North Yorkshire Council

Community Development Services

Selby and Ainsty Area Planning Committee

13^th AUGUST 2025   

2023/0222/FULM - Residential development comprising 20 new dwellings along with site road and associated drives, parking and landscaping at Land Off The Fossards Osgodby Selby North Yorkshire

Report of the Assistant Director - Planning – Community Development Services

1.0   Purpose of the Report

1.1 To determine a full planning application for residential development comprising 20 new dwellings along with site road and associated drives, parking and landscaping.

1.2  The application is reported to Committee because the Head of Development Management considers this application to raise significant planning issues such that it is in the public interest for the application to be considered by Committee.

2.0       SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to prior completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure the matters and conditions detailed below.

2.1. This application is for full planning permission for the development of 20 dwellings on agricultural land to the south of The Fossards, Osgodby.  The proposed site layout shows dwellings aligned north-south, of appropriate design and with gardens and parking.  The site adjoins existing established development but is in countryside, lying outside the development limits of Osgodby.  The site was intended to be an allocation (Ref: OSGB-C) within the former emerging Selby Local Plan.

2.2. 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 Policy SP5 is out of date and carries no weight because the housing need figure it contains is not calculated based on the required standard method.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.

2.3. On this site the benefits include the site being in a reasonably sustainable location; the proposal makes a significant contribution to market and affordable housing (great weight is given to this consideration); the housing mix will deliver a mixed and balanced community; there will be contributions to recreational open space and biodiversity net gain and ecological enhancements; economic development both during construction phase and once the houses are occupied which are afforded moderate weight

2.4. Neutral matters include the lack of conflict with mineral policies; density of development; the site specific flood risk implications are acceptable and suitable drainage can be controlled by condition; there would be no harm arising from highway access; there would be no harm to protected species or any harm to designated sites; the site can be made safe from contamination; residential amenity would not be harmed; waste/recycling bin contributions are secured to ensure no detriment to existing services are caused.

2.5. The adverse impacts include limited and localised visual and landscape character harm; the loss of a modest amount of best and most versatile agricultural land; and conflict with the development plan.

2.6. It is concluded that the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The proposal benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Therefore, planning permission should be granted subject to conditions and the prior completion of a S106 agreement.

3.0       PRELIMINARY MATTERS

3.1. Access to the case file on Public Access can be found here: Documents for reference 2023/0222/FULM: Public Access

4.0       SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

4.1. The site lies to the south of existing dwellings on the A63 and to the east of St. Leonard’s Avenue.  It comprises a long rectangular field which slopes gently to the south.  St Leonard’s Avenue to the east comprises semi-detached two storey dwellings.  To the north is The Fossards, a development of 9 dwellings, and Selby Garden Centre to the east.  Beyond the garden centre, planning permission has been granted for the erection of a SEND school.  Agricultural fields and a public right of way lies to the south.

4.2. There are no statutory national or local landscape or wildlife designation on the application site.  The site does not contain any protected trees and there is no Conservation Area or nearby listed buildings that are affected.   No trees on or adjacent to the site are protected. The majority of the site lies within Flood Zone 1 with part of the site to the south within Flood Zones 2 and 3.

5.0       Description of Proposal

5.1. As submitted the application was for the erection of 25 dwellings but during the application was revised to 20 units.  The dwellings would be arranged either side of a central access road that runs north/south through the site.  Access to the site would be through The Fossards, to the north, onto the A63.

5.2. The proposed dwellings to the east are shown facing that boundary where those to the rear of St Leonard’s Avenue are arranged at right angles.  Dwellings at the southern end of the site lie within Flood Zone 1 although the garden areas extend into Flood Zone 3.

5.3. Land to the south, shown as within the applicants’ ownership, will be used to provide biodiversity net gain.

5.4. The application is supported by a suite of technical documents that may be viewed on Public Access. 

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 site was 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 a draft housing allocation under the former emerging Local Plan, reference OSGB-C.

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

6.6. Relevant guidance for this application is:

o National Planning Policy Framework 2024

o National Planning Practice Guidance

o National Design Guide 2021

o Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (AHSPD) 2014

o Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (DC SPD) 2007

o Osgodby Village Design Statement (2009)

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1. Consultations were carried out in March 2023 on submission of the application and re-consultations carried out in December 2024 following amendment of the application. 

7.2. Affordable Housing – As submitted, affordable housing percentage offered was not policy compliant (Note: this has since been revised to 20% affordable housing provision which is policy complaint)

7.3. Barlby and Osgodby Parish Council– (Response dated 5.4.23) Object to the loss of good quality agricultural land.  The lower end of the site is in Flood Zone 3.

