North Yorkshire Council
Community Development Services
Selby and Ainsty Area Planning Committee
30th april 2025
ZG2023/0551/OUTM Outline application with all matters reserved except for means of access to, but not within, the site for the development of up to 140 dwellings and associated landscaping and infrastructure AT Land to the North of Leeds Road, Thorpe Willoughby ON BEHALF OF Hallam Land Management Ltd
Report of the Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services
|
1.0 Purpose of the Report 1.1 To determine an application for outline planning permission with all matters reserved except for means of access to, but not within, the site for the development of up to 140 dwellings and associated landscaping and infrastructure at land to the north of Leeds Road, Thorpe Willoughby, Selby, North Yorkshire. 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: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to prior completion of a section 106 agreement to secure the matters detailed below and the conditions detailed below.
2.1. This is an application for outline planning permission for up to 140 dwellings with access to the site to be determined. The design principles parameter plan shows the general layout of the site with housing interspersed with open space, two children’s play areas and retained trees. The main vehicular access is proposed from Leeds Road, a pedestrian/cycle link is proposed further east along Leeds Road and an emergency link with pedestrian and cycle access is proposed to the east. A 3m wide shared foot and cycle way is proposed along the site frontage and to the east of the site. The site is within the countryside to the west of the development limit of a Designated Service Village, Thorpe Willoughby. The site is relatively flat and undeveloped with a cluster of buildings and a dwelling near the western boundary. There is an established hedgerow to the southern and eastern boundaries as well as a collection of high quality trees.
2.2. 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 of the Core Strategy because it involves major residential development in the countryside. Policy SP5 of the Core Strategy sets out the scale and distribution of housing within the former Selby area. This policy is now 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. 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. Continued strict application of Policy SP2, which prevents market housing outside development limits in the countryside such as this, would not allow the LPA to meet the identified local housing needs. Furthermore, the weight afforded to conflict with Core Strategy Policy SP2 is diminished as it does not include the more nuanced approach to the consideration of development that is found in the NPPF. Thus, the policy is inconsistent with the NPPF and should be given limited weight.
2.3. However, the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land as required by the NPPF. Therefore, the policies most important for determining the application, SP2 and SP5, are out of date as set out in NPPF paragraph 11. Permission should be granted unless the proposal fails to satisfy the tests in NPPF paragraph 11d. The proposal complies with paragraph 11d)i because no NPPF policy that protects areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. The requirements of paragraph 11d)ii are more nuanced as set out below. It requires consideration of whether the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
2.4. 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; moderate adverse localised landscape and visual effects; and conflict with the development plan.
2.5. Neutral matters include the lack of conflict with mineral policies; the indicative housing density is appropriate; the flood risk sequential and exceptions tests are passed, 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 designated sites; the site can be made safe from contamination; residential amenity would not be harmed; there is no harm to heritage; noise and air pollution matters are acceptable; education, healthcare and bin contributions are secured to ensure no detriment is caused; and there would be no harm to the railway.
2.6. Benefits include the site being in a reasonably sustainable location that will be enhanced; matters for determination are well designed; the proposal makes a significant contribution to needed market and affordable housing (great weight is given to this consideration); a housing mix is secured that will deliver a mixed and balance community with provision for those with mobility problems and those that want to self or custom build their own home; the scheme will deliver a section of shared foot and cycle way linking the village to Selby, new bus stops and provide contributions to enhance bus services and cycling which benefits existing and future residents; 10% biodiversity net gain and ecological enhancements are secured; provision of open space and play areas that benefits existing and future residents; economic benefits both during the construction phase and once the houses are occupied which are afforded moderate weight.
2.7. 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.
3.0 Preliminary Matters
3.1. Access to the case file on Public Access can be found here:- ZG2023/0551/OUTM | Outline application with all matters reserved except for means of access to, but not within, the site for the development of up to 140 dwellings and associated landscaping and infrastructure. | Land To North Of Leeds Road Thorpe Willoughby Selby North Yorkshire
3.2. During the course of the application amended highway, ecological and layout information was submitted.
3.3. A negative screening opinion was issued to the applicant by the LPA on 8th March 2024 confirming the proposal is not EIA development. There is no other relevant planning history for the application site.
4.0 Site and Surroundings
4.1. The application site is irregular in shape, flat and 6.81 ha in area. It consists of land in arable agriculture use, farm buildings and a dwelling known as Greensleeves. Town Dike passes through the site. A number of trees are present at field boundaries within the site. There is a hedgerow and field access to the Leeds Road frontage. The site surrounds but does not include a dwelling known as Meadow View.
4.2. To the north of the site is a railway with agricultural land beyond; there are dwellings to the east; to the south is Leeds Road with residential dwellings beyond; to the west is Harry Moor Lane with agricultural land beyond and a pig farm. A small parcel of the site is located to the west of the Harry Moor Lane and is intended as a biodiversity net gain area.
4.3. The Thorpe Willoughby development limit is directly to the east of the site hence the site is within the countryside. The site is in flood zone 1 for sea and river flooding, aside from a narrow strip along Town Dike which is in flood zones 2 and 3. The site is mostly at very low risk of surface water flooding aside from areas at medium and high risk near Town Dike and areas at low or medium risk in the north eastern part of the site. The site is at risk of reservoir flooding when there is also flooding from rivers.
4.4. The site is within a sand and gravel, and brick clay safeguard areas. Parts of Brayton Barff to the south of the site are classified as ancient woodland, and a site of importance to nature conservation (SINC).
5.0 Description of Proposal
5.1. This is an application for outline planning permission with access matters to be determined and with all other matters reserved for the erection of up to 140 residential dwellings. The application form details that 21 dwellings would be for social, affordable or intermediate rent; and 7 would be starter homes; the total affordable housing provision being 20%. A vehicular access to the site is proposed from Leeds Road via a priority junction with limited road widening of Leeds Road. Separate pedestrian/cycle access is proposed further east along Leeds Road. Pedestrian, cyclist and emergency vehicle access is proposed via The Fir Trees.
5.2. The design principles parameter plan is for determination and shows the broad layout of the site including access points, road and footpath layout, housing areas, open space and play areas. Open space is shown to the Leeds Road site frontage with a small cluster of dwellings to the south of Town Dike. A single road crosses Town Dike forming a loop road with various secondary roads and private drives leading from it. There is a separate pedestrian crossing of Town Dike to the east of the proposed road. An attenuation basin with pumping station is shown to the north of Town Dike. The areas to the north and south of Meadow View are open space. The illustrative masterplan is not for determination. It shows how the site could be developed, not how it will be developed.
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.
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. A report was taken to North Yorkshire Council’s Executive on 4 February and then North Yorkshire Council’s Full Council on 26 February with the same recommendation which has been agreed.
Having regard to the above, there is no emerging local plan to consider, but some weight may be given to the evidence base.
No weight can be given to the North Yorkshire Local plan at the current time as it is at an early stage of preparation.
Guidance - Material Considerations
6.3. 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. Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council: 6/7/2023 Objection “it will lead to increased water runoff into the Town Dyke which will not be able to cope. The town dyke previously flooded the properties on Fir Tree Lane in 2010.”
7.3. NYC Archaeologist:23/6/2023 A geophysical survey is required, to be followed by trial trenching, as appropriate prior to determination.
7.4. 21/3/2024: Following submission of a geophysical survey no further archaeological measures are required.
7.5. NYC Ecologist: 21/6/2023 Further assessments required. Biodiversity net gain is indicatively achieved. Recreational impacts on Brayton Barff are not acceptable.
7.6. 31/7/2023 In response to the applicant rebuttal of the ecologists comments, NYC ecology reiterates its initial advice.
7.7. 30/10/2023- There will be impacts on Brayton Barff and farm birds. We do not support the recommendation (EcIA page 32) to install nest boxes for generalist hole-nesting birds such as Great Tit and Blue Tit. There is increasing evidence that competition from these widespread and common birds is a significant factor in the decline of rarer woodland species such as Marsh Tit and Willow Tit, both of which are present in the area south of Selby. The proposal to install a Barn Owl box as replacement roosting habitat is welcome. Bats- The existing house was found to support two small day roosts of Common Pipistrelle bats: one occupied by a single animal, the other by two. While all bat roosts are protected by law, such roosts are of lower conservation significance and their loss can be compensated for by standard mitigation measures. On this basis, the proposed development would meet the ‘favourable conservation status’ test set out in the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2017, provided appropriate mitigation measures are implemented. Our advice is that the provision of two tree-mounted bat boxes (EcIA page 33) could only be considered as temporary mitigation since Common Pipistrelle bats show a preference for boxes located on buildings rather than trees. However, the installation of suitable boxes/tubes in 15 of the new houses would provide better than like-for-like replacement habitat, which would consider be welcome and acceptable. As a Natural England protected species licence would be necessary to demolish the building, the applicant would need to liaise closely with their ecologist. Water Vole Evidence of Water Vole activity was found in one on-site ditch (Ditch 2) (EcIA paras 5.8.1 to 5.8.6 & survey report). It is proposed to retain existing ditches, which would not be incorporated into residential gardens, and would be protected during construction. A 7 metre buffer would be established along both banks of D2 and marginal vegetation would be enhanced. While these measures are welcome, the effects of increased disturbance and predation by domestic pets remain a concern. These pressures are acknowledged but categorised as a “Not Significant Negative Effect at a Local Level” (EcIA page 34). We would question this assessment as predation and disturbance could potentially result in the loss of a population of a legally-protected priority species. While the measures outlined on page 35 might have some effect in reducing predation pressure, suggestions such as providing an information leaflet to householders are likely to have limited effect and the Water Vole population would remain at greater risk than under current conditions. More robust measures need to be considered. Should the council be minded to approve this application, we would recommend a Condition that a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), Landscape & Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) and updated Biodiversity Net Gain assessment be submitted at reserved matters stage, as set out in section 6.4 of the EcIA.
7.8. 31/1/2024- Agree no offsite compensation for farmland birds required. Water Vole- evidence of Water Vole activity often fluctuates dramatically. This emphasises the need to protect any remaining populations even if the results of a single-season survey indicate a low level of activity. Recommends a condition to re-survey prior to commencement and review mitigation measures accordingly.
