North Yorkshire Council
Community Development Services
Selby and Ainsty Area Planning Committee
30th april 2025
ZG2023/0358/OUTM - Outline application for up to 145 residential dwellings and associated works, including access from Leeds Road but not access within the site (all other matters reserved)
AT Land south of Leeds Road, Thorpe Willoughby, Selby
ON BEHALF OF VISTRY HOMES Ltd
Report of the Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services
|
1.0 Purpose of the Report 1.1 To determine an outline application for up to 145 residential dwellings and associated works, including access from Leeds Road but not access within the site (all other matters reserved) at land south of Leeds Road, Thorpe Willoughby, Selby, North Yorkshire. 1.2 This application is reported to Committee because the Head of Development Management considers this application to raise significant planning issues such that it is in the public interest for the application to be considered by Committee. |
2.0 SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to prior completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure the matters detailed below and the conditions detailed below.
2.1. This is an application for outline planning permission for up to 145 dwellings with access to the site to be determined. One vehicular access to Leeds Road, an emergency access to Pond Drive and a pedestrian access further west to Leeds Road are proposed. The site layout plan is illustrative of how the site could be developed. The site is within the countryside to the west of the development limit of a Designated Service Village, Thorpe Willoughby. The site is relatively flat and undeveloped with a part frontage hedgerow and peripheral trees.
2.2. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The proposal is contrary to Policy SP2 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 Policy SP5 is out of date because the housing need figure it contains is not calculated based on the required standard method.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 and localised visual and landscape character harm; the loss of a modest amount of best and most versatile agricultural land with resultant minor harm to the agricultural economy and food self-sufficiency; minor loss of potential mineral resources; potentially no self and custom build housing and conflict with the development plan.
2.5. Neutral matters include 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.
2.6. Benefits include the site being in a reasonably sustainable location that will be enhanced; matters for determination are well designed; the proposal makes a significant contribution to needed market and affordable housing (great weight is given to this consideration); a housing mix is secured that will deliver a mixed and balance community with provision for those with mobility problems; the scheme will provide contributions to enhance bus services and cycle facilities which benefits existing and future residents; a 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 completion of a S106 agreement.
3.0 Preliminary Matters
3.1. Access to the case file on Public Access can be found here:- ZG2023/0358/OUTM | Outline application for up to 145 residential dwellings and associated works, including access from Leeds Road but not access within the site (all other matters reserved) | Land South Of Leeds Road Thorpe Willoughby Selby North Yorkshire
3.2. The following relevant planning history has been identified for the application site:
2022/1321/SCN EIA screening opinion for 170 proposed residential dwellings. The LPA confirmed the proposal is not EIA development on 9/12/2022.
4.0 Site and Surroundings
4.1. The site is located at the western edge of Thorpe Willoughby on the south side of Leeds Road. The site is 5.06ha in area and broadly rectangular in shape. It comprises arable agricultural land with boundary hedgerows and a small number of established trees. Existing vehicular access into the site is via a five bar gate to the track to the west which joins Leeds Road and there is a second access from Pond Lane to the east.
4.2. The site is bound by the A1238 (Leeds Road) to the north with farmland beyond; dwellings and farm buildings to the west with farmland beyond; a small field to the south beyond which is a modern housing development and Thorpe Willoughby Sports Association; and to the east is a drainage attenuation pond with associated modern housing estate.
4.3. The entire site is within Flood Zone 1 (low risk of river and sea flooding) and is at low risk of flooding. Small parts of the site are at low and medium risk of surface water flooding. It is not located within a conservation area or immediately adjacent to heritage assets. There are no ecological designations on or in close proximity to the site.
4.4. The Thorpe Willoughby development limit is to the east of the site hence the site is within the countryside. Hambleton Hough to the south west and Brayton Barff to the south east are separate Locally Important Landscape Areas (LILA). Parts of Brayton Barff to the south east of the site are classified as ancient woodland, and a site of importance to nature conservation (SINC). The site is within a sand and gravel safeguard area.
5.0 Description of Proposal
5.1. This is an application for outline planning permission for up to 145 dwellings and associated works, including access from Leeds Road but not access within the site. All other matters are reserved. The application proposes 15% of the total number of dwellings are affordable housing.
5.2. The primary access to the site would be via a new priority junction onto Leeds Road, located near the north-east corner of the site. A further pedestrian/cycle and emergency access will be located off Pond Lane, connecting to the residential development to the east of the site. A further pedestrian and cycle access is proposed further west along Leeds Road. The 30mph speed limit on Leeds Road will be extended to the west of the site frontage and a 40mph section introduced leading up to the roundabout. The speed limit would revert to the National Speed Limit beyond this point. A 3m wide shared cycleway/footway will also be provided on the south side of Leeds Road along the site frontage.
5.3. Layout and landscaping matters are reserved for subsequent approval. However, an amended illustrative masterplan has been submitted showing a site frontage SUDS basin, internal road layout, housing areas, north eastern open space, central open space and southern/western open space. The landscape masterplan and other documents have not been updated to reflect this. This application has been considered on the basis of the aforementioned access and highway proposals, and that all the other documents are purely illustrative of how the site could be developed, rather than how it will be developed.
6.0 Planning Policy and Guidance
Adopted Development Plan
6.2. The Adopted Development Plan for this site is:
- Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan (adopted 22nd October 2013)
- Those policies in the Selby District Local Plan (adopted on 8 February 2005) which were saved by the direction of the Secretary of State and which have not been superseded by the Core Strategy
- Minerals and Waste Joint Plan (adopted 16 February 2022)
Emerging Development Plan – Material Consideration
6.3. The Emerging Development Plan for this site is:
- Selby Local Plan revised publication 2024 (Reg 19)
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. The site is identified as a draft housing site in the Selby Local Plan revised publication 2024, as site THRP-K.
- North Yorkshire Local Plan- this has reached an early stage of preparation and no weight can currently be attributed to it..
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. The following were consulted but no response received: Hambleton Parish Council, Conservation Officer, Public Rights of Way Officer, Network Rail, Environment Agency and the Secretary of State for Transport.
7.2. Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council: 19/4/2023 Objects:
“LAYOUT AND DENSITY OF BUILDING This application is contrary to Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan, Policy SP19 of the Core Strategy and Chapter 12 of the NPPF as we believe such a proposal would negatively impact on the character and appearance of the area as by building 160 houses on this site it will look dense and visually unattractive to look at and not in keeping with the rest of the village.
HIGHWAY SAFETY & TRAFFIC The application contravenes paragraphs 108-110 of the NPPF as Highway safety is a concern. The quantity of houses being built will add potentially 360 more cars (two per household) meaning that traffic in the village will become dangerously high. Access to the development is on a main road, very close to a roundabout. Even if the 30mph sign is moved closer to the roundabout we have concerns about accidents pulling out of this proposed development. We find that the neighbouring housing estate have no end of problems pulling out onto the busy road (A1238). These extra vehicles will also cause increased pollution, potential speeding and increased wear and tear on our roads.
OTHER FACTORS: This outline plan by postcode is in Thorpe Willoughby but by parish boundary sits within in the majority of Hambleton Parish meaning that the Construction Levy generated would be paid to Hambleton. The small corner in our parish is unlikely to generate any CIL. The houses being built are in fact two miles away from Hambleton village who will financially benefit but will not feel their amenities stretch. The additional residents in their parish will also increase their precept but it will be Thorpe Willoughby who will have to improve our amenities and without CIL or increased precept I am not sure how this is sustainable, it is genuinely concerning. Deficiency in social facilities – Thorpe Willoughby has one primary school and can take 315 pupils, with a current capacity of 261. Hambleton Primary school can take 210 pupils, with a current capacity of 180. With new houses bring extra children and due to the location of the build the catchment area would be Thorpe Willoughby School which would not be able to cope with a high influx of new starters, similarly with Hambleton.