(Response dated 16.1.24) - Concerns regarding additional vehicles (turning into/out of the estate) due to the proximity of the Fossards to the A19/A63 roundabout/speed of traffic exiting the roundabout onto the A63.

7.4. Contaminated Land Consultant – The overall risk from contamination is assessed to be low and further investigation nor assessment is necessary – unexpected contamination condition recommended.

7.5. NYC Ecology – ecological mitigation measures recommended in the PEA should be incorporated into a Construction Environmental Management Plan.  Policy compliant BNG can be delivered, although noted that this is on site adjacent.

7.6. Lead Local Flood Authority – The submitted documents demonstrate a reasonable approach to the management of surface water on the site and recommend condition relating to exceedance flow rate

7.7. Ouse and Derwent Internal Drainage Board– recommend condition relating to foul and surface water drainage.

7.8. Yorkshire Water – Comments made on surface water drainage and recommend condition on surface water drainage.

7.9. NYC Highways – Recommends conditions

7.10. NYC Education – There is sufficient capacity at local schools for this development. No contribution towards education provision is required.

7.11. NYC Environmental Health – Conditions relating to the impact of noise, dust, dirt and vibration as well as working hours and piling are recommended to protect residential amenity.

7.12. NYC Landscape – Proposed soft landscaping scheme acceptable, recommend condition to implement.

7.13. NYC Waste and Recycling – Comments made relating to swept path diagram, location of bin presentation points, developer will need to purchase bins (4 per dwelling)

7.14. NYC Trees – No objection; recommend conditions relating to root protection areas.

7.15. NYC Archaeology – No objection and no comments made.

7.16. Conservation Officer- No comments made.

7.17. NYC Minerals and Waste - The application is considered in compliance with the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan and no objections are raised.

7.18. Environment Agency – Request condition requiring development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment.

7.19. Natural England – No response provided to consultation request.

7.20. North Yorkshire Police – Comments made with regards boundary treatments, visitor parking provision, bin locations.

7.21. North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue – No objection/observation to make.

7.22. NHS Primary Care Trust – No response received within the target timescale.

7.23. Public Rights of Way – No response received within target timescale.

Local Representations

7.24. The application was advertised via press and site notices.  Following revisions to the application a second round of consultation was carried out.

7.25. 16 letters of OBJECTION were received which are summarised below.  These can be read in full on Public Access.  The grounds of objection are:

· Principle of development

· Brownfield land should be developed first

· Drainage unable to cope

· Increased risk of flooding

· Increased traffic especially at junction A19/A63; cumulative effect of SEND school traffic and proposed houses at Hemingbrough

· Highway safety crossing the A63, speed limit should be reduced

· Increased pollution

· Impact on schools and healthcare

· Loss of farmland

· Impact on environment, loss of habitat and wildlife

· Southern section of the site should be left for wildlife

· Noise and disturbance to St Leonards Avenue from construction

· Noise from traffic through village will increase

· Impact on health from proposal

· No public transport in village

· Osgodby at capacity

· Adjacent gardens will be shaded

· Loss of outlook

· Loss of light

· Overbearing on St Leonards Avenue

· Loss of house value (note: this is not a valid planning matter)

· Landscape impact

· Overlooking/loss of privacy

· Impact on climate change

· No community consultation took place prior to submission

· Will result in more crime

· Departure from the local plan

8.0       ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)

8.1. The development proposed does not fall within Schedule 1 or 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017 (as amended). No Environment Statement is therefore required.

9.0       MAIN ISSUES

9.1. The key considerations in the assessment of this application are:

· Principle of development

· Loss of Agricultural Land

· Design, Layout, Scale and impact on the Character and Appearance of the Local Area

· Residential amenity

· Highways Impacts

· Ecology

· Heritage Assets

· Flood Risk and Drainage

· Contaminated Land

· Affordable housing

· Recreational Open Space

· Minerals and Waste

· Developer Contributions

· Other matters

10.0     ASSESSMENT

Principle of Development

10.1. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that all planning authorities must determine each application under the Planning Acts in accordance with the Development Plan so far as material to the application unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

10.2. Policy SP1 of the Core Strategy 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 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF.

10.3. Policy SP2 of the Core Strategy sets out the Spatial Development Strategy for the location of future development within the former Selby District area. It directs the majority of new development to the towns ad more sustainable villages depending on their future role as employment, retail and service centres, the level of local housing need, and particular environmental, flood risk and infrastructure constraints.

