to meet the identified local housing needs.
2.7 The Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land as required by the NPPF. Therefore, the policies most important for determining the application, SP2 and SP5, are out of date as set out in NPPF paragraph 11. Permission should be granted unless the proposal fails to satisfy the tests in NPPF paragraph 11d. The proposal complies with paragraph 11d)i because no NPPF policy that protects areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. The requirements of paragraph 11d)ii are more complex as set out below. It requires consideration of whether the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
2.8 The site was included in the now withdrawn emerging Selby Local Plan as a draft allocation and preferred location for future residential development (HAMB-N). This had an indicative capacity of 56 dwellings. The applicant has undertaken consultation with the local community prior to the application being submitted.
2.9 The Council has undertaken consultation with all relevant statutory and technical consultees, the applicant has addressed all the matters raised and there are no outstanding technical issues.
2.10 It is acknowledged that adverse impacts include limited visual harm from outside of the site and limited harm to the character and setting of the village; and conflict with the development plan.
2.11 Neutral matters include the lack of conflict with mineral policies; the lack of conflict with policies seeking to protect best and most versatile agricultural land and steering development to areas of least agricultural quality; suitable drainage can be controlled by condition; there would be no harm arising from highway access, safety or capacity issues subject to contributions towards highway infrastructure improvements; there would be no harm to protected species following mitigation or designated sites; the site can be made safe from contamination; residential amenity would not be harmed; there is no harm to heritage; noise and air pollution matters are acceptable; and education, healthcare and bin contributions are secured to ensure no detriment is caused.
2.12 The benefits include the site being in a reasonably sustainable location that will be enhanced by new housing provision; the scheme is well designed; the proposal makes a significant contribution to needed market and affordable housing (great weight is given to this consideration); the housing mix is acceptable and will deliver a mixed and balanced community with provision for those with mobility problems and those that want to self or custom build their own home; the scheme will provide contributions to enhance bus services and cycle facilities which benefits existing and future residents and upgrades to public footpaths at the front of the site; 10% biodiversity net gain and ecological enhancements are secured on site; provision of an off-site open space contribution that benefits existing and future residents; economic benefits both during the construction phase and once the houses are occupied, which are afforded moderate weight.
2.13 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 completion of a S106 agreement.
SITE PLAN
3.0 Preliminary Matters
3.1. Access to the case file on Public Access can be found here:- ZG2023/1033/FULM | Erection of 62 residential dwellings, formation of roads, hard and soft landscaping and associated infrastructure | Land East And South Of Gateforth Court Hambleton North Yorkshire
3.2. During the course of the application an amended suite of documents were submitted as required by consultees and officers.
3.3. There is no recent relevant planning history relating to the site owing to its use as an undeveloped agricultural field.
4.0 Site and Surroundings
4.1 The application site is located in Hambleton, a designated service village situated to the west of Selby Town Centre between Thorpe Willoughby and Monk Fryston. The A63 is a 30-mph single carriage way road which runs through the village from the A1 Motorway to the west and the south of Selby, connecting with the A19 to the northeast. Access is taken from the A63 (Main Road) via Gateforth Lane (around 0.36 km to the site) which connects with Mill Lane and Field Lane to the south.
4.2 Gateforth Lane is subject to a 30mph speed limit, which reduces to 20mph within the vicinity of Hambleton CoE Primary School which lies opposite the site to the west. There is a footway along the western side of Gateforth Lane only. The footway is provided for the full length of the road, connecting to the wider pedestrian infrastructure on the A63. The nearest bus stop is on Main Road opposite St Marys Approach. Bus services operate Monday to Saturday, but not on a Sunday. The Hambleton Village Hall is located to the North on the corner of Station Road and Back Lane (around 0.58 km) Hambleton Hough is situated to the south of the village, around 0.5 km from the site. The settlement has some facilities which include a convenience store, a primary school, 2 public houses, a village hall and church. There is a local playground on Garth Drive (around 0.94 km) and a playing field to the west of the village (around 1.4 km) visible from the A63 with access onto Old Lane.
4.3 The site is an ‘L-shaped’ parcel of greenfield land of around 3.18 ha in total, situated to the south and east of Gateforth Court and south of Richardson Court/Paddock View and The Meadows. The site is relatively flat and bound by hedgerows to the north, east and south boundaries. The site boundary to the west is devoid of any boundary treatment. Arable agricultural land shares the eastern boundary, with the parish cemetery to the southern boundary, with the residential development to the north. A private nursery is situated to the north of the site opposite the Hambleton C of E Primary School which is sited to the rear of properties fronting Gateforth Lane and accessed between 28 and 32 Gateforth Lane.
4.4 There are no Public Rights of Way that cross the site, and the site is devoid of any other features.
5.0 Description of Proposal
5.1. The proposal is submitted in full for the erection of 62 dwellings, being reduced from 65 dwellings as originally proposed to address technical matters raised by consultees. The proposal involves a mix of housing all of which are no more than 2 storeys in height, each plot has allocated parking (164 no.) with additional designated visitor parking within the highway (13 no). The proposal provides detailed access arrangements to connect with Gateforth Lane, with a pumping station and surface water attenuation area to the rear and south-east part of the site. The proposal also includes detailed landscaping and a small amenity open space within the centre of the development, with additional informal landscaping to the east.
5.2. The application is supported by a range of technical reports and surveys.
5.3. The most recent changes were correcting the roof pitches on some of the house types, adding bin presentation points to the private drives and a rearrangement of house types on the northern part of the site (plots 16,17 & 20) to enable plot 18 to be moved away from the boundary. The latter has resulted in new publicity being required.
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 – Material Consideration
6.3. The Emerging Development Plan for this site is:
- Revised Publication Selby Local Plan 2024 (Reg 19)
- North Yorkshire Local Plan
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.
6.4. On 17th January 2025, a report was taken to the Selby and Ainsty Area Committee and Development Plans Committee recommending that work on the emerging Selby District Council Local Plan is ceased. This recommendation was taken to North Yorkshire Council's Executive on 4 February and then North Yorkshire Council's Full Council on 26 February and it was resolved that work on this plan will now cease.
6.5. The North Yorkshire Local Plan is the emerging development plan for this application although no weight can be applied in respect of this document at the current time as it is at an early stage of preparation.
6.6. Having regard to the above, there is no emerging local plan to consider, but some weight may be given to the evidence base.
Guidance - Material Considerations
6.7. Relevant guidance for this application is:
- National Planning Policy Framework 2024
- National Planning Practice Guidance
- National Design Guide 2021
- Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (AHSPD) 2014
- Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (DC SPD) 2007
7.0 Consultation Responses
7.1. The following consultation responses have been received and have been summarised below.
7.2. Parish Council – Hambleton Parish Council object to the proposal in terms of the principle of the development, the uncertainty of the emerging Selby Local Plan, impact on character and appearance and landscape character, highway safety, accessibility and infrastructure provision.
7.3. NYC Environmental Health: No objection. The officer recognises that construction work could affect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and the school, through dust, noise, hours of construction. Therefore, conditions are recommended regarding the control of working hours, a scheme to minimise impacts of noise, dust and dirt on neighbouring properties and piling.
7.4. NYC Landscape Architect – No objection to the change of use of the land from arable to residential. The proposed site layout has several design merits, such as the frontage to Gateforth Lane and the planting on the eastern periphery, however the quality of design could be improved, in particular in relation to provision of public open space, and in relation to robust tree planting, both within the street scene, and along the southern boundary. Further changes are required to improve the landscaping details, however the landscape officer was satisfied these can be controlled by condition.