7.9. 28/3/2024: Our preferred approach would be for a re-survey of Water Voles to be carried out at reserved matters stage, so that the mitigation strategy can be reviewed based on up-to-date information. Should a repeat survey demonstrate that a significant and persistent Water Vole population is present, we would expect the applicant’s ecologists to consider mitigation measures additional to those proposed, potentially including off-site habitat improvements for the species.
7.10. 9/5/2024 Concerned about the impact of increasing recreation pressures upon Brayton Barff ancient woodland SINC. However, following the Inspectors decision at Barff Lane, Brayton it is considered that these applications would not present a conflict with paragraph 186c of the NPPF related to irreplaceable habitats. However, there is a need for these developments to maximise the use of open space on site for recreation.
7.11. NYC Environmental Health: 13/6/2023 Conditions are recommended regarding noise mitigation, noise limits from air source heat pumps, air quality, a Construction Environmental Management Plan, construction hours and piled foundations.
7.12. 15/3/2024- The encroachment of residential settlements within 400m of an established intensive livestock operation creates a potential for amenity odour impacts. In this case, the agent of change principle takes effect, and I would advise that the applicant should provide the necessary reassurances that future occupants will not be subject to unacceptable odour impacts.
7.13. 4/7/2024- The amended noise assessment is agreed. A condition will be required to secure noise mitigation to dwellings. Odour impacts are acceptable. Comments dated 13 June 2023 are still relevant.
7.14. NYC Landscape Architect: 2/10/2023 Comments provided on the indicative masterplan and landscape strategy. The proposed planting along the western boundary is a suitable treatment for the adjacency to the open countryside beyond. It would not entirely screen the development but would help to soften the juxtaposition. The oak trees to be retained need greater separation distances to dwellings that take into account their size at maturity. The LVIA makes a fair and reasonable assessment of the site, and the effects of the proposed development on the landscape features of the site, and the landscape character of the site and the wider character area; and the visual effects of the proposed development (as presented in the landscape strategy plan). The methodology and descriptions are in accordance with the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact assessment (GLVIA) - third edition. The proposal would create a long, developed edge to the adjacent countryside. Effects on land use are naturally moderate to major. Effects on trees are assessed as moderate although could be major for mature oak trees but intention to retain is noted. The effect during year 15 is moderate beneficial which is agreed provided the most valuable trees are protected during construction. For the hedges, there would be a moderate adverse effect during the construction phase due to the removal of a long section of the existing native hedge along Leeds Road. This would be replaced. The impact on the wider landscape character in Year 15 would be ‘low’. The impact on the landscape character of the site would be ‘moderate to major’ in Year 1 reducing to ‘moderate’ in Year 15. Thus to summarise, in Year 15 there would be significant beneficial effect on the tree cover across the site, provided the masterplan were suitably designed to provide a robust buffer and protection to the existing Oak trees, and that adequate space is given to proposed tree planting which could be realistically sustained in maturity and would thus supplement the existing tree cover. There would be residual ‘moderate’ effects on the landscape character of the site and the most immediate area. The visual effects from the public rights of way, as recreational receptors of high sensitivity, would be minor at year 15 - partly depending on the quantity and quality of landscape mitigation within the reserved matters scheme. The LVA summarises the visual impact in Year 15 from Leeds Road, and Harry Moor Lane, as ‘moderate/minor’ and ‘moderate’ respectively. This is based on the sensitivity of the receptor as being ‘medium’. Arguably for some users, such as pedestrians, cyclists, and/or local residents, the sensitivity is higher. There would be significant adverse visual effects from Leeds Road, Harry Moor Lane, and adjacent properties. These adverse effects are localised but significant. Thus the moderate (significant) adverse local landscape and visual effects of the proposed development, and the potential moderate beneficial effects on tree cover (provided adequate space is given for existing and proposed trees) should be given due consideration in the planning balance.
7.15. NYC Lead Local Flood Authority: 4/9/2023 Further information is required and a series of conditions is recommended.
7.16. 6/2/2024- Soakaways have been proven to not be viable therefore discharging surface water to Town Dyke water course is acceptable subject to IDB consent. A peak flow rate of 7.7l/s is proposed and a pumped outfall rate of 8.7l/s will be used. This is also acceptable to the LLFA.Updated Hydraulic Calculations have been provided which now provide a 40% allowance for climate change and an additional 10% for Urban Creep. It is proposed that gulleys and the attenuation basin will provide pollution mitigation. These have now been shown on the drainage design plan. The submitted documents demonstrate a reasonable approach to the management of surface water on the site. The LLFA recommend that the following conditions are attached to any permissions granted: development to be built in accordance with the submitted design.
7.17. NYC Local Highway Authority: 31/7/2023 The access drawings are acceptable. Drawings of the emergency access are required. General road layout comments are provided. Cycle comments are provided. £1350 per dwelling totalling £189,000.00 towards implementation of the cycle strategy for Selby. Travel Plan advice is provided. Transport assessment comments are provided and an updated version is required. Junction capacity assessments to be re-run to include new trip rates and extra committed developments, as well as assessing the signalised junction in Selby which provides the Applicant the opportunity to address the other NYC comments, many of which relate to off-site infrastructure improvements that will be required as matters of site acceptability.
7.18. 30/1/2024: The previous comments are resubmitted with a typographical error corrected regarding s106 contributions towards cycling.
7.19. 8/4/2024: Requests that the applicant provide evidence that the flare length for the island is in line with CD143. The flare length should be a desirable of 1:40 to prevent vehicles making contact with the island.
7.20. 21/11/2024 Further justification provided for s106 contributions to cycle improvements and bus service enhancements.
7.21. 20/1/2025 No objection subject to conditions and s106.
7.22. NYC Minerals and Waste Team: 19/6/2023 No objections.
7.23. NYC Strategic Planning, Children and Young People's Service:30/6/2023 Contributions are sought: £427,754.60 towards school expansion places at Selby High School; £94,785.60 towards school expansion places for special school provision; and £118,482.00 towards school expansion places for early years provision. 12/7/2023 Comments clarified.
7.24. 8/8/2024 Contributions are sought: £466,793.60 towards school expansion places at Selby High School and or another secondary school within the locality of the development; £104,428.80 to be used for the provision of SEND provision at the new Selby Special School; and £55,944.00 to be used for early years provision serving the locality of the development.
7.26. NYC Waste and Recycling: 15/6/2023 The road design would accommodate waste vehicles; bin presentation points are required at the end of private drives and design guidance is provided; on plot bin storage requirements are detailed; and the developer will be required to pay for bins.
7.27. Active Travel England: 26/6/2023 It is content with the development.
7.28. Contaminated land consultant: 27/6/2023 The Preliminary Geoenvironmental Investigation and the proposed site investigation works are acceptable. Conditions are recommended regarding investigation of contaminated land; submission of a remediation strategy; verification of remediation works; and reporting of unexpected contamination.
7.29. Network Rail: 21/7/2023 No objection in principle. The private level crossing at Harry Moore Lane may be used by residents that mistakenly believe there is a public right of way. Trespass by unauthorised users is a criminal offence and highly dangerous for the individuals concerned as well as a huge risk to operational railway safety which we would find to be unacceptable. Conditions should require measures including changes to the level crossing gates to palisade gates, as well as erecting signage on the approach from Harry Moore Lane to the level crossing. Such signage shall state that there is no public right over the level crossing and must be visible at all times. Conditions are recommended regarding construction methodology, drainage, trespass proof fencing, vehicle incursion measures, landscaping and lighting. It considers every endeavour should be made to provide soundproofing to dwellings. (officer response for assessment section- there is already a sign at the start of Harry Moore Lane confirming the road is private and there is a further sign on the level crossing gate stating private no public right of way which is visible at all times. Changing the crossing gate to a palisade gate would not prevent unlawful access. Therefore, such a condition is unnecessary. The construction methodology and drainage conditions are included. Environmental Health recommended conditions address noise. Trespass proof fencing is unnecessary because there is already one in place. Vehicle incursion measures, landscaping and lighting can be dealt with at reserved matters stage.
7.30. NHS Humber and Yorkshire Integrated Care Board: 23/12/2024 The proposed development will therefore generate approximately 336 residents and subsequently increase demands upon existing services. The development will give rise to a need for improvements to capacity, by way of improvements to, reconfiguration of, or extension of existing premises at Tadcaster and Rural Selby PCN: South Milford Surgery – Thorpe Willoughby Branch or providing additional resource for a new build health development. A contribution of £165,024 is required for 140 dwellings.
7.31. North Yorkshire Police: 14/6/2023 The response provides an overview of national and local policy, crime statistics, and provide design guidance.
7.32. Selby Area Internal Drainage District- 17/6/2023 Generic guidance provided regarding drainage options. Drainage to watercourse is restricted to 1.4 litres per second per hectare or greenfield run off rate and would require IDB consent. No obstruction within 7m of the edge of an ordinary watercourse without IDB consent.
7.33. Yorkshire Water: 4/7/2023 A water supply can be provided to the development. Liquid storage tank bunding, a CEMP, surface and foul water drainage, no tree planting within 5m of existing sewer, and works to protect said sewer should be conditioned. Domestic foul flows can be accommodated at the wastewater treatment works.
7.34. 23/10/2023 Yorkshire Water does not wish to make any changes from those previously imposed on 04/07/23. Water supply- The submitted 'TECHNICAL NOTE TO ADDRESS LLFA & YORKSHIRE WATER COMMENTS' JAG/DC/48605-TN001-Rev A prepared by Alan Wood, dated September 2023 is acceptable for the purposes of source protection. In summary, the report states that a.) Comments regarding the surface water drainage have been answered adequately, however a CEMP will still be required. Waste Water- 1.) The submitted 'TECHNICAL NOTE TO ADDRESS LLFA & YORKSHIRE WATER COMMENTS' JAG/DC/48605-TN001-Rev A prepared by Alan Wood, dated September 2023 requires amendments, but if planning permission is granted, the matter can be dealt with via condition. In summary, the report states that a.) Foul water will discharge to public foul water sewer - it is stated that the pumped rate will be 4.75 litres per second, which is b.) acceptable however the drawing later in the report still state 6.5 l/s which is not acceptable. c.) Sub-soil conditions do not support the use of soakaways d.) A watercourse exists near to the site- surface water will discharge to this. e.) The means of foul water management has not been properly considered within the FRA/drainage report. Yorkshire Water requires further information regarding the means of draining surface water from the development.