10.4. Selby, as the Principal Town, is the focus for new housing. Sherburn in Elmet and Tadcaster are designated as Local Service Centres where further housing growth can take place appropriate to the size and role of each settlement. The supporting text to Policy SP2 of the Core Strategy at paragraph 4.12 states “villages which are considered capable of accommodating additional limited growth have been identified as ‘Designated Service Villages’”. With regards to Designated Service Villages, 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…is considered appropriate”.

10.5. The Core Strategy designates Osgodby as a Designated Service Village. Policy SP2A(a) of the Core Strategy sets out that Designated Service Villages have some scope for additional residential growth to support rural sustainability. However, the application site is not within the development limits of Osgodby, but adjacent. As such, the application site is classed as being located within the open countryside in planning policy terms. Therefore, Policy SP2A(a) has less relevance, other than to note the settlement hierarchy and indicate the strength of Osgodby as a Designated Service Village. The development limits for Osgodby are adjacent to the northern and western boundary of the application site and the site is considered to be closely related to the settlement.

10.6. Policy SP2A(c) of the Core Strategy states “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.”

10.7. The proposal does not constitute any of the forms of development set out under Policy SP2A(c) of the Core Strategy.

10.8. In light of the above policy context, the proposal for residential development at the application site is 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 NPPF) should be given in this case. The proposal should therefore be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

10.9. The application site was identified as a draft allocation in the 2024 Reg 19 publication version of the emerging Local Plan. The draft allocation had a reference of OSGB-C in Policy HG1 and detailed an indicative capacity of 20 dwellings along with a series of other site requirements. The application broadly complies with the site requirements as detailed later in this report, although some s106 financial contributions relating to education are not justified due to a change in circumstances, as set out later in this report. This was one of four draft allocations for Osgodby.

10.10. Work on the emerging Local Plan ceased on the 26 February 2025 and the draft allocations and policies contained within it no longer hold any status as part of an emerging development plan document. Consequently, they would not be able to have weight attributed to them, but some weight may be able to be given to the evidence base.

Housing Supply Requirements

10.11. 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).

10.12. 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”

10.13. 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.

10.14. 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.

Sustainability

10.15. 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.

10.16. Material circumstances in this case are the need for housing supply and the wider sustainability benefits of the proposal.

10.17. In terms of sustainability, the application site abuts the development limits of Osgodby and is viewed as a natural extension to the village. The Core Strategy notes that Osgodby has close links and shared facilities to Barlby, which is located to the opposite side of the A19.  The settlements together served by a range of local facilities, including the Barlby Community Primary School, Barlby High secondary school, a healthcare facility, a convenience store and two village halls/meeting rooms. There is also a garden centre, public houses and churches.  Their proximity to Selby town means that further bus routes and a train station are also accessible. The National Cycle Network route 65 and the Trans-Pennine Trail also pass though Barlby. Despite the application site being outside of the development limits, these services are reasonably accessible on foot.

10.18. 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)”.

10.19. The following benefits would arise from the proposed development:

Economic

10.20. 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. 

Social

10.21. 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 will make contributions to provision of new or upgraded recreational open space in the locality to be secured through a S106 agreement.  The site will contribute to the five-year housing land supply requirements.

Environmental

10.22. The proposal will take into account environmental issues such as climate change, ecology and biodiversity and will deliver environmental benefits in the form of off-site open space provision.  The proposal would provide housing outside the boundaries of the Designated Service Village, however as a DSV this is one of the more sustainable settlements in the Selby legacy area.

10.23. The proposal would provide 20 dwellings to boost the five-year housing land supply and would provide economic, social and environmental benefits.  All the above factors weigh in favour of the development.  Whilst there are some negative aspects to the development, given that Paragraph 11d of the NPPF is engaged as a result of the housing land supply position, the adverse impacts of granting the permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme, when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole, as set out within the following sections of the report, with the primary importance being sustainable housing provision.  It is therefore considered that this site is acceptable for new residential development.

Loss of Agricultural Land

10.24. Policy SP18 seeks that the high quality and local distinctiveness of natural and manmade environments will be sustained by, amongst other things, steering development to areas of least environmental and agricultural quality. The NPPF advises that decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural environment by recognising the economic and other benefits of the Best and Most Versatile Land (BMVL) (land in Grades 1, 2 and 3a). Natural England must be consulted on development proposals that are both: likely to cause the loss (or likely cumulative loss) of 20ha or more of BMV land not in accordance with an approved development plan. The site is 0.91ha in size.  As the site is not in accordance with an approved development plan, and the site is less than 20ha in size, there is no requirement to consult Natural England on the proposal.

