North Yorkshire Council
Community Development Services
Selby and Ainsty Area Planning Committee
9 JULY 2025
ZG2024/0023/FULM - Residential development of 137 dwellings, open space, landscaping, and associated infrastructure and Community Centre with associated car parking and recreational space at Land North Of Hull Road Hemingbrough Selby North Yorkshire
Report of the HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT – Community Development Services
|
1.0 Purpose of the Report 1.1 To resolve the position the Council will take at an upcoming appeal against non-determination for an application for full planning permission for residential development of 137 dwellings, open space, landscaping, and associated infrastructure and Community Centre with associated car parking and recreational space at Land north of Hull Road, Hemingbrough, Selby, North Yorkshire.
1.2 This application is reported to Committee because the Head of Development Management considers this application to raise significant planning issues such that it is in the public interest for the application to be considered by Committee. |
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Planning Committee resolve that had the Local Planning Authority determined the application it would have REFUSED planning permission the reasons set out below in Section 12 of this report.
2.1. This is a full planning application for the development of land currently in agricultural use for 137 dwellings and a community centre with associated infrastructure, landscaping and open space. The site lies to the north-east of Hemingbrough village and is physically separated from the village by the A63. The site lies to the rear of R&R Country Stores and dwellings on Hull Road, extending to the public footpath to the north. To the east lies further fields. To the west lies Hagg Lane Green SINC. The proposal is for 137 dwellings sited around the perimeter of the site. Central to the site is a proposed community centre and playing field. Access to the site is proposed from the A63. Existing hedgerows and trees are shown to as retained and further landscaping provided. Compensatory ponds and a wildlife area, as mitigation, is shown to the west of the site.
2.2. The site is flat and is 6.09ha in area. The site lies outside of the development limit of Hemingbrough, a Designated Service Village as identified in the 2013 Core Strategy. Part of the site, to the south and centre, lies within Flood Zone 2 and the remainder in Flood Zone 1.
2.3. The Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land. Although the principle of locating the majority of development towards the towns, local service centres and the designated service villages defined within Policy SP2 of the CSLP still carries weight, the absence of a five-year supply means it can no longer be required to locate this development exclusively within their development limits (DL’S) as required by SP4. Policy SP5 is out of date and carries no weight because the housing need figure it contains is not calculated based on the required standard method. In this regard, the proposed DL’s adjacent to sustainable settlements designated in Policy SP2, are a starting point from where applications can be considered on their own merits. This should be done in accordance with paragraph 11d from the NPPF. Permission should be granted unless the proposal fails to satisfy the tests in NPPF paragraph 11d. It requires consideration of whether the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
2.4. The proposal would amount to substantial residential development in the countryside. Although a relatively sustainable location, the site is physically separate from the village and harmful to the character and appearance of Hemingbrough. No exceptional case has been made for the community centre.
2.5. It is recognised that there would be benefits such as housing delivery and a community centre, however the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits to the extent that had the application been determined by the Council that planning permission would have been recommended for refusal
3.0 Preliminary Matters
3.1.
Access to the case
file on Public Access can be found here:-
ZG2024/0023/FULM |
Residential development of 137 dwellings, open space, landscaping,
and associated infrastructure and Community Centre with associated
car parking and recreational space | Land North Of Hull Road
Hemingbrough North Yorkshire
3.2. The following relevant planning history has been identified for this site:
ZG2023/0380/FULM - Residential development of 151 dwellings, open space, landscaping, and associated infrastructure and Community Centre with associated car parking and recreational space. WITHDRAWN 04.07.2023.
4.0 Site and Surroundings
4.1. The application site comprises a field to the north-east of Hemingbrough, 6.09ha in size. The site is flat and in agricultural (arable) with two agricultural buildings to the western boundary. To the south-east lies the A63, which separates the site from the village. The northern part of the village, comprising dwellings and the playing fields, lie immediately to the south of the A83. R&R Country Stores and a row of dwellings lie to the north of the A63 and to the south of the site boundary. To the east lies further fields. To the north a public right of way (35.35/3/1) runs within the field boundary from the north-western corner and into the adjacent field, before then exiting onto Inner Moor Lane, which runs parallel to the footpath. To the west of the site is Hagg Lane Green Site of Importance to Nature Conservation (SINC).
4.2. The defined development limit for Hemingbrough runs along the A63 and includes the country stores and dwellings to the north of the A63. The site lies outside of the development limit in open countryside. The site is in flood zones 1 and 2.
5.0 Description of Proposal
5.1. Full planning permission is sought for the erection of 137 dwellings and a community centre, with associated infrastructure, playing field and landscaping. A new access from the A63 is proposed with a new pedestrian crossing (including central refuge) across the A63. The primary road leads to the proposed dwellings, which are situated around the perimeter of the site. Central to the site is a proposed community centre, with car parking and playing fields. A separate area of public open space is also proposed. Landscaping is proposed across the site, comprising tree, shrub and meadow planting. The existing PROW is to be enhanced and placed within a landscaped area. A Site of Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) is proposed along the boundary of the site to reduced recreational pressure on the Hagg Lane Green SINC, which lies to the west. Compensatory ponds and wetland meadow, and hibernacula for Great Crested Newts are also proposed, as well as a dog-pond to dis-encourage pets using those within the SINC.
5.2. As submitted the application was for 142 dwellings and was subsequently amended to 137.
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 Development Plan so far as material to the application unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Adopted Development Plan
6.2. The Adopted Development Plan for this site is:
- Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan (adopted 22nd October 2013)
- Those policies in the Selby District Local Plan (adopted on 8 February 2005) which were saved by the direction of the Secretary of State and which have not been superseded by the Core Strategy
- Minerals and Waste Joint Plan (adopted 16 February 2022)
Emerging Development Plan – Material Consideration
6.3. The Emerging Development Plan for this sitewas the Selby Local Plan revised publication 2024 (Reg 19). Following reports to committees and finally to North Yorkshire Council’s Full Council on 26 February, work on the ELP has ceased.
6.4. Having regard to the above, there is no emerging local plan to consider, but some weight may be given to the evidence base. The site was put forward in the call for sites and was rejected as a housing allocation under the former emerging Local Plan, reference HEMB-S.
6.5. The North Yorkshire Local Plan is the emerging development plan for this site however no weight can be applied in respect of this document at the current time as it is at an early stage of preparation. As the emerging Local Plan progresses through the various stages, it can attract increasing weight in decision making. At the point of adoption, it is a statutory document to which Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 can apply.
Guidance - Material Considerations
6.4. Relevant guidance for this application is:
- National Planning Policy Framework December 2024
- National Planning Practice Guidance
- National Design Guide 2021
- Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (AHSPD) 2014
- Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (DC SPD) 2007
7.0 Consultation Responses
7.1. The following consultation responses have been received and have been summarised below.
7.2. Hemingbrough Parish Council - Object to the application on the following grounds: Site was rejected for inclusion within the emerging local plan, other more suitable sites allocated within the village, outside the development limit, detrimental to the Hagg Lane Green SINC, safety of pedestrians (especially children) crossing the A63 to access village services, will split the village as north of A63, unsustainable as limited bus service, increased use of car to take children to school, no discussion taken with the Parish Council on the proposal, development density too high for village, insufficient landscaping, loss of agricultural land, Hall for Hemingbrough not elected representative of the village, landscape impact. Proposed drainage inadequate, indicates will discharge to ponds in SINC. Do not support Hall for Hemingbrough, unrealistic, concern over phasing and funding, affordability for future users, survey results are not a true reflection of villager’s opinions. The Parish Council does not consider that the changes made since ZG2023/0380/FULM address their concerns, objections and local opinion.
7.3. Active Travel England - Following a high-level review of the application Active Travel England has determined that standing advice be issued which sets out how active travel and sustainable development can be achieved. This advice can be found at: Active Travel England Standing Advice Note: Active travel and sustainable development.
7.4. NYC Education – A financial contribution is sought towards Special School and Early Years provision.
7.5. NYC Environmental Health -A noise assessment has been submitted and subject to implementation of mitigation measures is acceptable. An Air Quality Assessment has been submitted and mitigation measures proposed. These should be included in the Construction Environmental Management Plan. Conditions recommended relating to minimisation of noise, vibration and dust/dirt; working hours; no piled foundations.
