North Yorkshire Council
Community Development Services
Selby and Ainsty Area Planning Committee
30th april 2025
ZG2023/1017/OUTM APPLICATION FOR OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION Including access, with all other matters reserved, for up to 110 residential dwellings AT Land AT fIELD LANE, tHORPE WILLOUGHBY, SELBY, NORTH YORKSHIRE ON BEHALF OF SHERWOOD BROTHERS 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 including access, with all other matters reserved, for up to 110 residential dwellings at land at Field Lane, 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 110 dwellings with access to the site to be determined. Two vehicular accesses and one pedestrian access are proposed to Field Lane and one pedestrian access is proposed to the public right of way to the east. The site layout plan is illustrative of how the site could be developed. The site is within the countryside to the south of the development limit of a Designated Service Village, Thorpe Willoughby. The site is relatively flat and undeveloped with a frontage hedgerow and hedgerows dividing the fields within the site.
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 because it involves major residential development in the countryside. Policy SP5 is out of date because the housing need figure it contains is not calculated based on the required standard method. Development plan policies can still be given weight based on their consistency with the NPPF. SP2 is inconsistent with NPPF paragraph 61 which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing and aims to meet an areas identified housing need. Continued strict application of Policy SP2, which prevents market housing outside development limits in the countryside such as this, would not allow the LPA to meet the identified local housing needs. Furthermore, the weight afforded to conflict with Core Strategy Policy SP2 is diminished as it does not include the more nuanced approach to the consideration of development that is found in the NPPF. Thus, the policy is inconsistent with the NPPF and should be given limited weight.
2.3. 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 limited visual harm from outside of the site and limited harm to the character and setting of the village; and conflict with the development plan.
2.5. Neutral matters include the lack of conflict with mineral policies; the lack of conflict with policies seeking to protect best and most versatile agricultural land and steering development to areas of least agricultural quality; the flood risk sequential test is 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, safety 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; and education, healthcare and bin contributions are secured to ensure no detriment is caused.
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 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 provide contributions to enhance bus services and cycle facilities 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 prior agreement of a s106 agreement.
3.0 Preliminary Matters
3.1. Access to the case file on Public Access can be found here:- ZG2023/1017/OUTM | Application for outline planning permission including access, with all other matters reserved, for up to 110 residential dwellings | Land At Field Lane Thorpe Willoughby North Yorkshire
3.2. During the course of the application amended highway and indicative layout information was submitted.
3.3. The proposal is not of a scale that requires screening under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017.
3.4. Outline Planning Application including access, with all other matters reserved for erection of up to 110 residential dwellings, reference 2022/1483/OUTM, on the same site was refused on 15/5/2023 for the following reasons:
“01. The proposal constitutes a major residential development in the countryside which fails to satisfy any of the permissible exceptions for development in such locations. Furthermore, the release of this major residential development site on an individual basis would not represent limited further growth anticipated by the Core Strategy and taken cumulatively with other residential developments in Thorpe Willoughby would represent a disproportionate share of the overall growth envisaged in the designated service villages which would cause significant harm to the spatial strategy that underpins the Core Strategy. The proposal is contrary to Policies SP2 and SP5 of the Core Strategy.
02. The conflict with the spatial development strategy means the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land would be unnecessary. Such loss 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 174 b).
03. The proposal does not include a minerals assessment and does not demonstrate mineral impacts are acceptable, contrary to Policies S01 and S02 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan.
04. The proposal does not provide appropriate highway junction capacity testing nor consideration of committed developments and seeks to encourage pedestrians to cross the A63 without consideration of safety implications. The proposal does not demonstrate the highway capacity and safety implications are acceptable contrary to Selby District Local Plan Policies ENV1 and Policy T1, and NPPF paragraph 111.
05. The proposal does not demonstrate that the deterioration of irreplaceable habitat (ancient woodland) would be avoided and there are no wholly exceptional reasons to support the proposal and a suitable compensation strategy does not exist. The proposal is contrary to Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan, Policies SP2 and SP18 of the Core Strategy, NPPF paragraph 180c and the standing advice of Natural England.”
3.5. Outline application for residential development including access (all other matters reserved), reference 2016/1345/OUTM, on the same site was refused on 14/7/2017 for the following reasons:
“01. The site overlies the Triassic Sherwood Sandstone Aquifer from which ground
water is extracted for public water supply. The site lies within the total catchment
groundwater source protection zone (SPZ III) for the Public Water Supply boreholes of
the Selby Wellfield. The nearest abstractions are located within 800 metres to the north
east at Brayton North. As the aquifer is likely to be at a shallow depth below the site,
the overlying drift deposits of sand and gravel are likely to provide little protection to
the aquifer. If the foundations of the proposed new dwellings protrude into the
Sherwood Sandstone, this could create preferential flow paths for contaminants and
pollution to reach the aquifer. The development of this site therefore has the potential
to result in pollution of the ground water used as a public water supply. Notwithstanding
that the Council currently does not have a 5 year supply of housing land, there are
other sites available for development in Thorpe Willoughby which do not pose this risk.
02. This proposal would result in an unwarranted intrusion into open countryside
outside the development limits of Thorpe Willoughby. Policy SP2 (c) of the Selby
District Local Plan states that 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. The proposals do not meet any of
these criteria being an intensive form of residential development which would be
detrimental to the rural character of the area.
03. Policy SP4 of the Selby District Local Plan states - "In all cases proposals will be
expected to protect local amenity, to preserve and enhance the character of the local
area and to comply with normal planning considerations……" In this case the
proposals would not preserve or enhance the character of the local area and would
adversely impact upon the setting of Brayton Barff, which is a distinct and valuable
feature in the landscape, and is designated as a locally important Landscape Area
(LILA), a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) and an Ancient Woodland, and
Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). Policy SP 18 of the Core Strategy
also refers to the safeguarding of locally protected sites for nature conservation,
including SINCS from inappropriate development. This site is in close proximity to and
visible from the Barff and if developed it would have a significant adverse impact upon
the setting of this prominent and locally important landscape feature.”
3.6. An appeal, reference APP/N2739/W/17/3181460, against the above refusal was
dismissed on the 21st March 2018 (a copy of the appeal decision is attached at
Appendix A).