10.25. The Agricultural Land Classification submitted with the application confirms that the site is 100% Grade 2 across the site.  The site is BMV.  The conflict with the spatial development strategy means the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land would be unnecessary. The scale of loss of best and most versatile agricultural land would result in minor harm to the agricultural economy in the area as well as food self-sufficiency. The loss of agricultural land is contrary to Core Strategy Policy SP18 and NPPF paragraph 187 b). This must be weighed in the planning balance. The loss of agricultural land is however outweighed by the benefits of the provision of housing.

Design, Layout, Scale and impact on the Character and Appearance of the Local Area

10.26. Core Strategy Policy SP18 seeks to protect (amongst other things) local distinctiveness and Policy SP8 states that proposals should provide an appropriate mix of scale and types of dwellings which reflect the requirements taken from the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). SDLP Policy ENV1 and CS SP19 seek to ensure all new development contributes to enhancing community cohesion by achieving high quality design and have regard to local character, identity and context of surroundings including historic townscapes settlement patterns and the open countryside.

10.27.  Policy SP8 of the Core Strategy states that: “Proposals for housing must contribute to the creation of mixed communities by ensuring that the types and sizes of dwellings provided reflect the demand and profile of households evidenced from the most recent strategic housing market assessment and robust housing needs surveys whilst having regard to the existing mix of housing in the locality”.

10.28. A mix of 6 x 2bed, 10x 3bed and 4 x 4bed units is proposed which is considered appropriate for Osgodby and suitable for the locality.  It is considered that this would accord with Policy SP8 of the Core Strategy.

10.29. The proposed dwellings are shown as two storey and arranged off a central spine road that runs north-south through the site.  The majority of the dwellings lie on the eastern and southern boundary.  Those dwellings to the rear of St Leonard’s Avenue are set at right angles to the boundary, to allow for views through the site and to reduce any sense of overbearing.  The site constraints (long and thin) prevent alternative site layouts and that proposed is reflective of St Leonard’s Avenue to the west.  The scheme has been reduced in density since submission and the layout amended to improve separation distances between the proposed dwellings and those on St Leonard’s Avenue. 

10.30. The design of the dwellings is in keeping with the locality.  All dwellings have gabled roofs and some house types are shown with small porches and projecting front gables.  Bathrooms and W/C windows are shown to gable elevations which adds visual interest and allows natural light and ventilation. Materials are indicated as facing brick with contrasting brick detailing under tiled roofs.  A condition requiring material samples for approval is recommended.

10.31. Other than two Ash trees (categories C and U) all existing trees to the western and eastern boundaries are to be retained.  The existing hedgerow to the east is to be retained and gaps planted with a new native hedge.  Native hedges are also proposed to the southern and eastern boundaries.  The proposed landscaping also shows a mix of amenity and fruit trees (pear and apple) to be planted.  The proposed landscaping is considered appropriate and will help to soften the visual impact of the development.  A condition is recommended to ensure implementation and retention of the landscaping scheme.

10.32. It is considered that the proposal is acceptable in design terms with a similar layout to St Leonard’s Avenue. It is modest in scale and the materials proposed reflect those in the locality.  The proposal is considered acceptable on this basis and accords with SDLP Policy ENV1, CS Policies SP18, SP19 and SP8, and paragraph 135 of  the NPPF in terms of design.

Residential amenity

10.33. Policy in respect to impacts on neighbour amenity and securing a good standard of residential amenity are provided by Local Plan Policy ENV1 (1) and (4) and Core Strategy Policy SP19. In addition, paragraph 135(f) of the NPPF encourages the creation of places which are safe, inclusive and accessible, promoting well-being ‘with a high standard of amenity.’

10.34. The proposed dwellings provide an acceptable size of accommodation and meets the Nationally Described Space Standards.  Each dwelling has a reasonable external area, front and rear gardens and off road parking.  It is considered that the amenity for future occupiers of the development is acceptable.

10.35. Objections have been received from residents on St Leonard’s Avenue and The Fossards regarding overlooking, loss of privacy, the proposed dwellings will be overbearing and noise and disturbance from construction.  The proposed dwellings are orientated side on to existing dwellings with a separation of least 11m side to rear.  The exception is the distance between plot 14 and 37 St Leonard’s Avenue which is 8.6m.  The proposed dwelling is set at an angle to the existing and whilst there is a single storey extension to the boundary the window at the end of the extension serves a bathroom.  It is not considered that there would be any loss of privacy to thatHaving the proposed dwellings orientated side on allows for gaps between the units and views through the development.  Ground floor kitchen windows and first floor bathroom windows proposed.  Ground floor windows will be screened by existing boundary treatment however there is potential for overlooking from first floor, therefore a condition is recommended to ensure that these remain obscure glazed.  It is not considered that the proposed dwellings would result in overlooking or loss of privacy and that there would not be any overbearing effect.