Unfortunately, there are also a further two planned developments for the village: 2022/1410/OUTM – Barff Lane and at consultation stage land north of Leeds and east of Harry Moor Lane, Leeds Road – opposite to the outline application being observed. When considering if all three applications are successful the material considerations will be three times as bad for our village.”
7.3. NYC Archaeologist: 3/5/2023 Recommends that archaeological field evaluation takes to properly assess the archaeological potential and the impact of the proposal on its significance. In the first instance this should take the form of a geophysical survey followed by trial trenching if significant anomalies are revealed, prior to determination of the application.
18/9/2023 Following submission of a geophysical survey and trial trenching there are no objections or further comments.
7.4. NYC Ecologist: 20/4/2023 Recommends a Condition to adhere to the ecological mitigation measures set out in sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the EcIA. The BNG assessment predicts that a net gain of 11% can be delivered for area-based habitatscontingent on an area of habitat creation outside but adjoining the red line boundary. A net gain of 81% is projected for hedgerow units. These calculations will need to be repeated at reserved matters stage, when landscaping and layout plans have been finalised, but they indicate that the proposed development is capable of delivering BNG in line with policy. Concerns are raised regarding impacts on ancient woodland at Brayton Barff.
11/10/2023 Previous advice regarding Brayton Barff is reiterated.
9/5/2024 The ecology team remain concerned about the impact of increasing recreation pressures upon Brayton Barff ancient woodland SINC. However, following the Inspectors decision at Barff Lane, Brayton it is considered that these applications would not present a conflict with paragraph 186c of the NPPF related to irreplaceable habitats. However, there is a need for these developments to maximise the use of open space on site for recreation, with options for walking on site and connecting to offsite public rights of way or permissive paths. Circular routes with signage and waste bins incorporated across these developments may assist in mitigating an increased footfall upon Brayton Barff.
7.5. NYC Environmental Health: 24/4/2023 The noise impact assessment is noted and conditions recommended regarding noise mitigation. The air quality assessment is noted and a condition recommended. Conditions regarding a construction environmental management plan, working hours and piled foundations are recommended to mitigate impacts upon local residents.
15/3/2024 The applicant should provide an odour assessment in relation to the pig farm to the north.
13/6/2024 In view of Odour Assessment ref: 24-0254 dated May 2024, there are no further objections so far as odour potential from the nearby piggery is concerned.
7.6. NYC Landscape Architect: 10/7/2023 I support the principles contained within the Landscape strategy, in particular, for example, the use of large-species trees to contribute to sense of place, however the landscape design principles do not appear to translate into the Illustrative masterplan nor the design content of the Design and access statement. There is a high risk of the landscape principles being watered down as the scheme progresses. For example, the provision for street trees within the DAS cross-sections appears to be unworkable; and there is a dis-connect between the indicative street trees shown on the Illustrative Masterplan and those shown on the Landscape strategy plan. The types and locations of open space appear to be suitable. Most of these are steered by surface water management, which could impact on their design quality and functional value. As a result, the recreational offer provided by the proposed development appears to be limited. The central open space is very small, so I question the strength of its impact and value. It should be larger. Robust protection of the existing mature Oak trees along the perimeter of the site is inadequately addressed. There is a risk of conflict which could affect the welfare and longevity of the trees. Whilst this is only an outline application, it is important to be cognisant of the above concerns which make the illustrative masterplan unworkable, and therefore, I would advise, not acceptable. To address these concerns, with an aim to achieve a design standard that could be supported, would result in a reduction in housing numbers/types.
7.7. NYC Lead Local Flood Authority: 19/6/2023 1. Runoff Destinations Discharge to a surface water sewer, highway drain or other drain. The applicant has stated that the properties will discharge their surface water at a controlled rate to the surface water sewer. However, this has not been agreed with Yorkshire Water. We would also like to see any conversations that have been ongoing regarding gaining access to 3rd party land to discharge to the nearest watercourse – this way the LLFA can see an effort has been made to adhere to the drainage hierarchy. Further information is required. 2. Peak Flow Control The Applicant has not come to an agreement with Yorkshire Water regarding a discharge rate. The LLFA does note that the applicant has submitted plans that show the basin being constructed to allow for 40% climate change +10% for urban creep. We have also noted that within the drainage calculations provided that IH124 discharge rate has been used and not the actual area of the site in question. Further information is required. 3. Volume Control Micro Drainage calculations have been included within the application. However, as the applicant is requiring discharging into a sewer, these calculations would need to be agreed with Yorkshire Water. Further information is required. Drainage calculation design parameters are provided. An exceedance plan is required to show overland flow during an extreme flood event, exceeding the capacity of the proposed drainage system.
24/10/2023 The LLFA is now satisfied with the amended flood risk and drainage assessment approach to runoff destinations, peak flow control, designing for exceedances and maintenance. The LLFA considers a reasonable approach to the management of surface water has been demonstrated and makes no further comment.
7.8. NYC Local Highway Authority: 12/5/2023 A ghost island is required as part of the proposed access. Drawing “332010129/100/002 Rev A - Proposed Site Access” (extract below) shows the gateway markings within the relocated 30 limit, not outside which requires amendment. Additional markings would be needed inside the extended 30mph to accord with the existing provision. The proposed new limit should extend beyond the two unmarked accesses either side of Leeds Road adjacent to the site. The footway site side should be widened to 3 metres to form a continuous extension to the existing combined use path located west of the site. To safeguard the possibility of future development proposals south and west of this site, the internal layout should allow for 3 metre combined use paths to be formed between the on-site infrastructure and site boundary. A construction management plan is recommended by condition. The CMP should include a condition survey before and after the development of the key local highway routes to identify damage resulting from the development. It should also ensure no surface water run-off from the site including that associated with wheel washing should be allowed to discharge into the highway. S106 funding towards improved cycling links between Brayton and Selby will be sought. Two new bus stops with shelters and lighting, 1 on each side of Leeds Road by the site, will be required along with service enhancement funding to improve the offer, including Sunday and evening services. The Applicant should identify what improvements to cycle parking and facilities can be provided by them at the nearest primary, secondary and tertiary education sites so as to support reduced car usage from the development proposal and lessen any impact from excess vehicle trip generation. Additional committed developments should be considered in the trip generation section of the TA. The only junction of concern identified is the Scott Road/ A19/ Gowthorpe four-arm signal junction, however, unlike Stantec conclude, there is mitigation required given the level of increase in projected delay and queues as a result of the development proposal, shown below. Given the signal junction is already optimised, a contribution to improve cycling into Selby will be required to help reduce demand through this busy junction. Therefore funding will be sorted through a S106 Agreement. The Landscape Strategy Plan shows a number of trees located near the access. There are concerns that the trees may obstruct visibility at the access. Please note that trees should be set back a minimum of 4.5 metres from a classified road. Leeds Road is the A1238. Visibility splays at the access should be 2.4 metres x 45 metres. Section 3.3.5 states that visibility splays are in excess of 40 metres. Please advise what visibility splay distances are actually achievable. Contributions of £5,000 will be sought for monitoring of the Travel Plan (should be £2,500). The travel plan will require updating.
7.9. 29/8/2023: Previous comments reiterated but with further justification of the need for s106 contributions for improvements to the cycle network and bus services.