7.5. NYC Affordable Housing Officer: No objection. Initially commented that the proposed 7 affordable units as equates to 11% and the current policy aims to deliver a maximum of 40%. This should be justified by a viability assessment. The HEDNA states that there is a need for rented accommodation with a preference towards 1 and 2 bedroom accommodation with some 3 and 4 bed. Once the 7 units was agreed the Housing Officer found the tenure split acceptable with a preference to affordable rent. The HEDNA suggest the greater need was 2-bed and the applicant is proposing 3 bed. Given the applicant’s reluctance to change this wouldn’t be worthy of refusal.
7.6. NYC Highways – No objection. Initial comments raised with regards to the technical layout details such as parking, driveways, footways, visibility splays swept paths. Contributions are required towards enhancing the existing bus service and the proposed cycle route linking Hambleton to Thorpe Willoughby and on to Selby. Off site highway works are also required at the site frontage to connect the footways. Conditions are recommended relating to access, visitor parking, turning, construction management plan, travel plans, PD removal and engineering drawings for roads and footpaths.
7.7. NYC Strategic Planning, Children and Young People's Service (Education) – No objection subject to financial contribution towards delivering primary and secondary school places. (£495,766.88)
7.8. NYC Public Rights of Way – No response received, however no PROW’s cross the site.
7.9. NYC Ecologist – No objection. The ecology appraisal is thorough and appropriate surveys have been undertaken. Recommend a series of conditions including Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) should be produced.
7.10. NYC Lead Local Flood Authority - No objection, the report demonstrates that the site is not viable for infiltration of surface water or discharging to a water course.
7.11. Environment Agency – No comments or objections.
7.12. NYC Archaeologist - No objection, the desk-based assessment and geophysical survey is sufficient to assess the archaeological potential.
7.13. NYC Waste and Recycling - Advice on waste and recycling facilities required. As the site will result in more than 4 dwellings each new property is to be provided with bins and external bin storage. A commuted sum is necessary.
7.14. Contaminated Land Consultant: No objection. The Phase 1 Contaminated Land report submitted is acceptable; a Phase 2 report is required to assess the ground conditions which can be provided through a planning condition as the phase 2 works and monitoring was incomplete. A revised Phase 2 Contaminated Land Assessment was submitted during the application and the findings are considered to be acceptable.
7.15. Yorkshire Water – No objection, confirm that a water supply can be provided. Conditions recommended regarding disposal of foul water. Amendments required to the FRA dated September 2023.
7.16. North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service: No objections.
7.17. North Yorkshire Police: Overall design of the proposed development is appropriate and raises no significant concerns in relation to Designing Out Crime advice provided in terms of open space management and boundary treatments along with appropriate street lighting to be provided.
7.18. Natural England – No comments received.
7.19. Selby Area Internal Drainage Board – No comment given surface water is to discharge to Yorkshire Water sewer in Gateforth Lane.
7.20. NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board- Advise that the proposal will impact on existing local health care services if approved. The impacted GP practices are approximately 2 miles from the site. The only surgery within this distance is Tadcaster and Rural Selby PCN: South Milford Surgery – Thorpe Willoughby Branch located around 1.5 miles from the subject site. The existing GP practice does not have capacity to accommodate the growth from the development and as such the ICB have requested a financial contribution to fund works at the practice or provide additional resource for a new build healthcare development. The contribution is £76,618 based on 65 units. Officer note- Officers has adjusted this on a pr-rata basis for 62 dwellings and this equates to £73,057.50.
7.21. NYC Tree Officer - No objection subject to recommended condition for a detailed landscaping scheme, then recommendation to TPO the landscaping scheme.
7.22. National Gas – Confirm that there are no national gas transmission assets affected in the site area.
7.23. National Grid - Confirm that there are no national electricity transmission assets affected in the site area.
7.24. NYC Public Health (Healthy Place Shaping Team) – Advise that the emerging Selby Local Plan requires certain applications to be accompanied by a Health Impact Assessment. There is no published tool for the Selby area. The applicant has submitted a screening form based on the national requirements. The Public Health team advise that a full Health Impact Assessment should be undertaken covering areas such as housing tenure and Building Regulations M4 standards, children’s play areas, digital connectivity, climate change and sustainable transport such as enhance bus services and cycle connections.
Publicity and Local Representations
7.25. The application was advertised on site (17.11.2023) and within the Selby Times 16.11.2023.
7.26. The applicant also undertook its own community consultation with a surgery on the 4th September 2023 and a series of other communication with stakeholders and interested parties in advance of the application. This is detailed in the submitted Statement of Community Involvement.
7.27. 63 local representations have been received of which 4 are in support and 58 are objecting, 1 neutral. A summary of the comments is provided below, however, please see website for full comments.
7.28. Support:
- Welcome 65 high quality sustainable homes to meet local needs.
- Welcome the employment opportunities from the construction.
- Welcome the new and improved wildlife habitats.
- Welcome affordable housing to keep families in Hambleton.
7.29. One neutral representation explaining that significant investment is required in the village to offset the rapid increase in development; both in the form of highways, but also the local school and ideally a GP/pharmacy.
7.30. Objections:
· The proposed development is currently outside the local plan as approved by Selby District Council, contrary to SP 2.
· Hambleton already has in excess of the allocation for housing as stipulated in the Local Plan.
· Gateforth Lane has a school and two children's nurseries and the road is already
extremely busy and gets very congested.
· The junction of Gateforth Lane and the A63 is already a very poor junction with extensive waiting during busy times throughout the day.
· The addition of 65 properties and associated vehicles will exacerbate an already
· congested road network particularly West on the A63 towards Monk Fryston. This leads to 'rat runs' on the unsuitable country roads to the rear of the village passing the children's playing field.
· Hambleton has a lack of infrastructure and amenities in the village including no doctor surgery, no Post Office, only one shop and a limited bus service. It has no café, no takeaway. Travel to nearby facilities exacerbates the traffic issues.
· Crossing the A63 is currently very hazardous as no crossing facilities are available.
· The opportunity for local employment is very limited requiring a car journey to Leeds or York thereby increasing the volume of traffic on village roads and the already congested A63.
· The development will negatively impact on wildlife that use the site.
· Public Transport is also poor for example, the latest bus from Selby in the direction of Leeds is 18:09 on a weekday. Buses to Leeds and Selby are limited to one per hour. There is no railway station. As a result, any increase to population simply adds to the existing traffic problems.
· The primary school is at capacity and space doesn’t exist to extend the current school.
· The lack of cycle routes and in many areas lack of footpaths i.e. on one side of Gateforth Lane is already very dangerous and will be increased by the additional vehicles.
· Hambleton is designated as a village and the additional development including proposals for two others will destroy the very essence and nature of our village.
· Hambleton’s amenities are not sufficient to support the current population so a further 34% increase cannot be sustained.
· The construction will create noise, as will the wider estate once occupied.
· Development should not occur on greenfield sites.
· The development will create issues of privacy and overlooking to neighbouring dwellings.
· The development will reduce natural light to dwellings on Gateforth Lane.
· The development will lead to a loss of outlook to residents and loss of views.
· The childcare nurseries are already full in the village.
· The development will lead to the loss of prime agricultural land.
· The Drainage Pond and Pumping station (SUDS) is situated outside the designated development area HAMB-N which removes further arable land from productivity.
· Increased risk of flooding due to low level of our property.
· 65 dwellings is an over development of the site.
· The technical documents do not provide a thorough assessment on the impact of development on the setting and views of the Hambleton Hough.
· Drainage systems in the area cannot take the increased flows.
· The site is unsustainable.
7.31. The application was recently readvertised on site on the 8.4.24 due to the slight change to the layout in the northern part of the site. This publicity expires on the 29th April 25. Any additional representations will be reported to the Planning Committee in the update note.