3.7. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would conflict with the development plan by
virtue of the site’s location in the open countryside and the serious harm to the
Council’s spatial strategy and its ability to deliver a plan-led approach to housing
development. Despite a boost to housing supply the NPPF indicates this should be
achieved through a plan-led approach where a 5-year housing land supply exists.
Additional housing would provide social benefits and economic benefits arise from
construction investment and occupational expenditure. However, in view of the level
of new housing provision already achieved and committed in Thorpe Willoughby and
the other DSVs, there is no urgent or pressing need to release a large greenfield site
in this location. Potential benefits neither outweigh the harm that would be caused nor
amount to material considerations that indicate a decision other than in accordance
with the development plan. The appeal was dismissed.
4.0 Site and Surroundings
4.1. The application site is triangular in shape and 4.65 ha in area. It consists of relatively flat undeveloped land subdivided into three parcels by hedgerows. The western parcel is a heavily grazed paddock. The central and eastern parcels are overgrown grassland.
4.2. The northern site frontage to Field Lane benefits from an established hedgerow that is approximately 2.5m in height and broken only by two field entrances, with dwellings and Thorpe Willoughby Sports Association to the north which is a protected existing recreation open space. Beyond the southern boundary of the application site is an established landscape tree buffer to the A63 with further woodland to the south of the A63. The eastern boundary of the application site is formed by a tree lined public right of way, reference 35.30/5/1, with farmland beyond.
4.3. The Thorpe Willoughby development limit is immediately to the north of the site hence the site is within the countryside. A Locally Important Landscape Area (LILA) commences to the east of the site. The site is in flood zone 1 for sea and river flooding, western areas of the site are in low, medium and high surface water flood risk areas and eastern parts of the site are at low and medium risk of surface water flooding. The site is within a sand and gravel safeguard area and ground water source protection zone (zone 3). Parts of Brayton Barff to the east 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 to the site to be determined and with all other matters reserved, for the erection of up to 110 residential dwellings of which 10% would be affordable homes. Two accesses to the site are proposed from Field Lane via priority junctions which will be 5.5 metres wide and feature 2 metre wide footpaths to either side. Visibility Splays of 2.4 metres x 59 metres to the west and 2.4m x 57m to the east are shown at both accesses. Tactile pedestrian crossing points are proposed across each proposed access and Field Lane to the east of each access. A tactile pedestrian crossing is proposed on Fox Lane. Raised vehicular tables are proposed at each junction with Field Lane. A 2m wide footway to the site frontage is proposed. Pedestrian access is proposed from the public right of way to the east of the site. Pedestrian access is also proposed at the western edge of the site on to Field Lane. The access proposals are shown on the Indicative Layout drawing number 2444 / 002 REV E.
5.2. An indicative layout (Appendix B) accompanies the application and shows how the site could be developed. Approval for layout is not sought at this time and is to be reserved for subsequent approval. However, the indicative layout intends to demonstrate the ability of the site to accommodate a residential development of up to 110 dwellings with an area of on-site open space at the western end and the associated infrastructure necessary to develop the site.
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 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: 5/10/2023 Objection. “NATURE CONSERVATION The proposed site is within 500 meters of Brayton Barff, a protected ancient woodland. Building houses in the field next to this would be disastrous to wildlife, flora and fauna. This ancient woodland is beautiful and we need to protect it along with its wildlife and ecosystems. This application would lead to the deterioration of irreplaceable habitat (ancient woodland – Brayton Barff) and is contrary to Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan, Policies SP2 and SP18 of the Core Strategy, NPPF paragraph 180c and the standing advice of Natural England. Building on greenbelt land so close to an ancient woodland goes against conserving and enhancing the natural environment. By approving such an application, it would also set a precedent allowing further developments on other greenbelt land surrounding the village and woodland. LAYOUT AND DENSITY OF BUILDING One hundred and ten houses on this site will look dense and visually unattractive to look at and not in keeping with the rest of the village. HIGHWAY SAFETY & TRAFFIC With the addition of potentially two hundred more residents and vehicles from this proposed site, we are very concerned about highway safety. Access to the proposed development falls in Thorpe Willoughby via Field Lane; this will direct cars up and through the village bringing unwanted pollution, potential speeding and increased wear and tear on the roads. The volume of cars will be detrimental to the village and its current residents. Only this month, residents of Thorpe Meadow have moved in and we are already experiencing a significant amount of extra traffic along Field Lane. PREVIOUS PLANNING APPLICATIONS: This is the third application for residential dwellings on this land with the two prior applications being refused. Circumstances haven’t changed and therefore this application should also be refused. OTHER FACTORS: This proposed development by postcode is within Thorpe Willoughby but by parish boundary falls within Gateforth & Hambleton Parish. This will result in any Construction Levy that is generated being paid to Gateforth/Hambleton. The proposed development is four and two miles respectively away from these villages. They will financially benefit from this development and will see their precepts increase but it will not be their amenities that feel the stretch. Thorpe Willoughby will need improved amenities but have no additional finances to fund this. This is genuinely worrying. Thorpe Willoughby only has one primary school which can take 315 pupils, with a current capacity of 261. Hambleton Primary school can take 210 pupils, with a current capacity of 180 and Gateforth does not have a primary school. Houses on this proposed site are designed for families and the catchment area for them will be Thorpe Willoughby School which is close to capacity already.”
