North Yorkshire Council
Community Development Services
Selby & Ainsty Area Planning Committee
30TH April 2025
ZG2024/0697/OUTM - Outline application to include access (all other matters reserved) for the erection of up to 32 no. dwellings, amenity space, access road and footways, drainage infrastructure, and other associated works on land at Colton Lane, Appleton Roebuck
by
Baylis And Baylis Ltd
Report of the Head of Development Management – Community Development Services
|
1.0 Purpose of the Report
1.1. To determine an outline planning application including access, with all other matters reserved for the erection of up to 32 no. dwellings, amenity space, access road and footways, drainage infrastructure, and other associated works on land at Colton Lane, Appleton Roebuck.
1.2. This application is reported to Committee as the site lies in the open countryside within the Selby District Local Plan and was a proposed allocation in the Emerging Local Plan under Allocation AROE-K. Due to the formal decision to discontinue the progression of the emerging Selby Local Plan, the draft allocations and policies no longer hold any status as part of an emerging development plan. Consequently, they would not be able to have weight attributed to them on the basis of being part of that process. However, weight can still be accorded to the evidence base of an abandoned plan in circumstances where it is relevant.
1.3. 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 in Section 12.
2.1. This is an application for outline planning permission the erection of up to 32 no. dwellings, amenity space, access road and footways, drainage infrastructure, and other associated works. Means of access from Colton Lane is being sought, with all other matters being reserved i.e. siting, appearance and landscaping. The site is within the countryside to the west of the development limit of a Designated Service Village, Appleton Roebuck. The site area is 1.39 hectares and is currently arable land or amenity land associated with the adjacent property known as “Hillcrest”, which is in the ownership of the applicant. The applicant also owns the land to the north of the redline boundary. The frontage to Colton Lane is comprised of a low hedgerow with a number of trees in the highways verge, and a gated entrance serving the site at the eastern end. The remainder of the boundaries are formed by low hedgerows.
2.2. The Parameters Plan (ref 04/Rev A) and the Preliminary Highways Access Plan (ref 2024362/DPL/SK002 Rev A) show the main access is to be taken from Colton Lane. Further details of the preliminary highways improvements are shown on the submitted drawing and these include a new 2m footway, the relocation of the village sign, relocation of the 30 mph speed limit sign and also to confirm the achievable visibility from the proposed access point.
2.3. The Parameters Plan identifies a landscape buffer along Colton Lane, an area of tree planting amenity space provision and shows a landscape edge for additional planting adjacent to what would become the new edge of settlement. Full details of these arrangements would be part of the reserved matters stage. It also indicates that public open space will be defined during the reserved matters application and further guidance is set out within the design and access statement and how such space would be provided.
2.4. 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.
2.5. The site is outside the development limits of the settlement in the Selby Local Plan (2005).
2.6. 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 11(d)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 11(d)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.
2.7. Adverse impacts include the modest scale of loss of agricultural land which would result in minor harm to the agricultural economy in the area as well as food self-sufficiency; moderate adverse localised landscape and visual effects; and conflict with the development plan.
2.8. Neutral matters include the lack of conflict with mineral policies; the indicative housing density is appropriate; 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 is not contaminated; 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.
2.9. Benefits include the site being in a reasonably sustainable location that will be enhanced; matters for determination are well designed; the proposal makes a notable contribution to needed market and affordable housing (great weight is given to this consideration); a housing mix is secured that will deliver a mixed and balance community with provision for those with mobility problems and those that want to self or custom build their own home; the scheme will deliver a cycle link to the Route 66; biodiversity net gain and ecological enhancements are secured; provision of open space that benefits existing and future residents; economic benefits both during the construction phase and once the houses are occupied which are afforded moderate weight.
2.10. 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.
2.11.
3.0 Preliminary Matters
3.1. Access to the case file on Public Access can be found here:- ZG2024/0697/OUTM | Outline application to include access (all other matters reserved) for the erection of up to 32 no. dwellings, amenity space, access road and footways, drainage infrastructure, and other associated works | Land Off Colton Lane Appleton Roebuck
3.2. The application was not the subject of any formal pre application discussions prior to the submission of the application.
3.3. Additional information has been provided during the course of this application to address issues concerning highways, ecology, archaeology, ground conditions affordable housing and the justification for the scheme in the context of the NPPF (December 2024).
3.4. The relevant planning history for the site is as follows.
Application 2015/0448/OUT
3.5. Application 2015/0448/OUT which was an application for “Outline application with means of access for approval (all other matters reserved) for the erection of up to 28 no. dwellings with associated infrastructure and open space provision on land adjacent to Hillcrest House. This application was initially considered at the Planning Committee on 9 September 2015 and following debate on the application the Committee resolved to defer the application to obtain further advice on the proposed reasons for acting contrary to the Planning Officers recommendation given that they did not wish to support the application and its was recommended for approval by Officers. The application then returned to Planning Committee on the 7th October 2015, where again Officers recommended approval of the application subject to Section 106 Agreement to secure the provision of 40% of the units as Affordable Housing (at a mix of 70% rent and 30% intermediate), an education contribution, waste and recycling contribution and the provision of on-site recreational open space alongside a series of conditions. The application was supported by Committee, the S106 was signed and a decision notice was issued on the 1st December 2015.
3.6. Subsequent to the issuing of the Decision Notice papers were lodged with the High Court seeking a Judicial Review of the Decision by Sam Smiths Old Brewery Tadcaster (SSOBT).
3.7. In challenging the decision SSOBT noted 6 (No.) grounds which they considered that “the Council erred in law, or failed to take into account relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant ones, or acted irrationally, in granting planning permission for the development for any or all of the reasons” summarized below:
i) The Council conspicuously failed to take account of a highly material consideration and / or were seriously misguided, in respect of the existence of a five year housing supply at the time of its consideration of the planning application on the 7th October 2015, and more importantly prior to the issue of its decision notice on the 1st December 2015.
ii) The Council were misguided on the conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan could be treated as of no material weight in the absence of a five year housing land supply, whereas such a supply in fact existed at the time the Council issued its decision notice.
iii) The Council acted unlawfully as a result of the Council Officers failing to refer the application back to the Council‘s Planning Committee before issuing the decision notice on 1 December 2015.
iv) The Council acted unlawfully in granting planning permission in any event because it proceeded on the basis that there was an absence of a five year housing supply, when in fact the Council’s own documents demonstrate that there was a supply at the 10 October 2015 (if not before).
v) In making its decision the Council failed to acquaint itself with all relevant material to enable a lawful decision to be taken, because it failed to examine whether or not there was in fact a five year supply at the relevant time and proceeded on the basis of an outdated assumption.
vi) The Council acted irrationally in granting planning permission as a result of the above.
3.8. Following discussions between the Council’s Solicitor and the Solicitor acting from the Brewery a Consent Order was issued by the Court which quashed the Decision.
3.9. The final Consent Order notes that the Defendant (the Council), accepts:
“that the emergence of the five year housing land supply evidenced in the Councils annual monitoring report dated 25th November 2015 was capable of being a material consideration in the determination of this planning application in this instance from the 6th November 2015. The contents of the report should have been reported back to and considered by Planning Committee prior to the issue of permission pursuant to the resolution to grant permission subject to the completion of a S106 agreement on the 7th October 2015”.
3.10. As such the Consent was quashed and the application was then considered again by the Planning Committee (on the 7th September 2016) in the context of the Council having a 5 year housing land supply where the application was recommended for “Refusal” which was supported by Members, and a subsequent Decision Notice was issued on 7th September 2016 stating the following reasons for refusal:
01 The proposal would be located within the countryside wherein development is limited to those types identified in criterion (c) of Policy SP2A in order to achieve sustainable patterns of growth set out within the Spatial Development Strategy. The proposal for 28 dwellings, when added to the 27 dwellings that have been built or approved in Appleton Roebuck since the start of the Plan Period in April 2011 would substantially exceeds the minimum growth options of between 17 - 23 dwellings for Appleton Roebuck identified by research in connection various growth options for the Designated Service Villages as part of the development of PLAN Selby in July / August 2015. The proposal would therefore lead to an unacceptable level of growth which would be inappropriate to the size and role of Appleton Roebuck and conflict with the Spatial Development Strategy set out in Policy SP2A of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan.
02 The proposal would be located within the open countryside and approval of this application for housing is in conflict with the recently adopted Core Strategy's spatial development strategy for this Designated Service Villages in Selby District Core Strategy Policies SP2 (A) (a) and SP5 (A) and (E)
3.11. The Applicants did not appeal this decision by the Council.
Application 2016/1322/OUTM
3.12. A further application was made under Reference 2016/1322/OUTM, which was consented by the Council on the 27th February 2017 following Committee consideration on the 8th February 2017. At this stage the Council did not have a 5 year housing land supply.
3.13. This decision was however subject of challenge by Sam Smith’s Old Brewery Tadcaster (SSOBT) via the High Court:
3.14. In challenging the decision SSOBT noted that they considered that “…the Council manifestly erred in granting the planning permission…”, in granting consent under 2016/1322/OUTM on the basis that:
i) The Council had failed to take into account a number of fundamental material considerations relevant to the decision and
ii) It had acted inconsistently with another decision being taken by an officer on behalf of the Council shortly beforehand in which development on an adjoining site was refused.
3.15. The noted grounds of challenge can be summarised as follows:
1. The Council assumed an absence of a five year housing supply based on an unexplained concession in October 2016 at a Public Inquiry, when the Council was in fact required to assess the position as at February 2017;
2. The Council failed to take account of the Neighbourhood Plan as a material consideration which seeks to limit the scale/extent of development for the settlement;
3. The Council failed to take into account/address prematurity to PLAN Selby and / or reason for previous rejection of development of this type;
4. The Council failed to take into account the Conservation Area given the role of the historic character of the village and the scale of development set as appropriate in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan;
5. The Council did not consider the impact on the landscape setting;
6. There was inconsistency between Officer decisions on adjoining sites, despite the position noted in the Officer Update Report to the February 2017 Committee; and
7. It represents an irrational decision.
3.16. Following discussions between the Council’s Solicitor and the Solicitor acting on behalf of the Brewery a Consent Order was issued by the Court which quashed the Decision.
3.17. The final Consent Order notes that the Defendant (the Council), accepts:
“Having considered the draft Grounds the Defendant (the Council) accepts that under the provision of the Planning Practice Guidance, the Neighbourhood Plan reached the end of the Local Planning Authority publicity stage after the resolution to grant but before the decision was issued. Accordingly, the Council could have considered whether the application was premature to the Neighbourhood Plan as an emerging part of the development plan. That represented a material consideration which should have been addressed before the decision was issued. On this basis the Council will consent to an Order quashing the decision dated 27th February 2017”.
3.18. The Consent Order also notes that “…without prejudice to the Claimants (SSOBT) other grounds of challenge set out in its claim which set out what the Claimants considers to be other serious errors in the Council’s decisions, the Claimant recognises that the Defendants (the Council) concession on the ground identified and its consequential consent to the quashing of the planning permission leads to the relief that the Claimant is seeking to claim. This therefore renders it otiose for the Court to determine the Claimants other grounds of challenge. In the interest of saving Court time and costs the Claimant has therefore filed a reduced amount of material in support of its claim for Judicial Review and seeks the approach of this Consent Order by the Court in light of the Defendant’s concession as recorded above”.
3.19. As such the Consent Order quashed the Consent on the 4 May 2017 and therefore the application had to be reconsidered by the Council.
3.20. The application was then prepared for consideration by the Councils Planning Committee on the 10th January 2018 with a recommendation for “Refusal” in the context of the Council again having a 5 year Housing Land Supply, on the following grounds:
01 The proposal would be located within the countryside wherein development is
limited to those types identified in criterion (c) of Policy SP2A in order to achieve sustainable patterns of growth set out within the Spatial Development Strategy. The proposal for 28 dwellings, when added to the 33 dwellings that have been built or approved in Appleton Roebuck since the start of the Plan Period to June 2017 would substantially exceeds the minimum growth options of between 17 – 23 dwellings for Appleton Roebuck identified by research in connection various growth options for the Designated Service Villages as part of the development of PLAN Selby in July / August 2015. The proposal would therefore lead to an unacceptable level of growth which would be inappropriate to the size and role of Appleton Roebuck and conflict with the Spatial Development Strategy set out in Policy SP2A of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan and Policy H1 of the Appleton Roebuck and Acaster Selby Neighbourhood Plan 2017- 2027.
i) The proposal would be located within the open countryside and approval of this application for housing is in conflict with the recently adopted Core Strategy’s spatial development strategy for this Designated Service Villages in Selby District Core Strategy Policies SP2 (A) (a) and SP5 (A) and (E) and Policy H1 of the Appleton Roebuck and Acaster Selby Neighbourhood Plan 2017- 2027.
ii) The site is outside the development limits of Appleton Roebuck and the proposed scheme does not fall within any of the acceptable forms of development included in Policy SP2 (c) of the CS. It would be a substantial encroachment into a Greenfield site in the open countryside. The scheme would therefore result in a development which would have a significant and demonstrably harmful impact on the character, form and setting of the village.
3.21. However, the decision was not issued as the Applicants withdrew the application subsequent to the publication of the Officers Report.
4.0 Site and Surroundings
4.1. The site area is 1.39 hectares, and is currently arable land or amenity land associated with the adjacent property known as “Hillcrest”, which is in the ownership of the applicant. The site is a greenfield site under the definition in the NPPF (2024).
4.2. In terms of the Selby District Local Plan, the application site is in the open countryside.
Selby District Local Plan 2025
4.3. The site slightly slopes and has a frontage to Colton Lane which comprises of a low hedgerow with a number of trees in the highways verge, there is a gated entrance serving the site at the eastern end of the frontage and the remainder of the boundaries are formed by low hedgerows.