8.0 Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
8.1. The development falls within Schedule 2 Category 10(b) Urban Development Projects of The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017 (as amended) but does not exceed the thresholds for screening (150 dwellings or exceed 5 ha). This site is less than 5 hectares and only 62 dwellings. The Local Planning Authority have screened the development and found that it is not EIA development, and no Environmental Statement is required to be submitted with the application. A record of the screening on the public file under the application reference and this was added on the 10th Nov 2023. Nothing has changed since the Screening Decision, and it remains effective for the purposes of this report.
9.0 Main Issues
9.1. The key considerations in the assessment of this application are:
- Loss of agricultural land
- Minerals
- Housing density and mix
- Character and appearance
- Landscape Impact
- Flood risk, drainage
- Climate change
- Highway matters
- Impact upon nature conservation sites and protected species, and biodiversity nett gain
- Residential amenity
- Heritage
- Education, healthcare and waste and re-cycling
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’”.
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. The Core Strategy designates Hambleton as a Designated Service Village (DSV). Policy SP2A(a) confirms Hambleton has some scope for additional residential growth to support rural sustainability. However, the application site is not within the development limits of Hambleton and as such is classed as within the countryside, therefore SP2 has less relevance, other than to note the settlement hierarchy and indicate the strength of Hambleton as a service village. The development limits for Hambleton end around the dwellings on Gateforth Court and Richardson Court to the north. The site does adjoin the development limit and is closely related to the settlement.
10.5. 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.”
10.6. 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.
10.7. The application site was identified as a draft allocation in the 2024 Reg 19 publication version of the emerging Local Plan. The draft allocation had a reference of HAMB-N in Policy HG1 and detailed an indicative capacity of 56 dwellings along with a series of other site requirements that are referenced in the Planning Statement. This was one of 3 draft allocations for Hambleton. The larger draft allocation HAMB-A known as Manor Farm was permitted at appeal in January 2025 under reference 2022/0665/OUTM (APP/U2750/W/24/3347885).
10.8. 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 HAMB-A is included as it is referred to in the representations, planning documents and consultation responses.
Housing Supply
10.9. 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 ‘tilted balance’ is engaged.
10.10. 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.”
10.11. 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”.
10.12. In light of the above, the site does not have any “assets of particular importance”, and it is considered that the scheme accords with the NPPF when taken as a whole. The development is in a sustainable location on the edge of a Designated Service Village and it is making effective use of the land providing a well-designed scheme which is also delivering affordable housing provision. In this context it is considered under Paragraph 11d of the NPPF that the principle of development on the site should be supported.
Sustainability
10.13. 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.
10.14. Material circumstances in this case are the need for housing supply and the wider sustainability benefits of the proposal.
10.15. In terms of sustainability, the application site abuts the development limits of Hambleton and is viewed as a natural extension to the village. The settlement provides some facilities which include a small convenience store, a primary school, 2 public houses, a village hall and places of worship. Despite the application site being outside of the Development Limits, these 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 service, this is limited with, a bus in each direction every 2 hours or so through the working day, and no mid/late evening or Sunday service. As such, it offers limited opportunity to overcome the village’s limitations in relation to these matters. New growth does however present opportunities for new investment and new public transport provision. The highway section of the report also explains how the proposal will contribute towards enhancing the bus and cycle service.
10.16. Paragraph 8 NPPF (December 2024), outlines that there are three overarching objectives which are interdependent and need to be considered in assessing whether a scheme is sustainable development, i.e. the economic objective, social objective, and an environmental objective. Paragraph 9 notes that planning policies and decisions should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions but in doing so should take account of local circumstances to reflect the character needs and opportunities of each area. With Paragraph 10 stating that “sustainable development should be pursued in a positive way and is at the heart of the framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable development”, under Paragraph 11.
10.17. 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 (7 units) 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 Hambleton’s existing recreational open space and will make contributions to provision of ecology, health care, education and highway improvements. The site is also able to be delivered in the short term given it’s a full application and contribute to the five year housing land supply requirements with the Applicant confirming that they intend to build out the permission as soon as possible meaning its ‘deliverable’.
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 designated service village, but this is one of the most sustainable settlements in the former district within close proximity to other designated service villages and Selby town centre. 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.
10.18. The proposal would provide 62 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 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
10.19. 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.
10.20. 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.
Loss of agricultural land
10.21. The site is used for arable agricultural purposes. Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy seeks to sustain the natural environment by steering development to areas of least agricultural quality.
10.22. NPPF paragraph 187 states that decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Policy SP18 is consistent with the NPPF and is given significant weight.
10.23. Agricultural land is classified using grades 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4 and 5. Best and most versatile agricultural land is defined as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification. The Yorkshire and Humber Agricultural Land Classification indicates the site is entirely grade 3 ‘good to moderate’ agricultural land. It indicates approximately the land to the south and east of the settlement is Grade 3 with the better-quality Grade 2 land to the north and west of the settlement. The application site shown on the classification map does not differentiate between grades 3a and 3b. The application includes an Agricultural Land Classification Assessment (ALC). The survey shows sandy soils over the entire site, which is regarded as subgrade 3a agricultural land quality, with droughtiness the main agricultural limitation. This is considered to be best and most versatile agricultural land (BMV) definition in NPPF Annex being at the lower end of the scale. Natural England only need to be consulted on proposal which are both likely to cause the loss of 20ha or more of BMV land not in accordance with the development plan.
10.24. The applicants point out that the loss of the BMV agricultural land less than 20 ha (49.4 acres) are of very minor significance. “This stance is based on the former PPG7 (2001, now superseded) and now in NPPG which only requires the LPAs to consult Natural England for development proposals that are both: likely to cause the loss (or likely cumulative loss) of 20ha or more of BMV land and; not in accordance with an approved development plan.” In this instance, the application site measures 7.85 acres (3.18 hectares) which is well below the 20 ha (49.4 acres) threshold and is therefore justifiable as a negligible loss of BMV land.
10.25. The applicants also state that the former Selby District ALC and flood zone map demonstrates spatially that there is high availability of better quality grade 2 BMV land across the authority, hence the use of 3a is better than grade 2. In addition, the applicants state that most the land outside flood zone 2 and 3 areas in Selby is BMV land. The applicants also point out that the application site was a draft allocated housing site needed to meet the council’s housing need, therefore there was an expectation to use this for housing. Therefore, whilst the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land would be a form of harm arising from the proposal, such a loss would result in minor harm to the agricultural economy in the area as well as food self-sufficiency and is not considered to outweigh the benefits of increasing the housing supply.
Minerals
10.26. 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.
10.27. 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.
10.28. The proposal for housing development does not fall within the exemptions and as such a minerals assessment is required. A Minerals Assessment has not been provided with the application as such it is not known whether the mineral is of value, however, given the proximity of the site to existing residential properties, the school and Hambleton Hough LILA, it is likely that any mineral extraction from this site would have an unacceptable impact on the environment and the local community. This therefore has a neutral impact on the proposal.
Housing density and mix
Density
10.29. Saved Policy H2B of the Local Plan states “Proposals for residential development will be expected to achieve a minimum net density of 30 dwellings per hectare in order to ensure the efficient use of land. Higher densities will be required where appropriate particularly within the market towns and in locations with good access to services and facilities and/or good public transport. Lower densities will only be acceptable where there is an overriding need to safeguard the existing form and character of the area, or other environmental or physical considerations apply”.
10.30. Core Strategy paragraph 7.80 states “The quality of design in its local context is more important than relying on a minimum housing density figure to benchmark development……. Therefore, the Council does not propose to set a development density figure in this strategic plan”. Policy SP19 states residential development should “Positively contribute to an area’s identity and heritage in terms of scale, density and layout”. Draft allocation policy HG 6 of the emerging plan states a minimum density of 25 dwellings per hectare.
10.31. The former emerging plan allocation HAMB-N provided specific commentary on density, stating that the indicative capacity should be 56 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 62 dwellings, being 19.5 dph. This is considered to be acceptable.