7.3. Hambleton Parish Council: 24/10/2023 Objection. “A development in this specific slice of land would set a dangerous precedent encroaching on the Locally Important Landscape Area, Brayton Barff. The Hambleton Parish Council objects to the principle of building on sites like these which will destroy thriving wildlife habitats and woodland which is centuries old. The area of land also provides a green space sound proofing buffer to existing residences on the north of Field Lane. This site is not in the New Local Plan and has been refused permission various times, for good reasons, some of which are simply unable to be addressed such as Thorpe Willoughby taking a disproportionate share of the Overall Growth based on the cumulative development already taking place. The cumulative development in each DSV is a vital factor to be considered because small developments are added regularly and no additional facilities are provided for a small development, however the small developments add up to a large number of additional people needing those facilities; Healthcare is one example. All previous objections for development on this land submitted by Hambleton PC still stand, including those on traffic and sustainability. Please find the previous objections attached.” “Development in Thorpe Willoughby will inevitably result in even more traffic through Hambleton, which the PC is absolutely not willing to support. Given the state of the A63 through Hambleton and Monk Fryston, the sheer amount of traffic which includes a large percentage of HGVs, further developments suggesting there are good road links from the location have to be questioned. With a pedestrian being knocked over in Monk Fryston recently and the road subsiding in Hambleton, inviting hundreds of additional vehicles onto the A63 is simply compounding the problem; this road is at capacity. The local public transport schedule is simply not effective in providing a reliable, efficient and available means of transport for commuters, residents will travel by car to commute to Leeds/York/Selby– there is no other viable option. Encouraging private car use goes against the NPPF which says a ‘sustainable development’ will reduce the number of car journeys. The local road that would be used for access, Fox Lane, is also unsuitable; adding further vehicle movements at peak times on this narrow road, regularly used for parking in Thorpe Willoughby, cannot be seen as safe and acceptable. Increasing traffic flow at the small crossroads in Brayton because of another new development would also be a resulting factor – have Brayton Parish Council been notified of the application? The village has some amenities for example a doctors surgery but this is a small and part time surgery. Healthcare provision is limited in the area and is already stretched in the area. There is no post office or ATM and the primary school is full, as is Hambleton Primary. The site is very close to Brayton Barff and would have a detrimental effect on the Locally Important Landscape Area, it will also set a precedent for further building on land close to the Barff, in what was intended as a green ‘buffer’ between Thorpe Willoughby and the Selby By-Pass. Applications have been rejected at this site previously, for what Hambleton PC see as good reason, and still relevant.”
7.4. NYC Affordable Housing: 9/10/2023 44 (40%) affordable housing units are proposed in accordance with current policy. The tenure of the units is intended to be 60/40 with preference to affordable rented tenure.
7.5. NYC Archaeologist: 3/10/2023 No objections.
7.6. NYC Conservation Officer: 17/11/2023 It is noted that the only heritage asset is Barff House a Grade II listed building this sits to the north of the site. Although in close proximity there is sufficient separation between the site and the heritage asset for setting not to be affected.
7.7. NYC Ecologist: 11/10/2023 The BNG feasibility report shows modest net gain. The on-site biodiversity impacts would be minor. Although a small amount of hedgerow removal would be necessary, the scheme includes new hedgerows and tree lines. Proposals to install integral bat and sparrow boxes on some of the new houses are welcome. The ecologist recommends a Condition to submit a Construction Environmental Management Plan (Ecology) and an Ecological Management Plan (or Landscape and Ecology Management Plan) for approval prior to commencement. A sensitive lighting scheme to reduce impacts on nocturnal wildlife using adjacent woodland should be secured. The proposal will impact Brayton Barff, a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and ancient woodland. Multiple nearby housing proposals lead to cumulative impact concerns. A strategic solution should be pursued.
7.8. 9/5/2024 Following the Inspectors decision at Barff Lane, Brayton it is our advice that this development proposal would not represent a conflict with para 186c of the NPPF in relation to irreplaceable habitats. However, we remain concerned about the impacts of increased recreation upon Brayton Barff ancient woodland SINC.
7.9. NYC Environmental Health: 6/10/2023 The preliminary noise assessment is noted and a condition is recommended to secure appropriate internal and garden noise levels. The proposal may increase vehicle movements through an Air Quality Management Area therefore a condition is recommended requiring an emissions mitigation statement including emission mitigation measures. Conditions are recommended to minimise noise, vibration, dust and dirt on residents; working hours; and piling.
7.10. NYC Landscape Architect: 5/2/2024 To appreciate the significance of Brayton Barf it should be viewed protruding from a flat landscape. If that apron of flat landscape is lost to development, the context and relative height of the Barff is diluted. The proposed development would significantly reduce the openness around and between the Barff and Hambleton Hough. Additional housing coupled with relatively little provision of new natural open space, is very likely to contribute to further deterioration and erosion(literally) of the quality, and value, and hence character of this ancient woodland landscape. Thus whilst the application site lies beyond the woodland of Brayton Barff, the site’s proximity and lack of mitigation is likely to be contrary to NPPF 180 c) due to the cumulative impact on the ancient woodland and some of the ancient or veteran trees within it due to the increase in recreational pressure. The site is within a candidate Locally Important Landscape Area that incorporates the two existing LILAs at Hambleton Hough and Brayton Barff, and includes the landscape between them to preserve their combined value, as recognised in the ‘Selby District Local Landscape Designation Review’ (December 2019). Relevant sections of this document are quoted. The proposed development would disrupt the setting of Brayton Barff and the sweep of landscape between the two hills. Brayton Barff, partnered with its setting, provides a recognisably unique context for the villages of Thorpe Willoughby and Brayton, providing the settlements with a strong sense of location, identity, and pride. The open setting provided by this segment of four arable fields bounded by Brayton Barff, Field Lane and the A63 emphasises the height and wooded nature of the Barff. The proposed development would be located adjacent to the settlement, however it would be on the opposite side of a road. Field Lane is a very defining edge, beyond which there is currently no development. Given the coherent continuity of landscape between the fields and Brayton Barff, which is also contained by the young woodland belt adjacent to the A63, the proposed development would represent a clear extension of the built form into the open countryside and would fundamentally alter the character of this part of the candidate LILA. It would also alter the setting of Brayton Barff as viewed from the historic route of Field Lane - an important view in defining the villages sense of place and relationship with its landscape context. The proposed development would cause a significant erosion of openness which is an important characteristic of the fields that form the setting of Brayton Barff. The openness and more level topography of the fields contrasts with the wooded slopes of the hill. The proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the landscape character of the site and in turn on the immediate area. The A63 does not form a defining edge to the settlement of Thorpe Willoughby. The edge of Thorpe Willoughby is currently clearly and appropriately defined by Field Lane, which due to its severed status is a relatively quiet lane, bordered by open countryside. Although the busy traffic of the A63 has a prominent acoustic presence, the context of Thorpe Willoughby is essentially rural. It would change the perceived character and context of the village and its association with Brayton Barf if this defined edge were corrupted by more housing on the opposite side of the road. The development would disrupt the simplicity of the open landscape and views from Field Lane towards Brayton Barff. The landscape of Brayton Barff is highly sensitive to change; this critically also includes its setting. In isolation of its context, the sensitivity of the landscape within the boundaries of the site is low to medium in that it is simple, low-lying arable/pasture, bordered with native hedgerows. Its value and sensitivity increases when it is read in the wider context, by way of its contribution to the setting of Brayton Barff due to its open rural character and contrasting topography. The historic field network this side of the A63 is still coherent and intact. The view to Brayton Barff across the foreground openness due to an absence of development along the entire southern length of Field Lane, is an informative and unique view. It brings the woodland and hedgerows together into an uninterrupted rural arable/wooded landscape with a direct sense of the countryside and the natural environment. Due to the height and location of the proposed development; new housing would be visible over the top of the hedge; and would occupy a substantial portion of such views from Field Lane, thereby causing significant harm to the existing uncluttered, attractive views of Brayton Barff. The sense of foreground openness would be lost. The proposed development disrupts the existing clean relationship between the built edge of Thorpe Willoughby (defined by the alignment of Field Lane), and the open countryside, and the context of Brayton Barff, which is a very significant and orienting natural landscape feature within Selby District.