4.4. The applicant also owns the land to the north of the red line boundary.
4.5. Appleton Roebuck is a designated service village as identified by the settlement hierarchy of the Selby District Core Strategy where there is scope for additional residential growth to support rural sustainability. Appleton Roebuck is therefore regarded as being sustainably located with the latest assessment of the services in the settlement undertaken by the Council as part of the evidence base for the Selby Emerging Local Plan confirming that the settlement has a village hall, a primary school, nursery and pre-school provision, a public house, a petrol station, two places of worship, and one sports facility. The village also has a bus route serving the village which has 5 journeys per day and operates Monday to Saturday inclusive providing connections to York.
4.6. The site is currently accessed via a field gate from Colton Lane or from the garden area to Hillcrest. The site lies within Flood Zone 1, within the Brumber Car Drain Green Corridor and within an area of low coal risk. The site is also within 100m of the Appleton Roebuck Conservation Area, within the consultation zone for Leeds East Airport and Sherburn Aero Club and also within the impact zone for SSSI (FID 99),
5.0 Description of Proposal
5.1. This is an application for outline planning permission for up to 32 no. dwellings, amenity space, access road and footways, drainage infrastructure, and other associated works Means of access from Colton Lane is being sought, with all other matters being reserved i.e. siting, appearance, landscaping and scale. The internal access arrangements would be defined via the reserved matters stage.
5.2. The Parameters Plan (ref 04/Rev A) and the Preliminary Highways Access Plan (ref 2024362/DPL/SK002 Rev A) show the main access is to be taken from Colton Lane. Further details of the preliminary highway’s improvements are shown on the submitted drawing and these include a new 2m footway the relocation of the village sign, relocation of the 30mph speed limit and also confirm the achievable visibility from the proposed access point. The Parameters Plan identifies a landscape buffer along Colton Lane, an area of tree planting amenity space provision and shows a landscape edge for additional planting adjacent to what would become the new edge of settlement. Full details of these arrangements would be part of the reserved matters stage. The parameters plan also indicates that public open space will be defined during the reserved matters application and further guidance is set out within the Design and Access Statement and how such space would be provided.
5.3. The scheme is proposed to deliver 20% affordable housing as part of the scheme, so if 32 units were delivered through the Reserved Matters submission this would equate to 6 units. Of the affordable housing, 25% would be First Homes (so of the 25% this would be 1 unit if 32 dwellings are built) and the remaining 5 units should be Affordable Units split affordable rent / social rent accommodation (70%) and intermediate tenure (30%). In addition, one self build plot would be provided and 6% of the units (so no more than 2 dwellings) would be built to M4(3) Building Regulations standard.
5.4. The Design and Access statement explains that the scheme is for up 32 units, which would be “locally designed homes”, and includes an illustrative masterplan which shows an area amenity space in the central part of the site, enhanced landscape planting to the frontage to Colton Lane and an area of planting to the eastern boundary. Access is shown to be taken from Colton Lane with footpath improvements along Colton Lane towards the village centre. The Design and Access Statement also considers the scheme’s relationship to the settlement in terms of townscape analysis sustainability and an assessment of the site. There is also a description of the proposed design response which informs the parameters plan.
6.0 PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
6.1. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that all planning authorities must determine each application under the Planning Acts in accordance with the Development Plan so far as material to the application unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Adopted Development Plan
6.2. The Adopted Development Plan for this site is:
- Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan (adopted 22nd October 2013)
- Those policies in the Selby District Local Plan (adopted on 8 February 2005) which were saved by the direction of the Secretary of State and which have not been superseded by the Core Strategy
- Minerals and Waste Joint Plan (adopted 16 February 2022)
- Appleton Roebuck and Acaster Selby Neighborhood Plan (2017-2027).
6.3. In terms of the Appleton Roebuck & Acaster Selby Neighbourhood Plan then this covers the period 2017 to 2027 and was made (adopted) on the 7th December 2017. The NPPF at Paragraph 14 notes that
“in situations where the presumption (at paragraph 11d) applies to applications involving the provision of housing, the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, provided the following apply:
a) the neighbourhood plan became part of the development plan five years or less before the date on which the decision is made; and
b) the neighbourhood plan contains policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement (see paragraphs 69-70)
6.4. In terms of the assessment of this application given that Paragraph 11D is enacted as a result Council’s position on housing land supply, then the weight to be afforded to the Neighbourhood Plan has to be considered in the context of Paragraph 14 and Paragraphs 69-70 which sets the context of defining the housing land supply figure for the area and ensuring that there is a sufficient supply of housing land.
Emerging Development Plan
6.5. The Emerging Development Plan for this site is:
- Selby District Council Local Plan publication version 2024 (Reg 19)
6.6. On 17th January 2025, a report was taken to the Selby and Ainsty Area Committee and Development Plans Committee recommending that work on the emerging Selby District Council Local Plan is ceased. This recommendation was taken to North Yorkshire Council's Executive on 4 February and then North Yorkshire Council's Full Council on 26 February where it was resolved that work on this plan will now cease. Due to the formal decision to discontinue the progression of the emerging Selby Local Plan, the draft allocations and policies no longer hold any status as part of an emerging development plan. Consequently, they would not be able to have weight attributed to them on the basis of being part of that process. Having regard to the above, no weight is to be applied to the Selby District Council Local Plan publication version 2024 (Reg 19), but some weight may be able to be given to the evidence base.
- The North Yorkshire Local Plan
6.7. No weight can be applied in respect of this document at the current time as it is at an early stage of preparation.
Guidance - Material Considerations
6.8. Relevant guidance for this application is:
- National Planning Policy Framework 2023
- National Planning Practice Guidance
- National Design Guide 2021
- Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document, 2013
- Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document March 2007
- Appleton Roebuck Village Design Statement, February 2012
- Strategic Housing Market Assessment, February 2019
- Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, September 2022
7.0 Consultation Responses
7.1. The following consultation responses have been received and have been summarised below:
7.2. Appleton Roebuck & Acaster Selby Parish Council (dated 9th August 2024 and 18th December 2025) : objected in summary to the application on the following grounds:
Principle of Development
· Non-compliance with local and national planning policies, detrimental impact on the local area, and unresolved technical issues
· The scheme does not comply with the Appleton Roebuck and Acaster Selby Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP), which remains in force until 2027. The NDP supports sustainable infill developments, not large-scale extensions to the village boundary. The application site is outside the permitted development area, located in open countryside, and within a defined sensitive area for development.
· The Selby Local Plan, which initially rejected this site for development, remains subject to numerous objections and challenges, and thus, its provisions should not override the standing NDP
· The proposed development's location in open countryside and outside the village’s development limits further undermines the principles of sustainable development as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
· The proposed development fails to comply with the local Neighbourhood Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. It would result in unsustainable growth, significant environmental and infrastructure issues, and a detrimental impact on the village's character and setting.
Planning History
· A previous application for 28 dwellings on this site was quashed by the High Court in 2015 following a judicial review. The court's decision highlighted that such developments would represent an unacceptable level of growth, adding to the 27 dwellings already built or approved, exceeding the identified sustainable growth level of 17-23 dwellings. Since this judicial review, no substantial changes have occurred in the village or the development proposals that would alter the previous decision
· The Planning Statement inaccurately claims that planning permission for the site has been granted twice. However, these permissions were overturned following legal challenges, rendering any previous consents invalid.
· The application does not acknowledge these legal precedents and fails to provide new justification that address the reasons for previous refusals. Several previous planning applications (2015/0448/OUT, 2016/0201/OUT, 2020/1115/FULL, and 2020/0174/FULL) were refused on similar grounds of non-compliance with local policies, unsustainability, and environmental impact. These decisions, made even when the Council lacked a five-year land supply, should carry significant weight in the current applications consideration.
Infrastructure Capacity and Access to Services
· Appleton Roebuck is classified as the least sustainable village in the Selby area due to its poor bus service, lack of shops, and absence of medical services. The proposed development would increase the number of dwellings in the village by over 9%, exacerbating the existing strain on local infrastructure.
· The local school is at capacity and cannot accommodate additional children.
· The closure of local amenities such as the garage and pub further reduces the village's sustainability score.
· The bus service is inadequate, leading to multiple-car households which are not supported by the current road and parking infrastructure.
· The NPPF emphasises the need for developments to be sustainably located and to minimize the need for travel by car, which this proposal does not achieve.
Drainage and Flood Risk
· The proposed development site already experiences significant flooding issues due to runoff and leaching from the agricultural land, which floods Main Street during extreme rain events.
· The existing sewerage system is susceptible to overflow during heavy rain, causing backflow into homes and creating sanitary hazards, particularly outside the school.
· The application does not adequately address these critical drainage and sewage issues, and any development on this site would likely exacerbate these problems, contrary to the requirements of sustainable development.
· Yorkshire Water had raised concerns about drainage capacity on another application within the village but had not commented on this one. They should be consulted on this application and involved in determining the technical resolution to drainage considerations
Character of the Area and Landscape
· The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) submitted with the application fails to accurately reflect the high visibility of the site from the village's approach, particularly from higher ground and the National Rail line.
· The proposed development would significantly alter the open and rural character of the village, leading to a visually intrusive and dense urban extension. The LVIA's conclusion that the development would have a neutral impact is incorrect and does not align with the village's current sparse and rural aesthetic.
· While the development site is not within the Conservation Area, the application fails to consider the indirect impacts on the area's setting and character.
· The proposed development's layout suggests a high-density scheme that does not reflect the rural and low-density character of the village. The inclusion of a 10-meter watercourse along Colton Lane is also uncharacteristic and unnecessary, further highlighting the inappropriate nature of the proposal.
The proposed development would alter the village's approach and entry, significantly affecting the conservation area's overall visual and aesthetic appeal
Public Engagement
· The application was submitted without any meaningful public consultation or engagement, a significant oversight given the scale and impact of the proposed development.
· The timing of the submission during the summer holidays further limited local residents' ability to review and comment on the proposal. The lack of engagement contravenes the principles of community involvement outlined in the NPPF and undermines the legitimacy of the application process. This lack of engagement illegally violates the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which mandates full consultation on developments affecting the village’s size or character.
Highways
· The proposed access arrangements have not been thoroughly assessed for safety and suitability. The development would likely increase traffic and parking pressures on Colton Lane and surrounding roads, exacerbating existing issues with vehicle speed and congestion.
· Any approval should be contingent on a detailed assessment and mitigation of these impacts, including the extension of the public highway footpath, relocation of road safety markings, and installation of speed awareness signs.
· Parish have noted concerns that the introduction of further signage for highways purposes would impact on the visual character of the area
Contributions and Provision of Open Space
· While the provision of a play area is a positive aspect of the proposal, its size and scope should reflect the needs of the entire village, not just the development. This amenity should be secured through a Section 106 agreement to ensure its delivery.
· Additionally, the proposed 20% affordable housing should be provided on-site rather than through off-site contributions, to genuinely benefit the local community and address housing needs.
· Parish have noted concerns that the development might be acceptable if financial contributions were provided for healthcare.
Other matters
· The application contains several discrepancies and errors, notably in the redline boundary, which does not fully encompass all associated highways works, repositioning of signage, or visibility splays. This inaccuracy materially affects the application and its validity.
· The Parish have noted that speakers at their meetings have questioned the findings of the archaeological investigations submitted with the application
· The Parish have noted that speakers at their meetings have requested the application is considered by Planning Committee
7.3. Bolton Percy, Colton and Steeton Parish Council (8th August 2024): object to the application in support of Appleton Roebuck & Acaster Selby Parish Council and in particular on the issue of foul drainage. Noting that there are issues with the pumping station and Yorkshire Water are refusing to accept that the system needs an upgrade, and they are simply paying compensation and covering clean up costs.
Also note that
· The proposed development is outside the development limits of this conservation village and challenges the Appleton Roebuck and Acaster Selby Village Development Plan which is current until 2027.
· the addition of 32 dwellings, densely built on the field outside the village, would fundamentally alter the approach into the village and completely alter the present landscape between the villages.
· At the moment the area ear-marked is agricultural land and surrounded by more agricultural land used for crops and livestock - 32 dwellings would stand out and be very visible as you travel towards the village, in effect creating a peninsular of houses surrounded by agricultural land.
· Though our Parish Council is not directly consulted on this planning application, it will clearly have an adverse effect on the system which services our villages and we would ask the members of the Planning Committee to consider our concerns and objections when making a decision on this matter.
7.4. Active Travel England: advised that they do not wish to comment on the application given it is under 150 units and less than 5 hectares.
7.5. NYC Highways (Comments 15th August 2024 and 28th October 2024): advised in initial comments that
· Acknowledge the proposal to relocate the 30mph signboard and associated road markings. It is crucial that the new location ensures clear visibility of the sign from a minimum distance of 90 meters. Additionally, the relocation of rumble strips must be carefully considered to ensure they are positioned at an optimal location for traffic calming.
· The proposed 2m footway connecting the development to the village is appreciated, as it enhances pedestrian safety. Considering the applicant’s mention of cycling as a viable and attractive mode of transport for future residents, we would like to explore options to connect the development site with National Cycle Route 66, which is approximately 90 meters from the proposed site access. A designated cycle lane would significantly improve access and encourage sustainable transportation.
· Request a detailed visibility plan that includes splays in line with the latest ATC results, which indicate speeds of 36.2mph southbound and 40.7mph northbound. Based on the ATC results, the required visibility is as follows:
o Southbound: 91 meters
o Northbound: 123 meters
While the relocation of the sign has been proposed, it is essential to confirm that the required visibility can be achieved under the current conditions. Furthermore, could the applicant confirm if the hedges on the site boundary are within their control? If so, it may be necessary to lower the hedge height to maintain adequate visibility for both the access point to the proposed site and the relocated signboard.