10.36. On entry to the site plot 1 (to the east) is shown with its gable end 13.5m from 5 The Fossards.  Plots 19 and 20 (to the west) is shown as 27.2m from the rear of 4 The Fossards.  These separation distances are considered acceptable, and it’s not considered that there would be any detriment to the residential amenity of those existing dwellings.

10.37. Development by its nature will cause an element of noise and disturbance during the construction phase.  Due to the proximity of existing dwellings, Environmental Health has requested conditions to restrict working hours.  It is also recommended that a scheme to control the impact of noise, vibration, dust and dirt be submitted prior to commencement.  If piling is required, then a scheme detailing mitigation measures will be required. 

10.38. Subject to the conditions referred to above, the proposed development is therefore considered acceptable with respect to the layout and design and should not cause a significant detrimental impact on the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy ENV1 (1) of the SDLP, CS Policy SP19 and with the NPPF.

Highway Impacts

10.39. SDLP Policies ENV1 (2), T1 and T2 and criterion f) of CS Policy SP15 is relevant.  The aims of these policies accord with NPPF paragraph 115 (b) which states that development should ensure that safe and suitable access can be achieved for all users to a site. In addition, NPPF paragraph 116 advises that development should only be refused (on highway grounds) if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenario

10.40. The Local Highway Authority have reviewed the application and have raised no objections subject to conditions relating to access construction; construction of roads and footways and a construction management plan for the site.

10.41. On the basis of the favourable comments of the Highways Officer and the imposition of the recommended conditions, it is considered that there would not be any detriment to the highway network from the proposed development and the proposal therefore accords with SDLP T1 and T2 and CS Policy SP15 and the NPPF.

Ecology

10.42. Relevant policies in respect of nature conservation include Policy ENV1 (5) of the Selby District Local Plan and Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy which accord with paragraph 187 of the NPPF. Paragraph 187 (NPPF) recognises the need for the planning system to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the wider benefits of ecosystems and minimising impacts on and providing net gains in relation to biodiversity.

10.43. The application is supported by a Preliminary Ecological Assessment, a Biodiversity Net Gain assessment and Shadow Habitat Regulations Assessment (sHRA) of potential increased recreational pressure as the site lies within 5km of Skipwith Common National Nature Reserve.

10.44. The application was submitted prior to the introduction of mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) for Major sites on 12th February 2024. The application therefore is not required to show the mandatory BNG.  However, the applicant has sought to provide BNG through the provision of landscaping on site as well as additional habitat creation to the south of the site, on land within the applicant’s control.  The habitat enhancement consists of additional hedgerow, mixed scrub and wildflower meadow resulting in 10.00% gain in habitat units and 11.00% gain in hedgerow units.  This meets the requirements of BNG and is acceptable.

10.45. The sHRA concludes that there is the potential for adverse effects from increasing recreational pressure on Skipwith Common and that the HRA completed and published by the LPA in January 2024 which stipulates that whilst Natural England lists Recreational Pressure as a main threat to the integrity of Skipworth Common SAC, the Footfall Ecology visitor surveys recorded relatively low levels of use.  Most of the recreational pressure results from repeat visits by residents within 4km of the SAC.  The sHRA cites the (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.

10.46. The Council’s Ecologist was unable to confirm the findings of the sHRA until more up-to-date visitor surveys of internationally-designated sites have been completed.  Local footpaths and amenities would absorb some of the day-to-day recreational pressure which would result from the proposed development, although it is likely that Skipwith Common would be a popular destination for longer walks, family excursions and exercising dogs.  Natural England were consulted following receipt of the sHRA and have not provided a response.  Given the size of the development there is no reason to doubt the findings of the sHRA and it is considered that the impact of the development on Skipwith Common will not be significant. 

10.47. A condition is requested requiring production of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).  BNG offsite will need to be secured through a S106. 

10.48. Subject to the above the proposal is therefore acceptable in terms of its impact on nature conservation and compliant with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan, Policies SP2 and SP18 of the Core Strategy and the NPPF.

10.49. Heritage Assets

Archaeology

10.50. 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.

10.51. 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.

10.52. The Principal Archaeologist has advised that there are no known archaeological sites in the area or within the immediate vicinity and has no objection to the proposal.

Designated Heritage Assets

10.53. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention is paid in the exercise of planning functions to the desirability of preserving the Listed Building(s) or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

10.54. In determining planning applications concerning the historic environment, Section 16 of the NPPF indicates that local planning authorities should take account of: the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

10.55. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset's conservation (paragraph 212 of the NPPF). The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.