7.35. No response received from Natural England, Tree Officer, Conservation Officer, North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue, Public Rights of Way and Environment Agency.
Local Representations
7.36. Eighty seven letters of objection have been received. A summary of the comments is provided below, however, please see website for full comments.
- The site is not allocated in the development plan or draft local plan.
- The development is too large for the size of the village.
- Excessive housing development within the village.
- Thorpe Willoughby has already had a significantly disproportionate share of the overall growth envisaged in the 18 Designated Service Villages.
- The site was almost allocated in the 2005 Local Plan but this is irrelevant.
- If sites beyond the development limit are to be released they should be taken from the list of potential sites from the 2022-2027 five year housing land supply report to ensure a plan led approach to housing.
- Policies remain up to date because the Council has a five-year supply.
- Brownfield land in Selby should be developed first.
- Housing development should be located in sustainable locations that minimise the need to travel and have good public transport.
- Residential amenity including loss of sunlight, overshadowing, loss of privacy, noise, dust, air quality, disruption and health impacts.
- Landscape and visual harm in a tranquil and attractive area.
- Harm to character by filling the gap to the bypass.
- Loss of field views, trees and hedgerows.
- Traffic and highway safety. Emergency access will increase traffic.
- The emergency access will be the main footpath into the village. The increase in footfall, cyclists, vehicles that can fit through the bollards and dog mess will be detrimental to residents of The Fir Trees
- Loss of farmland and settlement coalescence.
- Cumulative impact of housing developments upon village amenities including play areas, the school, convenience stores, bus service, dentist and doctors.
- The sports club is a private facility so not everyone can access it. Other village parks are small and only serve younger children.
- Lack of public transport.
- The development is located within Hambleton Parish so will not benefit Thorpe Willoughby Parish with no money going to the Parish for amenities to accommodate the extra population.
- Increased air and noise pollution.
- There are bats in the farm buildings and trees.
- Loss of wildlife habitat and harm to protected species.
- Increased recreational pressure upon Ancient Woodland (Brayton Barff).
- Increased flood risk. Photographs of flooded fields and culvert with high water flow provided.
- Will the flow of Town Dike be restricted?
- Play area next to water features is dangerous.
- Increased crime.
- Danger posed by the level crossing on Harry Moor Lane.
- Loss of agricultural employment.
- Low water pressure and poor electricity.
- Affordable housing is not affordable.
- How will utilities be provided?
- Harm to archaeology.
- Property devaluation.
8.0 Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
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
- Flood risk, drainage and climate change
- Access and highway safety
- Impact upon nature conservation, protected species and ancient woodland
- Contaminated land and ground conditions
- Residential amenity
- Archaeology
- Developer contributions
- Railway implications
10.0 ASSESSMENT
Principle of Development
10.1. Core Strategy Policy SP1 provides a presumption in favour of sustainable development which reflects that found within the NPPF. 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 Core Strategy designates Thorpe Willoughby as a Designated Service Village (DSV). Core Strategy paragraph 4.12 states “villages which are considered capable of accommodating additional limited growth have been identified as ‘Designated Service Villages’”. With regard to Designated Service Villages (DSVs), 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 (as identified above) is considered appropriate”.
10.2. Policy SP2 A a) confirms Thorpe Willoughby has some scope for additional residential growth to support rural sustainability and to complement growth in the Principal Town of Selby. Though the supporting text of Policy SP2 states that DSVs are suited to ‘limited further growth’, Thorpe Willoughby is one of 3 DSVs identified as particularly sustainably located, within which growth will complement that in Selby. However, the application site is not within the development limits of the village but is within the countryside adjacent to the development limit.
10.3. 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.”
10.4. Policies SP10 Rural Housing Exception Sites and SP13 Scale and Distribution of Economic Growth do not apply to the proposal nor are there other special circumstances.
10.5. The site lies outside the development limit of Thorpe Willoughby, within the open countryside. In this regard the type and location of development proposed would conflict with Policy SP2.
10.6. NPPF paragraph 11 sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development which states “11. Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development……..For decision-taking this means:….. d) where……… the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date 8 , granting permission unless: i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance7 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 9 .”
10.7. Policies SP2 and SP5 are the most important for determining the application and are out of date because the LPA cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Furthermore, Policy SP5 is out of date because the housing need figure it contains is not calculated based on the required standard method. There is a 2.6 year supply based on the latest standard method calculation. No NPPF policy relevant to the areas or assets noted in NPPF foot note 7 would provide a strong reason to refuse development. These are “(7) The policies referred to are those in this Framework (rather than those in development plans) relating to: 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.” The adverse impacts of granting permission do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits as described in paragraph 11d ii, with particular regard to the key policies. These are defined in footnote 9 as “(9) The policies referred to are those in paragraphs 66 and 84 of chapter 5; 91 of chapter 7; 110 and 115 of chapter 9; 129 of chapter 11; and 135 and 139 of chapter 12.” These are detailed in the relevant sections below. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies to the proposal.
10.8. It is still possible to give weight to development plan policies even if they are considered out of date. As set out in NPPF paragraph 232, due weight should be given to policies, according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). NPPF paragraph 61 states “To support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed………. The overall aim should be to meet an area’s identified housing need, including with an appropriate mix of housing types for the local community.” The hierarchy outlined within Policy SP2 itself remains soundly based on an understanding of the role and function of different settlements within the former District. However, continued strict application of Policy SP2A(c), 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. Thus, the policy is inconsistent with the NPPF and should be given limited weight.
10.9. There remains a requirement to consider the impact on the character and appearance of the area and other technical matters as detailed below.
10.10. In respect of sustainability, the village contains a primary school, public house, a village hall, a church, two general stores, a hairdressers, coffee shop and deli, hot food take-away, a pharmacy and sport and recreation facilities which include playing fields. It also benefits from a somewhat limited bus services to Selby and Leeds. In terms of access to services and facilities and a choice of mode of transport, the site can be considered as being in a fairly sustainable location with some alternatives to car-based travel. NPPF paragraph 84 which restricts isolated dwellings does not apply, nor does paragraph 91 which relates to main town centre uses.
Section 149 of The Equality Act 2010
10.11. Under Section 148 of the Equality Act 2010 Local Planning Authorities must have due regard to the following when making decisions: (i) eliminating discrimination, harassment and victimisation; (ii) advancing equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; and (iii) fostering good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics are: age (normally young or older people), disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation.
10.12. 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
10.13. The site is used for arable agricultural purposes. Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy seeks to sustain the natural environment by steering development to areas of least agricultural quality. NPPF paragraph 187 states that decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Policy SP18 is consistent with the NPPF and is given significant weight.
10.14. Agricultural land is classified using grades 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4 and 5. Best and most versatile agricultural land is defined as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification. The Yorkshire and Humber Agricultural Land Classification indicates the site is entirely grade 3 ‘good to moderate’ agricultural land. It does not differentiate between grades 3a and 3b. The application does not include an agricultural land quality assessment. The site is assumed to be BMV. The site area means Natural England is not a statutory consultee for the loss of agricultural land. The scale of loss of best and most versatile agricultural land would result in minor harm to the agricultural economy in the area as well as food self-sufficiency. The loss of agricultural land is contrary to Core Strategy Policy SP18 and NPPF paragraph 187 b). This must be weighed in the planning balance.
Minerals
10.15. The site is within a sand and gravel, and brick clay safeguard areas designated by policy S01 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan. Policy S02 requires a minerals assessment for non-exempt development such as this. The submitted mineral resource assessment concludes “The 6.8 hectare proposed development site is within Mineral Safeguarding Areas for brick clay and for sand and gravel. The northern third of the site is within the buffer zone for brick clay, and underlain by sand and gravel. The site is separated from the brick clay resource by a railway line, forming an existing buffer between mineral resources north of the line and residential development to the south; The sand and gravel resource underlying the site is of insufficient size to be considered of any commercial value; Existing residential properties surrounding the proposed development site on the eastern and southern boundary have already sterilised any future potential for mineral extraction at this location; Prior extraction is not considered practical or environmentally acceptable at this location; The Mineral Resource Assessment indicates that an application for non-mineral development within the Leeds Road site meets criteria i) and criteria iv) of NNYCC M&WLP policy S02. The proposed development would not sterilise any mineral not already sterilised by existing development, or prejudice future extraction. The location concerned is no longer of any potential value as it does not represent an economically viable and therefore exploitable resource. Accordingly mineral safeguarding should not act as a constraint on development at this location.”
10.16. The NYC Minerals and Waste Team consider the assessment “fulfils the requirements of Policy S02 in the MWJP. The Minerals and Waste Planning Team support the conclusion within the assessment so no further action is required in terms of mineral safeguarding.”
10.18. The site is identified on the Coal Authority interactive map as lying within a low-risk area for which the standing advice is to impose an informative to draw this risk to the developer’s attention.
Housing Density and Mix
Density
10.19. 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”.
10.20. Core Strategy paragraph 7.80 states “The quality of design in its local context is more important than relying on a minimum housing density figure to benchmark development……. Therefore, the Council does not propose to set a development density figure in this strategic plan”. Policy SP19 states residential development should “Positively contribute to an area’s identity and heritage in terms of scale, density and layout”.
10.21. NPPF footnote 9 requires consideration of NPPF paragraph 129 which requires “Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account: (a) the identified need for different types of housing and other forms of development, and the availability of land suitable for accommodating it; (b) local market conditions and viability; (c) the availability and capacity of infrastructure and services – both existing and proposed – as well as their potential for further improvement and the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use; (d) the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting (including residential gardens), or of promoting regeneration and change; and (e) the importance of securing well-designed, attractive and healthy places.”
10.22. Paragraph 130 encourages consideration of minimum densities “where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs”.
10.23. The erection of 140 dwellings on 3.4 hectares of ‘area for development’ as shown on the design principles parameter plan would result in a net density of 41 dwellings per hectare. It is important to note this is only an indication because of the outline nature of the application. The actual density will be established at reserved matters stage. The minimum density requirement in Policy H2B is in conflict with the design led approach in Policy SP19. Under section 38(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 if a policy contained in a development plan for an area conflicts with another policy in the development plan, the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy which is contained in the last document to be adopted which is Policy SP19. The proposal would be an efficient use of land as required by NPPF paragraph 129. NPPF paragraph 130 is not engaged because there is no shortage of land to meet housing needs. The proposed indicative housing density is appropriate in these circumstances.