· Advised that internal roads will need to be constructed to NYC Standards
· Parking should comply with the standards and provide visitor parking
Further comments from NYC Highways were received after additional information was received from the Applicants in response, at this stage the NYC Highways Officers advised that they had no objections to the scheme subject to a series of conditions:
· MHC-01 Detailed Plans of Road and Footway Layout
· MHC-02 Construction of Adoptable Roads and Footways
· MHC-03 New and altered Private Access or Verge Crossing at Land Off, Colton Lane, Appleton Roebuck
· MHC-05 Visibility Splays at Land Off, Colton Lane, Appleton Roebuck referenced to Preliminary Highways Access Plan - 2024362/DPL/SK002 Rev A)
· MHC-09 Details of Access, Turning and Parking at Land Off, Colton Lane, Appleton Roebuck
· MHC-15B Construction Phase Management Plan- Small sites
Proposed informatives relate to MHi-A Other Permissions required from the Local Highway Authority and MHi-B Detailed Plans of Road and Footway Layouts _(MHC-01)
7.6. Local Lead Flood Authority (Comments 6th August 2024 and 16th October 2024): advised in initial comments that having considered the Flood Risk Assessment prepared by the Applicants then the LLFA Officer requested additional information by way of ground investigation information to demonstrate whether infiltration of surface water is viable or not. The applicants provided additional information in the form of “Intrusive Investigation Letter, WML Consulting, Reference 11448G/TPB/SCS, Dated 10th September 2024.” The LLFA then confirmed that this had provided sufficient information to demonstrate that infiltration will not be viable at the site, and as such they have advised that the submitted documents with the application demonstrate a reasonable approach to the management of surface water on the site.
7.7. Yorkshire Water (comments 30th July 2024): have advised as follows:
Waste Water – requested use of condition to require development to be undertaken in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment.
Foul Water - will discharge to public 150mm diameter foul water sewer in Colton Lane. Surface Water - note that sub-soil conditions do not support the use of soakaways and a watercourse exists near to the site where surface water will discharge to. Advises that the “The developer should note that further restrictions on surface water disposal from the site may be imposed by other parties. The developer is strongly advised to seek advice/comments from the Environment Agency/Land Drainage Authority/Internal Drainage Board with regard to surface water disposal from the site. The landowners consent will be required for the construction of a new outfall structure. As surface water from the site is not proposed to discharge to the public sewer network, no assessment of the capacity of the public sewers to receive surface water has been undertaken. Should the surface water disposal proposals change, further consultation with Yorkshire Water will be required.
Yorkshire Water were contacted in March 2025 to seek clarification on their position, given their comments on an application at Malt Kiln Lane Appleton Roebuck (ZG2024/1063/OUT) where they lodged an objection in November 2024 – so subsequent to their comments on this application. They have confirmed that noted that “the site is allocated in the Selby Local Plan ref: AROE-K with an indicative yield of 28 dwellings. YWS look to support sustainable development, and makes provision for housing sites within Local Planning Authorities development plans, and will promote an investigation into network capacity and potential re-enforcement where it is suspected the existing network does not have adequate capacity to accommodate the anticipated flows generated by the allocated sites within the local plan. This is why development ZG2024/0697/OUTM has not been objected to”.
7.8. Ainsty Internal Drainage Board: provided comments on the application on the 10th July 2024, which can be summarised as follows:
· The Board notes that there appears to be an ordinary watercourse on part of the western boundary of the site, adjoining Colton Lane. This is not maintained by the Board but by the riparian owner. It is vital that this watercourse remains free flowing and is maintained accordingly. The Board is unclear if this watercourse is a “Highway Ditch” rather than a usual ordinary watercourse. In any event, the Board would generally request a minimum of 3 metres from the bank top of the watercourse, on both sides, to remain clear of any new buildings, structures, attenuation systems, fencing and planting. This is to ensure that there is sufficient space for future maintenance but to also prevent pressure on the embankments which could in turn cause subsidence/movement. The Board would ask that the future Proposed Site Plan shows the exact location of the watercourse and then a 3 metre easement noted around the watercourse, on both sides.
· They have also in their comments provided advice on the approach to the design of the drainage system for the site and the consents that maybe required from them for any discharge.
· In this context they have requested conditions requiring submission and agreement of the scheme for surface and foul water drainage and an easement for 3 metres adjacent to the top of the embankment of the watercourse alongside informatives in relation to watercourse maintenance responsibilities and the need for consent for discharge.
7.9. NYC Environmental Health: provided comments on the application on the 19th July 2024, and noted that given the location of the site adjacent to other dwellings there is a need for condition requiring:
· There shall be no piling on the site until a schedule of works identifying those plots affected and setting out mitigation measures to protect residents from noise and vibration has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The piling shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with he approved scheme.
The stated reason for both conditions is 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.
7.10. NYC Conservation - provided comments on the application on the 22nd July 2024, and advised that “The site lies to the northern approach to the village and bounds a cul de sac development known as Ainsty Garth. There are other cul de sacs and modern forms of development adjacent to the conservation area these include Orchard Close, Briars Drive and Briars Court. The traditional core of the village which forms the basis of the conservation area is one of made up of individual buildings ribboning north and west along main street. It is noted within the design and access statement that some materials and design details have been submitted key features of the village have been acknowledged but also include modern standard house types. The traditional features of the village and design of the older properties should be included in this scheme should it move to reserved matters stage. A standard house type development on the gateway to the village should be avoided.”
7.11. NYC Tree Officer - provided comments on the application on the 19th August 2024 and noted no objection to the application given that there is no direct impact on retained trees. A condition is recommended requiring a landscaping scheme and informatives setting out British Standards relating to tree works and implementation of landscaping schemes.
7.12. NYC Landscape - (Comments 26th August 2024 and 8h October 2024): Initial comments on the application confirmed that the recommendations for the landscape mitigation and principles steering the layout of the development as summarised in the landscape strategy (plan four) contained within the landscape visual assessment are supported.
Comments on the illustrative scheme note:
· Support for the setback from Colton Road the treed landscape buffer
· Support for the attenuation basin is in a good location because it relates to existing hedgerows and sets the development back from Colton Road and allows some additional screening greenery to contribute to the setting of the development and the village edge
· Note that any attenuation basin should not form part of the POS
· Note that the POS is in a good location for the development and meet the requirements the development and contribute to a sense of place
· Set out a recommendation that the reinforcement the northern boundary which is is valuable part of visual mitigation however gardens should be long enough to support and sustain trees along this boundary so as to not result in a conflict such as shade and in this context the alliterative properties appear too close to the northern boundary
· Advise that consideration should also be given to the garden boundary type the boundary planting should remain under the management of the current landowner so that it can be managed as one hedge from the field side
· Advise that a post and rail fence in front of the hedge to mark the boundary would be appropriate
· Advise that the segments of tree planting along the eastern boundary and the southern corner would assist in providing a setting/backdrop for the proposed development and provide views of trees within the street and separation from adjacent properties
· Advised that the use of swales are welcomed
· Advised that trees should contribute to the primary street scene and should not be located within the Swale this would need to be accommodated within the layout at the reserved matters stage
Comments have also been provided on the parameters plan and advised that the following items of landscape infrastructure to be included in the Parameters Plan, as reflected in the illustrative masterplan:
· A minimum width of landscape buffer from the centre line of the hedge along the frontage with Colton Road.
· Location and quantity of central POS.
· Locations of segments of tree planting in the east and south of the site, in accordance with draft policy AROE-K.
· Location of surface water attenuation (excluding pumping station).
· Enhanced northern boundary.
In this context the Landscape Officer confirmed support of the findings of the Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) and the accompanying Landscape Strategy and visual mitigation and enhancement recommendations. Advised that
a) views of the site are limited due to gently undulating topography, and the dense, well-managed roadside hedges and field boundaries.
b) The independent quality and location of Hillcrest and the mature trees in the grounds of this property and the land to the east north east of the site, nestle the village into its agricultural context (both arable and pastoral). It is important to replicate a similar treed, soft, organic edge. The proposed landscape mitigation is appropriate and also critical.
And in this context advised that the “the parameters plan should include the recommendations within the Landscape Strategy, namely the set back and green frontage to Colton Road, a reinforced green boundary around the perimeter of the site, in particular along the northern boundary, a central open space, and the surface water attenuation in the northwest corner.”
Following receipt of Parameters Plan Revision A dated 13/09/2024 the Landscape Officer confirmed that there were no further comments and that “the revised parameters plan now includes the principles of the landscape infrastructure, with the precise extents to be determined during the reserved matters stage” and therefore there were no further comments.
7.13. NYC Archaeology (25th November 2024) - noted that the applicant provided information in relation to archaeological geographic physical survey and trial trenching. Due to the largely negative results of the trial trenching there were no objections to the proposal.
7.14. NYC Ecology: (Comments 11TH July 2024 and 1st October 2024): initial comments advised that the Ecological Appraisal confirms that the proposed development will have no impacts upon statutory and non-statutory designated sites. The Ecological Appraisal and BNG assessment sets out that the dominant habitats on site are arable cropland and modified grassland which are common and widespread in the local area. Habitats of greater value include hedgerows, scattered trees and a small area of scrub. There is no presence of irreplaceable habitat on or adjacent to the site.
The Ecologist also noted that they were satisfied with the level of survey and assessment work undertaken. It is considered that provided the avoidance and mitigation measures set out within the Ecological Assessment are adhered to there will be no significant negative impacts.
BNG – advised that there is currently no post development metric completed and as such the proposals currently indicate a loss of all habitats on site, resulting in a loss of 77%. Whilst the final BNG assessment does not need to be provided until submission of the Biodiversity Gain Plan via the statutory deemed condition, there is a need at the application stage to demonstrate that the principles of the BNG hierarchy have been applied and using the outline landscape masterplan to populate the post development section of the metric to demonstrate to the authority whether the required 10% net gain can be achieved on site, or whether the applicant intends to make use of offsite options. It is important to provide this information prior to determination to allow the authority to determine what planning conditions and legal agreements will be required to secure the implementation of BNG. Implementation does not form part of the statutory deemed condition. As such it was recommended that a completed post development metric which would be indicative at this stage, with the final metric and gain plan being provided at the detailed design stage.
The applicants then provided additional information in relation to BNG and the Ecologist advised that
“the net gain assessment and associated metric has now been provided for the post development proposals. Whilst this does demonstrate that the site is capable of achieving the required 10% BNG on site, there is no detailed habitat plan against which to check the details. In particular it is important that any habitat features included within domestic curtilages is not double counted. Habitats included within domestic curtilages should be categorised as 'vegetated gardens' and inclusion of additional habitats referenced within the report as 'turfed lawn' and urban trees, should not also be counted within these spatial areas. It is not possible from the information provided to confirm whether this has taken place, however this fine level of detail will be required as part of the Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP).”
In this context the Ecologist concluded there were no further comments at this stage and “The deemed condition should be applied to any permission granted along with an appropriate implementation condition. Habitats outside of vegetated gardens should be secured by condition for a minimum of 30 years to include a management plan and monitoring schedule to allow the authority to report on BNG outcomes to Defra”.
7.15. NYC Affordable Housing (9th December 2024) – comments on the scheme note that
· The scheme proposes 20% affordable housing in line with the allocation in the Emerging Local Plan, but is not in line with Policy SP9 of the Local Plan and no viability has been provided to reduce provision from 40%.
· Advise that the tenure split and the type of housing being sought will be based on the Council’s latest evidence on local need. This comes in the form of the HEDNA (2020) which advises that, as per NPPF 2019 – a minimum of 10% of the homes should be for affordable home ownership, but there is no evidence to increase this amount. Furthermore, current secondary data illustrates an estimated affordable need of 8 properties per annum for the village of Appleton Roebuck. In terms of rented accommodation, both social and affordable rent are required, with a need for social rent more prominent.
· The HEDNA also provides local need information relating to bedroom size. For rented accommodation, preference is towards 1 and 2 bedroom accommodation, with some 3 and few 4 bedroom requirements. For intermediate tenures, preference is 2 and 3 bedroom housing.
· First Homes should account for 25% of the affordable housing in line with the NPPF (2023)
· All affordable housing units adhere to National Space standards
· The emerging local plan asks all new homes are built to M4 (2) 'accessible and adaptable' standard, and that on developments over 10 dwellings in size, 5% of new homes are built to M4 (3) 'wheelchair user' standard, having regard to identified need. No details around accessibility have been given on this scheme currently
· Affordable housing units should not be grouped or clustered together. Similarly, the Council expects affordable housing to be built to the same high standard of design and amenity as market housing. Affordable housing units on developments should be of a similar quality to the open market housing and should be visually indistinguishable
· Would ask that the developer makes early contact with a partner RP for the affordable homes in order to confirm that the number, size and type of units are acceptable to them; please refer to Selby DC’S Affordable Housing SPD for a list of all our RP partners. It is crucial that a S106 Agreement is entered into at the earliest opportunity and an affordable housing plan is submitted
· Would ask that the Section 106 agreement contains a clause to ensure the properties are allocated to households with a local connection to the parishes of Appleton Roebuck, Colton, Steeton, Bolton Percy, Ryther Cum Ossendyke and Acaster in the first instance as a local letting Criteria
· Scheme is within a Designated Protected Area. The Housing (Shared Ownership Leases) (Exclusion from Leasehold Reform Act 1967) (England) Regulations 2009 (Statutory Instrument 2009/2097) therefore requires landlords to include in any Shared Ownership lease, for houses within a protected area, provisions to either:
o Restrict the leaseholder’s equity share to a maximum of 80%; or
o Ensure that once the leaseholder has acquired 100% share of the house, it is sold back to the landlord when it becomes available for resale.
· The applicants have since confirmed that they would provide the following Affordable Housing mix
o 20% of units to be affordable units (so up to 6 units if 32 dwellings are built)
o 25% of which would be First Homes (so of the 20% this would be 1 unit if 32 dwellings are built)
o Remaining 5 units would be Affordable Units split affordable rent / social rent accommodation (70%) and intermediate tenure (30%).
7.16. Contaminated Land Consultant - (19th July 2024) – advised that the Phase 1 report shows that the site was used as agricultural fields since the earliest mapping, dated 1851. Localised past industrial development in the wider surrounding area includes former gravel pits (145m south-west & 750m west), a smithy (300m south-east), and a brick pond (475m south). Historic maps suggest potential infilling of the nearest gravel pit had been completed by 1891, therefore it is considered unlikely to provide a significant source of ground gas. In addition, the Consultant noted that the “report considers that the land contamination risks at the site range from very low to low. If made ground is encountered on the site, the report recommends a site investigation is carried out to provide information on the physical and chemical ground conditions. The report also recommends that excavated topsoil should be tested prior to reuse in gardens and landscaped areas”. As such it was concluded that the Phase 1 report provides a good overview of the site’s history, its setting, and its potential to be affected by contamination. No significant potential contaminant sources have been identified, so no further investigation or remediation work is required and as such a condition on unexpected contamination was requested.