7.6. NYC Landscape Architect - Proposed development not substantially different to previous scheme. The overall impact on landscape character and visual amenity remain as for the withdrawn application (ref: ZG2023/0380/FULM), with a slightly,
but insignificantly reduced visual impact on the PROW through the site
7.7. NYC Waste and Recycling – Comments made that the proposed layout needs to be accessible to refuse vehicles and there are concerns regarding the site layout in terms of refuse vehicles needing to reverse; conflict with on-road visitor parking spaces; not all bin presentation points are identified. Comments made on bin numbers and storage per dwelling and the applicant will be required to purchase the waste and recycling containers.
7.8. NYC Archaeologist - Following review of the submitted archaeological geophysical survey there are no objections to the proposal.
7.9. NYC Conservation Officer - There are no known heritage assets associated with this site, or any which setting would be affected.
7.10. NYC Ecologist - Applicant has sought to address previous concerns on ZG2023/0380/FULM and several of the issues raised previously have been resolved or mitigated as far as it reasonably possible. Recommend conditions requiring a Construction Environmental Management Plan, Landscape and Ecological Management Plan and lighting.
7.11. Lead Local Flood Authority - Recommend conditions regarding maintenance of SuDS Drainage Scheme; Exceedance Flow Routes; Hydraulic Calculation; Outfall destination
7.12. NYC Highways - No objections following amendments made following negotiations. Contributions requested for Travel Plan monitoring, bus enhancements, speed limit reduction.
7.13. NYC Arboriculturist - No response received to consultation.
7.14. NYC Minerals and Waste – No objection.
7.15. NYC Housing - 20% affordable housing proposed, the scheme is in line with council expectations regarding tenure and accommodation sizes; affordable units should be visually indistinguishable and be built to same high standard of design and amenity as market housing.
7.16. NYC Public Rights of Way – Pleased to see retention of existing public footpath and incorporation into open space. Relevant provisions are set out.
7.17. NYC Economic Development – No response received to consultation request.
7.18. NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board – The proposed development would have an impact on the primary healthcare provision in the area and its implication if unmitigated would be unsustainable. A financial contribution is sought to provide additional primary healthcare provision.
7.19. Contaminated Land Consultant - There is significant pollutant linkage associated with made ground to the west of the site, remedial work will be required to make the site safe and suitable. Conditions recommended requiring submission of a remediation strategy, verification of remediation works and reporting of unexpected contamination.
7.20. Yorkshire Water - Object to the proposal as it should be noted that the site was considered and rejected in the emerging Selby Local Plan. The site was also not included in the Selby District Local Plan 2005. As such the site has not been factored into Yorkshire Waters proposed asset reinforcement for the Hemingbrough area. Due to this it is believed that the proposed foul water discharge would cause the receiving wastewater treatment works to fail the agreed standard.
7.21. North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service -No objection/observation to make.
7.22. North Yorkshire Police - The Design and Access Statement submitted with the application shows clearly that the applicant has considered crime prevention. There is a specific section outlining crime prevention measures that are to be incorporated into the proposed development to prevent crime and disorder. It is considered that this proposal accords with the core principles and design objectives set out in the National Planning Policy Framework in respect of developments creating safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.
7.23. NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board - Population generated from proposal will impact on primary healthcare provision. A financial contribution is sought to provide additional healthcare resources.
7.24. Ouse and Derwent Internal Drainage District – Recommends condition to agree a scheme for the disposal of surface water and foul drainage.
7.25. Environment Agency – As the site is partially located on Flood Zone 2 standing advice should be followed.
7.26. Natural England – No comments to make.
7.27. CPRE – Object on the following grounds: Contrary to the Settlement Hierarchy; Loss of BMV Land; Impact on the Local Nature Reserve – Hagg Green Lane SINC; proposals are contrary to local and national planning policy.
Publicity and Local Representations
7.28. The press notice that was required when the application was validated was never published. This issue has recently come to light and a press notice published on 26th June 2025. The notice expires on 17th July 2025.
7.29. The application was also advertised by site notice, at submission in February 2024 and following receipt of amended plans in September 2025. 247 local representations have been received of which 28 were in support and 229 objecting. A summary of the comments is provided below, however, please see website for full comments.
7.30. Objection:
Location
- Outside of defined development limits of the village
- The site was rejected in the call for sites consultation
- The emerging Local Plan makes provisions for approx. 200 houses in village, so the additional houses are disproportionate
- A speculative move from the developer to attempt to secure planning before the new plan is adopted
- The original plan was rejected in April 2023, and nothing has changed to mitigate the issues
- Information supplied in this resubmission is inaccurate in relation to current amenities
- Wrong side of the village, the A63 road will split the village in two
- Loss of agricultural land, food security, brown field sites should be used instead
- The land is a well used and loved green space for walks, exercise and local events
- There are better alternative sites
- The village is not a tier 1 village
Housing/design
- The proposed housing mix does not sit well with the village’s current property types and requirements to facilitate sustainable growth
- One-bedroom social housing does not provide an adequate long term solution
- Not enough 3-4 bed houses
- Too many dwellings, too many small box-like houses
- Housing density inappropriate; over intensification/urban scale of development
- Hemingbrough is a historic village not a town and this needs to be preserved
- The ‘anywhere’ development is discordant with the character of the village
- The development will change the total outlook and dynamics of the village
- People move here for a village feel not a town
- Overlooking to rear gardens and windows resulting in a loss of privacy
Facilities
- Hemingbrough cannot support the additional people
- Current infrastructure does not support the number of houses, additional people, traffic increase and local amenities are not available.
- No local employment, no bus service, no doctor’s surgery
- School is at capacity and has no nursery
- The plans don’t appear to facilitate buses travelling to pick up points on the estate
- Hemingbrough does not want a Hall and is a glorified gym with a function room and bar. Current sport facilities have struggled and failed
- Other buildings in the village could be used as the Hall for Hemingbrough
- Concerned how the Hall would impact the existing pubs, Methodist Church and the Institute.
- A doctors or bus terminal would be better than a hall
- The proposed hall could damage financial viability of leisure centres by diverting part of their existing demand
Highway issues
- Impact on road safety, especially Hull Road A63, increase in accidents
- Result in an increase in vehicles, will be on-street parking
- Entrance to the new estate is onto the A63 which is a heavily used fast road and the new estate is an accident waiting to happen
- Entrance is too close to Hagg Lane/Water Lane crossroads.
- Will force people to frequently cross the A63 which is dangerous with no proper crossing and safeguarding children going to primary school and to the playing field/playground will be difficult
- Will add traffic down main street – main street should be made one way
- Will make parking on the streets at the shop and bakery difficult
- The speed limit on the A63 is too fast and should be reduced
- The A63 was built on the village perimeter to keep heavy traffic away from village life. This would be a retrograde step to once more enclose it.
- Due to the road type then crossing types which could be permitted are restricted
- Road layout will lead to bins being lined up along the A63
- The introduction of a pedestrian crossing would significantly increase traffic and cause tailbacks during peak times
- Local country roads would have a large increase in traffic meaning people won’t be able to cycle the back roads safely
- The A63 causes property cracking and property vibration
Environmental issues
- Light pollution
- The entrance to the site and first row of houses almost sits on the Hagg Lane Conservation Site and will disrupt the Conservation Site.
- Destruction of habitat of the wildlife; bats, newts, deer
- Impact on air quality during the building work and after.