Housing Mix
10.24. 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.
10.25. Paragraph 10.36 of the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) (October 2020) states: “The ‘market’ is to some degree a better judge of what is the most appropriate profile of homes to deliver at any point in time, and demand can change over time linked to macro-economic factors and local supply.” The wording of the HEDNA intends to provide an element of flexibility in the precise mix put forwarded within applications. The table below from the 2020 HEDNA shows the need for sizes of homes per tenure type.
10.26. The application form does not confirm the precise housing mix given the outline nature of the application. Therefore, in order to prevent a pronounced overprovision of a single house type and to secure a mixed and balanced community, a condition is required to ensure the precise housing mix is submitted with the reserved matters application and agreed by the Council in order to comply with Policy SP8 and the HEDNA.
10.27. The Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment 2020 shows there is predicted to be “A 72% increase in the number of people aged 65+ with dementia and a 60% increase in those aged 65+ with mobility problems (2020-40)”. It recommends 5% of dwellings should meet Building Regulations M4(3)- wheelchair user dwellings. The 5% figure is increased to 6% to account for minor development not making such provision. It is considered necessary to condition this to ensure housing meets future needs.
10.28. The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Report December 2024 shows, on 30th October 2023, there were 39 individuals on the Selby register. The report also says 188 plots were permissioned between 1 April 2016 and 30 October 2023. However, there is some uncertainty going forward as to whether these permissions would count against need because the most recent appeal decisions show a need to secure self and custom build by s106 for it to count. It is prudent to consider there is a significant unmet need meet in the area and the 3% of all plots as self or custom build proposed is a reasonable response to meeting the need and securing an appropriate housing mix.
Character and Appearance
10.29. CS Policy SP18 requires the high quality and local distinctiveness of the natural and man-made environment will be sustained by 1. Safeguarding and, where possible, enhancing the historic and natural environment including the landscape character and setting of areas of acknowledged importance. Policy SP19 requires proposals to have regard to local character, identity and context of its surroundings including settlement patterns and the open countryside. Key requirements include incorporating new and existing landscaping as an integral part of the design of schemes, including off-site landscaping for large sites and sites on the edge of settlements where appropriate.
10.30. NPPF footnote 9 requires consideration of paragraph 135 which requires planning decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, provide effective landscaping, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities). Paragraph 139 resists bad design and supports good design.
10.31. The Selby Landscape Character Assessment (November 2019) is given some weight as a material consideration. It puts the application site within character area 14 Hambleton Sandstone Ridge with key characteristics including being characterised by two low but distinct and densely wooded hills: Brayton Barff; and Hambleton Hough, which offer panoramic views. Key sensitivities, physical character, notes the hills are sensitive to change compared to the flatter more undulating land surrounding them and that away from the hills themselves the density of woodland may allow sensitive siting of some development though this should respect the setting of the hills. Management guidelines for the area include: housing development around Thorpe Willoughby should be sensitively sited and designed so as to respect the setting of Brayton Barff, and so as not to significantly impact on views from these hills.
10.32. The Selby District Landscape Sensitivity Study (October 2021) is given some weight as a material consideration. It puts the application site within land parcel reference TW1 in Thorpe Willoughby. It notes the parcel does not have significant topographical variation, comprising low-lying agricultural land to the north of the A1238. Notes on any variations in landscape sensitivity states “Land lying to the east of the Parcel has reduced landscape sensitivity due to the presence of the existing settlement edge.” This relates to the application site. Overall development guidelines states “Development of the Parcel would result in the continued containment of the settlement within the corridor of the Selby Rail Line, limiting perceptions of expansion to the north. This would be perceived as incremental expansion rather than settlement coalescence. Development within the Parcel could also afford opportunities to enhance the existing harsh settlement edge.” The overall assessment of landscape sensitivity to development scenarios considers landscape assessment parcel TW1 to be of low to medium sensitivity to a 2-3 storey residential housing development stating “Few of the key characteristics and qualities of TW1 and TW2 are vulnerable to change as a result of the introduction of the development scenario, resulting in an overall low-moderate sensitivity.”
10.33. The application site comprises of four flat arable agricultural fields and a collection of large corrugated metal agricultural buildings and a dwelling near the western boundary with Harry Moor Lane. The Leeds Road frontage benefits from an established hedgerow adjacent to the highway verge broken only by a field gate access to the dwelling to be demolished. The hedgerow continues along the Harry Moor Lane frontage and further hedgerows surround the existing dwellings. Town Dike passes through the site in a west to east direction running parallel to Leeds Road. A band of vegetation lines Town Dike including a number of groups of C grade trees and two grade B trees. To the north of the agricultural buildings a line of twelve mature and early mature grade A and B oak trees snakes through the site which make a significant contribution to the landscape and character of the area. On the western side of Harry Moor Lane is a separate parcel of the application site containing a U grade tree to be removed, a grade C group of trees and grade C hedgerow.
10.34. The proposed road widening and shared foot/cycle way extending along the site frontage and further east along Leeds Road will require the removal of the roadside hedgerow and a small number of trees on Leeds Road. Seven of the trees are grade C, one of the trees is grade B and the hedgerow is grade C. These are not considered to be an impediment to the proposal. The parameter plan shows there will be sufficient scope at reserved matters stage to secure a planting scheme to the western site boundary that, in combination with retained trees, will serve to filter views of the proposal from the countryside to the west. There will also be scope to secure compensatory planting along the site frontage with Leeds Road. The parameter plan and illustrative masterplan also shows all of the grade A and B trees retained with sufficient space to allow long term retention. Minor benefits to the landscape and screening of the proposal would arise from the enhanced planting of the biodiversity net gain parcel on the western side of Harry Moor Lane and from the removal of the large agricultural buildings which front on to Harry Moor Lane without any intervening landscaping.
10.35. The application site is very well contained by the railway line to the north, Harry Moor Lane to the west and Leeds Road to the south. This leads to clear defendable boundaries to the open countryside to the west. The proposal would lead to the squaring-off of the overall form of the existing village as Harry Moor Lane aligns very well with the western extent of the village to the south of Leeds Road and the northern section of the proposal abuts the railway line as does the existing built form of the village to the east.
10.38. The submitted landscape and visual appraisal (LVA) concludes “From a landscape and visual perspective, any notable effects on landscape character and features as a result of the proposed development would be confined to site itself and immediate local area due to the containment of the site, with visual effects also localised and reduced by the wider topography, areas of woodland and built elements. Overall, the total extent of the landscape and visual effects would be localised in nature. The proposals integrate within the pattern of existing settlement edge development that adjoins the site on its eastern and southern boundaries. Therefore, in view of the localised effects identified in this assessment, it is assessed that a development of the scale and type proposed could be accommodated without undue harm to landscape and visual amenity.”
10.39. The LPA Landscape Architect considers that overall, the proposed development potentially provides some beneficial effects - such as additional tree cover; however there would also be residual moderate adverse effects on the landscape character of the site, largely due to the change in land use from open arable land to predominantly residential development. They consider there would be significant adverse visual effects from Leeds Road, Harry Moor Lane, and adjacent properties. These adverse effects are localised but significant. They opine although the development would in one sense be seen in the context of the existing developed edge, merely by the presence of the latter, the proposed development represents a direct extension to the physical and perceived size of the existing settlement, in particular due to the length of the western edge of the development, created between Leeds Road and the adjacent railway line, from which the development would be visible. Thus, the moderate (significant) adverse local landscape and visual effects of the proposed development, and the potential moderate beneficial effects on tree cover (provided adequate space is given for existing and proposed trees) should be given due consideration in the planning balance.
10.40. The moderate adverse localised landscape and visual effects will be weighed in the planning balance. There would be a need to condition an Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method Statement to ensure suitable protection of the existing trees as part of the development.
Flood Risk, Drainage and Climate Change
10.41. Relevant policies in respect of flood risk, drainage and climate change include Policy ENV1(3) of the Selby District Local Plan and Policies SP15 “Sustainable Development which seeks to apply sequential and exceptions tests, and Climate Change”, SP16 “Improving Resource Efficiency” and SP19 “Design Quality” of the Core Strategy. NPPF paragraph 170 requires “Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.” NPPF paragraph 173 requires a sequential risk-based approach should also be taken to individual applications in areas known to be at risk now or in future from any form of flooding. The proposal does not benefit from the exemption in NPPF paragraph 175. The aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source. The development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.42. The site is in flood zone 1 (low risk) for sea and river flooding, aside from a narrow strip along Town Dike which is in flood zones 2 (medium risk) and 3 (high risk), and a ditch further north which is in flood zone 2. The site is mostly at very low risk of surface water flooding aside from areas at medium and high risk near Town Dike and areas at low or medium risk in the north eastern part of the site. The site is at risk of reservoir flooding when there is also flooding from rivers. It is considered reasonable to restrict the area of search to within and immediately adjacent to the development limits of the village because development elsewhere would not result in the wider sustainability benefits associated with development of this nature in this location. Furthermore, this area of search is supported by the Selby District Council Flood Risk Sequential Test Developer Guidance Note - October 2019. There are no reasonably available alternative sites in this area of search at lower risk of flooding than the application site. The flood risk sequential test is passed. The exceptions test is required. NPPF paragraph 178 requires “The application of the exception test should be informed by a strategic or site-specific flood risk assessment, depending on whether it is being applied during plan production or at the application stage. To pass the exception test it should be demonstrated that: a) the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk; and b) the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.”