7.17. Designing Out Crime Officer - (17th July 2024) – acknowledged that this application is Outline and only seeks to set out the principle of a development at the proposed site location and more detailed proposals would be submitted in the event of this application being granted. Therefore, the comments made in this report have been taken this into consideration and would hope that the suggestions made are reflected in any future design and layout submitted by the applicant.
Advise is contained in the response on
· Management Plan required for Public Open Spaces .
· Play area should be suitably enclosed.
· Avoid creation of ambiguous space.
· Ensure provision of appropriate rear boundary and sub‐divisional treatments.
· Ensure service footpaths providing access to rear gardens of terraced properties are secure
· Each dwelling should be fitted with suitable security lighting.
· Details of appropriate street lighting required.
· Ensure trees are not located where they could create climbing aids into rear gardens.
7.18. North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue – (19th July 2024) – confirmed no objection or observations on the application and that they will comment at the Building regulations stage.
7.19. NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB – (30th July 2024) – seek a contribution of £37,818 to capital cost calculation of additional primary healthcare services arising from the development proposal given the scale of development with payment being requested before the development commences via a Section 106 planning obligation.
7.20. NYC Public Rights of Way (14th August 2024) – confirmed there are no impacts on PROW from the development.
7.21. NYC Education / Children and Young Peoples Service (1st April 2025) – seeking a contribution of £151,920 for Primary Education (Appleton Roebuck Primary School). No contributions are requested for secondary, special school or early years provision.
7.22. NYC Waste and Recycling Officer – (4th August 2024) provided general advice to inform any future layout and confirmed that as the application is for more than 4 properties, the developer will be required to purchase the waste and recycling containers for this development.
7.23. Responses were not received from Environment Agency to the consultations sent by the Council when the application was first received. However, given the scale of the development and its location within Flood Zone 1 a consultation response would not be expected.
Local Representations
7.24. The application was advertised via site notice and in the Yorkshire Post dated 17th July 2024 and via sites notices posted on the 17th July 2024.
7.25. Comments on the application have been received from 38 individuals. A summary of the comments is provided below, however, please see website for full comments.
Principle of Development
· The site does not therefore represent ‘Previously Developed Land’ as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”).
· Appleton Roebuck is totally unsuitable and one of the least sustainable locations within Selby District for any development. It has been wrongly categorized as a Designated Village and given Tier 2 status
· Residents should have had the opportunity in front of an inspector to raise concerns about the allocation of this site and this application is premature without this opportunity been in place
· No weight should be afforded to the applicant submission of November 2024 or the conclusions on assessment within it in relation to this emerging Selby Local Plan that the Applicant prepared at the request of Officers
· The applicant has failed to demonstrate how the proposed development will benefit the village
· There is no local support for this application and it is an attempt to overthrow the approved and adopted Appleton Roebuck neighbourhood development plan and it goes against the wishes of the residents
· There are ample other sites within Selby District with better infrastructure where development would cause less issue and where the existing infrastructure can support further development.
· This site lies outside the designated development boundary of Appleton Roebuck. Developing in this area contradicts the strategic planning policies intended to control and direct growth sustainably within the village confines.
· The principle of developing the site for open market housing remains in direct conflict with the development plan and no comfort for the applicant can be drawn from the Inspectors conclusion at the core strategy stage in terms of the settlements identification is a Designated Service Village (DSV).
· The application proposal therefore doesn’t represent any of the special circumstances set out within the guidance and as such is directly contrary to the policies within NPPF and development plan policy SP1, SP2, SP6 and SP15 and policy H1 of the NDP.
· The proposal will have a negative and harmful effect on the local economy, through the provision of dwellings which, by virtue of their location, style and size will reduce the ability of the rural workers to access facilities and services in the local area, as well as prevent the continued use or development of the land to the benefit of the local agricultural economy
· The scheme is in direct conflict with the Policy H1 of the NDP which provides a specific and evidenced limit to the size of scheme considered to be an appropriate scale for the settlement.
· The Core Strategy Inspector recognised that Appleton Roebuck represented the least sustainable village to be included as a DSV, and only agreed to its identification on the basis that the services that it provides may serve the wider hinterland in the future, but that the settlement did not currently provide a range of services and facilities which could reasonably be relied upon to serve housing growth
· The site is located in open countryside, which should be preserved to maintain its rural character and natural landscape. The proposed development would represent an urban encroachment into this rural area
· This site is not in accordance with the Appleton Roebuck and Acaster Selby Neighbourhood Development Plan which was adopted by Selby District Council in 2017. Which states "it is important to prevent urban sprawl and to protect the open character and rural nature of the environment and villages".
· No consideration has been given to the Appleton Roebuck and Acaster Selby Neighbourhood Development Plan that was approved and adopted by Selby District Council in 2017, in particular to Policy H1: NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DESIGN AND SCALE. Policy H1 states that new housing developments should be small in scale (under 10 units (preference made for 5 units or fewer)) and not overwhelm their surroundings. This proposed development fails to comply with this policy on both counts.
· This site has been the subject of several previous applications which have resulted in refusal. Including a refusal by the High Court at judicial review. On the previous 2021 draft Local Plan this site was assessed again and rejected. It is disappointing, with this background, that recently the site mysteriously reappeared on the emerging Local Plan apparently without fair and proper consultation. The recent draft Local Plan should therefore not be considered in this application until it has, eventually, completed the due process.
· The site should not have been identified as a potential allocation and Emerging Selby Local Plan and is premature (comments made pre the NPPF in December 2024 and also pre cessation of work on the ELP in February 2025)
· There is no pressing need for additional housing in Appleton Roebuck and many properties have been on the market for significant periods of time
· Brownfield sites should be prioritised head of development of greenfield sites
· There is a healthy, local and council wide, position in relation to the delivery of new housing development against targets, and that as a result the ‘tilted balance’ set out within paragraph 11 of NPPF has not been engaged. (noted in letter submitted in September 2024)
Highways and Access
· The proposed access to Colton Road will give a limited view of traffic approaching from the right hand side as vehicles leave the development which combined with standing water has the potential to cause vehicle collisions
· Access to and from it is at a blind location by the brow of a hill, representing a very dangerous road traffic hazard.
· There is no pedestrian access to and from the site either to the village nor in particular to available public transport.
· The proposed relocation of the 30 mph signs by 13 m will not make the new access point any safer for vehicle cyclists or pedestrians and it will in fact obscure the siting of vehicles leaving the site
· There will also be a need for the village sign to be relocated this has not been considered by highways
· The proposal to provide a cycle lane as required by the local Highway authority has been has not been fully assessed
· It is impractical to install a cycle lane without major highway widening works and improvements therefore further detailed planning is required before the access point can be approved
· Ownership of the hedgerows needs to be clarified these are key to the ability to achieve highways visibility
· It has not been clarified as to whether waste collection vehicles will be able to access the highway in a forward gear after visiting the site
· The proposed access is unsuitable for the construction stage and will be unsafe for heavy plant deliveries low loaders and multiple HGV deliveries
· This is a small village with narrow roads, and in places narrow or no pavements. The substantial increase in HGV and other large vehicles will not only cause significant safety issues given this is a small village with a relatively significant number of children.
· Since the closure of the old Bishopthorpe railway bridge to heavy lorries the traffic through the village has increased considerably, especially overnight where there is an increased noise nuisance. This road into York is severely due maintenance with the sides crumbling and cars and the extra lorries driving round the bends between Appleton and Bishopthorpe in the middle of the road as a result.
· The village and main road from the A64 already has serious and impending issues with HGV traffic. The alternative access to the village has weight restrictions on the bridge in Bishopthorpe
Loss of Agricultural Land
· We are all living through a cost of living crisis, due to the cost of imported foods, it seems ridiculous that we are being asked to sacrifice valuable productive arable agricultural land for an inappropriate housing scheme.
· The proposed site is on two parcels of greenbelt land currently set as arable farmland and will compromise the rural environment in which our village is situated.
· The applicant has made no reasonable attempt at justifying the loss of the agricultural land, and the contribution it does or could make to the rural economy. Whilst the applicant has submitted an Agricultural Land Classification Assessment for the site, this is neither applied nor analysed to provide the information required to assess the proposal against development plan policy.
· There is no explanation as to why the site, which is noted as Grade 2 within the available Ministry of Agriculture mapping, has been assessed as Grade 3b in the report. Clearly, this difference of opinion is critical to assessing the proposal against the definition of the ‘Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land, contained within Annex 2 of NPPF, and the application of Core Strategy policy SP18: Protecting and Enhancing the Environment, sub clause 9. This part of the adopted policy requires that the Council must steer development to areas of least agricultural quality.
· No effort however to reflect the advice within paragraph 180(b) of NPPF in assessing the economic and other benefits of the land in its current form, or the relative quality of the land compared to other areas of land in the District. The guidance is clear that, Councils should seek the development of less valuable agricultural land before that of a higher quality. The Council therefore needs to reach a balanced assessment of the relative value and quality of the site in question in its current form, before a determination of the application can take place.
Infrastructure
· The village is totally unsuitable for further large scale development of the size and mix of housing proposed and will lead to loss of amenity and further deterioration of the already failing and inadequate infrastructure and public services for village residents.
· Health Services (GP practices and dentistry) are not available locally and cannot be accessed by public transport and these will be overwhelmed by further development in the village
· Bus services are extremely poor, therefore, its virtually a car per person over 17.
· The Sustainability Assessment previously made by Selby and the information in the developer’s submissions are outdated in the range of public services is limited - there is one pub open for limited hours, no shop, the Post Office facility no longer visits and the Petrol Station is now closed.
· Accessing basic, essential and leisure services, in Tadcaster, Bishopthorpe, Copmanthorpe and York, means residents are mainly reliant on cars.
· There are frequent outages and power cuts and the extra burden for heat pumps and electric car charging ports for a further
Flood Risk and Drainage
· The drainage ditch that runs parallel to Colton Road on the approach to the proposed access to the development can be subject to standing water up to 3 to 4 inches deep increased run-off from the development site
· Development of the site will impact on the water collecting on Colton Road
· The pond area suggested does not appear to be sufficient countermeasure
· Sewage overflow from existing drainage networks regularly occurs in the village
· Yorkshire Water regularly have to unblock existing foul sewage infrastructure and there are regular occurrences of drains collapsing
· Local infrastructure, namely electricity and drainage services, are inadequate and regularly fail and are overwhelmed by the demand from existing residences and Yorkshire Water’s Pumping Station.
· Surface water discharge will add to an already overloaded system or materially affect adjoining agricultural land
· Yorkshire Water have objected to a smaller development in the village (ref ZG2024/1063/OUT) for six dwellings and have noted that the file servers in Appleton Roebuck are at capacity - this has not been raised on this application and the developer has not outlined how this will be addressed
· The scale of development is excessive and when considering the additional burden of adding approximately 17% to the housing footprint of the village without any proposed mitigation for the already overloaded sewage system is beyond reckless.
Ecology and Protected Species
· There are bats using and resident in and around the field on Colton Road, any building work will disrupt their habitat. They are not only regularly seen flying over the field most nights, but a protected species
· There will be significant habitat loss which is confirmed in the submitted BNG matrix
· This site currently provides important habitat for wildlife, it is often frequented by ground nesting birds (Skylark, and occasionally Curlew & Lapwing), it is a hunting ground for Barn Owl and it supports all manner of flora and fauna.
· Red kites and other birds of prey utilise the site
· Hedgehogs will be impacted by the development
Archaeology
· The application should be refused on the basis of archaeological features that are present on the site in the field evaluation report is flawed as it sets out the site has planning permission this is not the case
Character of the Area
· From a review of the application documents, it appears that the scheme is intended to be viewed as an extension of Appleton Roebuck, rather than a separate estate or development.
· Additional lighting at the new junction will have a huge detrimental effect in terms of visual impact on the entrance to the village and increase light push pollution
· The introduction of any houses beyond the existing boundary of the village will naturally sit above the ridgeline and be a clear and obvious eyesore, damaging the views of the countryside and detrimental to the appearance of the village
· Selby DC previous assessment of the site, when in 2021 the DC stated that the development of the site would have a "Potential negative impacts on the character and form of the settlement". I would question what has changed
· Appleton Roebuck is a conservation village, this "gateway development" will accordingly adversely affect the village and it's environs.
· This development proposes an 'estate' of 32 houses, which represents a high density of properties in a relatively compact space. This is uncharacteristic of the existing layout of Appleton Roebuck conservation village, which is composed of small groupings of houses in lower concentrations.
· , the proposal looks to extend the village limits, providing a more linear edge to the village. Currently, the village edge allows Colton Lane to run central into the village, rather than linear and one-sided. The proposal will fundamentally alter the approach into the village and impact on the character of the village in an unsustainable manner.
· The layout submitted with the application does not reflect the character of the village in terms of story heights configurations and the scale and massing that is characteristic in the village.
· The application fails to address and consider the impact the development would have upon the Conservation Area.
Landscape Impact
· The submitted landscape visual impact assessment fails to recognise visitors on approaching the village and there will be impacts on the landscape of the sites developed and the impact would not be neutral.
Residential Amenity
· The proposed site of development is at such an angle that we would be severely overlooked from the top rooms of the new development, greatly impairing the privacy of adjacent occupiers
· Given the scale of the development, there is a concern for the potential for neighbouring properties to be overlooked, including registered childcare provision
· this development will result in increasing noise in the village and reduction in residential amenity
Sustainability and Travel
· The Planning Statement makes no meaningful attempt to identify the likely travel patterns that will result from residents seeking to access services and facilities in the wider area, nor investigate how new residents of the proposal will be able to make these journeys via sustainable modes of transport. Similarly, there is no attempt to explain how these residents will travel to schools, employment opportunities and complete their day-to-day activities in a sustainable manner, or if this is even reasonably possible.