Mix
10.32. Policy SP8 Housing Mix states “All proposals for housing must contribute to the creation of mixed communities by ensuring that the types and sizes of dwellings provided reflect the demand and profile of households evidenced from the most recent strategic housing market assessment and robust housing needs surveys whilst having regard to the existing mix of housing in the locality.” NPPF paragraph 64 seeks to create mixed and balanced communities through affordable housing provision. This policy is consistent with the NPPF and is given significant weight.
10.33. The proposal provides 2 Bedroom Semi-detached Bungalows, 3 Bedroom Semi-detached Houses, 3 Bedroom Detached Houses, 4 Bedroom Detached Houses, 5 Bedroom Detached Houses and as such provides a mix of property types.
Self-Build
10.34. The proposal shows plots 29 and 30 for self-build in line with Policy HG10 of the former emerging Selby Local Plan. This required that sites providing more than 50 or more dwellings will be required to supply up to 3% of total plots to self-builders. 3% of 62 units would be 1.86 which equates to 2 dwellings. The plots would be serviced by the developer as they lie towards the east and rear of the site. Whilst the local plan and the policy requirements have been withdrawn, the applicant chose to leave these in as this aligns with paragraph 73 of the NPPF in seeking opportunities for self-build and custom build housing to come forward. Any person with an interest for self-build would have to apply for the required house type within the serviced plot.
10.35. The approach to self-build is somewhat different in that 2 4-bed house types have been shown (type T10). They will be marketed as undeveloped self-build plots by the developer, however if no interest is shown then the developer has a fall back of having had dwellings approved under the planning application. The self-build will be controlled by the legal agreement and would require to be varied should no interest be forthcoming. This enables a fall back meaning the developer can build out their approved house which matches those approved on other parts of the development without the need for a further planning permission. If a self-builder comes forward to purchase the site, then the house type could be applied for separately or amended/substituted depending on the nature of the change.
M4 (3) and Nationally Described Space Standards NDSS
10.36. The scheme was also designed to comply with the now withdrawn Policy HG6 of the emerging Selby Local Plan, which required 6% (3.72 units rounded to 4) of new homes to be built to M4 (3) (wheelchair user dwellings) standard on developments of 10 or more and dwellings meet the NDSS. The proposal includes 6% of the new homes to be to M4 (3) standard and this will be secured through the legal agreement. These are plots 45-48 being 2 bed semi detached bungalows. The bungalows are positioned on the southern boundary and also lessen the visual impact of the scheme.
10.37. 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.
10.38. The Design and Access Statement (D&A) explains how the brief was to create an organic extension to the village of Hambleton taking characteristics from it’s surroundings and linking them into the development to create a homogenous identity. The D&A considers the mixed architectural styles in the area, with the predominant building type being detached and semi-detached dwellings with a small provision of bungalows, benefitting from front and rear gardens. There is generally a medium to low housing density, with numerous cul-de-sacs throughout the village located just off the A63 Main Road. Existing buildings in Hambleton range in age with a mixture of newly built housing in the village as well as older housing typical of the 1930’s and 1970’s.
10.39. The site is viewed as a natural extension to the village and the utilisation and enhancement of existing field boundaries create defensible boundaries and a clear new boundary the village. The SuDS site in the south east corner does somewhat interrupt this, however this would not be overly visible. The layout respects the existing street scene with the frontage plots set back from Gateforth Lane sitting behind a landscaped tree lined frontage. Houses on the eastern boundary will face out due to the existing hedge, creating a green edge and to make the most of the views across the undeveloped fields. Four plots face onto Gateforth Court which will continue the existing street scene, with the remaining plots facing inwards in response to existing properties and separation distances. The retention of the existing shrubs and trees along the north and eastern boundaries, and the addition of new landscaping throughout will help soften the views of the development.
10.40. The layout utilises one central access, with key roads orientated on a north/south axis to facilitate views of Hambleton Hough. A green infrastructure corridor is included along the eastern boundary providing ecological enhancements. The scheme has a good mix of house types, sufficient off street and visitor parking, with the highway arranged around one main spinal road and a series of private drives. The roadway is 5.5m in width with 2.0m footpaths on both sides. The layout takes account of existing dwellings, with minimum window distance achieved. The design has 9 dual aspect plots to create a vibrant street scene, with the core principles of Secured By Design utilised. The dwellings are all one and two storeys in height to suit the surrounding area, with bungalows placed on the southern boundary to soften the views looking from the Locally Important Landscape Area, Hambleton Hough, located south of the site.
10.41. The design of the proposed dwellings is modern with detailing such as flat canopies, grey windows and brick detailing to front elevations. The Design and Access Statement explains how by using a limited palette of materials and one window style, the result is a contemporary elevational treatment that is “in touch with modern needs”. The roof tiles are all smooth concrete tiles in grey with the bricks being either red dark or buff mix. Subtle contrasts in window proportions and dwelling design to provide originality and variance in the streetscene. The detailed layout also shows space to the rear of the dwellings for bin storage.
10.42. To conclude the proposal provides for a thoughtful, small rural residential housing scheme. The low-density nature, retention of existing boundary features and a varied house type design make for a varied streetscape and help preserve the character of this countryside edge setting. The proposal would be acceptable in terms of the overall design in relation to the character of the local area and complaint 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.
Landscape Impact
10.43. 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. The site is located within Landscape Character Area 14 - Hambleton Sandstone Ridge.
10.44. The application was accompanied by a Landscape Visual Appraisal dated Sept 2023. This explains how the proposed scheme is for a residential development on the south edge of the village and is served from a single vehicular access from Gateforth Lane. The new housing would be set within green infrastructure, which would include pockets of public open space on the site peripheries, habitat creation, structural planting on the site boundaries, ecological corridors, tree planting and an attenuation basin and pumping station located outside of the principal field boundary to the east.
10.45. The site is not covered by any national or local designations. Land to the south of the site is designated as a Locally Important Landscape Area due to the unique character provided by Hambleton Hough. The assessment recognises that the existing settlement edge is open to views from the south. The report states “Housing in the vicinity of the site has a combination of styles with no single overarching vernacular or character. The site has an urban fringe character due to its open visual relationship with Hambleton and influence of surrounding transport infrastructure.”
10.46. Views of Hambleton Hough are open from the southern settlement edge of Hambleton although from properties and locations set back from the settlement edge views of the slope are from a residential context and only its upper portions are visible. The Selby District Council Landscape Sensitivity Study assesses the sensitivity of the site as part of a larger parcel of land on the southern edge of Selby. The study deems the site to be of moderate sensitivity to change.
10.47. The former draft allocation (HAMB-N) required a sensitively designed residential scheme to respect the setting and views of Hambleton Hough which this achieves. The scheme retains and enhances hedgerows to the south and east, with new tree planting also proposed on the southern edge. Additionally, single storey bungalows are proposed on the southern edge which limits the visual impact, and the road configuration is orientated to facilitate views of Hambleton Hough.
10.48. The Landscape Visual Appraisal concludes by stating ‘Whilst there would inevitably be some adverse landscape and visual effects at completion, it is judged that the effects of the proposed development would be localised and limited in their geographical extent and will not result in any unacceptable long-term harm.’
10.49. The proposal also includes a Landscape Strategy plan, which showed an indicative planting schedule. In addition, an Arboricultural Assessment and Method Statement were submitted. The scheme was assessed by the Council’s Landscape Officer who found elements a little over enthusiastic, but nevertheless the LVA presents a reasonable appraisal of the landscape visual effects. The Officer found that the proposed development extends the village further into the surrounding fields, but the sense of the village context would be retained. The Landscape Officer considered that proposed site layout has several design merits, such as the frontage to Gateforth Lane and the planting on the eastern periphery, however suggested areas where landscaping could be improved, in particular in relation to provision of public open space, and in relation to robust tree planting, both within the street scene, and along the southern boundary. The landscape strategy was revised to take account of the suggestions, but didn’t fully address all issues. Given the lack of overall detail in the landscape strategy and outstanding matters to be addressed, the landscape officer was satisfied this could be controlled by a condition covering the need for a detailed landscape scheme and landscape management of the wider site.