10.56. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use (p.214 of the NPPF).

10.57. Paragraph 215 goes on to say that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

10.58. There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site.  Approximately 1 km to the south of the site, at the junction of the A19 and A63 sits the Grade II listed Magazine Farm, a former war department munitions depot.  Given that the proposed site layout does not go beyond the existing built form at St Leonards Avenue it is considered that the development will be contained within the village of Osgodby and will not encroach further that what already is currently in place. Due to the separation between the development and the heritage asset it is not considered that there would be any harm to the setting of the listed buildings.  It is considered that the proposal does not conflict with Policy SP18 or Section 16 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.

Flood risk and Drainage

Flood Risk

10.59. 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. 

10.60. 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.

10.61. The site is split across several flood zones with the majority of the site, including all proposed buildings, lying within Flood Zone 1.  The southern section of the site (between 25-36m in depth) lies in Flood Zone 2 and 3.  The gardens to plots 11-14 lie within Flood Zone 2 and 3.  The extract below from the Flood Risk Assessment overlays the site layout and flood zones.

10.62. As part of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3 paragraph 173 of the NPPF provides that a sequential risk base approach should be taken where areas are known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding.  A  sequential test should be applied to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source.   NPPF para.175 states that “The sequential test should be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding, except in situations where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that no built development within the site boundary, including access or escape routes, land raising or other potentially vulnerable elements, would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding from any source, now and in the future (having regard to potential changes in flood risk).”

10.63. The site was a draft allocation with in the now ceased Selby Local Plan and would have been subject to the sequential test at the plan making stage.  The development is also exempt from the sequential test if it is on a site allocated in the DP through the sequential test and the proposal is consistent with the site’s allocated use and there have been significant changes to the known level of flood risk to the site now or in the future which would have affected the outcome of the test.

10.64. It is also noted that as a draft allocation in the now withdrawn emerging Selby Plan, the site was subject to the plan wide strategic flood risk assessment.  No sequential test is therefore necessary.

10.65. The Environment Agency has reviewed the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and recommend a condition to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the FRA, that no ground raising, or structures are to be built in Flood Zones 2 and 3 and that the proposal be built in accordance with the site plan. It is also recommended that to prevent house extensions into Flood Zones 2 and 3 that permitted development rights for rear extensions to plots 11-14 are removed. The site is not in an area identified to be at risk from surface water flooding.  The LLFA have assessed the proposal and confirm that the submitted documents demonstrate a reasonable approach to the management of surface water on the site.

Drainage

10.66. Core Strategy Policy SP15 requires proposals to take account of flood risk, drainage and climate change.  Local Plan Policy ENV1 seeks to provide good quality development taking account of the capacity of local services and infrastructure.  Paragraph 182 of the NPPF seeks developments to provide sustainable drainage systems.

10.67. A Preliminary Drainage Strategy has been submitted.  The Ouse and Derwent Internal Drainage Board and Yorkshire Water have raised no objection to the proposal subject to a condition to ensure foul and surface water drainage.

10.68. Subject to further details having been submitted, the Lead Local Flood Authority have no objection subject to an exceedance flow rates condition.

10.69. It is considered that the proposed development is capable of satisfactory provision for both foul and surface water and does not pose an unacceptable risk from flooding. The development therefore accords with CS Policy SP15, SDLP Policy ENV1 and paragraph 182 of NPPF.

Contaminated land

10.70. 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.

10.71. 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.

10.72. A Phase 1 Geoenvironmental Risk Assessment and Phase 2 Intrusive Investigation has been submitted to support the application.  The report has been assessed by the Contaminated Land Consultant who advises that the investigation did not identify any potential ground gas sources nor any measurable levels of hazardous ground gases and that the report recommends that gas protection measures are provided in the new houses by way of “an appropriate moisture-resistant membrane”.  A condition requiring the reporting of any unexpected contamination is recommended.

10.73. Subject to conditions the proposal would meet the requirements of Policies ENV2, SP18 and SP19.

Affordable Housing

10.74. 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.

10.75. 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.”

10.76. The more recent Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) dated October 2020, pages 13-15 and 125 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).

10.77. 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.

10.78. Policy SP9 provides a broad basis for securing affordable housing and is consistent with the NPPF. The now withdrawn emerging Selby Local Plan and CIL Viability Assessment (August 2022) indicates 20% affordable housing should be sought for this area.

10.79. Affordable housing and viability matters were explored in an appeal decision dated 30^th 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.

10.80. The same matter was considered in an appeal decision dated 20^th 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.”