7.10. 11/1/2024 Stage 1 road safety audit required for the primary access. The amended gateway markings and 30mph speed limit are necessary and acceptable. A condition regarding the gateway features is recommended. The frontage 3m wide shared footway/cycleway is noted and will be subject to a recommended condition and s278 agreement. A cycling and walking assessment should be carried out for the site in relation to the internal layout. The proposed bus stops and their design should be subject to condition regarding their detailed design. Further commentary on trip generation is provided. Further information is required regarding the Gowthorpe junction impact assessment. Further justification for cycle route and bus service subsidy contributions is provided. The LHA notes the applicant has agreed to the £5k travel plan monitoring fee and £30K of vouchers towards e-bike purchases for residents. Travel plan feedback is provided.
25/3/2024 (letter states 28/4/2023) The road safety audit identified two problems: the first should be addressed with an amended access plan and the second has been addressed by the current access plan. Trip generation and traffic modelling in the amended transport assessment shows Gowthorpe junction deteriorating. The lack of solutions justifies alternative travel option mitigation such as cycle route, walking and bus routes. Travel plan requires amendments.
25/4/2024 Further justification for cycle infrastructure contributions.
1/7/2024 Further justification for cycle infrastructure contributions.
21/11/2024 Further justification provided for s106 contributions towards cycle improvements and bus service enhancements.
27/1/2025 The Highway Authority is now satisfied with the proposed access arrangements subject to detailed designs. The junction modelling for the primary access shows that it should run with spare capacity. Concerns were raised regarding the Gowthorpe junction in Selby and the impact the development would have on it. The applicant has tried to mitigate against any capacity issues through active travel measures, including S106 contributions towards the Thorpe Willoughby to Selby LCWIP and bus service enhancements. The emergency access will connect to Pond Lane, along with pedestrian connections. This is considered acceptable. The LPA should be aware that the location of the northern bus stop which will service the site will need to be confirmed during the detailed design and therefore a suitably worded condition is recommended. No objections are raised subject to s106 contributions and conditions. £1,265.82 per dwelling is sought to enhance the 164 bus service by providing an evening and Sunday service. £1,350.00 per dwelling is sought to contribute towards future sustainable travel improvements, providing a cycle link from Thorpe Willoughby to Selby. Conditions are recommended regarding an east bound bus stop; a programme detailing the delivery of highway infrastructure within the site; construction of adoptable roads and footways; completion of off site highway works; visibility splays to Leeds Road; details of the emergency access, shared footway/cycleway, relocation of speed limit and gateway features, and west bound bus stop; travel plan; construction management plan
7.11. NYC Minerals and Waste Team: 14/7/2023 There are no active quarry sites or waste facilities within 500 metres of the site and no sites have been proposed for allocation for minerals or waste activities in the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan within that 500m zone. The site is within a Minerals and Waste Safeguarding Area for sand and gravel however, does not fall within the exemption criteria stated in paragraph 8.55 of the MWJP (2022). Therefore the relevant policy to consider in this instance is: Policy S02 Developments proposed within Safeguarded Surface Mineral Resource areas, the application should include an assessment of the effect of the proposed development on the mineral resource beneath or adjacent to the site of the proposed development. It is noted that the site is allocated in the emerging Selby Local Plan, but until the Plan is adopted it would not fulfil the exemption criteria for safeguarding.
7.12. NYC Waste and Recycling: 17/4/2023 It is noted layout is not proposed at this stage therefore general guidance on the eventual layout is provided and the developer will be required to pay for bins.
7.13. NYC Strategic Planning, Children and Young People's Service:28/4/2023 based on 160 dwellings, contributions are sought: £152,334.00 towards school expansion places at Hambleton Church of England voluntary controlled primary school and or Thorpe Willoughby Community Primary School; £488,862.40 towards school expansion places at Selby High School; £108,326.40 towards school expansion places for special school provision; and £135,408.00 towards school expansion places for early years provision. Totalling £884,930.80.
18/10/2023 Previous comments reiterated but with further justification for early years contribution request and an explanation of alternative available funding for the mitigation sought.
8/8/2024 In July 2024, capacity is available and no primary education contribution is requested; £483,464.80 to be used for the provision of secondary education facilities at Selby High School and/or another secondary school serving the locality of the development.; £108,158.40 to be used for the provision of SEND provision at the new Selby Special School for children and young people with complex special educational needs in the areas of communication and interaction needs, including autism and speech language and communication needs; and/or cognition and learning needs (moderate/severe learning difficulties); or another school with SEND provision serving the locality of the development.; £60,606.00 towards early years provision serving the locality of the development.
1/4/2025 £492,305.45 to be used for the provision of secondary education facilities at Selby High School and/or another secondary school serving the locality of the development; £110,142.00to be used for the provision of SEND provision at the new Selby Special School for children and young people with complex special educational needs in the areas of communication and interaction needs, including autism and speech language and communication needs; and/or cognition and learning needs (moderate/severe learning difficulties); or another school with SEND provision serving the locality of the development; £61,717.50 towards early years provision serving the locality of the development.
7.14. NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board:3/5/2023 The development will give rise to a need for improvements to capacity, by way of improvements to, reconfiguration of, or extension of existing premises (Tadcaster and Rural Selby PCN: South Milford Surgery – Thorpe Willoughby Branch) or providing additional resource for a new build health development. The ICB note that the S106 contribution secured from this development would fund works at the named practice and/or contribute towards a new development related to the Primary Care Network (PCN) that will accommodate the additional population created by the proposed development. The ICB calculate the level of contribution required in this instance to be £188,574 for 160 dwellings. Payment should be made before the development commences.
7.15. Contaminated land consultant: 10/5/2023 The submitted phase 1 report is acceptable. Conditions are recommended for investigation of land contamination; submission of a remediation strategy; verification of remediation works; and reporting of unexpected contamination.
7.16. National Highways: 24/7/2023 It is recommended that the application should not be approved until January 24 2024.
4/8/2023 Deficiencies are identified therefore the existing request for a ‘Non Determination’ should remain in place until January 2024 as originally written.
10/11/2023 The information submitted is still short of its previously detailed requirements. It is requested that the application should not be determined until March 8th 2024.
19/12/2023 Existing recommendation for non-determination applies.
29/2/2024 Request non-determination until April 11th 2024.
18/3/2024 Further information is required and the non-determination period remains.
11/4/2024 No objection. The agreed residual impact of the development on the Strategic Road Network in the peak periods has now been considered and given the relatively low volume of additional traffic generated, it is concluded that no further assessment is required.
7.17. North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service: 19/4/2023 No objections.
7.18. North Yorkshire Police: 14/4/2023 The response provides an overview of national and local policy, crime statistics, and provide design guidance.
7.19. Selby Area Internal Drainage Board: 18/4/2023 Generic drainage advice is provided and it would have no objection to surface water being discharged to mains sewer provided the Water Authority are satisfied.
7.20. Yorkshire Water: 3/5/2023 Objects because the site layout shows new tree planting within 5m of the adoptable sewerage system within the site. The presence of a surface water rising main must be taken into account in the design of the scheme.
20/10/2023 A water supply can be provided; will there be an impermeable liner to the proposed attenuation basin?; three conditions are recommended to protect the water environment and YW infrastructure namely surface water drainage details, foul water drainage details and no tree planting within 5m of the sewers.
Local Representations
7.21. Thirty objections have been received. A summary of the comments is provided below, however, please see website for full comments.
- The proposal is too big for a small village.
- Excessive housing development within the village.
- Housing development should be located in sustainable locations that minimise the need to travel and have good public transport.
- Residential amenity including loss of sunlight, noise, air pollution, light pollution, disruption and mental health impacts. Many properties in Fordlands, The Fir Trees and Pine Tree Close will have their views ruined with possible overshadowing and loss of privacy.