· It is clear that the primary mode of accessing any facilities that are present in the surrounding area is via the private car
· Proposed cycling and pedestrian upgrades will only secure the same level of accessibility as existing dwellings in the settlement and represent achievement of minimum requirements - the developer is offering nothing in terms of developing facilities or infrastructure associated with the settlement and as such these cannot be considered material considerations and support of the conflict with policy.
Other matters
· The documents submitted with the application are misleading and give a misleading impression of how close the development is to existing properties and the impact on them
· The documents are also misleading in terms the local development plan and pick out elements that support them and lead leave others out
· There has been no public engagement by the developer prior to the submission of the application
· The play area and affordable housing should be secured on site and via section 106 agreement not through off-site contributions
· The layout submitted with the application shows the ability to access the next field ready for more housing
8.0 Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
8.1. The development proposed does not fall within Schedule 1 or 2 of The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017 (as amended). The LPA recorded a screening opinion on the 17th July 2024 confirming the proposal is not EIA development. As such, an Environmental Statement was not required. Nothing has changed since the screening decision and it remains effective for the purposes of this report.
9.0 Main Issues
9.1. The key considerations in the assessment of this application are as follows:
· Loss of agricultural land
· Housing density and mix
· Character and appearance including Landscape, Conservation Area and Materials
· Flood risk and drainage
· Climate change
· Access, transport and highway safety
· Impact upon nature conservation and protected species
· Contaminated land and ground conditions
· Noise and air pollution
· Residential amenity
· Archaeology
· Minerals
· Developer contributions
· Other matters arising from Consultations
10.0 ASSESSMENT
Principle of development
10.1. Policy SP1 of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan outlines that "when considering development proposals the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework" and sets out how this will be undertaken. Policy SP1 is therefore consistent with the guidance in the NPPF. The Council does not have the required five year housing land supply and therefore Paragraph 11d of the NPPF is engaged and the “tilted balance” applies.
10.2. Policy SP2 of the CS sets out the long-term spatial hierarchy for the distribution of future development within the District, focusing development firstly in the Principal Town of Selby, Local Service Centres, Designated Service Villages and smaller villages.
10.3. The Core Strategy designates Appleton Roebuck 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”.
10.4. The site lies outside the Development Limits for the settlement as defined in the Selby District Local Plan (2005).
10.5. Policy SP2A(c) of the Core Strategy says: “Development in the countryside (outside Development Limits) will be limited to the replacement or extension of existing buildings, the re-use of buildings preferably for employment purposes, and well-designed new buildings of an appropriate scale, which would contribute towards and improve the local economy and where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, in accordance with Policy SP13; or meet rural affordable housing need (which meets the provisions of Policy SP10), or other special circumstances.”
10.6. The proposal does not constitute any of the forms of development set out under SP2A(c). In light of the above policy context the proposals for residential development are contrary to Policy SP2 of the Core Strategy. Substantial weight to the conflict with the development plan (and the related conflict with the intentions of the Framework) should be given in this case. The proposal should therefore be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
10.7. 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.
Housing Supply Requirements
10.8. The NPPF is a material consideration. In this context, currently there is a lack of a five-year housing land supply in the Selby legacy area, due to the increase in housing requirements arising from the NPPF (December 2024) and as such applications are required to make decisions in accordance with Paragraph 11 d of the NPPF (December 2024).
10.9. Paragraph 11d states that in terms of decision-making and the presumption in favour
of sustainable development:
d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:
i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed; or
ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination”
10.10. Footnote 7 notes that the “assets of particular importance” are : habitats sites (and those sites listed in paragraph 189) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, a National Landscape, a National Park (or within the Broads Authority) or defined as Heritage Coast; irreplaceable habitats; designated heritage assets (and other heritage assets of archaeological interest referred to in footnote 75); and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change”. These do not apply to the application site.
10.11. In terms of the Appleton Roebuck & Acaster Selby Neighbourhood Plan then this covers the period 2017 to 2027 and was made (adopted) on the 7th December 2017. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF notes that
“in situations where the presumption (at paragraph 11d) applies to applications involving the provision of housing, the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, provided the following apply:
a) the neighbourhood plan became part of the development plan five years or less before the date on which the decision is made; and
b) the neighbourhood plan contains policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement (see paragraphs 69-70)
10.12. In terms of the assessment of this application, given that Paragraph 11d is enacted as a result Council’s position on housing land supply, then at “up to 32” units the scheme does conflict with Policy H1 of the Neighbourhood Plan which seeks to limit development on any site to less than 10 units. However, the Neighbourhood Plan is in excess of 5 years old (adopted 2017) and it does not include any allocations to meet any defined need for the settlement. As such, the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with the Neighbourhood Plan is not significantly outweighed by the benefit of enhancing the housing supply figure subject to all other technical matters being addressed and the scheme being acceptable in terms of the impact on the character and appearance of the area.
10.13. In light of the above, the site does not have any “assets of particular importance”, and it is considered that the scheme accords with the NPPF when taken as a whole. The development is in a sustainable location on the edge of a Designated Service Village and it is making effective use of the land in terms of the proposed density of development which is also delivering affordable housing provision. In this context it is considered under Paragraph 11d of the NPPF that the principle of development on the site should be supported.
Sustainability
10.14. Paragraph 11 of the NPPF (December 2024), sets out the presumption in favour of
sustainable development in determining applications and that Local Plans are the key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the vision and aspirations of local communities as such development that does not accord with an up-to-date plan will not normally constitute sustainable development. However, Paragraph 12 of the NPPF (December 2024), makes clear that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. When a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date plan permission should not normally be granted.
10.15. In respect of sustainability, the village contains a primary school, public house, a village hall, recreational facilities and places of worship. It also benefits from a limited bus service to York (Traveline Service 21) which links Colton to York via the settlement through a 2 hourly service Monday to Saturday with the first bus from the village being 08:12 and the last bus back leaving York at 17:05 arriving back at 17:52. In terms of access to services and facilities and a choice of mode of transport. The Council considers that the settlement does have a level of services and 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.
10.16. Paragraph 8 of NPPF outlines that there are three overarching objectives which are interdependent and need to be considered in assessing whether a scheme is sustainable development, i.e. the economic objective, social objective, and an environmental objective. Paragraph 9 notes that planning policies and decisions should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions but in doing so should take account of local circumstances to reflect the character needs and opportunities of each area. With Paragraph 10 stating that “sustainable development should be pursued in a positive way and is at the heart of the framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable development”, under Paragraph 11.
10.17. It is noted that the following benefits would arise from the proposed development:
Economic
The proposal would generate employment opportunities in both construction and other sectors linked to the construction market. The proposal will bring additional residents to the area who in turn will contribute to local economy through supporting the existing local facilities. The proposals could enhance provision of local workforce for the businesses, although this will depend upon potential employee skill matches and vacancy requirements.
Social
As well as market housing the proposal will deliver affordable housing to meet a defined need in the area. In addition, the scheme would include provision of on-site recreational open space and will make contributions to provision of ecology and highway mitigation. The site is also able to be delivered and contribute to the five year housing land supply requirements with the Applicant confirming that reserved matters will be applied for without delay.
Environmental
The proposal can take into account environmental issues such as climate change ecology / biodiversity and will deliver environmental benefits in the form of open space provision. Proposals would provide housing outside the boundaries of the Designated Service Village in a sustainable settlement in the district
10.18. The site is considered to be a site in a sustainable location (on the edge of a Designated Service Village) and given that Paragraph11d is engaged as a result of the housing land supply position, development on the site is considered acceptable. On this basis, the relevant material factors to be taken into consideration in weighing up whether to release this safeguarded land includes the Council’s position on housing land supply to date and whether it is acceptable to allow for more development, taking into specific account the sustainability of the settlement and whether it is appropriate, given the time period since its designation.
10.19. Although the Council has ceased work on the ELP and draft allocation and policies no longer hold status as part of an emerging plan and they cannot be afforded weight on the basis of them being part of the process, this site is part of a potential allocation (AROE-K). Taking all of these factors into account in applying the planning balance in considering the principle of development of the site, there are significant considerations that weigh in favour of the proposal and it is concluded that the location of the site is appropriate for residential development in respect of current housing policies position on housing land supply and the guidance and sustainability contained within the NPPF (December 2024). Obviously, as noted above limited weight can be afforded to the ELP and the sites identification as a potential allocation in this plan. The site is meeting the requirements of AROE-K in terms of the extent of affordable housing provision i.e. 20%, education contributions, and through the reserved matters in the context of the parameters plan can meet the design based elements and highways / pedestrian linkages.
Previous levels of growth
10.20. CS Policy SP5 designates levels of growth to each of the 3 main towns, the group of Designated Service Villages and the Secondary Villages based on their infrastructure capacity and sustainability. There has been growth in Appleton Roebuck, however, in the context of the increase of housing land requirements arising from the NPPF then there is a need to release sites for development which are deemed to be a sustainable location This is an opportunity that should be supported by in the context of Paragraph 11d, notwithstanding levels of growth the settlement has already incurred. The growth of the Designated Service Village is preferable to growth of lower ranking settlements and as such all opportunities should be considered in the context of the guidance in the NPPF
Deliverability
10.21. In terms of deliverability, the application seeks outline consent and the applicants have confirmed that they will be seeking to bring the site forward for development should context be secured. Ultimately, the NPPF aims to boost and maintain the supply of housing and this is a material consideration when evaluating planning applications.
Section 149 of The Equality Act 2010
10.22. 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.
10.23. 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.
Conclusion on the Principle of the Development
10.24. The proposal would be the release a greenfield site for development which is outside of development limits. It would therefore conflict with the fundamental aims of Policies SP1 and SP2 of the Core Strategy. However, significant weight is given to the Council’s lack of a and the engaged tilted balance of Paragraph 11d.
Loss of agricultural land
10.25. The site is used largely 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.
10.26. The Neighbourhood Plan includes Policy ELH1 which states that “Proposals for development which results in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land will not be supported except in exceptional circumstances where the benefits to the community are shown to outweigh the harm, for example with regard to the provision of new community facilities which would otherwise be unachievable. In such circumstances, any harm will be required to be mitigated, for example by using the minimum amount of land to achieve the important benefit or by appropriate planting and landscaping”.
10.27. 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 2 ‘good’ agricultural land. However, the application includes an Agricultural Land Classification Assessment which includes data on bores done on site and concludes that the 1 hectare of the site is in fact Grade 3b due the characteristics of the site, with the 0.3 hectares being non-agricultural land / garden land associated with the landowners adjacent dwelling.
10.28. As there is no evidence before the Council to contradict this Assessment then the site is accepted to be Grade 3b, and it is considered that the scale of loss agricultural land arising from the development would result in minor harm to the agricultural economy in the area as well as food self-sufficiency. Even if the land was demonstrated to be Grade 2 the position of the Council would be the same and the loss of agricultural land is contrary to Core Strategy Policy SP18, ELH1 and NPPF paragraph 187 b). This must be weighed in the planning balance.
Housing density and mix
Density
10.29. Saved Policy H2B of the Local Plan states “Proposals for residential development will be expected to achieve a minimum net density of 30 dwellings per hectare in order to ensure the efficient use of land. Higher densities will be required where appropriate particularly within the market towns and in locations with good access to services and facilities and/or good public transport. Lower densities will only be acceptable where there is an overriding need to safeguard the existing form and character of the area or other environmental or physical considerations apply”.
10.30. Core Strategy paragraph 7.80 states “The quality of design in its local context is more important than relying on a minimum housing density figure to benchmark development……. Therefore, the Council does not propose to set a development density figure in this strategic plan”. Policy SP19 states residential development should “Positively contribute to an area’s identity and heritage in terms of scale, density and layout”.
10.31. The Neighbourhood Plan Policy H1(a) states that “New housing developments should be small in scale (under 10 units) and not overwhelm their surroundings”. In addition, Policy H1(c) notes that “the density of new development should reflect that of their immediate surroundings”.
10.32. 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.”
10.33. Paragraph 130 encourages consideration of minimum densities “where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs”.
10.35. The minimum density requirement in Policy H2B is in conflict with the design led approach in Policy SP19. The proposal would be an efficient use of land as required by NPPF paragraph 129. NPPF paragraph 130 is not engaged because there is no shortage of land to meet housing needs.
10.36. In terms of Policy H1 of the Neighbourhood Plan, then clearly the scheme does not accord with Policy H1(a) as it is in excess of 10 dwellings. Under section 38(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 if a policy contained in a development plan for an area conflict with another policy in the development plan, the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy which is contained in the last document to be adopted which is Policy SP19. The proposal would be an efficient use of land as required by NPPF paragraph 129, and the conflict with Policy H1 of the Neighbourhood Plan is noted. However given the approach of Paragraph 14 of the NPPF and the engagement of Paragraph 11d it is not considered that the scheme can be refused for a conflict with Policy H1 of the Neighbourhood Plan.
10.37. On this basis it is considered that the proposed housing density is appropriate in these circumstances.
Mix
10.38. The application is in outline for up to 32 dwellings. The applicants have confirmed that the scheme will deliver 20% of the units as affordable provision and that 6% of the total units provided will meet M4(3) requirements and 3% of the plots will self-build plots. The extent of the provision for affordable housing is considered later in this report.
10.39. In terms of mix, then the basis for the requests arises from the 2020 Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA), Policy SP8 of the Core Strategy and the NPPF.
10.40. 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.”
10.41. Policy H2 of the Neighbourhood Plan states that
a) New housing developments should provide for a mix of size and types of homes, including making provision for young families and the elderly.
b) Support will be given to proposals that reflect the housing needs of the area as set out in the most recent Strategic Housing Market Assessment, local Housing Needs Survey and/or residents survey
10.42. NPPF paragraph 64 seeks to create mixed and balanced communities through affordable housing provision. Policy SP8 is consistent with the NPPF and is given significant weight.