- The local wildlife will be impacted by the building of the development, light pollution and predation by pets such as cats that would be owned by the householders
- The drainage system cannot take future development and will cause flooding to the village and conservation area
- Flood risk concerns regarding storm storage volumes and the drainage outlet
- The littering, invasive species, wastewater/heat/pollution from housing and vehicles will also have direct physical and biological impacts on this area
- Increased noise during construction
- Concerns with the construction process and the care taken to the surrounding area
- Increase in dust and air pollutants, diesel fumes and all airborne problems associated with construction work would impact people with health conditions
- Bridle ways would become abused and could lead to antisocial behaviour and more disturbances putting pressure on emergency services
- Impact on TPO trees
- Risk of pollution in the water run off; arsenic and heavy metals detected in site report
Economic
- Phase 1 of Hall for Hemingbrough appears to be fully funded however the others are not – likely only phase 1 will be built which offers little facilities or enhancement for the village
- The Hall has not been costed properly and the village would not be able to afford to keep it running, very unlikely to be completed and viable in the medium term
- The developer is not known for using top quality materials
- No mention of who would pay for any additional amenities
- The siting seems all to do with making a profit for the absentee landowner not considering the best site for new housing
Other
- Objections and concerns from statutory consultees should be taken into consideration and the plans do not address any of these concerns.
- Potential for increased crime, anti-social behaviour
- People have a massive impact on the mental health of others. This development will only bring issues to the village population
- Could lead to further development
- Controlled hours of operation and other restrictions should be enforced to make the works more durable.
- The community surveys were undertaken in 2016 and are not a true reflection of current want/needs
- The questions at consultations were leading with no scope to offer further opinions – no option to object.
7.31. Support:
- This application meets the terms of the plan with added benefits
- Plans have been produced with conservation and community in mind
- Plenty of green space with wildlife corridors, places to play and walk and protects the surrounding natural habitat
- Housing is desperately needed, and this is an excellent site for it, will provide quality housing including affordable housing
- The village needs to grow, to bring in new families
- New homes will bring more infrastructure and facilities to replace those lost and will help local businesses and support local jobs
- The new houses will support the school and may attract the return of other services such as a bus route
- The village is growing and need a modern well equipped community centre and more sporting and fitness facilities
- Will provide a much-needed facility and investment for Hemingbrough
- The community facility will benefit families, young people and older residents by providing a safe and modern place to meet, engage in community activities and sports
- Hemingbrough needs a venue for youth clubs, scouts, guides etc for social meetings for all ages.
- The proposed hall and facilities would support vulnerable groups in the area.
- Youth clubs would engage the young people, this is vital in minimising unsocial behaviour as well as being able to build resilience and support young people to gain social skills that will support them for the rest of their lives.
- The village does not currently have a premises that has the capacity to house so many varied groups leaving people to travel further afield.
- Hemingbrough has become isolated forcing people to travel to facilities this development could provide
- The facility will attract more people to come and live in the village
- Existing facilities are either old and lacking in modern facilities or are focussed on specific sporting groups. The proposed hall will provide a modern meeting place for a wider range of activities.
- The location would be ideal thus avoiding the already congested village roads becoming more dangerous than they currently are
- All developments will have some impact on the surrounding infrastructure and there are many developments off main roads. Other suggested sites would also impact traffic and safety.
- Cliffe manages a split village which proves it works
8.0 Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
8.1. The Local Planning Authority have screened the development, taking account of the criteria set out in Schedule 3 of the regulations and the indicative screening thresholds in National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) and determined that an Environmental Statement is not required.
9.0 Main Issues
9.1. The key considerations in the assessment of this application are:
- Principle of development – Housing
- Principle of development – Community centre
- Loss of agricultural land
- Minerals
- Housing density and mix
- Character and appearance
- Landscape
- Flood risk, drainage and climate change
- Access and highway safety
- Ecology and biodiversity
- Affordable housing
- Recreational open space
- Contaminated land
- Residential amenity
- Heritage
- Developer contributions
10.0 ASSESSMENT
Principle of development - Housing
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 Hemingbrough 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 of Hemingbrough 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.
Housing Supply Requirements
10.7. 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). Policy SP5 is out of date and therefore carries no weight because the housing need figure it contains is not calculated based on the required standard method. As such applications are required to make decisions in accordance with Paragraph 11d of the NPPF (December 2024).
10.8. 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 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”
10.9. 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.
10.10. 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 would provide housing as well as a community centre. The housing would make 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 subject to satisfying Paragraph 11d ii.
10.11. The application site was submitted through the Call for Sites process associated with the emerging Local Plan (site ref. HEMB-S although the application site differs slightly from the site submitted to the Local Plan process as the western portion, which coincides with Hagg Lane Green Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) is excluded from the application site boundary) and was identified in the Publication Draft as being rejected for residential development (with an indicative capacity of 158 dwellings) because: it is located on the opposite side of the A63 to the majority of the built form of the village and most of the services, and locating development north of the road will fundamentally change the character of the village and encroach into the open countryside; over 40% of the site is located within Flood Zone 2 and the submitted site also overlaps on its western edge with a ratified Site of Interest for Nature Conservation.
10.12. Work on the Local Plan ended on 26.02.2025and there is no emerging local plan to consider but some weight may be able to be given to the evidence base. The application site was rejected as a draft allocation in Selby Local Plan revised publication 2024. The site reference is HEMB-S.
Sustainability
10.13. Paragraph 11 of the NPPF (December 2024), sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development in determining applications and that Local Plans are the key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the vision and aspirations of local communities as such development that does not accord with an up-to-date plan will not normally constitute sustainable development. However, Paragraph 12 of the NPPF (December 2024), makes clear that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. When a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date plan permission should not normally be granted.
10.14. Regarding sustainability, existing village development limits are tightly drawn around Hemingbrough with the northern boundary being the A63. R&R Country Stores and a small number of dwellings lie to the north of the A63 however the heart of the village and its facilities lie to the south of the A63. The village has a small convenience store and post office, bakery, take-away, 2 public houses a primary school and places of worship. These all lie within the village envelope to the west and south of the village, and all to the south of the A63. They can be accessed by foot however this necessitates future occupiers having to cross the busy A63. Due to the traffic levels on that road, it is considered more likely that future occupants will drive to these facilities rather than walk. These facilities are not extensive and objection letters and issues raised in consultation responses note that there is no health provision within the village, education above primary school age is outside of the village and the size of the shop does not cater for more extensive retail needs. For these facilities villagers will need to travel to larger settlements nearby. There is a very limited Monday-Friday bus service running once a day to and from Selby, however the service does not include commuter hours and there is no service on Bank Holidays. New development does provide opportunities for new investment and the highway section of the report sets out where enhancements are sought.
10.15. 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, at the heart of the framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable development (Paragraph 11)”.
10.16. The following benefits would arise from the proposed development:
Economic
10.17. 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 and increasing the demand to sustain existing services. The proposals could enhance provision of local workforce for the businesses, although this will depend upon potential employee skill matches and vacancy requirements. The Hall for Hemingbrough could provide employment depending on ultimate use and facilities provided.
Social
10.18. As well as market housing the proposal will deliver 20% affordable housing units 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 application is for full planning permission and subject to discharge of any conditions in the event of any approval would be implemented without delay.
Environmental
10.19. The proposed development can consider environmental issues such as climate change, ecology and biodiversity and will deliver environmental benefits in the form of open space provision. The proposal would provide housing outside the boundaries of the Designated Service Village, but this is one of the more sustainable settlements in the Selby legacy area.
The site is on the edge of a Designated Service Village and is a sustainable location. Due to the housing supply position the presumption in favour of sustainable development is engaged under paragraph 11d and relevant material factors need to be taken into consideration as part of the planning balance. The proposal would provide 137 dwellings and would boost the housing land supply as well as providing economic, social and environmental benefits. All these factors weigh in favour of the proposal.
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 modest growth in Hemingbrough however, in the context of the increase of housing land requirements arising from the NPPF there is a need to release more 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 full planning permission, and the applicants have confirmed that they will be seeking to bring the site forward for development at the earliest opportunity. Within the Planning Statement it is stated that residential units would be completed at year 5 and phase 1 of the community centre completed at year 4. Ultimately, the NPPF aims to boost and maintain the supply of housing, and this is a material consideration when evaluating planning applications.
Conclusion on the Principle of Residential Development
10.22. Policies SP2 and SP5 are the most important for determining the application and are of limited weight because the LPA cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Furthermore, Policy SP5 is out of date because the housing need figure it contains is not calculated based on the required standard method.
10.23. 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 5-year housing land supply and the engaged tilted balance of Paragraph 11d.