- Loss of views for residents of the estate to the east and increased pedestrian movement through that estate.
- Harm to the character of the area.
- Harm to ecology.
- No play area is proposed.
- Residents of the proposal may use green spaces on adjacent estates for which they do not pay for upkeep.
- Increased use of the village park with little parking.
- The affordable housing will not be affordable.
- It is unclear how electricity would be supplied.
- Traffic and highway safety issues as traffic will pass through the village. Lack of pedestrian crossings. Exacerbation of traffic queues at the railway level crossings.
- Loss of farmland, countryside and green open space.
- Cumulative impact of housing developments upon village amenities including the school, post office, bus service, childcare facilities with space, dentist and doctors.
- Lack of public transport and cycle networks both of which should be improved.
- Hambleton Railway Station could be reopened and the cycle network improved.
- Thorpe Willoughby has lost its petrol station and post office since the Core Strategy was produced.
- The development is located within Hambleton Parish but the impact will be upon infrastructure in Thorpe Willoughby. Precept will go to Hambleton parish council budget despite the development being in Thorpe Willoughby which is detrimental to the residents.
- Affordable housing residents may be without a car which is important given the lack of public transport.
- Increased flood risk and high water table.
- Brown field land and allocated sites should be built on instead of green field sites.
- Renewable energy systems should be conditioned.
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, transport and highway safety
- Impact upon nature conservation, protected species and ancient woodland
- Contaminated land and ground conditions
- Residential amenity including odour
- Archaeology
- Developer Contributions
10.0 ASSESSMENT
Principle of Development
10.1. Section 38(6) 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.
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 149 of the Equality Act 2010 Local Planning Authorities must have due regard to the following when making decisions: (i) eliminating discrimination, harassment and victimisation; (ii) advancing equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; and (iii) fostering good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics are: age (normally young or older people), disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation.
10.12. The development of the site for residential purposes would not result in a negative effect on any persons or on persons with The Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics and could in the longer term have a positive effect.
Loss of Agricultural Land
10.13. The site is used for arable agricultural purposes. Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy seeks to sustain the natural environment by steering development to areas of least agricultural quality. NPPF paragraph 187 states that decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Policy SP18 is consistent with the NPPF and is given significant weight.
10.14. Agricultural land is classified using grades 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4 and 5. Best and most versatile agricultural land is defined as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification. The Yorkshire and Humber Agricultural Land Classification indicates the site is entirely grade 3 ‘good to moderate’ agricultural land. It does not differentiate between grades 3a and 3b. The application does not include an agricultural land quality assessment. The site is assumed to be BMV. The application site, at 5.06 hectares, is below the 20-hectare threshold within The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) above which Natural England is a statutory consultee for the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. The permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land would be a form of harm arising from the proposal. Such loss would result in minor harm to the agricultural economy in the area as well as food self-sufficiency. Harm arising from the loss of agricultural land is conflict with Core Strategy Policy SP18 and NPPF paragraph 187 b) needs to be weighed in the planning balance.
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. NYC Minerals and Waste Team notes there are no active quarry sites or waste facilities within 500 metres of the site and no sites have been proposed for allocation for minerals or waste activities in the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan within that 500m zone; that the site is within a Minerals and Waste Safeguarding Area for sand and gravel, and that it does not fall within the exemption criteria stated in paragraph 8.55 of the MWJP (2022); and that the relevant policy to consider is S02 which requires the application should include an assessment of the effect of the proposed development on the mineral resource beneath or adjacent to the site of the proposed development. The NYC Minerals and Waste Team notes that the site is allocated in the emerging Selby Local Plan, but due to its withdrawal it would not fulfil the exemption criteria for safeguarding.
10.16. The application includes a Mineral Assessment Desk Study Report. It considers there is a limited layer of potential mineral resource. Policy S02 permits non-mineral development such as this if, amongst other reasons, “iii) The need for the non-mineral development can be demonstrated to outweigh the need to safeguard the mineral; or 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”.
10.17. There are dwellings immediately to the west and east, and a short distance to the south of the site. Such constraints coupled with the reported limited layer of minerals and somewhat limited scale of the site bring into question the economic viability of extracting the mineral given the need to mitigate impacts upon residents during extraction. Moreover, any on site exploitable minerals are considered to be limited in scale, safeguarding maps indicate there are ubiquitous mineral deposits elsewhere and given the recent dramatic increase in the housing need for the Council the need for non-mineral development is considered to outweigh the need to safeguard potential minerals. The proposal complies with Policy S02 iii and iv. Mineral safeguarding impacts are acceptable.
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. The submitted coal mining risk assessment concludes no mitigation measures are required in respect of potential mining legacy considerations.
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”.
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 forward 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 LPA 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 that 3% of all plots as self or custom build secured in other applications would be a reasonable requirement. However, the applicant has requested that provisions are built into the s106 to remove the need for self and custom build if they are unsuccessfully marketed or if more than half the site is taken on by a registered provider of social housing. The former is in line with the treatment of other major housing sites in recent months and is unobjectionable. The latter would result in a development that potentially does not cater for the small number of self-builders that may otherwise have occupied part of the development. In this sense, the proposal may not cater for a niche element of the areas housing need. This is a form of harm to be weighed in the planning balance. The applicant’s justification is that if a majority or all of the site is delivered by a registered provider as affordable housing (note this is not part of the proposal), the RP would find self and custom build plots on its development to be unacceptable due to management and control issues. While this justification is not entirely convincing, the agreed heads of terms for the s106 include the requested provisions and the potential harm is weighed in the planning balance.
Character and Appearance
10.29. CS Policy SP18 requires the high quality and local distinctiveness of the natural and man-made environment will be sustained by 1. Safeguarding and, where possible, enhancing the historic and natural environment including the landscape character and setting of areas of acknowledged importance. Policy SP19 requires proposals to have regard to local character, identity and context of its surroundings including settlement patterns and the open countryside. Key requirements include incorporating new and existing landscaping as an integral part of the design of schemes, including off-site landscaping for large sites and sites on the edge of settlements where appropriate.
10.30. NPPF footnote 9 requires consideration of paragraph 135 which requires planning decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, provide effective landscaping, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities). Paragraph 139 resists bad design and supports good design.
10.31. The Selby Landscape Character Assessment (November 2019) identifies Thorpe Willoughby and the application site within landscape character area 14 Hambleton Sandstone Ridge with key characteristics including being characterised by two low but distinct and densely wooded hills: Brayton Barff; and Hambleton Hough, which offer panoramic views. Key sensitivities, physical character, notes the hills are sensitive to change compared to the flatter more undulating land surrounding them and that away from the hills themselves the density of woodland may allow sensitive siting of some development though this should respect the setting of the hills. Management guidelines for the area include: housing development around Thorpe Willoughby should be sensitively sited and designed so as to respect the setting of Brayton Barff, and so as not to significantly impact on views from these hills.
10.32. The Selby District Landscape Sensitivity Study (October 2021) considers the application site within land parcel reference TW2 in Thorpe Willoughby. This parcel is large and covers land to the south and west of the village. The landscape assessment of the parcel notes that low lying landform characterises the topography; the western boundary, including recently constructed residential development at Privet Drive, forms a stark settlement edge devoid of mature planting; the parcel does not play a role in the perception of a gap between Thorpe Willoughby and Hambleton; sections of timber post and rail fencing field boundaries parallel the A1238 afford views towards the recently constructed residential properties on Privet Drive / Pond Lane; and development of the parcel would result in the perceived incremental extension of the settlement edge to the west. All of the criteria used to assess the sensitivity of the parcel are categorised as low to medium, with one categorised as low. The landscape sensitivity study considers there are no significant variations in landscape sensitivity within the parcel. 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 overall assessment of landscape sensitivity to development scenarios considers parcel TW2 to be of low to medium sensitivity to a 2-3 storey residential housing development, stating “Few of the key characteristics and qualities of TW1 and TW2 are vulnerable to change as a result of the introduction of the development scenario, resulting in an overall low-moderate sensitivity.”