10.50. The impact upon the character and appearance of the wider landscape and landscaping within the site itself is considered acceptable in this context in accordance with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy SP18 and NPPF paragraph 135.
Flood Risk and Drainage
10.51. 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.”
10.52. 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. This confirms that surface water infiltration (soakaways) is discounted due to unsuitable ground conditions. Direct connection to the water course has been discounted due to its distance and riparian landowners no co-operation. It is therefore planned to discharge surface water to the public surface water sewer in Gateforth Lane via the SuDS storage shown on the eastern corner of the site and via the pumping station, with maximum flows pumped at 3.80 l/sec. Foul water will also use the foul sewer on Gateforth Lane pumped at 6.17 l/sec.
10.53. Yorkshire Water confirms it can supply water to the site, does not object to the proposed foul and surface water recommendations, but requests different flow rates than the ones proposed. This can be controlled by condition requiring a detailed drainage design. The LLFA also raises no objections. Flood risk and drainage matters are acceptable and comply with the aforementioned policies subject to conditions.
Climate Change
10.54. 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.
10.55. The applicant has demonstrated a number of measures in the D&A where the scheme can maximise the potential for energy conservation and the use of low carbon energy sources. The submission explains how the applicants use the ‘Fabric First Approach’ which places the emphasis on the greater thermal performance of the building envelope and is less reliant on renewable technologies. It is also confirmed that each dwelling will be constructed to Part L of the Building Regulations, which will also cover the provision of the EV charging units for each dwelling.
Highway Matters
10.56. 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.
10.57. Core Strategy Policy SP19 requires the proposal to be accessible to all users and easy to get to and move through; and create rights of way or improve them to make them more attractive to users, and facilitate sustainable access modes, including public transport, cycling and walking which minimise conflicts.
10.58. 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.
10.59. 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.”
10.60. 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.”
10.61. The application was supported by a Transport Statement which concluded that the proposed development can be safely and suitably accessed by pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users and motorists. In particular the location of the site is adjacent to an established built-up area and close to the A63 transport corridor, is accessible by sustainable modes of travel (including walking, cycling and public transport). It is therefore suitable for residential development. Within the vicinity of the site, there is a range of local services and amenities which will provide for sustainable day-to-day living. The proposed development will be safely connected to, and well-integrated with, the local highway network via a single access from Gateforth Lane, within land under the control of the applicant. Pedestrian and cycle connections will be provided through Gateforth Court.
10.62. The TA states “The internal layout of the site (including parking provision) has been designed in accordance with the adopted local guidelines and standards. Swept path analysis has been undertaken to demonstrate that service and emergency vehicles will be able to safely and satisfactorily undertake the required manoeuvres. The impact of the proposed development on the future operation of the highway network has been accurately assessed using modelling software. It has been demonstrated that the traffic flows associated with the proposed development will be satisfactorily accommodated on the highway network without resulting in any residual cumulative impacts which are “severe”. In summary, the proposed development accords with both national and local planning policy from a highways and transport perspective.”
10.63. The initial scheme for 65 dwellings was assessed by the Highway Officer who required some technical changes to the layout, to include more parking, greater driveway and footway widths, visibility at the access and a requested a contribution of £83,700 towards a cycle lane to be provided linking Hambleton to Thorpe Willoughby. A commuted sum of £50,000 was also considered necessary to improve evening and weekend bus services.
10.64. The applicants produced a technical file note to address these issues and after deliberation agreed to the cycle lane contribution. Likewise, the commuted sum towards bus service improvement was accepted by the applicants, as was the need to provide a new footpath outside the site to link up with the footpath on Gateforth Court on the east side of the carriageway (at a cost of £24,106.20). Both were considered as reasonable requests and directly linked to the development. The footpath improvement works will be done by the Local Highway Authority, with the monies secured from the applicant to undertake these works. The trigger will be prior to development commencing to ensure no future price increases for the works. The applicants also most recently provided a revised layout plan showing refuse bin presentation points at the end of the private drives.
10.65. Therefore, despite the detailed objections raised over highway capacity concerns in the objection letter, the above changes satisfied the Highway Officer, who suggested a series of conditions relating to access, visitor parking, turning, construction management plan, engineering drawings for roads and footpaths and the need for Travel Plan. Subject to the above conditions and off-site works being adhered to, 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.
Impact upon Nature Conservation Sites and Protected Species, and Biodiversity Net Gain
10.66. Local Plan Policy ENV1 requires account is taken of the potential loss, or adverse effect upon, significant wildlife habitats. The foreword to Core Strategy Policy SP2 states the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and natural resources is a basic principle of national planning guidance, which can also influence the location of development. Policy SP18 seeks to protect and enhance the natural environment and NPPF paragraph 187 requires decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing sites of biodiversity value in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan; minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures.
10.67. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) requires the LPA to determine if the proposal may affect the protected features of a habitats site before deciding whether to permit development. This requires consideration of whether the proposal is likely to have significant effects on that site. This consideration – typically referred to as the ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment screening’ – should take into account the potential effects both of the proposal itself and in combination with other proposals.
10.68. The application was supported by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) which the Council’s Ecologist regarded as thorough and appropriate surveys have been completed. The PEA identifies few ecological issues on the site, which is predominantly arable or improved grassland. Some removal of species-poor hedgerow is entailed but would be compensated for by replacement planting. The initial PEA (Sept 2023) provided only recommendations for ecological mitigation and enhancement, and these were firmed up in the Nov 23 updated version setting out what measures would be implemented. Table 3 ‘Mitigation and Enhancement measures for the proposed development were detailed and controlled by condition.
10.69. The Council’s Ecologist also suggested ecological measures relevant to the construction phase should be incorporated into either a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) or a stand-alone CEMP (Ecology). A Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) should be produced to explain how new/retained habitats will be established and managed. Both plans should be submitted for approval prior to commencement and are controlled by condition.
10.70. The application was submitted prior to mandatory BNG, however a Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment has been produced showing 10% uplift on the site. Based on the current site layout and soft landscaping proposals, the construction of the proposed development is predicted to result in a net gain of 1.04 Habitat Units (HU) which is a net percentage change of +10.05% and a gain of 0.62 Hedgerow Units (HeU) which is a net percentage change of +60.33%.
10.71. 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, the NPPF and the standing advice of Natural England.
Affordable Housing
10.72. 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.
10.73. 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.
10.74. 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.”
10.75. 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).
10.76. 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.”
10.77. 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.
10.78. 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.
10.79. 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.”
10.80. The applicants are proposing 7 affordable units which equates to 11.29%. The applicants produced a viability report by Cushman and Wakefield to demonstrate the viability around the affordable housing contribution. This was assessed by the council’s own independent expert CPV. There was some exchange between the viability experts and CPV suggesting 10 units were possible at 16.13%. The applicants maintained that 7 units was only viable. In light of the appeal decisions and evidence with the Selby Local Plan and CIL Viability Assessment it is considered appropriate to accept the proposed 11% affordable housing (7 units) because it aligns with the most up to date viability evidence that supported the now withdrawn emerging Local Plan. This is in accordance with Policy SP9.