10.24. The hierarchy outlined within Policy SP2 itself remains soundly based on an understanding of the role and function of different settlements within the former District. However, continued strict application of Policy SP2A(c), which prevents market housing outside development limits in the countryside, would not allow the LPA to meet the identified local housing needs. Furthermore, the weight afforded to 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, although it serves as a useful guide for the sustainability of settlements enabling the Council to still resist development in the least sustainable locations, during this period where the Council does not have a 5-year land supply, the strict application and locational limitations of SP2 c) and SP4 should be given limited weight.
10.25. The development of the site would deliver a number of socio-economic benefits to Hemingbrough and the wider Selby/North Yorkshire area alongside making an important contribution to the Council’s ongoing 5-year housing land supply requirements. These are anticipated to be within 5 years of the approval of the planning application,
10.26. There remains a requirement to consider the impacts of the development and whether any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, having regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes.
Principle of Development – Community Centre
10.27. A community centre is proposed centrally located on the site. The community centre is promoted by Hall for Hemingbrough. The land, totalling 1.2ha, is to be gifted to the organisation by Barratt Homes and a £500,000 contribution provided to build out Phase 1. While supporting documents indicate that 5 phases for the community centre are envisaged, only Phase 1 has been applied for as part of this application, which is for a multipurpose room for 80 people, bar and kitchen, a meeting room, changing and toilets. The building is shown to be constructed from a palette of materials including stone, blockwork and timber boarding, with a flat roof and curved entrance feature. Assessment of design follows later in this report.
10.28. The submitted documents show the following additional phases envisaged for the community centre, which would be subject to further planning applications. Possible sources of funding are listed:
- Phase 2 - double the footprint of the building to include a fitness studio/gym and enlarge the multi-function room (cost estimate £440,000)
- Phase 3 – addition of a four-court sports hall to the side (cost estimate c£1.65 million)
- Phase 4 – provision of outdoor areas (a 9v9 youth all weather pitch overmarked with 2x 5 a-side football pitches, a play area and outdoor games area)(cost estimate c£750.000)
- Phase 5 - first floor extension and ground floor remodelling (cost estimate c£1.4 million)
10.29. It is stated that the community centre will cost in total circa £4.7m. A business plan has been submitted to support the application which states that it is aimed to have 4000-5000 users per month in the first year due to the range of facilities on offer, and that this is expected to include users from outside the village. The document also sets out who Hall for Hemingbrough intend to approach for funding although it is noted that no funding streams have been set up to date. The community centre will be run by Hall for Hemingbrough volunteers.
10.30. Saved policy CS4 of the Selby District Local Plan specifically addresses “new community centres, places of worship and church halls” and offers support for such development subject to satisfying the following criteria:
1) The proposal, and associated activities, would not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety or which would have a significant adverse effect on local amenity, and adequate provision could be made for car parking;
2) The proposal would achieve a standard of design, materials and landscaping appropriate to the locality, and would not have a significant adverse effect on the appearance or character of the surrounding area;
3) The site would be accessible for the local community including those without a private car; and
4) In the case of new community centres the internal design would permit several types of activity to be accommodated.
Exceptionally, where there is no suitable site available within defined development limits, proposals may be permitted at or close to the edge of the settlement.
10.31. The site lies outside the development limit and therefore needs to be accompanied by an options appraisal to make the “exceptional” case required by policy CS4. Details of alternative sites considered is set out in Part 2 of the Business Plan. The document states that these other sites were either too costly or in unsuitable locations. It is stated that this site was chosen for the following reasons:
1. Easy access from the A63.
2. No impact on traffic in the village.
3. A generous donation of 3 acres by the landowner at no cost to the Hall.
4. A £500,000 cash contribution to the scheme on the development of the rest of the
site which will fund the first phase of the Hall development.
The information set out is brief with little detail. It is not considered that this is sufficient to demonstrate an “exceptional case” for locating the proposed community centre outside of the village development limit.
10.32. In assessing the site against the other criteria for Policy CS4, the Business Plan indicates a monthly usage by 4000-5000 people, which is approximately 130 people/day. Whilst some of these may walk or cycle to the site from the new development or the village it is reasonable to expect a fair proportion of villagers to visit the site by car, or to visit from nearby settlements by car. There is no highway objection to the proposal however it is noted that only the first phase out of five is part of this application and subsequent phases may have unknown impacts.
10.33. Detailed assessment of the design and appearance of the proposed building and its impact on landscape character is set out in following sections of this report, which concludes that the proposed design and materials palette does not reflect the Hemingbrough character, nor the provisions set out in the Village Design Statement. The building would be highly visible in the wider area, resulting in adverse effects on landscape character and the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It is not considered that criteria 2 is met.
10.34. It is agreed that the community centre can be accessed by residents of the adjoining dwellings and accessed by the car via the A63. Notwithstanding the proposed highway crossings it is considered that the A63 is a significant barrier to access from Hemingbrough to the south, particularly for pedestrians, cyclists and those with mobility issues.
10.35. The proposed design would permit several types of activity to be accommodated under Phase 1, with more if future phases were built out. It is considered that criteria 4 is met.
10.36. The intention to provide new sports facilities as future phases is supported in principle and would need to be assessed through subsequent applications under Policy RT3 of the Local Plan. It is noted however that the size and scope of the community centre if fully built out would significantly exceed the level of provision that would normally be expected of a village hall facility and is more in keeping with an urban sports facility. It is not considered that such a full-scale sports facility is necessary and appropriate for Hemingbrough. Whilst evidently there is need in the Selby legacy area for improved sports provision, it is questionable if this is the correct location and means of provision.
Loss of agricultural land
10.38. The site is currently in use for agriculture (arable). 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.
10.39. 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 (ALC). The Yorkshire and Humber agricultural land classification indicates the site is The Yorkshire and Humber agricultural land classification indicates the site is grade 2 “very good” agricultural land. An Agricultural Land Classification and Soil Resources report has been submitted with the application and sets out the ALC for the site
|
Grade |
Description |
Area (ha) |
% |
|
Grade 2 |
Very good quality |
2.7 |
45% |
|
Subgrade 3a |
Good quality |
1.1 |
18 |
|
Subgrade 3b |
Moderate quality |
1.8 |
30 |
|
Non-agricultural |
|
0.4 |
7 |
|
Total |
|
6.0 |
100 |
10.40. The site is BMV. At 6.09ha the site is below the 20-hectare threshold within The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) above which Natural England is a statutory consultee for the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. The conflict with the spatial development strategy means the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land would be unnecessary. Such loss would result in minor harm to the agricultural economy in the area as well as food self-sufficiency. Harm arising from the loss of agricultural land is conflict with Core Strategy Policy SP18 and NPPF paragraph 187 b) needs to be weighed in the planning balance.
Minerals
10.41. The site lies approximately 600m from Hemingbrough Claypit, which has an extant permission. There is also an allocated Minerals site, approximately 150 metres north-west from the application site (ref MJP45). The site lies within a Minerals and Waste Safeguarding Area for Sand and Gravel and Brick Clay however it does not fall within the exemption criteria stated in paragraph 8.55 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan (MWJP) (2022). A Minerals Assessment was submitted as required under MWJP Policy S02 (Mineral) and assessed by the Minerals and Waste team, who agree with the conclusion that extraction of minerals present would not be viable and raise no objection to the proposal. The proposal complies with S01 iii & iv of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan.
Housing density and mix
Density
10.42. 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 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.”
10.43. 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”.
10.44. NPPF paragraph 124 requires that decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land.
10.45. Dwellings would be erected on 3.36ha of the site, comprising a density of 40.7 dwellings per hectare. The supporting text to Policy H2B states that densities over 40 dwellings per hectare are unlikely to be generally appropriate other than in parts of the market towns and encourages densities of between 30-40 dwellings per hectare in larger villages or locations with good public transport The policy itself allows for lower densities where there is an overriding need to safeguard form and character and address other site circumstances. Policy S19 in the Core Strategy adopts a more design led approach by seeking densities that do not compromise local distinctiveness, character and form.