10.43. Paragraph 10.36 of the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) (October 2020) states: “The ‘market’ is to some degree a better judge of what is the most appropriate profile of homes to deliver at any point in time, and demand can change over time linked to macro-economic factors and local supply.” The wording of the HEDNA intends to provide an element of flexibility in the precise mix put forwarded within applications. The table below from the 2020 HEDNA shows the need for sizes of homes per tenure type.
10.44. The application form does not confirm the precise housing mix given the outline nature of the application. Therefore, in order to prevent a pronounced overprovision of a single house type and to secure a mixed and balanced community, a condition is required to ensure the precise housing mix is submitted with the reserved matters application and agreed by the Council in order to comply with Policy SP8 and the HEDNA.
10.45. 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. The applicants have confirmed agreement to such provision and this can be controlled via condition.
10.46. The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Report December 2024 shows, on 30th October 2023, there were 39 individuals on the Selby register. The report also says 188 plots were permissioned between 1 April 2016 and 30 October 2023. However, there is some uncertainty going forward as to whether these permissions would count against need because the most recent appeal decisions show a need to secure self and custom build by s106 for it to count. It is prudent to consider there is a significant unmet meet in the area and the 3% of all plots as self or custom build suggested in the emerging Selby Local Plan is a reasonable suggestion to secure an appropriate housing mix.
10.47. The applicants have confirmed agreement to provision of M4(3) units and Self build / custom build plots as part of the scheme and this can be controlled via S106 and a mix of types can be considered at the reserved matters stage. This is considered acceptable.
Character and appearance including Landscape, Conservation Area and Materials
10.48. The application site is not within the Conservation Area, nor is the proposed access. The Appleton Roebuck Conservation Area boundary lies to the east of the application site. The Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990 is not a relevant act in the determination of this application. The proposals do not affect a listed building or its setting and therefore this consideration is not required to be considered in this case. The application site is not on land nor affects a building within a conservation area and therefore the provision to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area is not a statutory duty and therefore section 72 (1) is again not applicable in this case.
10.49. The Council Conservation Officer has also considered the scheme and has noted no objection to the application and noted that “a standard house type development on the gateway to the village should be avoided.”
10.50. The detailed design of the scheme including the external appearances of the houses will be a matter for the reserved matters stage and it is considered that through careful design an appropriate scheme can be developed for the site, that can take account of the comments the Conservation Officer.
10.51. 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.
10.52. The Neighbourhood Plan has a series of key objectives including “To maintain and enhance countryside character and heritage protection across the parish” and this is reflected in Policy DBE2 which seeks to ensure development respects the overall palette of traditional design and the character of the area.
10.53. 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.
Landscape
10.54. The Selby Landscape Character Assessment (November 2019) is given some weight as a material consideration. It identifies the application site as being within “Character Area 1 - York Fringe West” with key characteristics including being characterised low lying, gently undulating topography which is flat in places, particularly around the floodplains of the River Wharfe to the south and River Ouse to the east. Undulations in the landscape are most prominent in the north-west of the character area, near the settlements of Bilbrough and Healaugh. In terms of Appleton Roebuck, it also notes that it is well integrated into the landscape with vegetated boundaries, and overall the area has a rural character. The nature of the small, dispersed villages and lack of major roads mean that in the most part it avoids traffic, giving it a quiet and tranquil feel. Areas in closer proximity to the railway lines and A64 are more prone to noise from passing vehicles and trains. Although generally flat, long outward views tend to be obstructed even from higher ground, by low-lying landforms such as hedgerows and woodland
10.55. The Selby District Landscape Sensitivity Study (October 2021) is given some weight as a material consideration. It puts the application site within land parcel reference AR1 in Appleton Roebuck Northern Fringes. It notes the parcel has limited topographical variation, comprising small scale fields adjoining the settlement edge - this relates to the application site. Overall development guidelines states “The existing nucleated settlement form would be altered by the development of the Parcel and is likely to cause a loss of settlement identity to what is currently a small village.” The overall assessment of landscape sensitivity to development scenarios considers landscape assessment parcel AR1 to be of low to medium sensitivity to a 2-3 storey residential housing development stating “Few of the key characteristics and qualities of AR1 and AR2 are vulnerable to change as a result of the introduction of the development scenario, resulting in an overall low-moderate sensitivity”.
10.56. The application site comprises of a slightly sloping site adjacent to an existing dwelling. The Colton Lane frontage benefits from an established hedgerow adjacent to the highway broken by a field gate access. The submitted Landscape Assessment Report outlines that the site “is a typical agricultural field and grassed field, bound by hedgerows, and located on the edge of the village. It is influenced by the presence of the existing built edge of the village, by the main road directly adjacent to it which leads to the village and by a degree of visual enclosure provided by the vegetation to the east of the site. The site does not contain any rare or notable character features such as the large heathlands and coniferous plantations found within the wider Landscape Character Type.” It also acknowledges that it will be important in landscape terms to ensure that the “materials palette, massing and form of the dwellings complements and respects the landscape surroundings and the settlement edge of Appleton Roebuck, with a particular need to ensure the frontage onto Colton Lane is appropriately designed so as to blend into the existing street-scene. The incorporation of new planting to the western and northern boundaries of the site is a key design consideration for this application to ensure that a filtered view of the development can be provided creating a softened new settlement edge to the village. This will also bolster the condition of the landscape features within the wider landscape character type in accordant with published character documentation”. In this context the submitted report concludes that “there is likely to be a limited change to the landscape character context of the site as a result of the proposed dwelling, and the potential for impacts on the visual amenity of only a very localised and limited number of viewers, most of whom will be private residents and users of local roads, such that for the most part there will be negligible effects on public users” and that “The siting, proposed height, form and materiality of the development will be paramount to ensure that it will complement the existing character of Appleton Roebuck as well as the rural and agricultural landscape that surrounds the village.”
10.58. The parameter plan shows there will be sufficient scope at reserved matters stage to secure a planting scheme to the site boundaries which will serve to filter views of the proposal from the countryside when approaching the settlement, and from the Colton Lane frontage. There will also be scope to secure compensatory planting within the development. The parameter plan shows this enhanced planting on the Colton Lane frontage, enhancement of the hedgerow through additional hedgerow planting and tree planting to the northern boundary and an area of tree planting to the eastern sector of the site. Minor benefits to the landscape and screening of the proposal would arise from the enhanced planting. The proposed access and pedestrian / cycle links will require the removal of some of the roadside hedgerow on Colton Lane.
10.59. The impact of the scheme has been considered by the Landscape Officer, whose comments are set out early in the report. The Officer support for the findings of the landscape and visual appraisal and the accompanying landscape strategy and visual mitigation alongside noted enhancement recommendations. It is also noted by the Landscape Officer that the views of the site are limited due to the gently undulating topography and the dense well-managed roadside hedges and feel boundaries. In this context it is also noted that landscape mitigation will be required as part of the scheme and as a result an updated parameters plan was provided by the applicants to reflect the comments of the Landscape Officer with development being set back from Colton Road, the introduction of a green frontage to Colton Road, the reinforcement of the green boundary around the perimeter of the site particularly along the northern boundary, the provision of the central open space and the locating of surface water attenuation in the north-west corner. In this context the Landscape Officer’s comments of October 2024, noted the updated parameters plan and confirmed this was acceptable with no further comments being made.
10.60. As such is concluded that the development of the site would not result in major harm to the surrounding landscape. Landscape impacts are localised and the proposal offers the opportunity to secure a softer edge to the village as shown on the design parameter plan. As such it is considered that there would be a moderate adverse impact on local landscape and visual effects of the proposed development, and the potential moderate beneficial effects of additional planting should be given due consideration in the planning balance.
10.61. The moderate adverse localised landscape and visual effects will be weighed in the planning balance. There would be a need to condition the requirement for an updated Arboricultural Impact Assessment, confirmation of Tree Protection Plan and to ensure suitable protection of the existing trees and hedgerows as part of the development.
10.62. On balance, it is considered that even though the proposal extends into the countryside, when looking at the development limit boundary this site would effectively create a defensible landscaped boundary which would ensure that the development would be neither visually prominent, nor discordant within the landscape. Officers would advise that given the site’s location on the edge of the settlement and subject to landscaping and the retention of existing hedgerows in line with the parameters plan it is considered that a suitable landscaping scheme and boundary treatment could be achieved at reserved matters stage to ensure that the scheme has an acceptable impact on landscape and the character and form of the area and accords with Policy SP18.
Materials
10.63. The design and materials on the surrounding properties are a mixture and as such it is considered that proposals could incorporate appropriate materials and detailed design finishes at reserved matters stage which would respect the character of the surroundings reflective of the approaches outlined in the Village Design Statement and the submitted Design and Access Statement.
Conclusion on impact on Character of Area
10.64. Having taken all of the above into account it is considered that the site could provide an appropriate layout, appearance, scale and landscaping at reserved matters stage. Furthermore, it is considered that an appropriate design, could be achieved that would be in accordance with the provisions of the noted policies.
Flood risk, and Drainage
10.65. Relevant policies in respect of flood risk, drainage and climate change include Policy ENV1(3) of the Selby District Local Plan and Policies SP15 “Sustainable Development which seeks to apply sequential and exceptions tests, and Climate Change”, SP16 “improving Resource Efficiency” and SP19 “Design Quality” of the Core Strategy.
10.66. The Neighbourhood Plan includes Policy DBE4 which seeks to ensure that new development does not add to the overall level of flood risk for the parish, locates development away from Flood Zones 2 and 3, includes surface water management to ensure no increased flood risk on site or downstream, alongside the use of sustainable urban drainage approaches and a presumption against culverting and development constricting of existing watercourses. The policy also notes that “If existing capacity in the local sewerage system / or water distribution network is insufficient, a connection must be provided to the system at the nearest point of adequate capacity as advised by Yorkshire Water.”
10.67. 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.
10.68. The site is in flood zone 1 (low risk) and is not at risk from river and sea flooding with or without defences or surface water flooding even accounting for climate change.
10.69. The application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (prepared by WML Consulting dated March 2024). This considers surface water management flood risk characteristics of the existing site, potential sources of flooding and defines a drainage strategy for the site. The proposed development is to be drained via separate foul and surface water drainage systems. It is confirmed that the surface water drainage proposals will be designed to the relevant building regulation standard and a hierarchy based on discharge via infiltration in advance of discharge to watercourse or discharge to sewer. Any new driveway areas will be drained by infiltration and discharge is expected to be made to the adjacent watercourse which runs along the sites western boundary. Such discharge would be a greenfield run-off rates, there will be no discharge to public surface water sewers in the vicinity of the site. In terms of foul water drainage, the Flood Risk Assessment confirms that this will be directed to the existing public drainage system. Further information was provided during the life of the application in relation to drainage seeking to demonstrate that infiltration will not be viable on the site.
10.70. The LLFA has considered the proposal and additional infiltration document and raises no objection subject to conditions. Initial comments from Yorkshire Water also noted no objection to the scheme subject to conditions and clarification of the position of the Internal Drainage Board. The position of the Internal Drainage Board has been confirmed in the response noted earlier in the report. Again, they have no objections to the application subject to detailed design and not introducing built form within 3m of their watercourse. Conditions are requested requiring submission and agreement of the scheme for surface and foul water drainage and an easement for 3 metres adjacent to the top of the embankment of the watercourse, alongside informatives relating to watercourse maintenance responsibilities and the need for consent for discharge.
10.71. As noted earlier in the report Yorkshire Water were contacted in March 2025 to seek clarification on their position, given their comments on an application at Malt Kiln Lane Appleton Roebuck (ZG2024/1063/OUT) where they lodged an objection in November 2024 – so subsequent to their comments on this application. Yorkshire Water objected on this site on the basis that was that there was not sufficient capacity in the foul network and a scheme needed to be agreed. In terms of the application site they have confirmed that noted £that the site is allocated in the Selby Local Plan ref: AROE-K with an indicative yield of 28 dwellings. YWS look to support sustainable development, and makes provision for housing sites within Local Planning Authorities development plans, and will promote an investigation into network capacity and potential re-enforcement where it is suspected the existing network does not have adequate capacity to accommodate the anticipated flows generated by the allocated sites within the local plan. This is why development ZG2024/0697/OUTM has not been objected to.”
10.72. In this context subject to a Grampian condition to secure a scheme foul water connection, alongside conditions relating to surface water the scheme is considered acceptable in terms of flood risk and drainage subject to conditions.
Climate Change
10.73. Core Strategy Policy SP15 (b) ‘Sustainable Development and Climate Change’ states that in order to ensure development contributes towards reducing carbon emissions and is resilient to the effects of climate change, schemes should where necessary, improve energy efficiency, minimise energy consumption, use sustainable construction techniques, water efficient design and sustainable drainage systems. Policy SP16 requires the proposal to provide a minimum of 10% of total predicted energy requirements from renewable, low carbon or decentralised energy sources.
10.74. The developers will have to meet the requirements of the amended Fabric Energy Efficiency Standards under Part L of the Building Regulations, which will also cover the provision of the EV charging units for each dwelling. In addition, they will be encouraged to ensure that cycle storage is provided on those units without garaging as part of the reserved matters stage.
10.75. In this context it is considered that a scheme can be secured to accord with the noted policies via design approaches at the reserved matters stage and through Building Regulations.
Access, transport and highway safety
10.76. 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.
10.77. 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.
10.78. Local Plan Policy ENV1 requires account to be taken of the relationship of the proposal to the highway network, the proposed means of access, the need for road/junction improvements in the vicinity of the site, and the arrangements to be made for car parking.
10.79. 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”.
10.80. 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”.
10.81. 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.
10.82. The Neighbourhood Plan policy H1(d) notes that “Development must be located in an acceptable location in relation to the highway network and must not generate a level of vehicle movements that would result in a loss of residential amenity for neighbours in relation to safety, noise and air quality”.
10.83. 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.”
10.84. NPPF footnote 9 of paragraphs 7-14 “Achieving Sustainable Development” 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.
10.85. 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 ; 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.”
10.86. 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.”
10.87. 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.”