7.11. NYC Lead Local Flood Authority: 29/11/2023 Infiltration testing can be secured by condition. Conditions are recommended regarding a foul and surface water drainage scheme; runoff rates and storage requirements; maintenance; exceedance flow routes; floor levels; and percolation testing.
7.12. NYC Local Highway Authority: 5/3/2024 Further discussions are required regarding the transport assessment and the travel plan. £1350 per dwelling is requested for cycle infrastructure improvements. £1,266 per dwelling is requested towards bus service enhancements.
7.13. 21/11/2024 Further justification for bus service and cycle infrastructure enhancement contributions provided.
7.14. 5/2/2025 The access proposals are acceptable. The need for previously requested contributions is reiterated, plus £50,000 to enable mitigation of the capacity issue Barff Lane A19 cross-roads is experiencing. This contribution will allow the capacity threshold to be increased by operating with a MOVA system as opposed to the current VA system in place. Conditions are recommended regarding double yellow lines to Field Lane either side of the western access; delivery of highway infrastructure; road and footway connections for residents; off site highway works; visibility splays at Field Lane; another condition relating to delivery of off site highway works; travel plan; and construction management plan.
7.15. NYC Minerals and Waste Team: 5/10/2023 No objection.
7.16. NYC Public Rights of Way: 10/10/2023 There is a public right of way adjoining the site reference 35.30/5/1. Advice given regarding any works to or the blocking of rights of way. Additional comments provided on the same date noting indicative landscaping proposals would need to ensure no new planting within one metre of the edge of the right of way.
7.17. NYC Strategic Planning, Children and Young People's Service:7/11/2023 Contributions are sought: £76,167.00 towards facilities at Thorpe Willoughby Community Primary School and or Hambleton Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School and or another primary school within the locality of the development. £336,092.90 towards facilities at Selby High School and or another secondary school serving the locality of the development; £74, 474.40 towards provision at the new Selby Special School or another school with SEND provision serving the locality of the development; and £93,093.00 towards early years provision serving Thorpe Willoughby and or Hambleton. All contributions apply to dwellings with two or more bedrooms.
7.18. 8/8/2024 There is forecast to be capacity to meet demand from the development at Thorpe Willoughby Community Primary School. £366,766.40 towards facilities at Selby High School and or another secondary school serving the locality of the development. £82,051.20 towards provision at the new Selby Special School or another school with SEND provision serving the locality of the development. £27,972.00 towards early years provision serving the locality of the development. All contributions apply to dwellings with two or more bedrooms.
7.19. 1/4/2025 There is forecast to be capacity to meet demand from the development at Thorpe Willoughby Community Primary School. £ 373,473.10 towards facilities at Selby High School and or another secondary school serving the locality of the development. £83,556 towards provision at the new Selby Special School or another school with SEND provision serving the locality of the development. £28,485 towards early years provision serving the locality of the development. All contributions apply to dwellings with two or more bedrooms.
7.20. NYC Waste and Recycling: 4/10/2023 Concerns about internal layout of the site; design guidance provided; and the developer is required to pay for bins.
7.21. Contaminated land consultant: 11/10/2023 The submitted Preliminary Investigation of Land considers that significant ground contamination is unlikely to be present. The report recommends that an intrusive investigation is undertaken to ensure the materials onsite are suitable for the proposed end use. The report is considered acceptable. Conditions are recommended to secure a contaminated land assessment, remediation, verification and unexpected contamination.
7.22. NHS Humber and Yorkshire Integrated Care Board: 5/10/2023 The proposed development will therefore generate approximately 264 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 £129,662 is required for 110 dwellings.
7.23. North Yorkshire Police: 13/10/2023 The response provides an overview of national and local policy, crime statistics, and provide design guidance.
7.24. Selby Area Internal Drainage District- 17/10/2023 The site is outside the board’s area so has no comments to make.
7.25. Yorkshire Water: 16/10/2023 Water can be supplied to the site. A condition is recommended that no building or obstruction be located within 6m of the water main that crosses the site. If this distance is to be achieved by diversion or closure of the water main, the developer shall submit evidence to the LPA that this has been agreed with the statutory undertaker. Conditions are recommended to require any liquid storage tanks should be located within a bund, and a CEMP to understand the impact of planning permission on the principal aquifer. Conditions are recommended to secure foul drainage.
7.26. The Environment Agency did not respond to consultation.
Local Representations
7.27. 70 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 local plan.
- Unnecessary development.
- The amount of growth in the village.
- Loss of greenfield site and farmland.
- Brownfield sites in Selby should be used first.
- More appropriate sites are available.
- Harm to character of the area.
- Loss of views.
- Within and harmful to LILA.
- There are no dwellings south of Field Lane.
- Conflict with green belt policy.
- Harm to residential amenity and mental health.
- Harm to ecology, Brayton Barff and ancient woodland.
- Traffic and highway concerns including traffic volume, problem parking on Field Lane, speeding/lack of speed restrictions.
- Lack of facilities and infrastructure in the village including doctors, dentist, schools, village park overcrowded with few opportunities for older children, no public transport with bus services limited and being reduced, no cycle lanes.