10.81. The applicants propose 4 affordable rent and 3 shared ownership dwellings. The HEDNA states that there is a need for rented accommodation with a preference towards 1 and 2 bedroom accommodation with some 3 and 4 bed. The 7 proposed unts are all 3-bed semi detached units. The Housing Team have been reconsulted and accepted the 7 units and tenure split, but would have preferred 2-bed units given this was the greater need. The applicants were reluctant to change this as they already have an agreement with an affordable housing provider in place and that it would further impact on viability should they have to amend the type of affordable housing proposed and this would mean they seek to increase the number of units across the site to offset the loss of square footage. They also explained that the third bedroom was relatively small and could be marketed as a study/place space rather than as a 3-bedroom property. The affordable housing suggested a small 3 bed dwelling would only go to a person in need of 3 bedrooms so its size wouldn’t make an impact. Given there is still a need for 3 bed units this was accepted by officers. A S106 agreement will secure this affordable housing. The affordable units are plots 33-36 in the centre of the site and Plots 21-23 at the northern end, therefore adequately dispersed in this small site. The 3-bed semis and indistinguishable from the remaining house types.
Recreational Open Space
10.82. 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.
10.83. 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.
10.84. The provision of 62 dwellings equates to 3720 sqm (0.37 hec) of play space for the development. The site plan shows a small area of open space adjacent to Plot 9, as well as some informal landscaping to the eastern boundary. This wasn’t considered formal open space and will instead be a local amenity area that is landscaped and provides some visual relief within the site. This will be managed by a management company and control by condition.
10.85. 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.
10.86. 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 of total of £61,442 is necessary or £1095 per dwelling (£67,890) for the provision of new facilities. Given the open space is limited in Hambleton and some more used facilities are outside the Parish boundary, the developer has opted to pay the higher amount to contribute towards new provision for Hambleton. This will be discussed with the Parish Council prior to the Section 106 being signed about what project it can be attributed to. This will be secured via the legal agreement. Recreational open space matters are therefore acceptable subject to conditions and a S106 agreement.
Contaminated Land and Ground Conditions
10.87. Policy ENV2 of the Local Plan states “Proposals for development which would give rise to, or would be affected by, unacceptable levels of noise, nuisance, contamination or other environmental pollution including groundwater pollution will not be permitted unless satisfactory remedial or preventative measures are incorporated as an integral element in the scheme.” Part B of the policy allows contaminated land conditions to be attached to permissions.
10.88. Core Strategy Policy SP18 seeks to protect the high quality of the natural and man-made environment by ensuring that new development protects soil, air and water quality from all types of pollution. This is reflected in Policy SP19 (k), which seeks to prevent development from contributing to or being put at an unacceptable risk from unacceptable levels of soil or water pollution or land instability.
10.89. NPPF paragraph 187 requires decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate. Paragraph 198 requires decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so Council’s should mitigate and reduce to a minimum, potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life.
10.90. The application was accompanied by a Geoenvironmental Study (phase 1) and a Site Investigation Interim Report (phase 2) provided by Shadbolt Group. This was necessary due to the site’s existing use for arable farming and the sensitive nature of the proposed use. The ground investigation is necessary to assess the degree and extent of any ground contamination to ascertain whether a Remediation Strategy is required. The reports concluded that the environmental risk arising from ground conditions is low especially when considering the current status of the site.
10.91. This was assessed by the Councils Contaminated Land Consultant who noted that the site has been used as agricultural land since the 1850s and is currently being used for arable crops and grazing animals. The Officer noted that the phase 1 report is acceptable, and the phase 2 work carried out to date is acceptable, but the land contamination risks cannot be fully assessed until the laboratory chemical results have been received and the ground gas monitoring programme is complete. Conditions were therefore suggested. The phase 2 report was then updated with the necessary outstanding results. This satisfied the Contaminated Land Consultant who suggested a condition to ensure the reporting of any unexpected contamination.
10.92. 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.
Residential Amenity
10.93. 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.
10.94. 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.
10.95. The proposed development is relatively self-contained, however it does adjoin existing residential dwellings and gardens to the north and west of the site on Gateforth Court, The Meadows and Richardson Court. This therefore inevitably has the ability to create conflict by locating dwellings on former unused open land. The proposed frontage properties are set back and align with No.35 Gateforth Lane and set off from the boundary to ensure no harm is created. The occupant of No 35 has objected and explained that it does have 2 dormer windows in a rear extension permitted by 2013/0558/HPA facing south over the application site. Officers have checked the planning history the dormer closest to the main dwelling should be a bathroom and will therefore have obscure glazing and is not afforded an outlook. The rear most dormer will face the corner of the blank gable of plot 3 house type T11 and overlook the rear garden area. A 6m distance exists between the two structures for light purposes to enter the second dormer. This second dormer will overlook the garden of plot 3 to some degree, however this isn’t worthy of a refusal or replan.
10.96. Plots 4, 5 & 6 face No.2-4 Gateforth Court and achieve a 21m window to window distance, which is regarded as acceptable. All the proposed dwellings are conventional 2 storey which limits massing and lessens issues of oppression.
10.97. Plots 14-11 are positioned to ensure they do not impact on the dwellings that surround them, and plot 13 faces the side gable of No.15 Gateforth Court which only has one bathroom window in the south facing side gable. Plots 15-18 face towards No.15 and No.11 Gateforth Court, with minimum 21m window distances achieved and No.11 Gateforth Court is angled to lessen the impact of the proposed dwellings. The landscaping has been enhanced on this western boundary to enhance privacy and was changed as a result of the community consultation representations.
10.98. Plot 18 tucked in the northern corner of the site and sits alongside No.18-20 The Meadows with a stand-off distance originally shown as 12.9m. to No.20 The Meadows. The representation from this property states the rear extension isn’t shown on the proposed site plan which projects out a further 3.5m which reduces the separation to approximately 9m. Officers have noted this relationship, and the plans have recently been amended to pull plot 18 further away from the boundary to ensure a 11m stand occurs with the rear extension of No.20 The Meadows. This has been possible due to the house types being rearranged (Plots 16,17 and 20) with a narrower plot added in the row of plots 15-18. Plot 19 is positioned alongside the side gable of No.29 Richardson Court and achieves a stand off of 8m, however no windows would directly face each other as No.29 faces east west and only has an obscure glazed bathroom at first floor level the southern elevation and then ground floor windows and door screened by fencing. Whilst the recently revised layout has moved plot 19 further north and closer to the boundary of No.29 Richardson Court, this relationship is satisfactory. Finally plot 26 has its side gable facing north towards No27-25 Richardson Court, however 15m separates the rear to the side gable of plot 26.
10.99. Otherwise, the scheme is well designed and allows for good separation between plots, good sized gardens and a layout that takes advantage of the sunlight and views to the south and views east over the fields. The layout allows for pedestrian and cycle permeability through Gateforth Court, and the proposal is therefore in compliance with SDLP Policy ENV1 and national policy contained in the NPPF. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal would not contravene Convention rights contained in the Human Rights Act 1998 in terms of the right to private and family life.
Heritage Impacts of the Proposal
10.100. In determining applications regard should be had to the statutory duty of Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, or their setting, or any features of special architectural, or historic interest which they possess. NPPF paragraph 207 seeks to ensure in determining applications Local Planning Authorities should assess the significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by the proposal.
10.101.In terms of archaeology, Policy ENV28 requires that where development proposals affect sites of known or possible archaeological interest, the District Council will require an archaeological assessment/evaluation to be submitted as part of the planning application. The relevant Local Plan policies include Core Strategy Policy SP 18 ‘Protecting and Enhancing the Environment’. The site requirements in the former emerging allocation also required the applicant to undertake an archaeological field evaluation commensurate to the significance of the archaeology (because the site has been identified as having potential archaeological features either on-site or close by or later prehistoric, Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon settlement) and use the results to inform the design of the scheme accordingly.
10.102.The site is not within a Conservation Area and does not contain any listed buildings, however some do exist further to the north of Gateforth Lane.