10.33. The application site comprises of one large fairly flat arable agricultural field. Approximately the eastern half of the Leeds Road frontage benefits from an established grade B hedgerow while the western half features a timber post and rail fence. The eastern site boundary abuts a relatively modern housing estate, the associated attenuation pond with young and semi-mature planting and the end of Pond Lane. The southern site boundary is marked by three category A mature oak trees, three category B alder, oak and hawthorn trees, and a section of hedgerow and groups of trees. Beyond the southern boundary is open countryside and the remnants of a pig breeding centre. Further south there is a new build housing estate and a sports association. The western boundary of the site is marked by three grade A oak trees, a grade B group of common hazel, a long grade B hawthorn hedgerow, a grade C oak tree and a grade B hawthorn. Beyond the western boundary is an access track, two dwellings set on generous plots of land and further remnants of the pig breeding centre, the western boundaries of which benefit from continuous mature landscaping.
10.34. The submitted landscape and visual impact statement considers there would inevitably be adverse effects on the open field of the application site. The assessment concludes that as a result of the existing containment of the site, there would be very limited, highly localised effects on views; and there would be no adverse effect on views from either of the two elevated Locally Important Landscape Areas at Brayton Barff and Hambleton Hough in the wider landscape. There would also only be very limited and localised effects on landscape character and potential, by year 15, for the beneficial changes to landscape character introduced through the proposed development, to largely offset any adverse changes such that the residual effects on landscape character in the vicinity of the site would be of only minor significance. At the broader scale of the district character assessment, it is considered that by year 15, effects would be reduced to neutral.
10.35. The NYC Landscape Architect raises no concerns with the principle of the development and the resulting landscape and visual impact.
10.36. In general terms, the application site does not play a significant role in the setting of the village and its development would read as a natural extension to it without causing harmful settlement coalescence with Hambleton to the west because it would lead to the village edge being formed by the landscaped western boundaries of the existing dwellings to the west upon approach from the Leeds Road/A63 roundabout.
10.37. Overall, the site is very well contained by surrounding buildings and landscaping and only the northern boundary is fairly exposed, a situation that can be improved with a good landscaping scheme. The Leeds Road boundary hedgerow will need to be removed to accommodate the necessary highway works, including a 3m wide shared cycle/footway. A compensatory hedgerow can be planted behind it and the necessary visibility splays. Other trees and hedgerows can be protected by condition. A good landscaping scheme will, in the fullness of time, present a softer frontage to Leeds Road than currently exists, and owing to the existing dwellings to the west of the site, the landscaped western boundary of these neighbouring properties would be read as the edge of the village upon approach from the west. It is considered the site is of low sensitivity, that visual impacts would be only limited and localised, and that landscape character effects would be localised and limited, with the potential landscaping scheme likely to reduce the residual effect to only minor significance.
10.38. The design and access statement suggests “The parameter plan proposes properties of between 2 and 2.5 storey in height. The occasional 3 storey property may be located to provide greater legibility and interest across the development.” However, the applicant has not committed to having a parameters plan conditioned and the submitted parameter plan is out of step with the indicative masterplan. The storey height and broader design of the proposal will be considered at reserved matters stage.
10.39. The Council’s Landscape Architect raises concerns about the failure to translate the principles within the landscape strategy to the indicative masterplan. This is compounded by subsequent changes to the indicative masterplan without other documents being amended. Concerns include street trees, open space and tree protection. Furthermore, the indicative masterplan does not acknowledge or address the overhead power line (accurately plotted on the submitted topographical survey) that crosses the southern part of the site and potentially passes through the indicative location of some dwellings. The aforementioned basis upon which this application is to be determined, as noted paragraph 5.3, means all of these matters can be addressed at reserved matters stage.
10.40. Submitted “Technical Note Title: Tree Constraints & Outline Design” shows the significant trees and hedgerows on and around the site are restricted to the site boundary. It is possible to ensure their retention and appropriate consideration as part of the reserved matters application, aside from the northern boundary hedgerow which will require removal to facilitate access and highway works, and a replacement planted.
10.41. The proposal would not result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area subject to conditions. The limited harm identified should be weighed in the planning balance.
Flood risk, Drainage and Climate Change
10.42. 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.
10.43. The application site is in flood zone 1 (low probability of flooding) for sea and river flooding, with small areas near the southern, north west and north eastern boundary within low and medium surface water flood risk areas and the vast majority of the site in very low surface water flood risk areas. The flood risk assessment pre-dates the recently revised flood maps. The only mitigation measure it proposes is to leave the small area at the southern end of the site at low risk of surface water flooding as public open space or non-habitable development. The site is at slightly more risk of surface water flooding than the FRA addresses. Therefore, it will be necessary for a ground levels condition to be attached to address surface water pooling. The Environment Agency did not reply to consultation.
10.44. 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.
10.45. The submitted flood risk and drainage assessment provides an indicative pumped foul water flow from the site based on the initial proposal for up to 160 dwellings. It confirms Yorkshire Water advised a foul water connection can be made to its sewer in Dane Avenue to the south east. A comprehensive foul water drainage condition is required given the outline nature of these proposals.
10.46. The submitted flood risk and drainage assessment discounts surface water discharge to ground via infiltration due to high groundwater levels and the need to have a minimum 1m clear distance between groundwater and the base of an infiltration device (as per the requirements of The SuDS Manual C795). Having discounted the potential to connect to nearby watercourses (as they are located on land outside the developer’s control), nor being unable to requisition a sewer to a watercourse (as this needs the landowners permission which they do not have), the only reasonable point of discharge is the Yorkshire Water public surface water sewer in Leeds Road. Following the submission of additional information the Lead Local Flood Authority is satisfied that the proposed surface water drainage arrangements demonstrate a reasonable approach to the management of surface water on the site and makes no further comments. Given that the proposed drainage scheme is for an indicative proposal, a comprehensive surface water drainage condition is required to appropriately serve the final reserved matters.
10.47. The generic drainage advice of Selby Area Internal Drainage Board is noted, including that it would have no objection to surface water being discharged to mains sewer provided the Water Authority are satisfied. Yorkshire Water confirms a water supply can be provided to the site and some network changes may be required. It queries whether the attenuation basins would have an impermeable liner. Given the indicative nature of this outline proposal this matter can be dealt with as part of the aforementioned comprehensive surface water drainage condition. YW recommends surface and foul water conditions. The comprehensive foul and surface water drainage conditions would capture these matters. YW recommends a condition to prevent tree planting within 5m of a sewer that crosses the site. The condition is unnecessary because this matter can be designed in at landscaping reserved matters stage.
10.48. Flood risk and drainage matters are acceptable subject to such conditions.
Access, Transport and Highway Safety
10.49. Core Strategy Policy SP15 requires the proposal should minimise traffic growth by providing a range of sustainable travel options (including walking, cycling and public transport) through Travel Plans and Transport Assessments and facilitate advances in travel technology such as Electric Vehicle charging points; and make provision for cycle lanes and cycling facilities, safe pedestrian routes and improved public transport facilities.