- Multiple applications have been refused on this site and an appeal dismissed.
- Water pipe present on site.
- Water supply and power cut issues.
- Noise, light and air pollution.
- Increased flood risk.
- Risk of damage by heavy excavating machinery to the Sherwood Triassic Aquifer lying at shallow depth below the site or pollution of groundwater.
- Construction disturbance.
- Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council will not receive the CIL money.
- Antisocial behaviour.
- Renewable energy should be secured as part of the development.
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
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. 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. The first reason for refusal of application 2022/1483/OUTM does not apply to this application because of the significantly different policy context.
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 includes an agricultural land classification report demonstrating the site is grade 3b land. The site is not best and most versatile agricultural land. Natural England is not a statutory consultee for the loss of this grade of land. The proposal is considered to achieve the local and national policy aim of steering development to areas of least agricultural quality given the lack of alternative sites of grades 4 or 5 land. The loss of agricultural land is acceptable. The second reason for refusal of 2022/1483/OUTM is overcome for these reasons.
Minerals
10.15. The site is within a sand and gravel safeguard area 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 site may have stratum within its boundaries that are Safeguarded by North Yorkshire County Council but given that the Lacustrine Beach Deposits are shown off site, they may not be encountered or be present in very small quantities making it uneconomical. Sand as highly weathered rockhead maybe encountered however it is assumed that this material will be poor quality and is not safe guarded.”
10.16. The NYC Minerals and Waste Team consider the conclusion of the assessment to be acceptable. The proposal complies with the following criterion of Policy S02 “iv) It can be demonstrated that the mineral in the location concerned is no longer of any potential value as it does not represent an economically viable and therefore exploitable resource”.
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”.
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 2024 December 2024 shows, on 30th October 2023, there were 39 individuals on the Selby register. The report also says 188 plots were permissioned between 1 April 2016 and 30 October 2023. However, there is some uncertainty going forward as to whether these permissions would count against need because the most recent appeal decisions show a need to secure self and custom build by s106 for it to count. It is prudent to consider there is a significant unmet meet in the area and the 3% of all plots as self or custom build proposed is reasonable to secure an appropriate housing mix. This will be secured by s106 agreement.
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.
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. Paragraph 139 resists bad design and supports good design.
10.31. It is important to note that a very similar application on this site, reference 2022/1483/OUTM, was refused on 15/5/2023 and that the report to and decision of planning committee did not give impacts on the character and appearance of the area as a reason for refusal, in line with the findings of the Inspector for the previous proposal.
10.32. One such area of acknowledged importance is the Locally Important Landscape Area (LILA) directly to the east of the application site. Local Plan Policy ENV15 is concerned only with proposals on sites within a designated LILA, rather than sites within their setting, a point confirmed by the Inspector for APP/N2739/W/17/3181460.
10.33. The appeal decision refers to the Landscape Appraisal (January 2011) which is a Core Strategy background paper, the main purpose of which was to inform the Core Strategy and future Site Allocations DPD regarding those areas where the landscape has a higher sensitivity to development. The Selby District Landscape Sensitivity Study updated report (October 2021) is considered to be a more up to date evidence base document that supersedes the Landscape Appraisal (January 2011). Similarly, the Selby Landscape Character Assessment (November 2019) is the most up to date evidence base document concerning landscape character.
10.34. It would not be appropriate to use the Selby District Local Landscape Designation Review (December 2019) in the determination of this application because the candidate LILA site, of which the application site forms a part, was to be designated by a policy in the now withdrawn Selby Local Plan publication version. That Plan would need to be adopted for the site to be within a LILA but as the emerging Selby Local Plan has been withdrawn, the site no longer forms part of the LILA.
10.35. The Selby Landscape Character Assessment (November 2019) identifies the application site as falling 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. The key sensitivities, physical character section, 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.
10.36. The Selby District Landscape Sensitivity Study (October 2021) identifies the application site as falling within land parcel reference TW2 with an overall landscape sensitivity score of low to medium. The more detailed landscape assessment for the parcel has seven criteria, with one scoring low and six scoring low to medium. Overall development guidelines state “Development within the Parcel would continue to contain the settlement within the corridors of the A1238 and the A63 and could afford opportunities to enhance the existing harsh settlement edge at Privet Drive.” The summary table on page 119 provides an overall assessment of landscape sensitivity to a 2-3 storey residential housing development scenario in which parcel TW2 scores low to medium whereas parcel TW4 immediately to the east (to the east of the application site) scores medium to high. The table states “Few of the key characteristics and qualities of …. TW2 are vulnerable to change as a result of the introduction of the development scenario, resulting in an overall low-moderate sensitivity…… The role TW4 plays in forming the setting to Brayton Barff as well as the presence of the LILA contributes to an overall moderate-high sensitivity to the introduction of the development scenario.”
10.37. The three fields comprising the application site are of limited landscape value and are screened by almost continuous boundary hedging along the Field Lane frontage and the extensive woodland planting between the site and the A63 bypass. The latter would serve as a very definite physical boundary to the village if the site were to be developed. Short sections of the boundary hedge would need to be removed to facilitate access to the site but there would be scope for some replanting behind the requisite visibility splays. The development would be contained by existing boundary treatments and additional landscaping within the site layout and would not give rise to significant visual harm from outside of the site.
10.38. Given its current use and appearance the site is considered to function as open countryside, in accordance with the view of the Inspector. However, the development would be visually contained by the dense planting along the boundary with the A63, and to a lesser degree by the tree line along the eastern boundary with the public right of way. The harm arising from the proposed residential development, which accords with the 2 to 3 storey development scenario tested in the Selby District Landscape Sensitivity Study (October 2021), to the character and setting of the village would not be significant and the proposal would have a limited effect on this part of land parcel TW2.
10.39. Brayton Barff is a valued landscape feature and is well used as a recreational resource. The hill is the principal feature within the slightly more extensive Locally Important Landscape Area (LILA). No direct harm to the character of the Barff and LILA would occur and the main issue relates to the potential effect on the setting of the Barff. The open fields to the east of the application site provide for a substantial landscape buffer between the site and the Barff and there is limited intervisibility between the two. The greater sensitivity of this field to the east of the application site is reflected in the overall moderate-high sensitivity of parcel TW4 recognised in the Selby District Landscape Sensitivity Study (October 2021).