Housing Mix
10.47. Core Strategy policy SP8 provides guidance with regards to housing mix and requires that proposals for housing must contribute to the creation of mixed communities, and that the type and size of proposed dwellings reflects the most recent strategic housing market assessments. The proposed housing mix is shown in the table below:
|
Unit size |
HEDNA |
Application Proposal |
|
1-bedroom |
0-10% |
2% |
|
2-bedrooms |
25-35% |
25% |
|
3-bedrooms |
40-50% |
47% |
|
4+-bedrooms |
15-25% |
26% |
Housing mix is broadly in accordance with the HEDNA and is considered consistent with Policy SP8.
Character and appearance
10.48. SDLP Policy ENV1 requires the effect of new development on the character of the area and the standard of design in relation to the site and its surroundings to be considered when assessing proposals for new development. CS Policy SP18 requires the high quality and local distinctiveness of the natural and man-made environment will be sustained by 1. Safeguarding and, where possible, enhancing the historic and natural environment including the landscape character and setting of areas of acknowledged importance. Policy SP19 requires residential development to “Incorporate new and existing landscaping as an integral part of the design of schemes, including off-site landscaping for large sites and sites on the edge of settlements where appropriate”. NPPF paragraph 135 sets out several criteria to achieve high quality developments. NPPF Paragraph 187 states that planning decisions are encouraged to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, inter alia, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside
10.49. NPPF footnote 9 requires consideration of paragraph 135 which requires that planning decisions should ensure developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, provide effective landscaping, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities). Paragraph 139 resists bad design and supports good design.
10.50. The adopted Hemingbrough Village Design Statement sets out design guidance for development in the village. It states that new modern development should the appropriate building materials and architectural styles, and respecting the importance of spaces, building orientation and size. Overall, new development should look new, and should not slavishly copy the old buildings. However, new development should “fit in” with the context of the village (para 1.3). Important elements of the village include houses of maximum two-storey construction and varied building sizes. Two areas are identified, Old Hemingbrough (which is centred around the Conservation Area) and New Hemingbrough. It is acknowledged that post 1960s development has been constructed with little acknowledgement of the Hemingbrough character and acknowledge that these are “anywhere houses” and do not respect local character and that in future development, more of the traditional features and layout could be incorporated without slavishly copying the designs.
10.51. With regards the housing element of the proposal, the house types proposed are not reflective of local distinctiveness, incorporating features such as hipped roofs and dormer windows to the front of roof slopes. There are also three storey dwellings proposed for the site. The Design and Access Statement indicates a mix of red and buff brick and grey bricks and brown, grey and red roof tiles to be used. Notwithstanding the names given, the proposed house types are typical of others across the country in developments also built by the applicant.
10.52. The community centre is shown to be constructed from blockwork with timber cladding above with the front elevation comprising curtain wall glazing and timber and a curved stone entrance. The building would have a sloping roof 8.7m at its height. Modern in character and whilst adequate for the proposed internal uses, the design of the building jars with the proposed house types opposite, both in terms of scale and materials used, and does not reflect the village character nor the area, where there are few examples of stone buildings. The housing and community centre appear to have been designed separately, resulting in a clash in terms of architectural styles and materials which is not acceptable and poor design. Whilst further build-phases are stated in the submission, these have not been applied for and would be subject to future applications.
10.53. Turning to the site layout, a main spine road goes around the site with side roads leading off it, terminating as cul-de-sacs. Footways are shown to the main spine road with shared surfaces to the cul-de-sacs. Dwellings face outwards. To the north, dwellings face Inner Moor Lane. The PROW to the north is retained and runs through a landscaped buffer. There is pedestrian access to Hagg Lane. Most vistas do not terminate in a building. There is set back between dwellings and existing trees.
10.54. No streetscenes have been provided to assess the visual impact of the proposal, either from viewpoints on the A63 nor from within the site.
10.55. The pumping station is poorly located within the centre of the site and visually prominent in the scheme.
10.56. The proposal incorporates very few of the traditional features of Hemingbrough as set out in the VDS. The submitted Design and Access statement includes reference to the VDS and provides limited analysis of character. Section 5 “Design Solution” provides only limited and generic analysis of the proposals attempts to reflect local character and distinctiveness. The proposal does not take the design opportunities presented by the VDS to ensure good design that has regard to local character, identity and context is achieved and that reflects local distinctiveness. The result is a repetition of house type design by the applicant found across the country which the VDS and aforementioned policies seek to resist. It is also noted that the DAS refers to the community centre as an outline application, which is incorrect.
10.57. Only 18 plots are shown with garages and 3 house types (30 dwellings total) have integral garaging, all other dwellings have parking to the front, creating a harsh and urbanised appearance. Visitor parking is shown across the site however some locations are queried as these are on-street and in poor locations.
10.58. Affordable housing is distributed around the site, however these are not visually indistinguishable from market housing.
10.59. In terms of the community centre, the design of the building, and the indicative plans for future phases, is not reflective of Hemingbrough, incorporating stone and timber in an area where the predominant material is red brick. The scale and visual appearance of the building is more reflective of a sports centre in an urban location. The DAS gives no commentary on the design evolution of the building. The Hall for Hemingbrough Design Brief states that “The Hall should be in keeping with the local vernacular and complement the development it will be integrated into”. As set out above this is not reflected within the submission.
Landscape
10.61. 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.
10.62. The site lies within the Selby Landscape Character Assessment (November 2019) Character Area 10 East Selby Farmland. Key characteristics include very flat farmland with a string presence of tree lines along field boundaries, relatively regular field pattern, numerous farmsteads and villages evenly dispersed across the landscape ad a strong rural character. The key sensitivities section notes “Settlements show a degree of unity of style and colour, and tend to be well integrated with the landscape, with harder boundaries located along the main access roads. They may be sensitive to changes or developments which are unsympathetic to the local vernacular or not sited sensitively with relation to the existing development”. The Principal Forces for Change section recognises there is likely to be further development pressure focussed on Hemingbrough, and other villages. General Management Guidelines include reinstatement and restoration of hedgerows and hedgerow trees, that the location and appearance of new development should be carefully considered. Location specific guidelines for this area state that new development should be focused on the main villages in the area, including Hemingbrough.
10.63. The Selby District Landscape Sensitivity Study (October 2021) has the application site within assessment parcel HE2. The specific assessment of parcel RI2 notes medium rating for form, density and setting of the existing settlement, and low-medium rating for natural character and views/visual character. It is also noted that “Land lying to the north of the A63 Hull Road corridor would be of increased landscape sensitivity to residential development as the existing settlement pattern is largely contained to the south of this route” and that development within the parcel would alter the existing settlement by a change of focus towards the A63 corridor.
10.64. The applicant has sought to address concerns that were raised on the withdrawn application ZG2023/0380/FULM however the current application does not substantially differ from the previously withdrawn scheme. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been submitted and reviewed by the Council’s Landscape consultant who has concluded that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the open, rural landscape character of the site and would result in significant harm to visual amenity from some locations around the perimeter of the site, including the northern public footpath.
10.65. The proposed masterplan does not provide a sufficient buffer around existing landscape features to robustly protect them from physical encroachment, harm and/or conflict. Parts of the development pose a significant risk of harm to existing mature trees that are a strong and valuable component of the rural landscape and public amenity. The proposed tree cover within the front gardens of properties is not robustly sustainable and therefore makes a limited contribution to tree-lined streets.
10.66. The scale, form and location of the proposal would result in an incongruous extension of built form into the countryside, resulting in landscape harm and harm to the enjoyment of and rurality of the PROW to the north and would result in harm to existing mature trees, contrary to Policy SP18.
Flood risk, drainage and climate change
Flood Risk
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.
10.68. Core Strategy Policy SP15A(d) seeks to ensure that development in areas of flood risk is avoided wherever possible through the application of the sequential test and exception test (if necessary). Development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF.
10.69. The application site is located within Flood Zones 1 (Low Risk) and 2 (medium probability of flooding from rivers and the sea) and the proposal is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). The site layout has sought to place the “more vulnerable” uses (dwellings) within flood zone 1 with the community centre and playing field to flood zone 1, however approximately 1/3 of the proposed dwellings are located within flood zone 2. The drainage strategy proposes a surface water drainage system and storage facility as infiltration SuDs are not suitable for the site due to sub-soil conditions.