10.50. Core Strategy Policy SP19 requires the proposal to be accessible to all users and easy to get to and move through; and create rights of way or improve them to make them more attractive to users, and facilitate sustainable access modes, including public transport, cycling and walking which minimise conflicts.
10.51. Local Plan Policy ENV1 requires account is taken on the relationship of the proposal to the highway network, the proposed means of access, the need for road/junction improvements in the vicinity of the site, and the arrangements to be made for car parking.
10.52. Policy CS6 states “The District Council will expect developers to provide for or contribute to the provision of infrastructure and community facility needs that are directly related to a development, and to ensure that measures are incorporated to mitigate or minimise the consequences of that development”. The foreword to the policy states “It is equally important to ensure that, where appropriate, proposals for development incorporate measures to compensate for the consequences of development including off-site works. These may include the provision of traffic calming, footpath and cycleway links”.
10.53. Local Plan Policy T1 states “Development proposals should be well related to the existing highways network and will only be permitted where existing roads have adequate capacity and can safely serve the development, unless appropriate off-site highway improvements are undertaken by the developer”.
10.54. Local Plan Policy T2 states “Development proposals which would result in the creation of a new access or the intensification of the use of an existing access will be permitted provided: 1) There would be no detriment to highway safety; and 2) The access can be created in a location and to a standard acceptable to the highway authority. Proposals which would result in the creation of a new access onto a primary road or district distributor road will not be permitted unless there is no feasible access onto a secondary road and the highway authority is satisfied that the proposal would not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety.” Policy T7 encourages the provision of cycle routes and parking.
10.55. NPPF paragraph 109 requires “Transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of ……development proposals, using a vision-led approach to identify transport solutions that deliver well-designed, sustainable and popular places. This should involve: a) making transport considerations an important part of early engagement with local communities; b) ensuring patterns of movement, streets, parking and other transport considerations are integral to the design of schemes, and contribute to making high quality places; c) understanding and addressing the potential impacts of development on transport networks; d) realising opportunities from existing or proposed transport infrastructure, and changing transport technology and usage – for example in relation to the scale, location or density of development that can be accommodated; e) identifying and pursuing opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use; and f) identifying, assessing and taking into account the environmental impacts of traffic and transport infrastructure – including appropriate opportunities for avoiding and mitigating any adverse effects, and for net environmental gains.”
10.56. NPPF footnote 9 requires consideration of paragraph 110 which states “The planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of these objectives. Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. This can help to reduce congestion and emissions, and improve air quality and public health. However, opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making.
10.57. Paragraph 115 states “In assessing sites that may be allocated for development in plans, or specific applications for development, it should be ensured that: (a) sustainable transport modes are prioritised taking account of the vision for the site, the type of development and its location; (b) safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users; (c) the design of streets, parking areas, other transport elements and the content of associated standards reflects current national guidance, including the National Design Guide and the National Model Design Code 48 ; and (d) any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree through a vision-led approach.”
10.58. 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.”
10.59. Paragraph 117 states: “Within this context, applications for development should:(a) give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas; and second – so far as possible – to facilitating access to high quality public transport, with layouts that maximise the catchment area for bus or other public transport services, and appropriate facilities that encourage public transport use; (b) address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility in relation to all modes of transport; (c) create places that are safe, secure and attractive – which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, avoid unnecessary street clutter, and respond to local character and design standards; (d) allow for the efficient delivery of goods, and access by service and emergency vehicles; and (e) be designed to enable charging of plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles in safe, accessible and convenient locations.”
10.60. The aforementioned development plan policies are considered broadly consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.61. The application form confirms approval is sought for access matters to 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.”
10.62. This application is to be determined on the basis of the proposed site access drawing 332010129/100/002 Rev G which shows the primary vehicle access to Leeds Road via a right turn facility priority junction with 2.4m by 43m visibility splays. The access road would be 6m wide with 2m wide footways along both sides of the road. Swept path analysis of the proposed site access has been carried out for a refuse vehicle, which demonstrates that a refuse vehicle can enter and exit the site in forward gear. The drawing also proposes a pedestrian refuge, tactile crossing points, a west bound bus stop with shelter, footways on the north and south side of Leeds Road, a 3m wide pedestrian and cycle shared surface along the site frontage, the extension of the 30mph zone with tactile road markings to the west of the site frontage with the remaining section of highway leading to the roundabout reduced to 40mph. The drawing also shows an indicative footway link from the site to Leeds Road. The indicative masterplan also shows a potential pedestrian/cycle and emergency vehicle access to Pond Lane. Both indicative links are considered essential to permeability, accessibility to public transport and emergency access in the event the primary access is blocked so a condition will require final design details are provided at reserved matters stage. The highway works shown on the proposed site access drawing can be conditioned.
10.63. With regards to existing road safety, the submitted Transport Assessment uses Personal Injury Collision (PIC) data for the most recent five-year period from 2017 to 2021 to show that only one slight injury occurred at the eastern end of the site frontage, demonstrating there are no inherent road safety issues with the current highway layout in the vicinity of the site.
10.64. With regards to walking, the TA illustrates the 1km and 2km walking catchments from the site. These walking distances are in accordance with the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) document entitled “Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot” (2000), which states a preferred maximum walking distance of 2km for commuters, school trips and sightseeing. These distances have therefore been used to illustrate the catchment areas that are accessible on foot from the site. The 1km walking catchment extends east to most of Fox Lane. This brings local facilities including Thorpe Willoughby Community Primary School, a GP surgery, a convenience store, post office, a food and drink outlet, and recreational space within a 1km walk of the proposed development site. The 2km walking catchment extends to the entirety of Thorpe Willoughby, adding walking access to more local facilities at the southern end of Fox Lane and along Field Lane. Also within this catchment is Brayton Barff. It has therefore been demonstrated that with the proposed pedestrian facilities, the site would be highly accessible on foot to local facilities within Thorpe Willoughby.
10.65. With regards to cycling, the TA shows 3km and 5km cycling catchment areas from the site and the National Cycle Routes. Within 3km, all of Thorpe Willoughby and most of Hambleton to the west can be accessed. The 3km catchment also extends east to include the westernmost parts of Selby and Brayton. The 5km catchment encompasses the entirety of Brayton to the northeast and most of Selby (including the rail station) is accessible except for the easternmost parts. Selby offers a broad range of retail, leisure and employment facilities. Multiple supermarkets and other commercial opportunities, including banks and leisure facilities can be located in Selby. It has therefore been demonstrated that the site is highly accessible by cycle for both local trips within Thorpe Willoughby, and longer trips to access facilities in the surrounding settlements.
10.66. The traffic implications of the proposal detailed below, emphasise the need to ensure cycling and bus enhancements are secured to mitigate the impacts but there is also a general requirement to encourage sustainable travel. The only junction of concern identified is the Scott Road/ A19/ Gowthorpe four-arm signal junction. However, unlike the TA concludes, there is mitigation required given the level of increase in projected delay and queues as a result of the development proposal. Given the signal junction is already optimised, a contribution to improve cycling into Selby will be required to help reduce demand through this busy junction and to encourage sustainable travel. The LHA are requesting a contribution towards improving cycle links between Thorpe Willoughby to Selby which is identified in the Selby Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) with the aim of providing a safe cycling route. The LHA seeks S106 funding of £1350 per dwelling towards improved cycling links between Thorpe Willoughby and Selby. Comparisons with other Council’s has highlighted that £1350 per dwelling contribution towards cycling is accepted and this amount was accepted in appeal APP/U2750/W/23/3327616 in Brayton.