10.40. Very limited views of the site are available from the footpath around the lower slopes of the Barff and, where these do exist, they are heavily filtered by intervening trees and hedges even during winter months. The gable ends to a few of the houses might appear in some of those views but they would be seen at some distance and against the background of the existing built edge of the village. Appropriate mitigation is achieved by condition by additional planting along the eastern boundary of the site. Such planting would also soften views of the houses from the public footpath at the eastern edge of the site and could be used to reduce any increased sense of enclosure to that path. Users of the footpath would experience some change in views but this is not considered to amount to material harm.
10.41. Although Brayton Barff is visible from Field Lane, only the upper parts of the wooded hill are seen above the roadside hedge. Other than through the small number of field gates, the fields comprising the application site are not seen in these views and do not form part of the setting of the Barff as experienced from the road or pavement. Residents of properties on Field Lane may have a clearer view from upper floor windows but, even in those views, the site is likely to form only a limited part of the foreground to the Barff. The fields in parcel TW4 play are greater role in the setting of the Barff and within the LILA itself, and the lack of tree cover serves to emphasise the height of the Barff. These fields would not be developed under these proposals.
10.42. It is considered the application site makes no significant contribution to the setting of Brayton Barff and that there would be no material harm either to that setting or to the character of the LILA. No conflict arises with CS Policy SP18 which seeks the protection of landscape character and of the setting of areas of acknowledge importance subject to the aforementioned condition.
10.43. The Council’s Landscape Architect reiterates their comments from the previous application which note the adopted Hambleton Hough LILA and adopted Brayton Barff LILA are proposed to be expanded into one continuous LILA in the Selby District Local Landscape Designation Review (December 2019) which in turn informs such a designation in the emerging Local Plan. The expanded LILA would include the application site. The Landscape Architect provides a considered description of the topography; vegetation; and access to the countryside and nature. Further details of the most pertinent of the six criteria used to assess the quality and sensitivity of the landscape are also provided, along with management recommendations within the Landscape Designation Review. They consider that the proposed development would disrupt the setting of Brayton Barff and the sweep of landscape between the two hills.
10.44. The Council’s Landscape Architect raises concerns the proposed development would represent a clear extension of the built form into the open countryside and would fundamentally alter the character of this part of the candidate LILA. It would also alter the setting of Brayton Barff as viewed from the historic route of Field Lane. They consider the proposed development would cause a significant erosion of openness which is an important characteristic of the fields that form the setting of Brayton Barff. The openness and more level topography of the fields contrasts with the wooded slopes of the hill and that the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the landscape character of the site and in turn on the immediate area. They consider the proposal would change the perceived character and context of the village and its association with Brayton Barf if this defined edge were corrupted by more housing on the opposite side of the road, and that the development would disrupt the simplicity of the open landscape and views from Field Lane towards Brayton Barff. They note due to the height and location of the proposed development; new housing would be visible over the top of the hedge; and would occupy a substantial portion of such views from Field Lane, thereby causing significant harm to the existing uncluttered, attractive views of Brayton Barff. The sense of foreground openness would be lost.
10.45. The comments and concerns of the Landscape Architect are noted, as are those of objectors. However, as noted above, it is considered inappropriate to use the Selby District Local Landscape Designation Review (December 2019) because the candidate LILA site, of which the application site forms a part, has not been adopted due to the withdrawal of the Selby Local Plan publication version. The previous report to planning committee and the decision of planning committee, as well as the earlier appeal decision concluded the character and appearance impacts of the identical proposal, were acceptable.
10.46. The proposal would give rise to limited visual harm from outside of the site and limited harm to the character and setting of the village, subject to condition, which 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
10.47. 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.
10.48. The site is in flood zone 1 (low risk) for sea and river flooding, western areas of the site are in low, medium and high surface water flood risk areas and eastern parts of the site are at low and medium risk of surface water flooding. The flood maps show that the development site is considered to be at risk from reservoir flooding during normal river conditions but this risk is minimal because it is maintained by Yorkshire Water. The submitted flood risk assessment considers these sources of flooding as well as groundwater flooding but this will be better understood once a detailed ground investigation takes place and if necessary mitigated against at detailed design stage. The site is in an area known to be at risk of flooding therefore a flood risk sequential test is required. 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 not required as set out in Table 2 of the flood risk planning practice guidance.
10.49. NPPF paragraph 182 requires sustainable drainage systems for this development. The surface water flood risk is restricted to small parts of the site. The indicative site layout shows dwellings within these areas. It will be necessary to condition details of ground levels and related finished floor levels be provided to ensure dwellings do not flood. 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. The flood risk assessment discusses surface water drainage options without providing a ground investigation including infiltration testing. Therefore, a surface water drainage condition will be required. Foul water drainage is indicated to connect to the Yorkshire Water system within Field Lane. A foul water drainage condition will be required.
10.50. The LLFA recommends conditions for foul and surface water drainage, attenuation storage, maintenance, exceedance flow routes, percolation testing and finished floor levels of dwellings. The latter is dealt with by a ground levels and finished floor levels condition, the remainder by the simplified and amalgamated general foul and surface water drainage conditions. There are no Internal Drainage Board comments to consider. The Environment Agency did not respond to consultation.
10.51. Yorkshire Water confirms three of its water mains pass through the site and recommends a condition regarding the layout and landscaping of the proposal, or diversion of the mains. Layout and landscaping matters are not before the LPA for determination but in general terms this is not considered to be a fundamental impediment to development of the site. Therefore, the condition is unnecessary and these matters will be addressed at reserved matters stage. YW confirms a water supply can be provided to the site. YW recommends conditions regarding the bunding of any liquid storage tanks and a construction environmental management plan to understand the impact of planning permission on the principal aquifer. These matters are controlled by the foul and surface water, and construction management plan conditions. These conditions will also enable pollution interception and lining of foul sewers to protect the water environment to be secured if necessary. YW recommends a condition regarding the piped discharge of surface water from the application site and a foul water scheme. Both matters are controlled by the foul and surface water drainage conditions. Allowances for climate change will be made in the final drainage scheme.