10.103.The application was supported by a Historic Environment Desk Based Assessment prepared by Ecus and accompanied by a subsequent Archaeological Geophysical Survey. The Historic Environment Desk Based Assessment notes the site does not currently contribute to the setting of any designated heritage assets and is effectively screened from nearby Listed Buildings by intervening development, topography, and vegetation. The report concludes that the proposed scale and height of the new dwellings would not alter this current contribution, and it is considered that the proposed development would result in no harm to any designated heritage assets. It is therefore considered that the proposed development accords with the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and complies with the NPPF and local planning policy. Officers agree with this assessment.
10.104.The archaeological desk-based assessment and a geophysical survey were assessed by the Council’s Archaeologist. The documents were regarded as sufficient to provide a reasonable assessment of the archaeological potential of the site (NPPF para. 194).
The desk-based assessment has not identified any particular archaeological potential with the site which lays just outside of the historic core of the village. The geophysical survey has shown a number of anomalies but the majority are consistent with agricultural furrows or drainage. On balance, it is unlikely that significant archaeological remains exist at this site. Therefore, no objections are raised on heritage grounds.
Noise and Air Pollution
10.105.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 school.
10.106.The Environmental Health Officer recognised the potential for harm 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. Environmental Health does not require an occupational phase air quality assessment. A separate condition controlling the impacts of piled foundations (if required) is recommended.
10.107.Noise and air pollution matters are 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.
Other Developer Contributions - Education, Healthcare, Waste and Re-cycling
10.108.Local Plan Policy ENV1 requires account is taken of the capacity of local services and infrastructure to serve the proposal, or the arrangements to be made for upgrading, or providing services and infrastructure. Core Strategy Policy CS6 states “The District Council will expect developers to provide for or contribute to the provision of infrastructure and community facility needs that are directly related to a development, and to ensure that measures are incorporated to mitigate or minimise the consequences of that development”.
10.109.Core Strategy Policy SP12 requires where infrastructure and community facilities are to be implemented in connection with new development, it should be in place or provided in phase with development and scheme viability. They should be provided on site, or if justifiable they can be provided off site or a financial contribution sought. Opportunities to protect, enhance and better join up existing Green Infrastructure, as well as creating new Green Infrastructure will be strongly encouraged, in addition to the incorporation of other measures to mitigate or minimise the consequences of development. This will be secured through conditions or planning obligations. These development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.110.The Developer Contributions SPD provides further guidance regarding contributions towards waste and recycling facilities; education facilities; and primary health care facilities amongst others. The former ELP allocation HAMB-N required the proposal to “provide S106 financial contributions for additional early years, primary, secondary and Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) school places to meet demand arising in the Plan Area as a result of the development on this site, at Hambleton Church of England primary, Selby High, or other schools serving the development.”
10.111.NPPF paragraph 35 requires plans to set out the contributions expected from development. Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 requires planning obligations must only be sought where they meet all of the following tests: a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b) directly related to the development; and c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
10.113.NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board were consulted and advised that the additional households will impact on existing local health care services. The impacted GP practices are approximately 2 miles from the site. The only surgery within this distance is Tadcaster and Rural Selby PCN at South Milford Surgery – Thorpe Willoughby Branch located around 1.5 miles from the site. The existing GP practice does not have capacity to accommodate the growth from the development and as such the ICB have requested a financial contribution to fund works at the practice or provide additional resource for a new build healthcare development. The contribution is £76,618 based on 65 units. Officers have calculated this to be £73,057.50 based pro-rata on the reduced 62 units.
10.114.The Developer Contributions SPD requires a S106 agreement requiring the developer to pay for 4no. wheeled bins per property, 1no. 180 litre refuse bin, 1no. 240 litre green waste bin and 2no. 240 litre recycling bins at a price of £65 per dwelling. The sum of £4030 will be collected through the legal agreement. The detailed layout shows space to the rear of the dwellings for bin storage. The applicants also indicated that space within the highway where it meets private drives for bin presentation points.
10.115.These contributions are justified given they are directly related to the development. The appropriate triggers for payment are shown in the contributions table in the recommendation and are subject to change. The applicant is agreeable to contributions which therefore mitigate the health, education and waste impacts of the proposal in accordance with Local Plan Policy ENV1, Core Strategy Policies CS6 and SP12 and the Developer Contributions SPD.
10.116. Finally, a Health Impact Assessment checklist was submitted with the application which concluded that proposed development does not negatively impact personal health or health services, and it does provide opportunities to promote an active lifestyle which can benefit physical and mental health and wellbeing. As a result, there is no requirement for a full HIA to be undertaken. The Public Health Team commented on the submission and highlighted some inaccuracies and incorrectly referenced the submission being in outline. Also, many of the issues are addressed above for instance POS provision and tenure split, such that officers have no concerns over public health.
10.117.The following Heads of Terms have been agreed with the applicant.
|
Category/Type |
Contribution |
Amount & Trigger (subject to change) |
|
Highways |
Bus service improvements
Footpath improvements to Gateforth Lane
Cycle provision upgrades
|
£50,000 - Prior to the occupation of the first dwelling.
£24,106.20 - Prior to development commencing to ensure no future price increases.
£83,700 - Prior to the occupation of the first dwelling. |
|
Affordable housing |
7 in number 3-bed units
plots 21,22,23, & Plots 33, 34,35,36.
4 affordable rent 3 shared ownership
|
Delivery of 7 Affordable Housing units |
|
Education |
Commuted sum towards education provision and school expansion. |
£504,848.02
Prior to the occupation of the first dwelling. |
|
Healthcare |
Commuted sum |
£73,057.50
Prior to the occupation of the first dwelling.
|
|
Public Open Space |
Contribution towards POS in Hambleton, specific scheme to be agreed with Parish Council likely to be new toilets at Hambleton recreation ground. |
£67,890
Prior to commencement of development unless otherwise agreed.
|
|
Biodiversity |
Ecology led landscaping to provide 10% BNG; Biodiversity Enhancement, clause required to ensure delivery 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 = sum £4030 prior to occupation of any dwelling.
|
|
Self Build |
Plots 29-30 reserved for Self Build for a specific period of time, set out with an agreed marketing strategy. |
|
10.118.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 existing settlement and will re-introduce a defensible boundary to the countryside. The development will significantly 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 Policy SP5 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 the modest scale of loss of best and most versatile agricultural land which would result in minor harm to the agricultural economy in the area as well as food self-sufficiency. In addition, 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 and air pollution matters are acceptable; education, healthcare and bin contributions are secured toensure 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 scheme is well designed and of a modest density; the proposal makes a significant contribution to needed market housing (great weight it given to this consideration); provides 7 affordable housing units and secures a good a housing mix that will deliver a balanced community with provision for those with mobility problems and those that want to self or custom build their own home; the scheme will deliver open space linked to existing areas of open space, there is a demonstrated biodiversity nett gain and ecological enhancements are secured on site that benefit existing and future residents; 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 agreement of a S106 agreement.
12.0. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Planning Committee are minded to GRANT planning permission with authority delegated to officers at the end of the publicity period, subject to no new issues being raised and the prior completion of a legal agreement and conditions.