10.43. The actual flood risk is restricted to small parts of the site along the on site ditches and three small areas at medium risk of surface water flooding. The indicative site layout shows it is possible to locate housing in areas at low risk of river and sea flooding. Flooding in areas at medium risk of surface water flooding would be prevented by reprofiling the land to remove the depressions in the land. The flood maps show that the development site is not considered to be at risk from reservoir flooding during normal river conditions but is at risk if there is a combined failure of the local reservoir defences when there is a major fluvial flood event in the local region. However, the likelihood of both these events occurring concurrently is remote and consequently the risk to the development from reservoir flooding is considered to be low and acceptable. Now that the flood risk is understood to be relatively minor, the proposal must provide sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh this risk to pass part a of the exceptions test. The proposal would provide two children’s play areas that would be accessible to existing residents. Furthermore, it would provide new bus stops near the site frontage and contributions towards an enhanced bus service which would benefit existing residents. The proposal would also provide a shared cycle and pedestrian route along the site frontage and extending eastward to the junction with Fir Tree Lane as well as cycle route contributions to a wider scheme aiming to connect the village with Selby. These benefits ensure part a of the exceptions test is passed. With regard to part b of the exceptions test, the development will be safe for its lifetime, noting this is a ‘more vulnerable’ development, because the mitigation measures in the flood risk assessment propose removal of depressions that may suffer from surface water flooding. Furthermore, the indicative drainage details show it will be possible to secure a site wide drainage scheme that drains to an attenuation pond with sufficient capacity to prevent increasing flood risk elsewhere. It will be possible to ensure no dwellings are immediately adjacent to the on site ditches which may pose a residual risk. The road and footway crossing over the ditch in flood zone 3 is unlikely to flood and if it does, alternative means of access is available for the northern portion of the site. Residual risk from on site drainage infrastructure can be managed by either adoption of the infrastructure or management and maintenance details which can be secured by condition. Part b and the whole exceptions test is passed.
10.44. NPPF paragraph 182 requires sustainable drainage systems are incorporated into the development. Requirement H3 of the Building Regulations establishes a preferred hierarchy for disposal of surface water. Consideration should firstly be given to soakaway, infiltration, watercourse and sewer in that priority order. Surface water drainage options are discussed within the flood risk assessment. Soakaways have been shown by infiltration testing to be unviable. There are two open drainage ditches lying within the application site. It is therefore considered that the surface water run-off will discharge to one or both of these drainage ditches. The southern drain (Town Dike) lies under the jurisdiction of Selby Area Internal Drainage Board and consequently formal consent to discharge to this watercourse would be required from the IDB. The proposed surface water design discharge rate is 7.7l/s. For this development it is proposed that the volume of storage required to accommodate the peak flow from the 1 in 30 storm event will be stored within the below-ground drainage network, with the additional volume required to accommodate the peak flow from the 1 in 100 probability storm event, plus climate change, will be stored in a detention basin. Road drainage will need to pass through a filter drain prior to the outfall to prevent the risk of pollutants being discharged to the watercourse. Foul water is proposed to be disposed of by pumped rising main to the Yorkshire Water public foul sewers located within the public highway to the east in The Fir Trees. The final foul and surface water drainage design will be conditioned given the outline nature of the application.
10.45. The LLFA has considered the proposal and additional technical note regarding drainage and raises no objection subject to conditions. These have been simplified. Yorkshire Water recommends a series of conditions. The Selby Area IDB advises its consent is required to discharge surface water to an ordinary watercourse and would be restricted to 1.4 litres per second per hectare or greenfield runoff. Its recommended conditions have been simplified and amalgamated with other drainage conditions. Flood risk, drainage and climate change matters are acceptable subject to conditions.
Access, Transport and Highway Safety
10.46. Relevant policies include Core Strategy Policy SP15 which requires the proposal to 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, cycling facilities, safe pedestrian routes and improved public transport facilities. The following policies are also relevant: Core Strategy Policy SP19, Selby District Local Plan Policies ENV1, T1, T2, T7 and CS6. The latter 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” including traffic calming, footpath and cycleway links.
10.47. NPPF paragraph 109 requires transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of development proposals, using a vision-led approach to identify transport solutions that deliver well-designed, sustainable and popular places. This should involve: ensuring patterns of movement, streets, parking and other transport considerations are integral to the design of schemes, and contribute to making high quality places; understanding and addressing the potential impacts of development on transport networks; realising opportunities from existing or proposed transport infrastructure, and changing transport technology and usage – for example in relation to the scale, location or density of development that can be accommodated; identifying and pursuing opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. NPPF footnote 9 requires consideration of paragraph 110 which states requires the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of these objectives. Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. This can help to reduce congestion and emissions, and improve air quality and public health. However, opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making.
10.48. Paragraph 115 requires sustainable transport modes are prioritised taking account of the vision for the site, the type of development and its location; safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users; and any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree through a vision-led approach. 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.”
10.49. Paragraph 117 requires development should 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.
10.50. The aforementioned development plan policies are considered broadly consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.51. The application form confirms approval is sought for access matters to the site but not within the site. The latter forms a reserved matter. The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 defines access as: “in relation to reserved matters, means the accessibility to and within the site, for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians in terms of the positioning and treatment of access and circulation routes and how these fit into the surrounding access network; where “site” means the site or part of the site in respect of which outline planning permission is granted or, as the case may be, in respect of which an application for such a permission has been made;”
10.52. The main vehicular access to the site is proposed from Leeds Road via a priority junction with limited road widening of Leeds Road and a shared cycle/footway leading to the east. The main access will be 6m wide with a 2m wide footway to the west along Leeds Road and a 3m wide shared pedestrian and cycle way to the east that discharges cyclists onto the carriageway then narrows to 2m on the approach to Fir Tree Lane. Three traffic islands and two new bus stops are proposed along the site frontage. A detailed layout drawing of these elements has been provided. Visibility and swept path analysis for refuse vehicles has been submitted. Separate pedestrian/cycle access is proposed in indicative fashion further east along Leeds Road. Pedestrian, cyclist and emergency vehicle access is proposed in indicative fashion via The Fir Trees.
10.53. The LHA considers the main access to the site and broader highway implications of the proposal to be acceptable. The LHA seeks £1350 per dwelling towards the provision of an offsite walking and cycling link between Thorpe Willoughby and Selby as set out in the North Yorkshire County Council and Selby District Council Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan. The aim is to provide infrastructure improvements to mitigate the impacts of the development upon the existing highway from additional trips and to encourage sustainable transport. The sums would be used towards implementation of the cycle strategy for Selby the fundamental aim of which is to provide key safe routes to reduce congestion in the town centre. This would encourage residents of the development to avoid using their cars for journeys into Selby through the congested Gowthorpe junction. The request is considered to be compliant with section 122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended).
10.54. The LHA seeks contributions of £1266 per dwelling towards bus service enhancements in proximity to the site to improve the offer to residents, including Sunday and evening services. This would enhance the sustainability credentials of the proposal in an area with bus services that are somewhat lacking and is considered to be compliant with section 122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended). A travel plan monitoring fee of £2500 is also required. This is distinct from the requirement for two new bus stops near the site which is appropriate to allow future residents reasonable access to such facilities.
10.56. Active Travel England is content with the development proposed.
10.57. There are no harmful impacts upon the highway network as a result of the proposal. The series of conditions and developer contributions would secure appropriate details and enhancements to promote sustainable travel. The highway implications are acceptable.
Impact upon Nature Conservation, Protected Species and Ancient Woodland
10.58. Local Plan Policy ENV1 requires account is taken of the potential loss, or adverse effect upon, significant wildlife habitats.
10.59. The foreword to Core Strategy Policy SP2 states the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and natural resources is a basic principle of national planning guidance, which can also influence the location of development. Policy SP18 requires the high quality and local distinctiveness of the natural and man-made environment will be sustained by promoting effective stewardship of the District’s wildlife by a) safeguarding international, national and locally protected sites for nature conservation, including SINCs, from inappropriate development. b) Ensuring developments retain, protect and enhance features of biological and geological interest and provide appropriate management of these features and that unavoidable impacts are appropriately mitigated and compensated for, on or off-site. c) Ensuring development seeks to produce a net gain in biodiversity by designing-in wildlife and retaining the natural interest of a site where appropriate.
10.60. NPPF paragraph 187 requires decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing sites of biodiversity value in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan; minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures. Paragraph 193 requires when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles: a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons (For example, infrastructure projects (including nationally significant infrastructure projects, orders under the Transport and Works Act and hybrid bills), where the public benefit would clearly outweigh the loss or deterioration of habitat) and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Natural England and Forestry Commission ‘standing advice’ for ancient woodland emphasises this policy and requires consideration of direct and indirect effects. The advice notes the latter includes “increasing damage to habitat, for example trampling of plants and erosion of soil by people accessing the woodland or tree root protection areas; and increasing damaging activities like….the impact of domestic pets”.
10.61. The development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.62. The Ecological Appraisal considers the proposals will not result in any negative effects on designated sites or any notable or protected habitats within the specified zone of influence. With the exception of native hedgerows, ditches and mature trees, which are local and national priority habitats, the majority of habitats within the site are of low or negligible ecological importance. The majority of existing native hedgerows and mature trees will be retained, and additional hedgerow and native tree planting is indicated within proposals. Ditches will be retained and protected during construction and enhanced via management to develop bankside and marginal vegetation. The biodiversity value of the habitats at the site pre- and post-development have been calculated using the DEFRA Biodiversity Net Gain 4.0 Metric. The proposals will result in over 10% net gain in habitat, hedgerow, and watercourse units. Details are included within the submitted Biodiversity Net Gain Strategy Report which should be read in conjunction with the Ecological Appraisal. The assessment identified bats, breeding birds, roosting barn owl, reptiles and water vole as important ecological features which have the potential to be affected by proposals or warrant consideration due to the legal protection afforded them. Additional surveys were undertaken throughout the spring and summer of 2023, and as such the above list of ecological features is preliminary in nature. Results of the surveys will be submitted in standalone reports, which will include updated assessment of impacts and any mitigation, if required. Residual impacts are expected to be at least neutral following implementation of mitigation and/or compensation measures. Signs of occasionally roosting barn owl Tyota alba were found within Building 3. No nests were identified. Section 5 sets out measures to minimise disturbance to barn owl during works. Permanent provision for barn owls will be included as part of the development. Impacts will be minimised through careful control of construction activities through an industry best practice CEMP. As a result, all other predicted effects on important ecological features are not anticipated to be significant.
10.63. The NYC Ecologist considers the suite of additional ecological surveys are required before drawing any conclusions; that a definitive BNG calculation will be required at reserved matters stage; and that the conclusions regarding Brayton Barff SINC and ancient woodland are not credible and that there would be a negative impact due to significant net increase in footfall on the Barff as a result from the proposed development. The NYC Ecologists advice is that further housing development within easy reach of Brayton Barff is likely to increase degradation of ancient woodland contrary to NPPF policies, unless a strategic solution is pursued. Strategic measures, which may be difficult to deliver effectively on a site-by-site basis, might include creation of new community woodland to buffer Brayton Barff and spread recreational pressure over a wider area and/or provision of a large new adventure play facility which would divert activities like BMX riding away from the woodland.