10.67. With regards to bus provision, the nearest bus stop to the site is on Leeds Road approximately 570m east of the proposed site access served by Arriva Bus services 64/64S and 164. These services operate on the same route between Selby and Sherburn in Elmet, via Thorpe Willoughby; however, the 164 continues into Leeds.
10.68. Using the proposed new bus stops, NYC Highways require service enhancement funding to improve the offer, including Sunday and evening services. NYC’s Passenger Transport Team have advised that the most appropriate enhancement to the Thorpe Willoughby bus service would be to provide an evening and Sunday service for a 5 year period. The cost of which would be £1,265 per dwelling.
10.69. Selby Railway Station can be reached by cycle and bus.
10.70. The traffic assessment and additional technical notes demonstrates that the proposed development of up to 145 residential units is forecast to generate the following trips, to which the LHA and National Highways raise no objections:
10.71. Updated operational assessment of the proposed Leeds Road site access junction and off-site highway junctions with the updated trip generation and addition of two committed developments has been provided for the following junctions: Proposed site access priority junction; Existing A63/Leeds Road (A1283) three-arm roundabout junction; and Existing Scott Road/ A19/ Gowthorpe four-arm signal junction.
10.72. The assessment demonstrates the A63/Leeds Road roundabout junction will operate with significant reserve capacity with no queuing waiting to turn right into the site or waiting to exit the site during the weekday morning and evening highway network peak hours for both the 2026 and 2031 Assessment Traffic Flow scenarios.
10.73. The existing Gowthorpe junction will exceed capacity in the 2026 and 2031 future year Base and Assessment scenarios; and it has been demonstrated that the traffic impact associated with the committed development causes the junction to fail. The addition of the two extra committed developments worsens the operation of the junction. The addition of the proposed development traffic will add to this.
10.74. National Highways raises no objections to the proposal. The LHA raises no objection to the proposal subject to developer contributions and a series of conditions which have been amalgamated and simplified where required. A travel plan monitoring fee of £2,500 is also required.
10.75. The access, transport and highway safety implications of the proposal are acceptable subject to conditions and developer contributions secured by s106 agreement.
Impact upon Nature Conservation, Protected Species and Ancient Woodland
10.76. Local Plan Policy ENV1 requires account is taken of the potential loss, or adverse effect upon, significant wildlife habitats.
10.77. 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.
10.78. 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”.
10.79. The development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.81. The application includes an Ecological Assessment Report (EAR). The desk study confirmed that no statutory or non-statutory designated areas, are present within or adjacent to the site. The site contains an arable field, other neutral grassland, scrub, trees and hedgerows. These habitats were assessed as being of ‘less than Local’ ecological value. The habitats within the site are considered suitable to support common and widespread protected and notable species, including breeding birds, foraging and commuting bats, hedgehog and terrestrial invertebrate assemblages. Avoidance and ecological mitigation measures have been included within the indicative scheme design. Additional ecological enhancements have also been proposed. Due to the limited ecological value of the site, no significant adverse effects as a result of the proposed development have been identified. As a consequence, no residual effects are anticipated and no cumulative or in combination effects will arise in relation to ecology as a result of the proposed development.
10.82. The NYC Ecologist recommends a condition requiring adherence to sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the EAR. This will be controlled by an overarching ecological condition.
10.83. The NYC Ecologist initially raised concerns about recreational impacts on ancient woodland and Brayton Barff SINC. Subsequent comments reiterate concerns but concede that following the Inspectors decision at Barff Lane, Brayton APP/U2750/W/23/3327616 (appendix B) which note the lack of an evidential base for the LPA to quantify harm to these sites, it is considered that this application would not present a conflict with paragraph 186c of the NPPF related to irreplaceable habitats. The focus should instead be on providing suitable on-site open space at reserved matters stage.
10.84. The impact upon nature conservation, protected species and ancient woodland is acceptable subject to conditions.
Affordable Housing
10.85. 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.
10.86. 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.”
10.87. 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).
10.88. 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.”
10.89. 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) shows high value areas where 20% affordable housing is recommended and low value areas where 10% affordable housing is recommended. These zones follow Parish boundaries. A Parish boundary splits the application site in broadly in two, with the northern half being within the 20% Thorpe Willoughby Parish and the southern half being within the 10% Hambleton Parish. A pragmatic approach in these circumstances is to request 15% affordable housing.
10.90. 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 that 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.
10.91. 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.”
10.92. The application proposes 15% affordable housing. 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 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.
10.93. Overall, affordable housing policy requirements are as follows:
· 15% affordable housing with a tenure split of 65% affordable rent and 35% shared ownership.
10.94. The applicant has agreed these percentages. A s106 agreement will secure this affordable housing.
Recreational Open Space
10.95. Policy RT2 requires the proposal to provide recreational open space at a rate of 60sqm per dwelling on the following basis “provision within the site will normally be required unless deficiencies elsewhere in the settlement merit a combination of on-site and off-site provision. Depending on the needs of residents and the total amount of space provided, a combination of different types of open space would be appropriate in accordance with NPFA standards.” The NPFA is now known as Fields in Trust.
10.96. The Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document 2007 provides further guidance on the provision of open space.
10.97. 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.
10.98. Policy RT2 is considered consistent with the NPPF and is given significant weight.
10.99. 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
10.101. 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.
10.102. 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.
10.103. These development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.104. The contaminated land consultant confirms the Phase 1 Ground Conditions Assessment is acceptable. The report recommends that a Phase 2 intrusive investigation is carried out to confirm the site’s condition and its suitability for residential use. Conditions are recommended regarding investigation of contaminated land; submission of a remediation strategy; verification of remediation works; and reporting of unexpected contamination.
10.105. 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 including Odour
10.106. 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.
10.107. 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.
10.108. The application site is located in the countryside to the west of Thorpe Willoughby and there are residential dwellings to the east and west. 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.
10.109. 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 a construction management plan, development hours and piling conditions as recommended by Environmental Health. These are amended and amalgamated where necessary.
10.110. Oaklands Farm has operational pig units located approximately 350m to the north west of the application site. An odour assessment has been submitted. Taking into consideration the findings of the odour sniff testing surveys, the prevailing meteorological conditions and the predicted odour concentrations in the area, it was considered that odours from the pig farm would not significantly influence amenity within the site. The site was therefore considered suitable for residential use with regard to odour and no mitigation measures are required to protect residential amenity within the site. Environmental Health have considered the assessment and raise no objections. Furthermore, the disused pig breeding centre buildings immediately to the south west of the site are not considered to pose a significant risk to residential amenity.
10.111. 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.
Archaeology
10.112. 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.
10.113. 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.
10.114. The applicant has provided the results of a geophysical survey and archaeological trial trenching. Subsequently, the NYC Archaeologist raises no objections to the proposal. Archaeological impacts are acceptable.
Noise and Air Pollution
10.115. The policies referred to in the contaminated land section above are relevant.
10.116. NYC Environmental Health have considered the noise impact assessment and note the assessment is preliminary in nature and considers whether or not the site could be suitable for its intended residential use in noise terms, pending further information at the detailed design stage. They concur with the report and recommend a condition to ensure appropriate noise mitigation is included in the final design. 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.
10.117. The submitted air quality assessment forms a review of baseline conditions and assesses the likely significant air quality effects as a result of emissions associated with operational road traffic generated by the proposals. The report concludes that there are no anticipated exceedances of National Air Quality Objectives, therefore, the impact is considered to be ‘negligible’. NYC Environmental Health raises concerns that the proposals will have a negative impact on AQMA1 located along New Street, Selby from increased NO2 emissions associated with increased trip generation. The Trip Rate Information Computer System (TRICS) data relevant to additional vehicle trip generation is provided within the Transport Assessment and identifies increased vehicle movements through AQMA1 and they do not feel that the applicant has sufficiently offset the impacts through proportionate mitigation, for example Electric Vehicle (EV) charging provision. Therefore, they would recommend a condition to secure an emission mitigation statement. However, the Building Regulations now require EV charging provision for each dwelling which makes the condition unnecessary. Therefore, the air quality impacts of the proposal are considered acceptable.