10.81. 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

10.82. Policy RT2 requires the proposal to provide recreational open space at a rate of 60sqm per dwelling on the following basis “provision within the site will normally be required unless deficiencies elsewhere in the settlement merit a combination of on-site and off-site provision. Depending on the needs of residents and the total amount of space provided, a combination of different types of open space would be appropriate in accordance with NPFA standards.”

10.83. The Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document 2007 provides further guidance on the provision of open space.

10.84. The NPPF at paragraphs 96 and 98 advises that decisions should aim to achieve healthy places which enable and support healthy lifestyles, especially where this would address identified local health and well-being needs for example through the provision of safe and accessible green infrastructure and the provision and use of shared spaces such as open spaces.  Paragraph 103 reinforces the importance of access to open space, sport and physical activity for health and wellbeing. Policies should be based on robust and up to date assessment of needs and opportunities for new provision. Policy RT2 is considered consistent with the NPPF and is given significant weight.

10.85. In this case given the size of the site, a commuted sum is necessary. This can be spent to either upgrade existing public open space or contribute towards providing new public open space. The Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document costs this at £991 per dwelling for upgrading existing public open space or £1095 per dwelling for the provision of new public open space.   Barlby and Osgodby Parish Council have indicated that this can be used to upgrade existing facilities at South Duffield Road Play Area. This requirement to contribute towards Open Space will be controlled within the legal agreement. Recreational open space matters are therefore acceptable subject to conditions and a S106 agreement.

Minerals and Waste

10.86. The application site is located within a Minerals and Waste Safeguarding Area for sand and gravel and the proposal does not fall within the exemption criteria stated in paragraph 8.55 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan (2022). The relevant policy is Policy S02 (Developments proposed within Safeguarded Surface Mineral Resource Areas).

10.87. A Minerals Assessment has been submitted and reviewed by the NYC Minerals Officer who raises no comment. Given the sites location immediately adjacent to dwellings, it would not be considered practical or suitable to extract sand and gravel in this location without unacceptable impact on local communities. There is no conflict with the Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

Developer Contributions

10.88. The following Heads of Terms have been agreed with the applicant for this application:

Category/Type	Contribution	Amount & Trigger
Affordable housing	20% of the total number of units (4 dwellings)	Delivery of 4 affordable housing units
Recreational Open Space	Off-site contribution	As per Selby District Developer Contributions SPD
BNG	On and off-site ecology led landscaping including management plan Monitoring Contribution	30 years £2,522.00
Waste & recycling contribution	£65 per dwelling	£1300.00 (£65 per dwelling) prior to occupation of first dwelling (unless otherwise agreed)

10.89. 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.

Other matters

Section 149 of The Equality Act 2010

10.90. Under Section 149 of The Equality Act 2010 Local Planning Authorities must have due regard to the following when making decisions: (i) eliminating discrimination, harassment and victimisation; (ii) advancing equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; and (iii) fostering good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics are: age (normally young or older people), disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation.

10.91. The proposed development of the site would not result in a negative effect on any persons or on persons with The Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics.

11.0   PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION

11.1. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that all planning authorities must determine each application under the Planning Acts in accordance with the Development Plan so far as material to the application unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

11.2. The proposal is contrary to Policy SP2 of the Core Strategy as it involves residential development outside the defined development limits of any settlements and in the open countryside in planning policy terms.

11.3. The proposal should therefore be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

11.4. The NPPF is a material consideration. The Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land as required by the NPPF. Therefore, the policies most important for determining the application, SP2 and SP5, are out of date as set out in Paragraph 11 of the NPPF.

11.5. Paragraph 11d of the NPPF states that in terms of decision-making and the presumption in favour of sustainable development:

“d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

i.the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed; or

ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.”

11.6. 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.

11.7. The adverse impacts include the modest scale of loss of best and most versatile agricultural land which would result in minor harm to the agricultural economy in the area as well as food self-sufficiency. In addition, some moderate adverse localised landscape and visual effects of the development encroaching into the countryside; and conflict with the development plan.

11.8. Neutral matters include the lack of conflict with mineral policies; density of development; the site specific flood risk implications are acceptable and suitable drainage can be controlled by condition; there would be no harm arising from highway access or capacity issues; there would be no harm to protected species or any harm to designated sites; the site can be made safe from contamination; residential amenity would not be harmed; required education, healthcare and waste and recycling contributions can be secured to ensure no detriment is caused.

11.9. The benefits include the site being in a relatively sustainable location, where the provision of new housing can strengthen local services and attract new services; the scheme is well designed and of an acceptable density; the proposal makes a significant contribution to needed market housing (great weight is given to this consideration); provides 4 affordable housing units and secures an acceptable housing mix that will deliver a balanced community with provision for those with mobility problems; the scheme will provide a contribution to upgrade existing areas of recreational open space; there are net gains for biodiversity and ecological enhancements through the landscape scheme that benefit existing and future residents; economic benefits both during the construction phase and once the houses are occupied which are afforded moderate weight.