10.88. The aforementioned development plan policies are considered broadly consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.89. The application form confirms approval is sought for access 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;” Access arrangements within the site will be covered at the reserved matters stage. The vehicular access to the site is proposed from Colton Lane and a plan has been provided confirming the approach. The plan also confirms visibility splays and the provision of a new footway along the frontage of the site to link to existing footways along Colton Lane to the south. The developer has also confirmed that the Applicant would not object to an on-street cycle lane access to Route 66 if required.
10.90. The LHA considers the main access to the site and broader highway implications of the proposal to be acceptable after having considered additional information from the Applicants subject to conditions.
10.91. In terms of the request from Highways to enhance cycle linkages, then the Developer has noted this request and indicated that this is something they are not in objection to providing to link into Route 66 along Colton Lane. It is considered that this can be covered via a Grampian Condition.
10.92. As such it is considered that there are no harmful impacts upon the highway network as a result of the proposal.
Impact upon nature conservation and protected species
10.93. Local Plan Policy ENV1 requires account is taken of the potential loss, or adverse effect upon, significant wildlife habitats.
10.94. 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.
10.95. The Neighbourhood Plan Policy ELH2 seeks to conserve restore and enhance biodiversity and protect against the loss of significant harm to habitat which is protected under specific referenced designations. Policy ELH3 also identifies a series of green corridors where development adjacent to these corridors must take account of the function of the corridor and how the scheme will enhance this function.
10.96. 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”.
10.97. The development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.98. The application is accompanied by an Ecology and Biodiversity Net Gain Statement alongside a Matrix which was updated during the life of the application, all of which have been considered by the Councils Ecology Officer.
10.99. The submitted information sets out a series of recommendations to protect maintain and enhance ecological features during the operational phase of development as well as mitigation such as retention of hedgerows, tree protection during construction and the timing of works to account for nesting birds as well as approaches in terms of the construction stage to protect mammals and bats. In addition, alongside this, post development controls and lighting in the vicinity of the boundary habitats are recommended.
10.100. The NYC Ecologist has considered all submitted information and final comments have confirmed that
“the net gain assessment and associated metric has now been provided for the post development proposals. Whilst this does demonstrate that the site is capable of achieving the required 10% BNG on site, there is no detailed habitat plan against which to check the details. In particular it is important that any habitat features included within domestic curtilages is not double counted. Habitats included within domestic curtilages should be categorised as 'vegetated gardens' and inclusion of additional habitats referenced within the report as 'turfed lawn' and urban trees, should not also be counted within these spatial areas. It is not possible from the information provided to confirm whether this has taken place, however this fine level of detail will be required as part of the Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP).”
10.101. In line with the advice from Ecology Officers, the deemed condition should be applied to any permission granted along with an appropriate implementation condition. Management of habitats outside of vegetated gardens should be secured by condition for a minimum of 30 years to include a management plan and monitoring schedule to allow the authority to report on BNG outcomes to Defra.
10.102. Overall, the proposal would not give rise to harm to statutory nature conservation sites and no habitat regulations screening is required. Construction phase ecological mitigation measures can be secured as part of the general ecological mitigation and enhancement condition. The same condition would also secure 10% biodiversity net gain and ecological management for 30 years.
10.103. The proposal demonstrates ecological and protected sites impacts are acceptable in accordance with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan, Policies SP2 and SP18 of the Core Strategy, the NPPF and the standing advice of Natural England.
Affordable Housing
10.104. 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.
10.105. 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 at “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.”
10.106. The Neighbourhood Plan references at Section 4.5 that there is support for new development to include affordable housing as part of any scheme and Objective 3 of the plan is to support a “sustainable level and range of new homes to provide for need in the community and to support key facilities and services”. In addition. Policy H2 (b) notes that “Support will be given to proposals that reflect the housing needs of the area as set out in the most recent Strategic Housing Market Assessment, local Housing Needs Survey and/or residents survey.”
10.107. 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).
10.108. 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.”
10.109. Policy SP9 provides a broad basis for securing affordable housing and is consistent with the NPPF. The Selby Local Plan and CIL Viability Assessment (August 2022) indicates 20% affordable housing should be sought for this area.
10.110. Affordable housing and viability matters were explored in an appeal decision dated 30th January 2025 for a site in Hambleton reference APP/U2750/W/24/3347885. The Inspector set out:
· The maximum 40% affordable housing in Policy SP9 is derived from an assessment in around 2009.
· However, in 2022 evidence was prepared on behalf of the Council by Aspinall Verdi consultants (Selby Local Plan & CIL Viability Assessment (2022) to inform Policy HG7 in the emerging Selby Local Plan, and this says it considers a greenfield delivery of 20% affordable housing to be viable in this area of Thorpe Willoughby.
· Core Strategy Policy SP9 could be read as requiring developers to provide 40% affordable housing unless they can show a lesser amount is justified. However, given the recentness of the evidence in the Aspinall Verdi report when compared to that informing the Core Strategy, the Inspector considered this report constitutes a material consideration to which was given significant weight in his assessment of affordable housing delivery, as it better reflects the current situation. Having said that, Core Strategy Policy SP9 seeks ‘up to a maximum’ of 40% affordable housing, so acknowledging a lesser amount could be acceptable. As such, if viability evidence was forthcoming to show accord with the Aspinall Verdi report, the resultant level of delivery would not be contrary to Core Strategy Policy SP9.
· The appellants viability appraisal showed with an 18% profit, 10% affordable housing was viable. The Council considered 30% affordable housing was viable due mainly to differing opinions regarding gross development value and abnormal costs.
· Such appraisals involve subjective judgements. Neither is necessarily wrong. The appellants proposal of 10% would be in line with the Aspinall Verdi report. That report did not say 10% is the starting point for negotiations for a higher percentage. Such an approach would remove any certainty or confidence from the process.
· The Inspector favoured the appellants use of historic sales values from the specific settlement, adjusted by index linking, rather than those from nearby villages.
· The Inspector found in favour of the appellants approach to viability.
· The Inspector dismissed the Council suggestion that affordable housing levels be revisited at reserved matters stage because there would be no need to have undertaken such work at outline stage and in his opinion delivery rates are matters better resolved when outline permission is sought, to bring a degree of certainty to the developer as they move forward.
10.111. The same matter was considered in an appeal decision dated 20th February 2025 at land east of Broadacres, Mill Lane, Carlton reference APP/U2750/W/24/3347833. The Inspector considered at “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.”
10.112. The application proposes 20% affordable housing, which is in line with what was envisaged in the ELP. Affordable housing should be secured as percentages given the outline nature of the proposal means the final number of dwellings may change at reserved matters stage. The new NPPF does not require First Homes but it is possible for applicants to propose them. In light of the recent appeal decisions, it is considered appropriate to accept the proposed 20% affordable housing as 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.
10.113. Overall, affordable housing policy requirements are as follows:
· 20% of the total number of dwellings are to be affordable housing. Of these 25% can be First Homes. If the developer is unable to dispose of the FH units a legal clause will require other opportunities to be considered before they are disposed of on the open market. These are: An option for the Council to buy or nominate a purchaser. This is for the Council or said purchaser to utilise the unit as another form of affordable tenure, be that intermediate or rental; or the payment of an additional FH Charge at 30% of the market value of the property to the Council. This allows the property to be sold on the open market and the sum (30%) ring-fenced for the delivery of affordable housing in the locality by the Council. The overall split shall be 25% First Homes, 65% affordable rent and 10% shared ownership.
10.114. The applicant has offered 20% of the units as affordable housing (so up to 6 units if 32 dwellings are built); 25% of which would be First Homes (so of the 20% this would be 1 unit if 32 dwellings are built) and the remaining 5 units should be Affordable Units split affordable rent / social rent accommodation (70%) and intermediate tenure (30%).
10.115. This is considered to be acceptable and a Section 106 Agreement will secure this affordable housing.
Recreational Open Space
10.116. Policy RT2 requires the proposal to provide recreational open space at a rate of 60sqm per dwelling on the following basis “provision within the site will normally be required unless deficiencies elsewhere in the settlement merit a combination of on-site and off-site provision. Depending on the needs of residents and the total amount of space provided, a combination of different types of open space would be appropriate in accordance with NPFA standards.”
10.117. The Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document 2007 provides further guidance on the provision of open space.
10.118. The Neighbourhood Plan Policy DBE3 notes that development should meet open space requirements.
10.119. 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.
10.120. Policy RT2 is considered consistent with the NPPF and is given significant weight.
10.121. A proposal for 32 dwellings would need to provide 60sqm of open space per dwelling equating to 1920 sqm. The parameter plan shows open space within the main central area of the site and the proposal would need to provide the required amount of open space per dwelling.
10.122. The parameter plan confirms that amenity space will be accommodated on the site and the S106 can be utilised to secure provision, implementation, ownership and maintenance of play areas and all recreational open space. These matters are acceptable and can be details can be secured through the S106 and the reserved matters scheme design.
Contaminated Land and Ground Conditions
10.124. Core Strategy Policy SP18 seeks to protect the high quality of the natural and man-made environment by ensuring that new development protects soil, air and water quality from all types of pollution. This is reflected in Policy SP19 (k), which seeks to prevent development from contributing to or being put at an unacceptable risk from unacceptable levels of soil or water pollution or land instability.
10.125. 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.
10.126. These development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.127. The Preliminary Geoenvironmental Investigation shows The Phase 1 report shows that the site was used as agricultural fields since the earliest mapping, dated 1851. Localised past industrial development in the wider surrounding area includes former gravel pits (145m south-west & 750m west), a smithy (300m south-east), and a brick pond (475m south). Historic maps suggest potential infilling of the nearest gravel pit had been completed by 1891, therefore it is considered unlikely to provide a significant source of ground gas. The report considers that the land contamination risks at the site range from very low to low. If made ground is encountered on the site, the report recommends a site investigation is carried out to provide information on the physical and chemical ground conditions. The report also recommends that excavated topsoil should be tested prior to reuse in gardens and landscaped areas. In light of the above and subject to a suitable condition related to the reporting of unexpected contamination, the Contaminated Land Consultant advised that 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.
Noise and Air Pollution
10.128. The policies referred to in the contaminated land section above are relevant. In addition, Policy H1(d) of the Neighbourhood Plan notes that “Development must be located in an acceptable location in relation to the highway network and must not generate a level of vehicle movements that would result in a loss of residential amenity for neighbours in relation to safety, noise and air quality”.
10.129. Environmental Health, in commenting on the application, provided comments on the application on the 19th July 2024, and noted that given the location of the site adjacent to other dwellings there is a need for a conditions in relation to a construction management plan, and if there is a need for piling for a schedule of works identifying those plots affected and setting out mitigation measures to protect residents from noise and vibration to be submitted and agreed. Both of these noted conditions are recommended on the basis of protecting 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.
10.130. No concerns have been raised by Environmental Health in relation to air quality and an effective construction management plan will be able to ensure any potential construction impacts are mitigated.
10.131. 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.
Residential Amenity
10.132. 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.
10.133. The Neighbourhood Plan policy H1(d) notes that “Development must be located in an acceptable location in relation to the highway network and must not generate a level of vehicle movements that would result in a loss of residential amenity for neighbours in relation to safety, noise and air quality”.
10.134. 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.
10.135. The application site is located in the countryside to the edge of Appleton Roebuck and there are residential dwellings to the south / south east. 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.
10.136. Construction disturbance would be minimised by a construction management plan, and piling conditions as recommended by Environmental Health.
10.137. On this basis it is considered that the scheme is acceptable in terms of the residential amenity impacts and accords with Policy ENV1 and the NPPF.
10.138. In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal would not contravene Convention rights contained in the Human Rights Act 1998 in terms of the right to private and family life.
Archaeology
10.139. 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.
10.140. 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.
10.141. Following submission of a Geophysical Survey and a Field Evaluation Report on trial trenching the LPA Archaeologist does not require further archaeological investigation and raises no objections to the proposal. Archaeological impacts are acceptable.
Minerals
10.142. 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.
Developer Contributions
10.143. 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.
10.144. Policy CS6 states “The District Council will expect developers to provide for or contribute to the provision of infrastructure and community facility needs that are directly related to a development, and to ensure that measures are incorporated to mitigate or minimise the consequences of that development”.
10.145. 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.
10.146. The Developer Contributions SPD provides further guidance regarding contributions towards waste and recycling facilities; education facilities; and primary health care facilities amongst others.
10.147. 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.
10.148. These development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.149. NYC Children and Young People's Service have requested a contribution for Appleton Roebuck Primary School to accommodate children from the development. Contributions are not being sought for Secondary School or Special Education Needs provision or for Early Years Provision.The requested contribution is £151,920.
10.150. NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board confirms that the Practice that is closest to the development and is within reasonable commuting distance is Tadcaster Medical Centre. It is seeking a contribution towards primary healthcare services of £37,818 to accommodate the additional population arising from the development., and they have requested that this is paid before the development commences.
10.151. 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.
10.152. As such, the scope of financial contributions are therefore as follows:
|
Primary Education |
£151,920 to mitigate the impacts of the development on education provision at Appleton Roebuck Primary School. |
|
Healthcare |
£37,818 to mitigate the impacts of the development on healthcare provision at Tadcaster Medical Centre |
|
Waste & Recycling |
4 x 240 litre wheeled bins at a price of £65 per dwelling |
10.153. These contributions are justified and would need to be secured by s106 with appropriate triggers for payment.
Other matters including those arising from Consultations
10.154. As noted earlier the report there have been a range of issues noted in local representations to the application. The majority of these are considered in the assessment of the scheme, however, there are a number of aspects that have not been covered.
10.155. Objectors have noted that there was no pre-application public consultation by the developer/applicant prior to the submission of the application. Although this is encouraged by the NPPF it is not a formal requirement on an applicant to do such work prior to submission of an application to the Local Planning Authority.