10.64. The applicant responded to the NYC Ecologists comments via email dated 25/7/2023 rebutting the suggestion the proposal would have a negative impact upon Brayton Barff. In turn, the NYC Ecologist rebutted the applicant’s comments.
10.65. The applicant subsequently submitted an Ecological Impact Assessment which incorporates the aforementioned suite of ecological surveys. The NYC Ecologist considers the EcIA is comprehensive and helpfully collates the findings of various ecological surveys which have been completed since the initial Ecological Appraisal was produced. All appropriate surveys have now been completed. The LPA Ecologist maintains the proposal would result in a further increase in footfall, exacerbating existing pressures. They reiterate the need for the Council to consider strategic solutions which would divert recreational pressure away from the ancient woodland. The LPA Ecologist is unconvinced by the conclusion that mitigation proposed in the EcIA would reduce impacts on farmland birds to neutral. The bird survey report offers no meaningful mitigation for species of open farmland and that this needs to be addressed. Where on-site measures would not suffice, off-site measures may need to be considered. The installation of generalist bird nest boxes is not supported. Regarding bats, the installation of suitable boxes/tubes in 15 of the new houses would provide better than like-for-like replacement habitat, which would be acceptable. Regarding water vole, the retention of ditch 2, its protection during construction, a 7m buffer around it and enhancement of marginal vegetation are welcomed. The effect of increased disturbance and predation by domestic pets remains a concern, and the Ecologist questions the reported significance of the effect because predation and disturbance could result in the loss of a population of legally protected priority species. More robust mitigation measures than those proposed need to be considered. Should the council be minded to approve this application, the Ecologist would recommend conditions for a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), Landscape & Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) and updated Biodiversity Net Gain assessment be submitted at reserved matters stage, as set out in section 6.4 of the EcIA.
10.66. The applicant provided a response to the NYC Ecologists comments. They consider corn bunting unlikely to be breeding on site; grey partridge are possible breeders rather than probable breeders. Therefore the applicant disagrees that off site bird mitigation is required. They agree to remove suggested generalist cavity nest boxes from the proposal. Installation of 15 suitable bat boxes/tubes in 15 of the new houses would be acceptable. They consider water vole impacts acceptable because they do not agree that the effect of increased disturbance and predation resulting from the proposed scheme would be considered significant at a Local level, and based on proposed modification of the habitat management regime to make this Dike more suitable for water vole. They wish to await the outcome of an appeal in Brayton to determine impacts on Brayton Barff.
10.67. The NYC Ecologist agrees there is no need for off-site bird compensation; emphasises the need to protect any remaining water vole populations even if the results of a single-season survey indicate a low level of activity and suggest a condition to re-survey prior to commencement and review mitigation measures accordingly.
10.68. Overall, the proposal would not give rise to harm to statutory nature conservation sites and no habitat regulations screening is required. Following submission of clarification, corn bunting and grey partridge require no further consideration. Bat tubes or boxes and a method statement for bat roost loss mitigation would form part of the ecological mitigation condition. A further water vole survey to accompany the reserved matters application is required by condition along with appropriate mitigation; and a s106 provides for off-site enhancements for the benefit of water vole in the event they are recorded in the survey given LPA Ecologists concerns about long term survival of any population on a housing estate. Construction phase ecological mitigation measures can be secured as part of the general ecological mitigation and enhancement condition. The same condition would also secure 10% biodiversity net gain and ecological management for 30 years. Following the Inspectors findings in the aforementioned Brayton appeal decision regarding the impacts of residential development upon Brayton Barff SINC and ancient woodland, which note the lack of an evidential base for the LPA to quantify harm to these sites, and given the fairly removed location of the proposal in relation to it, the appropriate response is to ensure appropriate on site open space is provided to provide an alternative walking route near the dwellings. The design parameter plan shows circular walking routes can be achieved through the estate and longer circular routes can be walked through the various entrances to the development into the surrounding road network. The immediate surroundings of the site do not enable immediate connection to public rights of way or other open spaces. Subject to conditioning the parameter plan there is not considered to be any harmful impact upon the SINC and ancient woodland.
10.69. The proposal demonstrates ecological and protected sites impacts are acceptable in accordance 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
10.70. 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.
10.71. The Developer Contributions SPD (2007) contains a section called “affordable housing for local needs” which is considered to have been superseded by the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2014). The Affordable Housing SPD states “1.4 The latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2009) (“SHMA”) identifies the scale of need for affordable housing in the District over the Local Plan period. The SHMA establishes an overall target of 30-50% intermediate housing and 50-70% social rented housing. To meet identified need, affordable housing needs to be the right kind of housing in the right locations. Following the introduction of the Government’s Affordable Rent category, the Council will be gathering evidence to establish the identified need and tenure split of rented housing. This will be set out through a combination of this SPD, future Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMAs) and future development plan documents (as appropriate).………….6.3 Negotiations on affordable housing provision on specific sites will also be informed by any further up to date evidence, which will include the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), current information from the Selby District / North Yorkshire Housing Register, and evidence of existing affordable housing provision in the locality, including the Census 2011.”
10.72. 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).
10.73. 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.”
10.74. Policy SP9 provides a broad basis for securing affordable housing and is consistent with the NPPF. The Selby Local Plan and CIL Viability Assessment (August 2022) indicates 20% affordable housing should be sought for this area.
10.75. The purpose of the Viability Assessment (August 2022) was to measure the viability of the Selby Local Plan as a whole and made numerous assumptions including revocation of CIL and the introduction of new policies that would have had a financial impact upon the delivery of sites and their deliverability. As the Emerging Selby Local Plan has now been halted, no weight can be given to this document and affordable housing requirements should revert back to the extant policy requirement.
10.76. However, a number of recent appeal decisions have made reference to the Viability Assessment as evidence that has some weight in decision making purposes and is therefore a material consideration. The weight to be given to the Viability Assessment will differ on a case-by-case basis as part of the wider assessment of material considerations.
10.77. 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 (appendix C). 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.
10.78. The same matter was considered in an appeal decision dated 20th February 2025 (Appendix D) 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.”
10.79. The application proposes 20% affordable housing in accordance with the Aspinall Verdi report. Affordable housing should be secured as percentages given the outline nature of the proposal means the final number of dwellings may change at reserved matters stage. The new NPPF does not require First Homes but it is possible for applicants to propose them. In light of the recent appeal decisions it is considered appropriate to accept the proposed 20% affordable housing because it aligns with the most up to date viability evidence that supported the now withdrawn emerging local plan. This is in accordance with Policy SP9.
10.80. Overall, affordable housing policy requirements are as follows:
· 20% of the total number of dwellings are to be affordable housing. Of these 25% can be First Homes. If the developer is unable to dispose of the FH units a legal clause will require other opportunities to be considered before they are disposed of on the open market. These are: An option for the Council to buy or nominate a purchaser. This is for the Council or said purchaser to utilise the unit as another form of affordable tenure, be that intermediate or rental; or the payment of an additional FH Charge at 30% of the market value of the property to the Council. This allows the property to be sold on the open market and the sum (30%) ring-fenced for the delivery of affordable housing in the locality by the Council. The overall split shall be 25% First Homes, 65% affordable rent and 10% shared ownership.
10.81. The applicant has agreed these percentages. A s106 agreement will secure this affordable housing.
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.”
10.83. The Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document 2007 provides further guidance on the provision of open space.
10.84. 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.
10.85. Policy RT2 is considered consistent with the NPPF and is given significant weight.
10.86. A proposal for 140 dwelling must provide 60sqm of open space per dwelling equating to 8,400sqm. The parameter plan shows open spaces to either side of the main access from Leeds Road with a play area on the western side, to the north of the retained dwelling, a central play area, areas adjacent to Town Dike and two areas around retained trees. The proposal provides the required amount of open space per dwelling.
10.87. The parameter plan would secure a local area for play (LAP) for toddlers and younger children near the centre of the site and a local equipped area for play (LEAP) to cater for slightly older children near the Leeds Road frontage. A s106 will secure implementation, ownership and maintenance of play areas and all recreational open space. These matters are acceptable.
Contaminated Land and Ground Conditions
10.89. Core Strategy Policy SP18 seeks to protect the high quality of the natural and man-made environment by ensuring that new development protects soil, air and water quality from all types of pollution. This is reflected in Policy SP19 (k), which seeks to prevent development from contributing to or being put an unacceptable risk from unacceptable levels of soil or water pollution or land instability.
10.90. NPPF paragraph 187 requires decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate. Paragraph 198 requires decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so Council’s should mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life. Paragraph 199 requires decisions should sustain and contribute towards compliance with relevant limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones, and the cumulative impacts from individual sites in local areas.
10.91. These development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.92. The Preliminary Geoenvironmental Investigation shows that the site currently comprises arable farmland, a farmyard on the western boundary, and a vacant farmhouse in the south of the site. The site walkover survey identified various barns, garages, tanks, silos and storage areas (including stockpiles of asbestos cement sheeting, mixed gravel and tarmac rubble) within the farmyard area. The report states that no significant contamination is anticipated, but there is likely localised contamination associated with agricultural activity around the farmyard and buildings. Contaminants of concern include asbestos, metals, pesticides/fertilisers, PAHs, and fuels/oils. The report recommends a ground investigation comprising the excavation of around 40 trial pits / boreholes within the site boundary. 10 of these will be targeted on the made ground in the farmyard and farmhouse area to determine the nature, degree, and extent of any contamination. The remaining trial pits will be dug at a nominal 45m grid spacing across the site. Samples of topsoil and made ground will be taken for chemical analysis. On completion, a report will be issued containing the site investigation results and the associated risk assessment with respect to both controlled waters and human health. The Council’s contaminated land consultant advises the report and recommendations are acceptable. Conditions are recommended regarding investigation of contaminated land; submission of a remediation strategy; verification of remediation works; and reporting of unexpected contamination.