10.52. Flood risk, drainage and climate change matters are acceptable subject to conditions.
Access, Transport and Highway Safety
10.53. 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.
10.54. 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.
10.55. 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.”
10.56. 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.
10.57. The aforementioned development plan policies are considered broadly consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.58. The application form confirms approval is sought for access matters to the site but not within the site. 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.”
10.59. Two vehicular, pedestrian and cyclist accesses to the site are proposed from Field Lane via priority junctions which will be 5.5 metres wide and feature 2 metre wide footpaths to either side. Visibility splays of 2.4 metres x 59 metres to the west and 2.4m x 57m to the east are shown on the Indicative Layout at both accesses. Tactile pedestrian crossing points are proposed across each proposed access and Field Lane to the east of each access. A further tactile crossing is proposed on Fox Lane. Raised vehicular tables are proposed at each junction with Field Lane. A 2m wide footway to the site frontage is proposed. Pedestrian access is proposed from the public right of way to the east of the site. Pedestrian access is also proposed at the western edge of the site on to Field Lane. The access proposals are shown on the Indicative Layout drawing number 2444 / 002 REV E.
10.60. The application includes a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. The submitted Transport Assessment Addendum was prepared to address the main issues raised by the Local Highway Authority in its initial response to the TA. It uses collision data to show there are no accident blackspots near the site. Existing traffic flows on Field Lane were measured by traffic count, the proposed development would add 56 two-way vehicles in each of the peak hours and in the busiest peak and including the development traffic, Field Lane will be operating at only 28% of its traffic carrying capacity. Traffic speeds of 36 to 37mph (85th percentile of all movements) were recorded on Field Lane despite the 30mph speed limit. Raised tables are now proposed as part of the development access design to assist in the reduction of traffic speeds. The impacts of the proposals combined with committed development have been modelled on the junctions of the A1238 Leeds Road with Fox Lane, the A63 with A1238 Leeds Road and the A19 with Barff Lane in Brayton. The developments impact on the junction of Gowthorpe with the A19 and Scott Road have also been considered. The assessment considers the proposal will have minimal impact on these junctions. The assessment concludes there are no reasons why planning permission should not be granted.
10.61. The latest LHA comments note the additional highway information submitted and consider the access arrangements acceptable. The LHA does not raise any objections to the proposal. The LHA considers the Barff Lane/A19 junction to be at capacity and will be made increasingly worse by the development. It requests a contribution of £50,000 to change the traffic light system which will increase capacity. £1350 per dwelling is requested for cycle infrastructure improvements in the area. £1,266 per dwelling is requested towards bus service enhancements in the area. These requests are considered compliant with section 122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) because they will enhance the sustainability credentials of a development in an area with somewhat limited bus services and would encourage cycling to adjacent settlements, both of which would reduce the impact of the development on the heavily trafficked Gowthorpe junction and Barff Lane/A19 junction, as well as being in accordance with the aim of NPPF paragraph 110 and the development plan policies noted above. The contribution would be 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. Access to bus stops on Fox Lane and Leeds Road for the 64 and or 164 bus services are both within the maximum desirable walking distance of 2km (Providing For Journeys On Foot Published By The Institution Of Highways & Transportation 2000). It is understood that the bus stops to the front of the site are not in use for these services.
10.62. The LHA has not requested but there is a need to secure a travel plan monitoring contribution of £5,000. The TAA refers to an amended Travel Plan to overcome concerns with the initial version but this has not been submitted resulting in a need to condition a Travel Plan. The LHA recommends conditions regarding double yellow lines to Field Lane either side of the western access to address highway safety; delivery of highway infrastructure; road and footway connections for residents; off site highway works; visibility splays at Field Lane; another condition relating to delivery of off site highway works; travel plan; and construction management plan. These have been amalgamated and amended where required.
10.63. 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. The fourth reason for refusal of 2022/1483/OUTM is overcome for these reasons.
Impact upon Nature Conservation, Protected Species and Ancient Woodland
10.64. Local Plan Policy ENV1 requires account is taken of the potential loss, or adverse effect upon, significant wildlife habitats.
10.65. 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.
10.66. 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”.
10.67. The development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.68. The submitted ecological impact assessment concludes mitigation can be dealt with by condition and biodiversity net gain can be secured by using off site land within the applicants ownership. It anticipates a residual negative impact on Brayton Barff SINC and ancient woodland is still expected, despite both on and offsite public open space being provided and that mitigation measures within Brayton Barff SINC itself would be required in order to reach a neutral position. It recommends a biodiversity management plan, a construction environmental management plan for biodiversity and a sensitive lighting plan are secured by condition. These are amalgamated into a single condition. Following the Inspectors findings in the Brayton appeal decision APP/U2750/W/23/3327616 (appendix E) 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, the appropriate response is to ensure appropriate on-site open space is provided. This could be secured by condition. There is not considered to be any harmful impact upon the SINC and ancient woodland, or protected species subject to conditions. BNG would form part of the s106 given the need for off-site land.
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 and the NPPF. The fifth reason for refusal of 2022/1483/OUTM is overcome for these reasons.
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. 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.
10.76. 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.”
10.77. The application proposes 10% 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 10% 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.
10.78. Overall, affordable housing policy requirements are as follows:
· 10% 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.
10.79. The applicant has agreed these percentages. A s106 agreement will secure this affordable housing.
Recreational Open Space
10.80. 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.”
10.81. The Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document 2007 provides further guidance on the provision of open space.
10.82. 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.
10.83. Policy RT2 is considered consistent with the NPPF and is given significant weight.
10.84. A condition will require the reserved matters application to provide 60sqm of open space per dwelling. It is also considered necessary to condition a local area for play (LAP) for toddlers and younger children and a local equipped area for play (LEAP) to cater for slightly older children. 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
10.86. 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.
10.87. 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.
10.88. These development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.89. The preliminary investigation of land shows that the site is currently used as agricultural land. No past industrial activities are recorded on the site, but surrounding land has previously been used as a military camp, a pig progeny testing station, and sewage works. The report considers that significant ground contamination is unlikely to be present, as the site has not been previously developed. However, in view of the proposed residential development, it recommends that an intrusive investigation is undertaken to ensure the materials onsite are suitable for the proposed end use. The proposed intrusive investigation comprises: Trial pits/mini percussive boreholes to enable the made ground and natural soils to be examined and shallow rock to be identified; and appropriate sampling to enable chemical and geotechnical testing to be carried out.