10.156. Objectors have noted concern that refuge vehicles may not be able to access and egress from the site without causing issues of highway safety, or even without having to reverse onto Colton Lane from the development. The application has been submitted in Outline with means of access only for determination and advice has been sought in the application from the Waste and Recycling Officers as well as Highways Officers. Neither of whom have objected to the application. Guidance has been provided as part of the response from Waste and Recycling Officers on the design parameters for any subsequent layout that will be provided at the Reserved Matters stage in terms of vehicles that need to be accommodated for such purposes. The internal highways layout would be expected to meet such requirements and would also need to include appropriate bin collection points and storage are identified.
10.157. Objectors have raised concerns that HGVs would not be able to access the development at the construction stage or subsequently once the site is occupied. The suitability of the internal layout will be a matter to be considered at the reserved matters stage, and in terms of HGVs accessing the site for the construction stage in the construction management plan will consider aspects such as routing should this be considered necessary. A condition is proposed to require the submission agreement of such a document prior to the commencement of development.
10.158. Objectors have noted that the village already experiences frequent outages of power and there is concern that the extra burden of development arising from the additional dwellings but also from the associated additional heat pumps and car charging points will make this a more regular occurrence. This is not a matter that the planning application can take into consideration as it is a matter for the statutory provider.
10.159. Objectors have noted that the parameters plan and indicative layout will impact on their privacy as occupiers of adjacent dwellings. The indicative layout has not been formally agreed under this application and the reserved matters stage will require a full layout to be provided and at this stage Officers will consider the interrelationship of the proposed development with adjacent dwellings and any impacts on privacy / residential amenity.
10.160. Objectors have noted that they consider that the documents submitted by the applicant do not fully consider the impact on the nearby properties and that they are misleading. Officers have visited the site and are only at this stage considering the parameters plan and not a detailed layout. The reserved matters stage will require a full layout to be provided and at this stage Officers will consider the interrelationship of the proposed development with adjacent dwellings and any impacts on privacy / residential amenity.
10.161. Objectors have noted that the submitted documents showing approach which would allow access through the development site to an adjacent parcel of land also owned by the applicants. The application before Members is purely considering the principal of development of the application site and the parameters plan sets the context for any reserved matters submission going forward. It is not unusual for layouts to show the ability to access adjoining land and such an approach is not unacceptable in planning terms.
11.0 PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
11.2. The Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land as required by the NPPF therefore, the policies most important for determining the application, SP2 and SP5, are out of date as set out in NPPF paragraph 11. Permission should be granted unless the proposal fails to satisfy the tests in NPPF paragraph 11d. The proposal complies with paragraph 11d)i because no NPPF policy that protects areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. The requirements of paragraph 11d)ii are more nuanced as set out below. It requires consideration of whether the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
11.3. Adverse impacts include the modest scale of loss of Grade 3b agricultural land which would result in minor harm to the agricultural economy in the area as well as food self-sufficiency; moderate adverse localised landscape and visual effects; and conflict with the development plan.
11.4. Neutral matters include the lack of conflict with mineral policies; the indicative housing density is appropriate; the 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 is not contaminated; 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 notable contribution to needed market and affordable housing (great weight is given to this consideration); a housing mix is secured that will deliver a mixed and balance community with provision for those with mobility problems and those that want to self or custom build their own home; the scheme will deliver a cycle link to the Route 66; biodiversity net gain and ecological enhancements are secured; provision of open space 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 agreement of a section 106 agreement securing the matters listed below and the conditions listed below:
· Primary Education - £151,920 to mitigate the impacts of the development on education provision at Appleton Roebuck Primary School.
· Healthcare - £37,818 to mitigate the impacts of the development on healthcare provision at Tadcaster Medical Centre
· 20% of the total number of dwellings are to be affordable housing. Of these 25% can be First Homes. If the developer is unable to dispose of the FH units a legal clause will require other opportunities to be considered before they are disposed of on the open market. These are: An option for the Council to buy or nominate a purchaser. This is for the Council or said purchaser to utilise the unit as another form of affordable tenure, be that intermediate or rental; or the payment of an additional FH Charge at 30% of the market value of the property to the Council. This allows the property to be sold on the open market and the sum (30%) ring-fenced for the delivery of affordable housing in the locality by the Council. The overall split shall be 25% First Homes, 65% affordable rent and 10% shared ownership.
· 3% of the total number of plots to be self or custom build dwellings.
· Implementation, ownership and maintenance of play areas and all recreational open space.
· 4 x 240 litre wheeled bins at a price of £65 per dwelling.
Conditions:
Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
02. 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).
03. Unless otherwise amended under the conditions below, the development shall be in accordance with drawings Site Location Plan (Ref 01 - Site Location Plan, prepared by Grimster Planning dated 29/05/2024) and Preliminary Highways Access Plan (Ref 2024362/DPL/SK002 Rev A prepared by Development Planning Ltd dated05/09/2024), and the reserved matters shall reflect the form of development shown on Parameters Plan (Ref 04 Rev A - Parameters Plan prepared by Grimster Planning dated 13/09/2024)
Reason: For the sake of clarity and in the interests of proper planning.
Mix
05. 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).
Highways
06 Except for investigative works, no excavation or other groundworks or the depositing of material on site in connection with the construction of any road or any structure or apparatus which will lie beneath the road must take place on any phase of the road construction works, until full detailed engineering drawings of all aspects of roads and sewers for that phase, including any structures which affect or form part of the highway network, and a programme for delivery of such works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development must only be carried out in compliance with the approved engineering drawings.
Reason: To secure an appropriate highway constructed to an adoptable standard in the interests of highway safety and the amenity and convenience of all highway users in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
07 No part of the development to which this permission relates must be brought into use until the carriageway and any footway or footpath from which it gains access is constructed to binder course macadam level or block paved (as approved) and kerbed and connected to the existing highway network with any street lighting installed and in operation. The completion of all road works, including any phasing, must be in accordance with a programme submitted to and approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is brought into use.
Reason: To ensure safe and appropriate access and egress to the premises, in the interests of highway safety and the convenience of all prospective highway users in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
08 The development must not be brought into use until the access to the site at Land Off, Colton Lane, Appleton Roebuck has been set out and constructed in accordance with the ‘Specification for Housing and Industrial Estate Roads and Private Street Works” published by the Local Highway Authority and the following requirements:
The access must be formed with 6 metres radius kerbs, to give a minimum carriageway width of 4.5 metres, and that part of the access road extending 6 metres into the site must be constructed in accordance with Standard Detail number A1 and the following requirements.
· Any gates or barriers must be erected a minimum distance of 6 metres back from the carriageway of the existing highway and must not be able to swing over the existing or proposed highway.
· Provision should be made to prevent surface water from the site/plot discharging onto the existing or proposed highway in accordance with the specification of the Local Highway Authority
· Measures to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear. All works must accord with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of access to the site from the public highway in the interests of highway safety and the convenience of all highway users in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
09 There must be no access or egress by any vehicles between the highway and the application site at Land Off, Colton Lane, Appleton Roebuck until splays are provided as per submitted document (Preliminary Highways Access Plan - 2024362/DPL/SK002 Rev A) giving clear visibility of 91 metres on eastern side of access and 123 metres on west side of access measured along both channel lines of the major road from a point measured 2.4 metres down the centre line of the access road. In measuring the splays, the eye height must be 1.05 metres and the object height must be 0.6 metres. Once created, these visibility splays must be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained for their intended purpose at all times.
Reason : In the interests of highway safety in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
10 There must be no excavation or other groundworks, except for investigative works, or the depositing of material on the site in connection with the construction of the access road or building(s) at Land Off, Colton Lane, Appleton Roebuck until full details of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
· vehicular, cycle, and pedestrian accesses;
· vehicular and cycle parking;
· vehicular turning arrangements including measures to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear
· provision of a cycle link to Route 66 of the national cycle network.
No part of the development must be brought into use until the vehicle access, parking, manoeuvring and turning areas at Land Off, Colton Lane, Appleton Roebuck have been constructed in accordance with the details approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once created these areas must be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained for their intended purpose at all times.
Reason: To ensure appropriate on-site facilities in the interests of highway safety and the general amenity of the development in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
Construction Management Plan
11 No development must commence until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Construction of the permitted development must be undertaken in accordance with the approved plan. The Plan must include, but not be limited, to arrangements for the following in respect of each phase of the works:
1. details of any temporary construction access to the site including measures for removal following completion of construction works;
2. restriction on the use of Land Off, Colton Lane, Appleton Roebuck access for construction purposes;
3. wheel washing facilities on site to ensure that mud and debris is not spread onto the adjacent public highway;
4. the parking of contractors’ site operatives and visitor’s vehicles;
5. areas for storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development clear of the highway;
6. details of site working hours;
7. details of the measures to be taken for the protection of trees; and
8. contact details for the responsible person (site manager/office) who can be contacted in the event of any issue.
9. Noise mitigation measures
10. Management of vibration
11. dust mitigation
Reason: In the interest of public safety and amenity in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan and 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.
Drainage
12 The drainage scheme for the development shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (prepared by WML Consulting dated June 2024)
Reason - In the interest of satisfactory and sustainable drainage in pursuance of Policy SP15 of the Core Strategy.
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 A strip of land 3 metres wide adjacent to the top of the embankment of the watercourse within/adjacent to the site shall be kept clear of all new buildings, structures, walls, fencing, swales/ponds and planting unless agreed otherwise in writing with Ainsty (2008) Internal Drainage Board.
Reason: To maintain access to the watercourse for maintenance or improvement
16. 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.
Piling
17 Should any of the proposed foundations be piled, no development shall commence until a schedule of works to identify those plots affected, and setting out mitigation measures to protect residents from noise, dust and vibration has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The proposals shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule.
Reason: To protect the residential amenity of the locality during construction and to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) and Selby District Council’s Policy’s SP19 and ENV2.
Landscape
18. Accompanying the Reserved Matters, an updated and detailed Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) produced in accordance with BS 5837:2012 (‘Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction’), or any superseding British Standard, including a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) and Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved AIA, TPP and AMS.
Reason: To secure incorporation of existing trees into the development in pursuance of Policy SP19 of the Selby District Local Plan.
19. The landscaping and layout reserved matters application(s) shall include details of landscaping and management and maintenance details, for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in full prior to the last occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted and shall thereafter be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Any element of the landscaping buffer that is removed, dies, is seriously damaged or diseased within 10 years of planting shall be replaced with a similar species within the next available planting season.
Reason: In accordance with Policies SP18 and SP19 of the Core Strategy.
Biodiversity Net Gain
20. With the submission of Reserved Matters, a Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy (BMES), including construction phase matters, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The BMES shall be prepared in accordance with BS 42020:2013 (‘Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and development’), or any superseding British Standard, shall be informed by the Ecological and BNG Assessment (prepared by Rachel Hacking Ecology dated June 2024) and Response to North Yorkshire Ecology Comments 1st October 2024, and shall additionally include:
a) an updated Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment showing 10% gain;
b) a 30 year management and monitoring plan; and
c) implementation timetable.
The development shall be carried out and thereafter managed in accordance with the approved BMES.
Reason: In order to prevent harm to protected species and ensure net gain for biodiversity in pursuance of Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy.
Contamination
21 In the event that unexpected land contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken and, if remediation is necessary, a remediation strategy must be prepared, which is subject to approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation strategy, a verification report must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. It is strongly recommended that all reports are prepared by a suitably qualified and competent person.
Reason: To ensure that the site is suitable for its proposed use taking account of ground conditions and any risks arising from land contamination.
Informatives
NPPF
The Local Planning Authority worked positively and proactively with the applicant to identify various solutions during the application process to ensure that the proposal comprised sustainable development and would improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area and would accord with the development plan. These were incorporated into the scheme and/or have been secured by planning condition. The Local Planning Authority has therefore implemented the requirement in Paragraph 39 of the NPPF.
Coal Authority - Low Risk Area
The proposed development lies within a coal mining area which may contain unrecorded coal mining related hazards. If any coal mining feature is encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to the Mining Remediation Authority on 0345 762 6846 or if a hazard is
encountered on site call the emergency line 0800 288 4242.
Further information is also available on the Mining Remediation Authority website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/mining-remediation-authority
Standing Advice valid from 1st January 2025 until 31st December 2026
Biodiversity Net Gain Mandatory Condition
Advice from the Internal Drainage Board
The following criteria should be considered for the disposal of surface water:
· Discharge from “greenfield sites” taken as 1.4 litres per second per hectare of the developed area.
· Storage volume should accommodate a 1:30 year event with no surface flooding and no overland discharge off the site in a 1:100 year event.
· A 30% allowance for climate change should be included in all calculations.
· A range of durations should be used to establish the worst-case scenario.
Internal Drainage Board 2
Under the Board’s Byelaws, the written consent of the Board is required prior to any discharge, or increase in the rate of discharge, into any watercourse (directly or indirectly) within the Board’s District
Internal Drainage Board 3
The watercourse adjacent/within this development is not maintained by the Board. The responsibility for the maintenance of the watercourse rests ultimately with the riparian owners
Highways 1
Applicants are reminded that in addition to securing planning permission other permissions may be required from North Yorkshire County Council as Local Highway Authority. These additional permissions can include, but are not limited to: Agreements under Sections 278, 38, and 184 of the Highways Act 1980; Section 38 of the Commons Act 2006, permissions through New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991 and Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (as amended and including all instruments, orders, plans, regulations and directions). Further information on these matters can be obtained from the Local Highway Authority. Other permissions may also be required from third parties. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure all necessary permissions are in place.
Highway 2
Detailed Plans of Road and Footway Layouts - It is recommended that in order to avoid abortive work, discussions are held between the applicant, the Local Planning Authority and the Local Highway Authority before a draft layout is produced and any detailed planning submission is made. To assist, the Local Highway Authority can provide a full list of information required to discharge this condition. It should be noted that approval to discharge the condition does not automatically confer approval for the purposes of entering any Agreement with the Local Highway Authority. The agreed drawings must be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for the purpose of discharging this condition.
Target Determination Date: 12.05.2025
Case Officer: Yvonne Naylor, yvonne.naylor@northyorks.gov.uk
Appendix A – Parameters Plan Rev A (received 13th September 2024)