10.93. In light of the above and subject to suitable conditions, it is considered that the proposal would not breach Convention rights contained in the Human Rights Act 1998 in terms of the right to health and right to private and family life.
Residential Amenity
10.94. 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.
10.95. 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.
10.96. The application site is located in the countryside to the north west of Thorpe Willoughby and there are residential dwellings to the east and south. It will be possible at reserved matters stage to ensure a layout, scale and appearance of proposed dwellings that has appropriate separation distances between each other and to existing dwellings and their gardens on Pine Tree Close, Fir Tree Way, The Fir Trees and Fordlands. The same is true of the dwelling Meadow View which is almost surrounded by the application site. The residential amenity of residents of dwellings on the southern side of Leeds Road would not be harmed by the proposal due to the ample separation distances.
10.97. The submitted odour assessment demonstrates the pig farm to the west would have a not significant impact. The proposed land use is considered compatible with surrounding land uses. No harm would arise to residential amenity from the traffic generated by the proposal. Construction disturbance would be minimised by construction management plan, development hours and piling conditions as recommended by Environmental Health.
10.98. On this basis it is considered that the scheme is acceptable in terms of the residential amenity impacts and accords with Policy ENV1 and the NPPF.
10.99. In light of the above, 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.
Archaeology
10.100. Policy ENV28 requires that where development proposals affect sites of known or possible archaeological interest, the District Council will require an archaeological assessment/evaluation to be submitted as part of the planning application; where development affecting archaeological remains is acceptable in principle, the Council will require that archaeological remains are preserved in situ through careful design and layout of new development; where preservation in situ is not justified, the Council will require that arrangements are made by the developer to ensure that adequate time and resources are available to allow archaeological investigation and recording by a competent archaeological organisation prior to or during development.
10.101. NPPF paragraph 207 requires that where a site on which development is proposed includes, or has the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. The development plan policy is consistent with the NPPF and is given significant weight.
10.102. Following submission of a geophysical survey the LPA archaeologist does not require further archaeological investigation and raises no objections to the proposal. Archaeological impacts are acceptable.
Noise and Air Pollution
10.103. The policies referred to in the contaminated land section above are relevant.
10.104. Environmental Health initially recommended a noise assessment and mitigation is conditioned in relation to railway and road noise to ensure appropriate garden and internal noise levels are achieved. However, the parameter plan and illustrative masterplan locates dwellings in close proximity to both noise sources. Therefore, the noise assessment has been submitted prior to determination. It concludes the site is suitable for noise-sensitive residential development, provided that a commensurate level of protection against noise is incorporated into the design of the development to secure an acceptable degree of amenity for the future residents. A condition secures appropriate noise mitigation measures at reserved matters stage.
10.105. Environmental Health also recommend a condition to control the cumulative level of sound from the development at nearby sensitive receptors if air source heat pumps are to be used as part of the as yet unknown energy strategy. However, this condition is considered unnecessary because there are permitted development rights for such installations at domestic properties and restricting their use in this way is considered unreasonable. Environmental Health note the site may increase vehicle trips through Air Quality Management Area 1 at New Street Selby and that no air quality assessment is provided. It notes there is a lack of proportionate mitigation in the application such as electric vehicle charging provision. Therefore, it recommends an AQMA mitigation condition. However, the Building Regulations now require dwellings to have EV charging points. Furthermore, the proposal secures contributions towards bus service improvements and cycle infrastructure. All of which will mitigate the impact on air quality thus making the condition unnecessary.
10.106. Noise and air pollution matters are acceptable subject to such conditions.
10.107. Subject to the above and suitable mitigation through reserved matters approval and planning conditions, 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.
Developer Contributions
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.
10.109. 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”.
10.110. Policy SP12 requires where infrastructure and community facilities are to be implemented in connection with new development, it should be in place or provided in phase with development and scheme viability. They should be provided on site, or if justifiable they can be provided off site or a financial contribution sought. Opportunities to protect, enhance and better join up existing Green Infrastructure, as well as creating new Green Infrastructure will be strongly encouraged, in addition to the incorporation of other measures to mitigate or minimise the consequences of development. This will be secured through conditions or planning obligations.
10.111. The Developer Contributions SPD provides further guidance regarding contributions towards waste and recycling facilities; education facilities; and primary health care facilities amongst others.
10.112. NPPF paragraph 34 requires plans to set out the contributions expected from development. Paragraph 100 confirms “It is important that a sufficient choice of early years, school and post-16 places are available to meet the needs of existing and new communities.” Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 requires planning obligations must only be sought where they meet all of the following tests: a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b) directly related to the development; and c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
10.113. These development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.114. NYC Children and Young People's Service consider there will be sufficient capacity for Thorpe Willoughby Community Primary School to accommodate children from the development. It estimates there will be insufficient capacity at Selby High School to accommodate children from the development. It requests £475,329.40 to be used for school expansion places at the named school or another serving the development. This amount to £3,395.21 per dwelling with two or more bedrooms.
10.115. It seeks contributions towards costs of providing educational facilities at Selby Special School and/or another school with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities provision serving the locality of the development of £106,344.00. This amounts to £759.60 per dwelling with two or more bedrooms.
10.116. It estimates there will be insufficient capacity at nearby early years settings to accommodate children from the development. It seeks contributions to be used for early years provision serving the locality of the development of £56,970.00. This amounts to £406.92 per dwelling with two or more bedrooms.
10.117. NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board confirms the existing GP practice, Tadcaster and Rural Selby PCN: South Milford Surgery – Thorpe Willoughby Branch, does not have capacity to accommodate any additional growth resulting from the proposed development. A contribution of £165,024.00 based on 140 dwellings is requested. The S106 contribution secured from this development would fund works at the named practice and/or contribute towards a new development related to the Primary Care Network (PCN) that will accommodate the additional population created by the proposed development. Payment should be made before the development commences. This amounts to £1,178.74 per dwelling.
10.118. The Developer Contributions SPD requires a S106 agreement requiring the developer to pay for 4 x 240 litre wheeled bins at a price of £65 per dwelling.
10.119. These contributions are justified and CIL regulation compliant and would need to be secured by s106 with appropriate triggers for payment.
Railway Implications
10.120. Network Rail raises no objection in principle. It considers the private level crossing at Harry Moore Lane may be used by residents that mistakenly believe there is a public right of way; trespass by unauthorised users is a criminal offence and highly dangerous for the individuals concerned as well as a huge risk to operational railway safety which it would find to be unacceptable; and that conditions should require measures including changes to the level crossing gates to palisade gates, as well as erecting signage on the approach from Harry Moore Lane to the level crossing. Such signage shall state that there is no public right over the level crossing and must be visible at all times. Conditions are recommended regarding construction methodology, drainage, trespass proof fencing, vehicle incursion measures, landscaping and lighting. It considers every endeavour should be made to provide soundproofing to dwellings.
10.121. There is already a sign at the start of Harry Moore Lane confirming the road is private and there is a further sign on the level crossing gate stating private no public right of way which is visible at all times. Changing the crossing gate to a palisade gate would not prevent unlawful access. Therefore, such a condition is unnecessary. The construction methodology and drainage conditions are included. Environmental Health recommended conditions to address noise. Trespass proof fencing is unnecessary because there is already one in place. Vehicle incursion measures, landscaping and lighting can be dealt with at reserved matters stage. Railway matters are acceptable subject to such conditions.
11.0 PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
11.1. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The proposal is contrary to Policy SP2 because it involves major residential development in the countryside. Policy SP5 is out of date because the housing need figure it contains is not calculated based on the required standard method. Development plan policies can still be given weight based on their consistency with the NPPF. SP2 is inconsistent with NPPF paragraph 61 which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing and aims to meet an areas identified housing need. Continued strict application of Policy SP2, which prevents market housing outside development limits in the countryside such as this, would not allow the LPA to meet the identified local housing needs. Furthermore, the weight afforded to conflict with Core Strategy Policy SP2 is diminished as it does not include the more nuanced approach to the consideration of development that is found in the NPPF. Thus, the policy is inconsistent with the NPPF and should be given limited weight.
11.2. However, the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land as required by the NPPF. Therefore, the policies most important for determining the application, SP2 and SP5, are out of date as set out in NPPF paragraph 11. Permission should be granted unless the proposal fails to satisfy the tests in NPPF paragraph 11d. The proposal complies with paragraph 11d)i because no NPPF policy that protects areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. The requirements of paragraph 11d)ii are more nuanced as set out below. It requires consideration of whether the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
11.3. Adverse impacts include the modest scale of loss of best and most versatile agricultural land which would result in minor harm to the agricultural economy in the area as well as food self-sufficiency; moderate adverse localised landscape and visual effects; and conflict with the development plan.
11.4. Neutral matters include the lack of conflict with mineral policies; the indicative housing density is appropriate; the flood risk sequential and exceptions tests are passed, 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 designated sites; the site can be made safe from contamination; residential amenity would not be harmed; there is no harm to heritage; noise and air pollution matters are acceptable; education, healthcare and bin contributions are secured to ensure no detriment is caused; and there would be no harm to the railway.
11.5. Benefits include the site being in a reasonably sustainable location that will be enhanced; matters for determination are well designed; the proposal makes a significant contribution to needed market and affordable housing (great weight it given to this consideration); a housing mix is secured that will deliver a mixed and balance community with provision for those with mobility problems and those that want to self or custom build their own home; the scheme will deliver a section of shared foot and cycle way linking the village to Selby, new bus stops and provide contributions to enhance bus services which benefits existing and future residents; 10% biodiversity net gain and ecological enhancements are secured; provision of open space and play areas that benefits existing and future residents; economic benefits both during the construction phase and once the houses are occupied which are afforded moderate weight.
11.6. The adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The proposal benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Therefore, planning permission should be granted subject to conditions and prior agreement of a s106 agreement.
12.0. RECOMMENDATION
12.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to prior agreement of a section 106 agreement securing the matters listed below and the conditions listed below:
· In the event the further water vole survey, as secured by planning condition, shows water vole are present on the site, an area for off-site enhancements for the benefit of water vole shall be secured given the impact of two crossings over Town Dike on their habitat and the implications on long term survival of any population on a housing estate due to predation by domestic pets and disturbance.