10.70. SDC’s Flood Risk Sequential Test Developer Guidance Note (October 2019) is a material consideration when producing or reviewing sequential tests however predates the latest version of the NPPF.
10.71. Planning practice guidance classes residential development as a ‘more vulnerable use’, within Flood Zone 2 the guidance considers requires Sequential and Exceptions tests to be satisfied for such uses. The guidance states that a “reasonably available” site could include a series of smaller sites and/or part of a larger site if these would be capable of accommodating the proposed development. Such lower-risk sites do not need to be owned by the applicant to be considered ‘reasonably available’
10.72. The FRA refers to a sequential approach in terms of flood risk by placing the less vulnerable development (community centre) within Flood Zone 2, however more vulnerable development (housing) has also been located within Flood Zone 2. As the site is located on the edge of a DSV in accordance with the Selby District Council Guidance Note on the Sequential Test, published in October 2019, the area of search is to be within and immediately adjacent to the development limits of that particular DSV.
10.73. The submitted sequential test within the Planning Statement states that there is no other site within the village that is capable of delivering both the community centre and housing within flood zone 1.
10.74. Other than for reasons of land availability however, there is no requirement for the community centre and housing to be developed in conjunction with each other.
10.75.
Approximately a third
of housing is shown within flood zone 2. The sequential test
refers to appropriate mitigation measures to safeguard the
dwellings from flooding. This is noted. However, in
terms of alternative sites for residential development within the
village, the sequential test is silent and makes no reference to
the draft allocation HEMB-G (School Road Hemingbrough) which lies
to the south of the village and entirely within Flood Zone 1.
This site is available for residential development and there is a
current planning application (undetermined) for 139 dwellings
before the Council (ZG2024/1089/FULM). It
has not therefore been demonstrated that there are no reasonably
available sites capable of delivering the proposal, either as a
single site or as a series of sites. The application does not meet
the requirements of Core Strategy Policy SP15.
Drainage
10.76. Surface water management is set out in the Flood Risk Assessment. There is no existing formal drainage system for the site. There are watercourses to the north and south of the site and pond within Hagg Green Lane SINC to the west. Surface water storage will be provided on site and will be designed to include 10% urban creep and 1 in 100 + 40% climate change storm.
10.77. The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) originally objected to the proposal due to the lack of information provided, however additional information has been submitted and discussions taken place between the LLFA and the applicant. The LLFA do not object to the proposal and recommend conditions.
10.78. The generic advice of the Ouse and Derwent IDB is noted. The IDB recommends conditions in the event of any approval, relating to approval of a scheme of drainage works and that watercourse standoffs are kept clear at all times.
10.79. It is intended to discharge foul water to the existing sewerage system on Hull Road. Yorkshire Water have objected to this application on the grounds of capacity as the site was not a draft allocation in the emerging Local Plan and as such the site has not been factored into Yorkshire Waters proposed asset reinforcement for the Hemingbrough area. It is noted however that the applicant received no objection from Yorkshire Water in pre-application correspondence. Under the Water Industry Act Yorkshire Water is obliged to provide foul drainage connection in the event of grant of permission. Clarification is being sought from Yorkshire Water and any update will be provided at committee.
Access and highway safety
10.80. Saved Policies ENV1(2), T1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan require development proposals to have a suitable access and no detrimental impact on the existing highway network. This accords with the NPPF, which requires development proposals to have a safe and suitable access and only supports refusal of development proposals on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or if the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, considering all reasonable future scenarios (paragraph 116).
10.81. 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.
10.82. 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.
10.83. 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”.
10.84. The development plan policies are considered broadly consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.85. Following receipt of consultation responses on the previously withdrawn scheme, the applicant sought to address highways issues in discussion with the Highways Authority. The following is proposed for the site:
· Right-in ghost-island on A63
· New pedestrian crossing including refuge island
· Upgrade of footways both sides of Hull Road
· Relocation of bus stop and new shelter to front of site; new bus shelter on Water Lane
· Visitor parking spaces distributed throughout the site
· Reduction in speed limit from 40mph to 30mph between Hagg Lane and east of the School Road/A63 junction
10.86. Highway Authority has reviewed the Transport Assessment, Travel Plan and submitted documents. A Stage 1 Road Safety Audit has also been carried out. Highways have raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions requested in the event of an approval, including submission of engineering details, implementation of a Travel Plan and submission of a Construction Management Plan.
10.87. The Highway Authority have requested developer contributions for the following:
· Travel Plan monitoring fee £5000
· Bus enhancements (particularly off-peak service) £37,638
· Reduced speed limit requirements £2000
10.88. Highways concerns have been raised in representations, however it is considered that in terms of access and road safety these have been addressed. Any environmental issues resulting from vehicle movements during construction would be addressed through a construction management plan. The access, transport and highway safety implications of the proposal would be acceptable subject to conditions and developer contributions which can be secured via a Section 106 Agreement.
Ecology and Biodiversity
Ecology
10.89. Local Plan Policy ENV1 requires account is taken of the potential loss, or adverse effect upon, significant wildlife habitats. The foreword to Core Strategy Policy SP2 states the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and natural resources is a basic principle of national planning guidance, which can also influence the location of development. Policy SP18 seeks to protect and enhance the natural environment and NPPF paragraph 187 requires decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing sites of biodiversity value in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan; minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures.
10.90. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) requires the LPA to determine if the proposal may affect the protected features of a habitats site before deciding whether to permit development. This requires consideration of whether the proposal is likely to have significant effects on that site
10.91. The development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.92. The site lies adjacent to the Hagg Lane Green SINC and within a 10km radius of three internationally-designated wildlife sites: the Lower Derwent Valley, River Derwent and Skipwith Common.
10.93. The applicant’s ecologists rule out likely significant effects on the Lower Derwent Valley from recreational pressure, citing the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) drafted by Aecom for the Selby Local Plan housing allocations exercise. This draft HRA has been subject to robust criticism by Natural England and is not an adopted document.
10.94. The Council’s Ecologist does not foresee any direct impacts on nationally or internationally designated wildlife sites from the proposed development and also considers that additional recreational pressure on the Lower Derwent Valley would probably not be significant. The site is within the Impact Risk Zone for Skipwith Common National Nature Reserve. While local footpaths and amenities would absorb some of the day-to-day recreational pressure which would result from the proposed development, it is likely that Skipwith Common would be a popular destination for longer walks, family excursions and exercising dogs. This has not been considered at all in the Ecological Appraisal. Natural England have been consulted and have provided standing advice.
10.95. Hagg Lane Green SINC is located immediately to the west of the application site and supports a rich aquatic flora, important amphibian populations, small mammals and is of significant local interest for breeding birds. The Ecological Appraisal records that several trees overhanging the application site boundary have “moderate to high potential to support roosting bats”. Within the red line boundary, well-established scrub to the north-west of the barns effectively forms an extension of the SINC habitat.
10.96. Although the SINC is limited to Hagg Lane, the footpath along the northern side of the application side follows Inner Moor Lane, a green lane which links the SINC to woodland to the west. This is likely to function as a significant wildlife corridor within the local landscape.
10.97. The proposal includes buffer zones along the northern and western boundaries of the development including additional planting and fencing, a hedge to divert access away from the SINC and a ‘sacrificial’ dog pond which can be accessed by pets to reduce the attraction of those ponds within the SINC. Existing scrub overspilling from Hagg Lane Green would be protected as far as possible and the buffer extended to the north. The SINC supports Great Crested Newts and further details on mitigation proposals (which includes the provision of potential new breeding ponds and newt friendly gullys) have been submitted which the Ecology officer considers to be robust and comprehensive. The proposals complement the SINC habitats and include potential new breeding ponds for amphibians.
10.98. If the application were to be approved then Construction Environment Management Plan (Biodiversity) and Landscape Ecological Managements would be requested via condition. A condition to control the ecological impacts of external lighting would also be required.
Biodiversity
10.99. The Biodiversity Net Gain assessment projects and uplift of 11.03% for area-based habitats and 449.75% for hedgerows which is policy compliant. The proposals for on-site are acceptable and BNG would need to be secured for a minimum of 30 years through a section 106 agreement.