Conditions
Time
1. The development for which permission is hereby granted shall be begun within a period of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason:
In order to comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Plans List
PA02 – Site Boundary Plan (ref: HJB/4006/39a)
PA04 – Existing Site Plan (ref: HJB/4006/59)
PA07 – Existing Site Levels (ref: HJB/4006/61)
PA08 – Proposed Site Levels (HJB/4006/62a)
PA09a – House Type B1 Floor Plans & Elevations (ref: HJB/4006/42a)
PA10 – House Type 3 Affordable Floor Plans & Elevations (ref: HJB/4006/43)
PA10 – House Type 3 Private Floor Plans & Elevations (ref: HJB/4006/43)
PA11 – House Type 4 Floor Plans & Elevations (ref: HJB/4006/44)
PA12 – House Type 5 Floor Plans & Elevations (ref: HJB/4006/45)
PA13 – House Type 8 Floor Plans & Elevations (ref: HJB/4006/46)
PA14 – House Type 10 Floor Plans & Elevations (ref: HJB/4006/47)
PA15 – House Type 11 Floor Plans & Elevations (ref: HJB/4006/48a)
PA16 – House Type 12 Floor Plans & Elevations (ref: HJB/4006/49)
PA17 – House Type 13 Floor Plans & Elevations (ref: HJB/4006/50)
PA19a – External Materials Plan (HJB/4006/63c)
PA20a – Proposed Detailed Site Access (ref: HJB/4006/53c)
PA21b – Landscape Strategy Plan (HJB/4006/57d)
PA25 – House Type 19 Floor Plans & Elevations (ref: HJB/4006/73)
PA26 – House Type 21 Floor Plans & Elevations (ref: HJB/4006/74)
PA29 – House Type C4 Floor Plans & Elevations (ref: HJB/4006/78)
PA30 – Proposed Boundary Treatments (HJB/4006/80a)
PA31 – Single Garage Floor Plans & Elevations (ref: HJB/4006/82)
PA32 – Twin Garage Floor Plans & Elevations (ref: HJB/4006/83)
PA33a – House Type B2 Floor Plans & Elevations (ref: HJB/4006/84a)
PA34 – Detailed Site Layout HJB/4006/85a
Reason:
For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the development is carried as approved in accordance with Policy SP19 of the Core Strategy and ENV 1 of the Local Plan.
Noise
3. 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 Eng-land (NPSE) and Selby District Council’s Policy’s SP19 and ENV2.
Noise
4. 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 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Noise Policy Statement for Eng-land (NPSE) and Selby District Council’s Policy’s SP19 and ENV2.
Hours of working
5. 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
6. 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.
Detailed Landscaping scheme
7. Within three months of commencement of development a detailed landscape scheme (in accordance with the approved Landscape Strategy Plan) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include the species, stock size, density/spacing, and position of trees, shrubs and other plants; and seed mixes, sowing rates and mowing regimes. It will also include details of ground preparation and tree planting details, including means of support and protection and watering. The proposed tree planting shall be compatible with existing and proposed utilities. This scheme shall be implemented within a period of six months of the practical completion of the development. Any trees or plants which within a period of ten years from the substantial completion of the planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority agrees alternatives in writing. This also applies to any existing plants that are shown to be retained within the approved landscape scheme.
Reason:
So that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the variety, suitability and disposition of species across the site, since the landscape scheme, is integral to the setting and amenity of the development and the immediate area.
Landscape Management Condition
8. 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.
Highway new access.
9. The development must not be brought into use until the access to the site at Land East And South Of, Gateforth Court, Hambleton 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 4.5 metres, and that part of the access road extending 6 metres into the site must be constructed in accordance with Standard Detail number 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.
• Measures to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear.
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.
Visibility Splays at Land East And South Of, Gateforth Court, Hambleton
10. There must be no access or egress by any vehicles between the highway and the application site at Land East And South Of, Gateforth Court, Hambleton until splays are provided giving clear visibility of 48 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.
Provision of Approved Access, Turning and Parking Areas at Land East And South Of, Gateforth Court, Hambleton
11. No part of the development must be brought into use until the access, parking, manoeuvring and turning areas for all users at Land East And South Of, Gateforth Court, Hambleton have been constructed in accordance with the details approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once created these areas must be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained for their intended purpose at all times.
Reason:
To provide for appropriate on-site vehicle facilities in the interests of highway safety and the general amenity of the development.
Construction Phase Management Plan- Small sites
12. No development must commence until a Construction Management Plan 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 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 Land East And South Of, Gateforth Court, Hambleton access for construction purposes;
3. wheel washing facilities, or a suitable alternative 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. details of site working hours;
7. details of the measures to be taken for the protection of trees; and
8. contact details for the responsible person (site manager/office) who can be contacted in the event of any issue.
Reason:
In the interest of public safety and amenity.
No garage conversion
13. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) or any subsequent Order, the garage(s) shall not be converted into domestic accommodation without the granting of an appropriate planning permission.
Reason:
In accordance with Local Plan Policy ENV 1 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.
CEMP
14. The commencement of the Development shall not take place until there has been submitted to, approved in writing by, and deposited with the Local Planning Authority a Construction Environmental Management Plan. The Plan shall include details of how noise, dust and other airborne pollutants, vibration, smoke, and odour from construction work will be controlled and mitigated. The plan shall also include monitoring, recording and reporting requirements. The construction of the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved Plan unless any variation has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Measures may include, but would not be restricted to, on site wheel washing, or a suitable alternative, restrictions on use of unmade roads, agreements on routes to be used by construction traffic, restriction of stockpile size, targeting of sweeping roads, minimisation of evaporative emissions and problems clean-up of liquid spills, pro habitation of international on-site fires and avoidance of accidental ones control over construction equipment emissions and proactive monitoring of dust. The plum should also provide details on the management and control processes.
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.
CEMP Biodiversity
15. Prior to the commencement of development a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall include the following:
a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities
b) Identification of “biodiversity protection zones”
c) Measures to avoid or reduce impacts during construction – with specific measures to minimise adverse impacts on bats and otters
d) Measures to control and eradicate invasive species
e) Location and timings of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features, including nesting birds.
f) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works
g) Responsible persons and lines of communication
h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.
i) The production of Risk Avoidance Method Statement (RAMS) detailing construction methods and timing of works proposed in relation to great crested newts.
The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA.
Reason:
To ensure the protection of existing biodiversity features in accordance with Core Strategy Policy SP18 and the NPPF.
BEMP
16. 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.
LEMP
17. Prior to commencement of development, a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved, the LEMP shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details for the lifetime of the development.
The LEMP must include, but not be limited, to arrangements for the following:
· description and evaluation of features to be managed;
· ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management;
· aims and objectives of management;
· appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives;
· prescriptions for management actions;
· preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a five-year period);
· details of the body or organization responsible for implementation of the plan;
· ongoing monitoring and remedial measures;
· details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body responsible for its delivery;
· how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the approved scheme (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the Plan are not being met).
Reason:
In the interests of ecology and in order to comply with saved Policy ENV1 (5) of the Selby District Local Plan, Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy and national planning policy contained within the NPPF.
Drainage
18. 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.
Drainage
19. 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 the means of discharging to the public sewer network at a rate to not exceed maximum of 3.5 litres per second to 150mm public surface water sewer located within Gateforth Lane 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.
Reporting of Unexpected Contamination
20. 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.
Informatives
Where new car parking of more than 100 spaces outside an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) is proposed the applicant should incorporate good design in the interest of air quality. This may include the provision of Electric Vehicle (EV) charging points especially where the properties include a garage.
New and altered Private Access or Verge Crossing
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 County Council as the Local Highway Authority in order to allow any works in the existing public highway to be carried out. The ‘Specification for Housing and Industrial Estate Roads and Private Street Works’ published by North Yorkshire County Council as the Local Highway Authority, is available to download from the County Council’s web site: Road adoption | North Yorkshire Council
The Local Highway Authority will also be pleased to provide the detailed constructional specifications referred to in this condition.
Other Permissions required from the Local Highway Authority
Applicants are reminded that in addition to securing planning permission other permissions may be required from North Yorkshire County 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 Layout
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 should submitted to the Local Highway Authority to ensure a Section 38 agreement is successful.
Construction of Adoptable Roads and Footways
The applicant is reminded that the dwellings shall not be occupied 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.
Appendix A: Location Plan