· 20% of the total number of dwellings are to be affordable housing. Of these 25% can be First Homes. If the developer is unable to dispose of the FH units a legal clause will require other opportunities to be considered before they are disposed of on the open market. These are: An option for the Council to buy or nominate a purchaser. This is for the Council or said purchaser to utilise the unit as another form of affordable tenure, be that intermediate or rental; or the payment of an additional FH Charge at 30% of the market value of the property to the Council. This allows the property to be sold on the open market and the sum (30%) ring-fenced for the delivery of affordable housing in the locality by the Council. The overall split shall be 25% First Homes, 65% affordable rent and 10% shared ownership.
· 3% of the total number of plots to be self or custom build dwellings.
· Implementation, ownership and maintenance of play areas and all recreational open space.
· £1350 per dwelling towards the provision of an offsite walking and cycling link between Thorpe Willoughby and Selby.
· £1266 per dwelling towards bus service enhancements in proximity to the site to improve the offer to residents, including Sunday and evening services.
· £2500 travel plan monitoring fee.
· £475,329.40 to be used for school expansion places at Selby High School or another serving the development. This amount to £3,395.21 per dwelling with two or more bedrooms.
· £106,344.00 towards Selby Special School and/or another school with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities provision serving the locality of the development. This amounts to £759.60 per dwelling with two or more bedrooms.
· £56,970.00 towards early years provision serving the locality of the development. This amounts to £406.92 per dwelling with two or more bedrooms.
· £165,024.00 to fund works at Tadcaster and Rural Selby PCN: South Milford Surgery – Thorpe Willoughby Branch and/or contribute towards a new development related to the Primary Care Network (PCN) that will accommodate the additional population created by the proposed development. This amounts to £1,178.74 per dwelling.
· 4 x 240 litre wheeled bins at a price of £65 per dwelling.
Conditions:
1. Details of access (within the site), appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development takes place and the development shall be carried out as approved.
Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority not later than 3 years from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.
Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
3. Unless otherwise amended under the conditions below, the development shall be in accordance with drawings P22-3091_0101 (site location plan) and 01-100-P-002 Rev C (engineering layout), and the reserved matters shall reflect the form of development shown on P22-3091_0103 (design principles parameter plan).
Reason: For the sake of clarity and in the interests of proper planning.
4. No development hereby permitted shall take place until details of the following, in respect of the construction phase, together with a timetable for their implementation and retention, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority:
a) The points of access to be used.
b) The area for loading/unloading plant and materials.
c) The area for storing plant and materials.
d) Any security hoarding around or within the site.
e) Wheel washing facilities.
f) Measures for controlling the emissions of dust.
g) Measures for controlling the effects of vibration and noise disturbance on neighbouring residents.
h) The positioning of any gates to the site.
i) External lighting.
j) The hours of working and deliveries.
k) An assessment of potential construction impacts upon the ground water source protection zone and mitigation measures.
The development shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved details and timetable.
Reason: In order to avoid adverse effects during the construction phase in relation to highways matters, neighbouring living conditions and the general environment in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
5. If the development is to be implemented in a phased manner, details submitted with the Reserved Matters shall include a phasing plan. Once approved, the development shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved phasing plan.
Reason: To ensure the orderly delivery of development in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
6. The reserved matters application(s) shall provide details of the housing mix which
is to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall demonstrate that, as a minimum, the dwellings meet the Nationally Described Space Standards (2015) or any successor standards or policy; and how 6% of the dwellings will be built to Building Regulations M4(3) 'wheelchair user' standard. Where North Yorkshire Council has nomination rights M4(3) must be wheelchair accessible dwellings (constructed for immediate occupation), and in the market sector they must be wheelchair user adaptable dwellings (constructed to be adjustable for occupation by a wheelchair user). Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure a mixed and balanced community is created in pursuance of Policy SP8 of the Core Strategy and the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) (October 2020).
7. Accompanying the Reserved Matters, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority of the construction of all roads and footways in the development, along with a timetable for their implementation. All roads and footways shall then be constructed in accordance with the approved details and timetable.
Reason: To secure appropriate roads and footways constructed to an adoptable standard in the interests of highway safety and the amenity and convenience of all highway users in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
8. Accompanying the Reserved Matters, engineering details of the emergency vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access to The Fir Trees and the pedestrian/cycle link to Leeds Road opposite Privet Drive as indicated on the Design Principles Parameter Plan P22-3091_0103 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. In the case of the emergency access, this shall include details and measures to restrict its use to emergencies, pedestrians and cyclists only, along with a timetable for the implementation of those details and measures and a scheme for their intended management. The details and measures relating to the emergency access shall then be installed in accordance with the approved timetable and the emergency access shall thereafter be retained and managed in accordance with the approved management scheme.
Reason: To secure a permeable development with appropriate roads and footways constructed to an adoptable standard in the interests of highway safety and the amenity and convenience of all users in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
9. Prior to the first use of the access to the site off Leeds Road, it shall be provided with sight splays of 43m by 2.4m, which shall contain no obstruction greater in height than 0.6m when measured from the carriageway of the site access, and those sight splays shall thereafter be retained.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety in pursuance of Policy T2 of the Selby District Local Plan.
10. No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until the carriageway between it and the adopted highway, and any footpath from which it gains access, have been constructed at least to basecourse macadam level and/or block paved and kerbed, and connected to the adopted highway with operational streetlights.
Reason: To secure a development with appropriate roads and footways constructed to an adoptable standard in the interests of highway safety and the amenity and convenience of all users in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
11. Notwithstanding the approved details, prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, details of the location and design of a new west bound bus stop and east bound bus stop on Leeds Road shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details approved shall be completed prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted.
Reason: To encourage sustainable transport options in pursuance of Core Strategy Policy SP15.
12. Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, the off-site highway works detailed on approved plan 01-100-P-002-C (engineering layout) shall have been completed in accordance with details which have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To secure a development with appropriate roads, footways and cycleways constructed to an adoptable standard and to encourage sustainable transport options in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan and Core Strategy Policy SP15.
13. Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, a Travel Plan must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan will include: -
· agreed targets to promote sustainable travel and reduce vehicle trips and emissions within specified timescales and a programme for delivery;
· a programme for the delivery of any proposed physical works;
· effective measures for the on-going monitoring and review of the travel plan;
· a commitment to delivering the Travel Plan objectives for a period of at least five years from first occupation of the development, and;
· effective mechanisms to achieve the objectives of the Travel Plan by both present and future occupiers of the development.
The development must be carried out and operated in accordance with the approved Travel Plan.
Reason: To establish measures to encourage more sustainable non-car modes of transport in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan and Core Strategy Policy SP15.
14. With or before the submission of Reserved Matters, details of the foul water drainage scheme for the development shall be submitted to the local planning authority, along with a timetable for its implementation and details of its management post-construction. Once approved in writing, the foul water drainage scheme shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and timetable and thereafter retained, and managed in the approved manner.
Reason: To secure appropriate drainage details that prevent environmental pollution in pursuance of Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy.
15. With or before the submission of Reserved Matters, details of the surface water drainage scheme for the development in accordance with SUDS principles shall be submitted to the local planning authority, along with a timetable for its implementation and details of its management post-construction. Once approved in writing, the surface water drainage scheme shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and timetable and thereafter retained, and managed in the approved manner.
Reason: To secure appropriate drainage details in pursuance of Policy SP15 of the Core Strategy.
16. With or before the submission of Reserved Matters a site investigation and risk assessment concerning the extent of any land contamination shall be submitted to the local planning authority. If any contamination is present this assessment shall identify the risk it poses, any remediation measures necessary, and a timetable for the implementation of those measures. Once approved in writing those measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and timetable, and within 3 months of their completion a verification report shall be submitted to the local planning authority to confirm these measures have been implemented.
Reason: To ensure that the site is suitable for its proposed use taking account of ground conditions and any risks arising from land contamination in pursuance of Policy ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan.
17. Development shall not commence until a construction methodology with regards to works in proximity to the railway has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved construction methodology.
Reason: In the interests of railway safety in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Council Local Plan.
18. 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.
19. With or before the submission of Reserved Matters a new water vole survey with mitigation measures, as appropriate, and a timetable for their implementation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Mitigation shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In order to protect water vole in pursuance of Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy.
20. With the submission of Reserved Matters, a Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy (BMES), including construction phase matters, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The BMES shall be prepared in accordance with BS 42020:2013 (‘Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and development’), or any superseding British Standard, shall be informed by the Ecological Appraisal May 2023, Ecological Impact Assessment September 2023 and Response to NY Ecology Comments 24th January 2024, and shall additionally include: a) an updated Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment showing 10% gain; b) a 30 year management and monitoring plan; and c) implementation timetable. The development shall be carried out and thereafter managed in accordance with the approved BMES.
Reason: In order to prevent harm to protected species and ensure net gain for biodiversity in pursuance of Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy.
21. With or before the submission of Reserved Matters, a written scheme for protecting the proposed noise sensitive development from noise shall be 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 55 dB LAeq (16 hours) between 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 between 0700 hours and 2300 hours and 30 dB LAeq (8 hour) and 45 dB LAmax in the bedrooms between 2300 and 0700 hours. This standard of insulation shall be achieved with adequate ventilation provided. All works which form part of the scheme shall be completed before any part of the development is occupied. The works provided as part of the approved scheme shall be permanently retained and maintained as such except as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The aforementioned written scheme shall demonstrate that the noise levels specified will be achieved.
Reason: To protect residential amenity of prospective residents and to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE), Policy SP19 of the Core Strategy and Policy ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan.
22. Accompanying the Reserved Matters, a detailed Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) produced in accordance with BS 5837:2012 (‘Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction’), or any superseding British Standard, including a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) and Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved AIA, TPP and AMS.
Reason: To secure incorporation of existing trees into the development in pursuance of Policy SP19 of the Selby District Local Plan.
23. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the flood mitigation measures detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment dated May 2023.
Reason: To ensure localised depressions in ground levels are removed to reduce flood risk in pursuance of Policy SP15 of the Core Strategy.
Target Determination Date: 2/5/2025
Case Officer: Martin Evans
Appendix A – Design Principles Parameter Plan
Appendix B – Illustrative Masterplan
Appendix C - Appeal decision APP/U2750/W/24/3347885 Hambleton
Appendix D – Appeal decision APP/U2750/W/24/3347833 Carlton
Appendix E – Location Plan