10.100 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
10.101 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.
10.102 The Developer Contributions SPD (2007) contains a section called “affordable housing for local needs” which is considered to have been superseded by the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2014). The Affordable Housing SPD states “1.4 The latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2009) (“SHMA”) identifies the scale of need for affordable housing in the District over the Local Plan period. The SHMA establishes an overall target of 30-50% intermediate housing and 50-70% social rented housing. To meet identified need, affordable housing needs to be the right kind of housing in the right locations. Following the introduction of the Government’s Affordable Rent category, the Council will be gathering evidence to establish the identified need and tenure split of rented housing. This will be set out through a combination of this SPD, future Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMAs) and future development plan documents (as appropriate).………….6.3 Negotiations on affordable housing provision on specific sites will also be informed by any further up to date evidence, which will include the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), current information from the Selby District / North Yorkshire Housing Register, and evidence of existing affordable housing provision in the locality, including the Census 2011.”
10.103 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).
10.104 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.”
10.105 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 10% affordable housing should be sought for this area.
10.106 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 that area of Thorpe Willoughby.
· Core Strategy Policy SP9 could be read as requiring developers to provide 40% affordable housing unless they can show a lesser amount is justified. However, given the recentness of the evidence in the Aspinall Verdi report when compared to that informing the Core Strategy, the Inspector considered this report constitutes a material consideration to which was given significant weight in his assessment of affordable housing delivery, as it better reflects the current situation. Having said that, Core Strategy Policy SP9 seeks ‘up to a maximum’ of 40% affordable housing, so acknowledging a lesser amount could be acceptable. As such, if viability evidence was forthcoming to show accord with the Aspinall Verdi report, the resultant level of delivery would not be contrary to Core Strategy Policy SP9.
· The appellants viability appraisal showed with an 18% profit, 10% affordable housing was viable. The Council considered 30% affordable housing was viable due mainly to differing opinions regarding gross development value and abnormal costs.
· Such appraisals involve subjective judgements. Neither is necessarily wrong. The appellants proposal of 10% would be in line with the Aspinall Verdi report. That report did not say 10% is the starting point for negotiations for a higher percentage. Such an approach would remove any certainty or confidence from the process.
· The Inspector favoured the appellants use of historic sales values from the specific settlement, adjusted by index linking, rather than those from nearby villages.
· The Inspector found in favour of the appellants approach to viability.
· The Inspector dismissed the Council suggestion that affordable housing levels be revisited at reserved matters stage because there would be no need to have undertaken such work at outline stage and in his opinion delivery rates are matters better resolved when outline permission is sought, to bring a degree of certainty to the developer as they move forward.
10.107 The same matter was considered in an appeal decision dated 20th February 2025 at land east of Broadacres, Mill Lane, Carlton reference APP/U2750/W/24/3347833. The Inspector considered “11. Overall, though I note that the appellant and the Council have commissioned viability assessments which both suggest more than 10% is achievable, I consider that only a 10% contribution is necessary to meet policy SP9 in this regard. This would accord with the conclusions of the recent appeal where the Inspector Ref: APPU2750/W/24/3347885 considered that there is nothing in the Aspinall Verdi report to suggest 10% should be the starting point from which negotiations for a higher figure should begin. In addition, an appeal decision relating to a development in Hemingbrough noted that although SP9 required a maximum of 40%, the 20% provided by the development would be acceptable as it would reflect the ELP informed by the Viability Report. There is no suggestion in that decision that it was necessary to demonstrate if a greater proportion could be achieved.”
10.108 The application proposes 20% affordable housing. The new NPPF does not require First Homes, but it is possible for applicants to propose them. In light of the recent appeal decisions, it is considered appropriate to accept the proposed 20% affordable housing because it aligns with the most up to date viability evidence that supported the now withdrawn emerging local plan. This is in accordance with Policy SP9. Affordable housing can be secured through a S106 agreement.
Recreational open space
10.109 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.”
10.110 The Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document 2007 provides further guidance on the provision of open space.
10.111 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.
10.112 Policy RT2 is considered consistent with the NPPF and is given significant weight.
10.113 A proposal of 137 dwellings would need to provide 60sqm of open space per dwelling equating to 8,220sqm or 0.82 Ha (2.03 acres). It is noted however that although a significant area of open space (playing fields) is shown central to the site these would be in the control of the Hall for Hemingbrough and do not form part of the open space. Although outdoor pitches, a play area and nature trail are indicated in the submission these would form part of proposed phase 4 of the proposed community centre development and provision would be dependent on those future phases coming forward.
10.114 An area of public open space is located around an existing pond to the south of the site. The site is located at the very end of the road network, at the end of a cul-de-sac however pedestrian linkages are shown which connect with the proposed playing fields and the SANG which skirts the site perimeter.
10.115The proposed open space is insufficient in size, is poorly located and would not be accessible to majority of residents, contrary to Policy RT2 and the Selby District Local Development Framework Adopted Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document
Contaminated land
10.116 Policy ENV2 of the Local Plan states “Proposals for development which would give rise to, or would be affected by, unacceptable levels of noise, nuisance, contamination or other environmental pollution including groundwater pollution will not be permitted unless satisfactory remedial or preventative measures are incorporated as an integral element in the scheme.” Part B of the policy allows contaminated land conditions to be attached to permissions.
10.117 CS Policies SP18 and SP19 (k) seeks to prevent development from contributing to or being put an unacceptable risk from unacceptable levels of soil or water pollution or land instability. These policies reflect and are consistent with national advice in paragraphs 187 and 198 of the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.118 The application is supported by a Phase 1 and 2 contaminated land report. The contaminated land consultant confirms the report findings are acceptable. Conditions are recommended regarding submission of a remediation strategy; verification of remediation works; and reporting of unexpected contamination.
10.119 Subject to conditions the proposal would meet the requirements of Policies ENV2, SP18 and SP19.
Residential Amenity
Amenity
10.120 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.
10.121 The key considerations in respect of residential amenity are 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.
10.122 The proposed housing would be sited on the northern side of Hull Road and distant from the dwellings to the south of Hull Road. Proposed dwellings in the south-eastern corner lie a minimum of 50m from the rear elevations of existing dwellings on Hull Road and a minimum of 10m from rear garden boundaries. It is not considered that the proposed dwellings would result in overlooking or loss of privacy to neighbouring residents. Conditions relating to noise, air pollution, piling and working hours as requested by Environmental Health will control amenity impacts during construction phase. Phase 1 of the proposed community centre is sited 88m from dwellings on Hull Road and shown to 34m from proposed dwellings opposite. It is not anticipated that Phase 1 of the community centre would result from any detriment to residential amenity. It is noted however that the impacts of future phases are unknown and would need to be assessed as part of any subsequent planning application.
10.123 Separation distances between proposed dwellings are acceptable and units are provided with private amenity space. Dwellings have also been sited away from existing mature trees. It is considered that future residential amenity would be acceptable.
10.124 Subject to conditions relating to environmental health the proposal would comply with Policy ENV1.
Noise and air pollution
10.125 Core Strategy Policies SP18 and SP19 (k) seek to prevent development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from unacceptable levels of air or noise pollution. These policies reflect and are consistent with advice in paragraph 187(e) of the NPPF.
10.126 The Council’s Environmental Health team has considered the air quality assessment and noise impact assessment. Regarding air quality subject to the proposed mitigation measures set out in that report being incorporated into the Construction Environmental Management Plan (relating to dust, dirt, noise and vibration), and conditions covering hours of working and piled foundations, the proposed development is not considered to adversely affect residential amenity and would accord with Policy ENV1.
Heritage Assets
Archaeology
10.127 Policy ENV28 requires that where development proposals affect sites of known or possible archaeological interest, the 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.
10.128 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.
10.129 An archaeological geophysical survey has been submitted and shows limited results. The Council’s archaeologist considers that the site has low archaeological potential, and no further assessment or mitigation is required.