10.118. NYC Environmental Health also recommend conditions regarding a construction management plan, construction hours and piled foundations. Noise and air pollution matters are acceptable subject to such conditions, amalgamated as necessary.
10.119. 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
10.120. 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.
10.122. 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.
10.123. The Developer Contributions SPD provides further guidance regarding contributions towards waste and recycling facilities; education facilities; and primary health care facilities amongst others.
10.124. 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.
10.125. These development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.126. NYC Children and Young People's Service seek contributions of £492,305.45 towards school expansion places at Selby High School and/or another secondary school serving the locality of the development; £110,142.00 to be used for the provision of SEND provision at the new Selby Special School or another school with SEND provision serving the locality of the development; and £61,717.50 towards early years provision serving the locality of the development. A formula to be used in the s106 is provided to capture the number of dwellings with two or more bedrooms at reserved matters stage to which contribution requirements would apply.
10.127. NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board consider the development will give rise to a need for improvements to capacity, by way of improvements to, reconfiguration of, or extension of existing premises (Tadcaster and Rural Selby PCN: South Milford Surgery – Thorpe Willoughby Branch) or providing additional resource for a new build health development. The ICB note that the S106 contribution secured from this development would fund works at the named practice and/or contribute towards a new development related to the Primary Care Network (PCN) that will accommodate the additional population created by the proposed development. The ICB calculate the level of contribution required in this instance to be £170,895 (for 145 dwellings).
10.128. 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.
10.129. 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 and localised visual and landscape character harm; the loss of a modest amount of best and most versatile agricultural land with resultant minor harm to the agricultural economy and food self-sufficiency; minor loss of potential mineral resources; potential lack of provision for self and custom builders, and conflict with the development plan.
11.4. Neutral matters include 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 is given to this consideration); a housing mix is secured that will deliver a mixed and balance community with provision for those with mobility problems; the scheme will provide contributions to enhance bus services and cycle facilities which benefits existing and future residents; a biodiversity net gain and ecological enhancements are secured; provision of open space and play areas that benefits existing and future residents; economic benefits both during the construction phase and once the houses are occupied which are afforded moderate weight.
11.6. The adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The proposal benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Therefore, planning permission should be granted subject to conditions and prior completion of a s106 agreement.
12.0. RECOMMENDATION
12.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to prior completion of a section 106 agreement securing the matters listed below and the conditions listed below:
· 15% of the total number of dwellings to be affordable housing, with a tenure split of 65% affordable rent and 35% shared ownership.
· 3% of the total number of dwellings approved at reserved matters stage shall be self or custom build, unless following marketing of such plots for a period of time and in a manner agreed with the LPA they are not sold in which case they can be sold on the open market; or a Registered Provider takes on 50% or more of the dwellings approved at reserved matters stage.
· 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.
· £2,500 towards travel plan monitoring.
· £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.
· £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.
· £425.63 per dwelling with two or more bedrooms towards early years provision serving the locality of the development.
· £1,178.58 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 2251.02.LP Rev B Location Plan and the access details shown on drawing 332010129/100/002 Rev G Proposed Site Access.
Reason: For the sake of clarity and in the interests of proper planning.
4. No development hereby permitted shall take place until details of the following, in respect of the construction phase, together with a timetable for their implementation and retention, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority:
a) The points of access to be used.
b) The area for loading/unloading plant and materials.
c) The area for storing plant and materials.
d) Any security hoarding around or within the site.
e) Wheel washing facilities.
f) Measures for controlling the emissions of dust.
g) Measures for controlling the effects of vibration and noise disturbance on neighbouring residents.
h) The positioning of any gates to the site.
i) External lighting.
j) The hours of working and deliveries.
k) An assessment of potential construction impacts upon the ground water source protection zone and mitigation measures.
The development shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved details and timetable.
Reason: In order to avoid adverse effects during the construction phase in relation to highways matters, neighbouring living conditions and the general environment in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
5. If the development is to be implemented in a phased manner, details submitted with the Reserved Matters shall include a phasing plan. Once approved, the development shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved phasing plan.
Reason: To ensure the orderly delivery of development in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
6. The reserved matters application(s) shall provide details of the housing mix which
is to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall demonstrate that, as a minimum, the dwellings meet the Nationally Described Space Standards (2015) or any successor standards or policy; and how 6% of the dwellings will be built to Building Regulations M4(3) 'wheelchair user' standard. Where North Yorkshire Council has nomination rights M4(3) must be wheelchair accessible dwellings (constructed for immediate occupation), and in the market sector they must be wheelchair user adaptable dwellings (constructed to be adjustable for occupation by a wheelchair user). Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure a mixed and balanced community is created in pursuance of Policy SP8 of the Core Strategy and the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) (October 2020).
7. Accompanying the Reserved Matters, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority of the construction of all roads and footways in the development, along with a timetable for their implementation. All roads and footways shall then be constructed in accordance with the approved details and timetable.
Reason: To secure appropriate roads and footways constructed to an adoptable standard in the interests of highway safety and the amenity and convenience of all highway users in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
8. Accompanying the Reserved Matters, engineering details of the western pedestrian access from the site to Leeds Road as shown on approved plan 332010129/100/002 Rev G; and the pedestrian/cycle and emergency vehicle access to Pond Lane as shown on Indicative Masterplan 01A, 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 and accesses constructed to an adoptable standard in the interests of highway safety and the amenity and convenience of all users in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
9. Prior to the first use of the vehicular access to the site off Leeds Road, it shall be provided with sight splays of 43m by 2.4m, which shall contain no obstruction greater in height than 0.6m when measured from the carriageway of the site access, and those sight splays shall thereafter be retained.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety in pursuance of Policy T2 of the Selby District Local Plan.
10. No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until the carriageway between it and the adopted highway, and any footpath from which it gains access, have been constructed at least to basecourse macadam level and/or block paved and kerbed, and connected to the adopted highway with operational streetlights.
Reason: To secure a development with appropriate roads and footways constructed to an adoptable standard in the interests of highway safety and the amenity and convenience of all users in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
11. Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, the off-site highway works detailed on approved plan 332010129/100/002 Rev G 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Should any of the proposed foundations be piled, no development shall commence until a schedule of works to identify those plots affected, and setting out mitigation measures to protect residents from noise, dust and vibration has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The proposals shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule.
Reason: To protect the residential amenity of the locality during construction and to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) and Selby District Council’s Policy’s SP19 and ENV2.
17. 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 a net 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.
18. 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.
19. Accompanying the Reserved Matters, an 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Notwithstanding the submitted details, prior to the first occupation of any dwelling herby permitted details of the location and design of a new east bound bus stop on Leeds Road shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details approved shall be completed prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted.
Reason: To 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.
Target Determination Date: 2/5/25
Case Officer: Martin Evans, martin.evans@northyorks.gov.uk
Appendix A – Indicative Masterplan 01A
Appendix B - Appeal decision APP/U2750/W/23/3327616 Brayton
Appendix C – Appeal decision APP/U2750/W/24/3347885 Hambleton
Appendix D - Appeal decision APP/U2750/W/24/3347833 Carlton
Appendix E – Location Map