10.90. 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.
10.91. 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
10.92. 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.
10.93. 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.
10.94. The application site is located in the countryside to the south of Thorpe Willoughby and there are residential dwellings to the north on the opposite side of Field Lane. 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.
10.95. 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. These are amended and amalgamated where necessary.
10.96. 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.
10.97. 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
10.98. 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.
10.99. 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.
10.100. The LPA archaeologist does not require further archaeological investigation and raises no objections to the proposal. Archaeological impacts are acceptable.
Noise and Air Pollution
10.101. The policies referred to in the contaminated land section above are relevant.
10.102. Environmental Health note the submitted noise assessment is preliminary. 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.
10.103. 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.
10.104. Noise and air pollution matters are acceptable subject to such conditions.
10.105. 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
10.106. 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.
10.107. 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”.
10.108. 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.
10.109. The Developer Contributions SPD provides further guidance regarding contributions towards waste and recycling facilities; education facilities; and primary health care facilities amongst others.
10.110. 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.
10.111. These development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.112. NYC Children and Young People's Service forecast sufficient capacity to meet demand from the development at Thorpe Willoughby Community Primary School. It seeks £373,473.10 (£3,395.21 per dwelling with two or more bedrooms) towards facilities at Selby High School and or another secondary school serving the locality of the development. It seeks £83,556 (£759.60 per dwelling with two or more bedrooms) towards provision at the new Selby Special School or another school with SEND provision serving the locality of the development. It seeks £28,485 (£258.95 per dwelling with two or more bedrooms) towards early years provision serving the locality of the development.
10.113. 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 £129,662 based on 110 dwellings (£1,178.74 per dwelling) is requested. The S106 contribution secured from this development would fund 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.
10.114. 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.
10.115. These contributions are justified and CIL regulation compliant and would need to be secured by s106 with appropriate triggers for payment.
11.0 PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
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 limited visual harm from outside of the site and limited harm to the character and setting of the village; and conflict with the development plan.
11.4. Neutral matters include the lack of conflict with mineral policies; the lack of conflict with policies seeking to protect best and most versatile agricultural land and steering development to areas of least agricultural quality; the flood risk sequential test is 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; and education, healthcare and bin contributions are secured to ensure no detriment is caused.
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 provide contributions to enhance bus services and cycle facilities 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 completion 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:
S106:
· Off site land to enable 10% biodiversity net gain to be achieved.
· 10% 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.
· £1266 per dwelling towards bus service enhancements in proximity to the site to improve the offer to residents, including Sunday and evening services.
· £1350 per dwelling is requested for cycle infrastructure improvements in proximity to the site.
· £50,000 to change the traffic light system at the Barff Lane/A19 junction.
· £2,500 towards travel plan monitoring.
· £373,473.10 (£3,395.21 per dwelling with two or more bedrooms) towards facilities at Selby High School and or another secondary school serving the locality of the development.
· £83,556 (£759.60 per dwelling with two or more bedrooms) towards provision at the new Selby Special School or another school with SEND provision serving the locality of the development.
· £28,485 (£258.95 per dwelling with two or more bedrooms) towards early years provision serving the locality of the development.
· £129,662 (£1,178.74 per dwelling) 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.
· 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 drawing 2444/0010 Rev A Location Plan and the access details shown on drawing 2444/002 Rev E Indicative Layout.
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. Prior to any part of the development being brought into use, a scheme detailing double yellow line extents to manage parking on Field Lane to either side of the approved western site access, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be brought into use until the approved double yellow line scheme has been completed.
Reason: In the interests of highways safety and to achieve a satisfactory and safe layout in accordance with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
8. 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.
9. Accompanying the Reserved Matters, engineering details of the western pedestrian access from the site to Field Lane along with dropped kerbs to allow access to the north side of Field Lane; and the pedestrian access from the site to the public right of way to the east, both as indicated on approved plan 2444/002 Rev E Indicative Layout, along with a timetable for the implementation of those details and measures and a scheme for their intended management shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall then be installed in accordance with the approved timetable and these accesses shall thereafter be retained and managed in accordance with the approved management scheme.
Reason: To secure a permeable development with appropriate 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.
10. Notwithstanding the submitted information, prior to the first use of the vehicular accesses to the site off Field Lane, 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.
11. 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.
12. Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, the off-site highway works detailed on approved plan 2444/002 Rev E Indicative 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. 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.
18. 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, and shall additionally include: a) an updated Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment showing 10% gain; b) a 30 year management and monitoring plan; c) implementation timetable and d) sensitive lighting scheme. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. The reserved matters application(s) shall include details of existing and proposed ground levels across the site and related finished floor levels of dwellings for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To prevent dwellings being subject to surface water flooding in localised depressions in ground levels in pursuance of Policy SP15 of the Core Strategy.
22. The landscaping and layout reserved matters application(s) shall include details of a landscaping buffer adjacent to the eastern boundary of the application site and management and maintenance details, for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted and shall thereafter be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Any element of the landscaping buffer that is removed, dies, is seriously damaged or diseased within 10 years of planting shall be replaced with a similar species within the next available planting season.
Reason: In order to further filter and soften views of the proposal from the Locally Important Landscape Area, Brayton Barff and the public right of way in pursuance of Policies SP18 and SP19 of the Core Strategy.
23. The reserved matters application(s) shall provide 60sqm of on-site public open space per dwelling, and design details of a local area for play (LAP) and a local equipped area for play (LEAP).
Reason: To secure public open space and play facilities in pursuance with Policy RT2 of the Selby District Local Plan.
Target Determination Date: 2/5/2025
Case Officer: Martin Evans
Appendix A – Appeal Decision APP/N2739/W/17/3181460 Thorpe Willoughby
Appendix B – Indicative Layout drawing number 2444 / 002 REV E.
Appendix C - Appeal decision APP/U2750/W/24/3347885 Hambleton
Appendix D – Appeal decision APP/U2750/W/24/3347833 Carlton
Appendix E - Appeal decision APP/U2750/W/23/3327616 Brayton
Appendix F – Field Lane Location Plan