Designated Heritage Assets
10.130The site does not lie within the Hemingbrough Conservation Area. The site lies approximately 0.5km from the Grade I listed St Mary’s Church and other listed buildings within the village. The A63 and intervening built development lie between the site and these designated heritage assets and as such it is not considered that the proposed development would result in harm to those assets. There is no conflict with Policy SP18 or the NPPF. As such, the proposal is in accordance with the duties placed upon the Authority by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, sections 66 and 72 as they relate to planning applications affecting listed buildings and conservation areas respectively.
Developer Contributions
10.131 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.
10.133 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.
10.134 The Developer Contributions SPD provides further guidance regarding contributions towards waste and recycling facilities; education facilities; and primary health care facilities amongst others.
10.135 NPPF paragraph 35 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.
10.136 These development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.137 NYC Education have requested the
developer contributions for Special School and Early Years
provision.
10.138 NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board have requested a developer contribution of £167,480 to fund improvements to capacity either by way of reconfiguration of, or extension to existing premises or providing additional resource for a new build health development
10.139 The Waste and Recycling officer has requested a developer contribution to provide at the developers cost wheeled containers and recycling boxes at a cost of £65 per dwelling
10.140The following Heads of Terms have been agreed with the applicant:
|
Category/type |
Contribution |
|
Special School |
£98,748.00 |
|
Early Years Provision |
£66,465.00 |
|
Healthcare |
£167,480 |
|
Waste and Recycling – Provision of waste facilities |
£65 per dwelling |
|
Highways – Bus enhancements |
£37,638.00 |
|
Highways – Travel Plan monitoring fee |
£5000.00 |
|
Highways – Reduced speed limit requirements |
£2000.00 |
|
Affordable Housing |
20% of all units |
|
Biodiversity |
To be secured for a minimum of 30 years; Biodiversity Enhancement and Monitoring Plan; Management plan |
|
The S106 should contain a mechanism to avoid double counting of contributions by CIL |
|
10.141 It is considered that the above S106 Heads of Terms are necessary, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and as such complies with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010.
Section 149 of The Equality Act 2010
10.142 Under Section 148 of the Equality Act 2010 Local Planning Authorities must have due regard to the following when making decisions: (i) eliminating discrimination, harassment and victimisation; (ii) advancing equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; and (iii) fostering good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics are: age (normally young or older people), disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation.
10.143 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.
Human Rights Act 1998
10.144 It is considered that the proposal would not contravene Convention rights contained in the Human Rights Act 1998 in particular the right to health and the right to private and family life.
11.0 PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
11.1. The spatial development hierarchy outlined in Policy SP2 seeks to deliver sustainable development across the former District, directing new development towards the most sustainable settlements. Hemingbrough is a Designated Service Village with scope for additional growth. This proposal is for significant development outside of the village development limits in the countryside, and as such is contrary to the Development Plan Policy SP2A(c) of the Core Strategy.
11.2. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 refers to a balance, stating development should be in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Therefore, whilst the primacy of the development plan remains and its status is unaffected, there are circumstances where a scheme can be supported despite development plan conflict. To assess that requires a judgement based on the relative weights afforded to material considerations.
11.3. In favour of the scheme the applicants present that the proposal would deliver a community centre for the village, is in a sustainable location and would contribute to the housing land supply. Other benefits cited are affordable housing provision, provision of greenspace and biodiversity net gain.
11.4. In terms of the Council wider policies on housing delivery, the report above highlights that the Core Strategy in relation to housing is out of date because the housing needs figure it contains is not calculated based on the required standard method. Core Strategy Policy SP2 is inconsistent with NPPF paragraph 61 which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing and aims to meet an areas identified housing need. A continued strict application of Policy SP2, which prevents market housing outside development limits in the countryside such as this, would not allow the LPA to meet the identified local housing needs. Furthermore, the weight afforded to conflict with Core Strategy Policy SP2 is diminished as it does not include the more detailed approach to the consideration of development that is found in the NPPF. Thus, the policy is inconsistent with the NPPF and should be given limited weight.
11.5. The Local Planning Authority acknowledges that it cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land as required by the NPPF. Therefore, the policies most important for determining the application, SP2 and SP5, are out of date as set out in NPPF paragraph 11. Permission should be granted unless the proposal fails to satisfy the tests in NPPF paragraph 11d). The proposal complies with paragraph 11d)i because no NPPF policy that protects areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. The requirements of paragraph 11d)ii are more detailed as set out below. It requires consideration of whether the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
11.6. The site can be made safe from contamination; residential amenity would not be harmed; there is no harm to heritage; noise and air pollution matters can be mitigated by condition; and education, healthcare and waste/recycling bin contributions can be secured to ensure no detriment to existing services are caused.
11.7. Benefits include the site being in a reasonably sustainable location; the proposal makes a significant contribution to needed market and affordable housing (great weight is given to this consideration); a suitable housing mix can be secured biodiversity net gain and ecological enhancements are secured; economic benefits both during the construction phase and once the houses are occupied are afforded moderate weight.
11.8. In terms of neutral matters, suitable drainage can be controlled by condition; there would be no harm arising from highway access and highway implications can be mitigated; there would be no harm to protected species.
11.9. Matters that weigh against the proposal are that the proposal constitutes a major residential development in the countryside which would be physically separate and unrelated to the core of the village. Its location would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area, which is rural to the north of the A63 and would have significant conflict with the development plan, in particular SDLP Policy ENV1 and CS Policy SP19 which seek, amongst other things, to ensure that development takes account of its effect on the character of the area and has regard to local character, context, settlement patterns and local identity. The proposal would also conflict with national policy on the same set out in the NPPF.
11.10. Whilst provision of community facilities would be beneficial, no exceptional case has been made for the community centre in this location and the proposal does not meets the requirements of Policy CS4.
11.11. The loss of best and most versatile agricultural land would be unnecessary, resulting in minor harm to the agricultural economy in the area as well as food self-sufficiency.
11.12. The proposed housing uses poorly designed house types which do not reflect local distinctiveness nor incorporate the opportunities presented by the adopted Hemingbrough Village Design Statement to ensure good design and layout that has regard to local character, identity and context is achieved and that reflects local distinctiveness. The proposed community centre also fails to reflect local distinctiveness and the adopted Hemingbrough Village Design Statement.
11.13. The scale and location of the site would result in an incongruous extension into open countryside, resulting in landscape harm, harm to the enjoyment and rurality of the PROW and harm to mature trees. Open space provision is insufficient and poorly located.
11.14. NPPF Paragraph11d is engaged because of the housing land supply position, and it is considered that the adverse impacts of granting planning consent for this development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme, when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole. It is therefore considered that if the Council were in a position to determine this application that it would be recommended for refusal.
12.0 RECOMMENDATION
12.1 That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:
01. The site is located beyond the Development Limits of Hemingbrough and lies within the open countryside. The site is separated from the village by the A63 and development in this location would be an incongruous extension of the village into the rural area, and out of character with the village. The application site does not represent a rural exceptions site, as set out by policy SP10, and is therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policy SP2.
02. The conflict with the spatial development strategy means the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land would be unnecessary. Such loss would result in minor harm to the agricultural economy in the area as well as food self-sufficiency. The loss of agricultural land is contrary to Core Strategy Policy SP18 and NPPF.
03. The proposed design of both the housing and community centre elements, and the site layout is contrary to Policies SP18 and SP19 of the Core Strategy, Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan, the adopted Hemingbrough Village Design Statement (VDS) supplementary planning document and NPPF.
04. The scale, form and location of the proposal would result in an incongruous extension of built form into the countryside, resulting in landscape harm and to the enjoyment of and rurality of the PROW to the north, contrary to Policy SP18.
05. The proposed open space is insufficient in size, is poorly located and would not be accessible to majority of residents, contrary to Policy RT2 and the Selby District Local Development Framework Adopted Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document.
06. No exceptional case has been made for the community centre, contrary to Policy CS4.
07. The aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding. The sequential test submitted does not consider other residential development sites within Hemingbrough nor a series of sites and therefore the location of this development is not sequentially preferable. The principle of development for this development in this location is therefore unacceptable and contrary to NPPF paragraph 170 and Core Strategy Policy SP15.
Target Determination Date: 31.01.2025
Case Officer: Linda Drake
Appendix A: Site Layout Plan