11.10. The adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The proposal benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Therefore, planning permission should be granted subject to conditions and prior completion of a s106 legal agreement.

12.0 RECOMMENDATION

12.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions below and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement.

Conditions

01. The development for which permission is hereby granted shall be begun within a period of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

02. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans/drawings listed below:

Location plan 4150.007 Rev A

Proposed site Plan 4150.031 Rev F

Proposed Site Layout Plan 4150.030 Rev B

Additional landscaped area PP.002 Rev A

Soft landscaping proposal PP.001 Rev PL02

Existing and proposed site sections – indicative material and colours 4150.043Proposed site section A-A 4150.041. Rev A

Proposed site section B – B and C – C 4150.042AHouse Type B – Elevations 4150.046

House Type B – Elevations 4150.045

House Type B1 – Elevations 4150.048

House Type B1 – Floor Plans 4150.047

House Type C – Elevations 4150.050

House Type C – Floor Plans 4150.049

House Type C1 – Elevations 4150.052

House Type C1 – Floor Plans 4150.051

House Type C2 – Elevations 4150.054

House Type C2 – Floor Plans 4150.053

House Type D – Elevations 4150.056

House Type D – Floor Plans 4150.055

House Type D1 – Elevations 4150.058

House Type D1 – Floor Plans 4150.057

Hard Standing Areas 22-092-902-P1

Flood Routing Plan 22-092-901-P1

Vehicle Tracking – North Yorkshire Refuse Vehicle PRGN-2155-HGN-DR-CH-0001B

Refuse Vehicle Tracking 2155 VT001 Rev A

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Drainage/Flood risk

03. No development shall take place until an appropriate Exceedance Flow Plan for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Site design must be such that when SuDS features fail or are exceeded, exceedance flows do not cause flooding of properties on or off site. This is achieved by designing suitable ground exceedance or flood pathways. Runoff must be completely contained within the drainage system (including areas designed to hold or convey water) for all events up to a 1 in 30 year event. The design of the site must ensure that flows resulting from rainfall in excess of a 1 in 100 year rainfall event are managed in exceedance routes that avoid risk to people and property both on and off site.

Reason: To prevent flooding to properties during extreme flood events and to mitigate against the risk of flooding on and off the site in accordance with Core Strategy Policy SP15.

04. The surface water and foul sewage drainage works shall be constructed in Accordance with the “Preliminary Drainage Strategy” – Revision P5 – dated 10/11/2023 by Beckwith & Hanlon Consulting Engineers Limited.

Any changes to the scheme must be approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Ouse & Derwent Internal Drainage Board, and then implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority before the development is brought into use.

Reason: To ensure the development is provided with satisfactory means of drainage and to reduce the risk of flooding, in accordance with Core Strategy Policy SP15.

INFORMATIVE TO CONDITION:
Under the Board’s Byelaws, the written consent of the Board is required prior to any discharge, or increase in the rate of discharge, into any watercourse (directly or indirectly) within the Board’s District.

05. There shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the development prior to the completion of surface water drainage works, details of which will have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. If discharge to public sewer is proposed, the information shall include, but not be exclusive to:

i) evidence that other means of surface water drainage have been properly considered and why they have been discounted; and

ii) the means of discharging to the public sewer network at a rate to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the statutory sewerage undertaker.

Reason: To ensure that no surface water discharges take place until proper provision has been made for its disposal and to accord with Core Strategy Policy SP15.

06. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted flood risk

assessment (ref 22/036.01 Rev 04) and the following mitigation measures it details:

• No ground raising or structures to be built in Flood Zone 2 and 3

• The proposal to be built in accordance with the Site Plan submitted Project No

4150 Drawing No 031 Rev F

These mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and

subsequently in accordance with the scheme’s timing/ phasing arrangements. The measures detailed above shall be retained and maintained thereafter throughout the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants and to prevent flooding elsewhere by ensuring that compensatory storage of flood water is provided, in accordance with NPPF and Core Strategy Policy SP15.

07 Notwithstanding the provisions of Class A to Schedule 2, Part 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) no extensions shall be erected within the curtilage of any dwellinghouse on plots 11-14 forward of the south facing rear elevation.

Reason: To ensure that no building is erected within flood zone 3 in accordance with NPPF and Core Strategy Policy SP15

Noise and Construction Mitigation

08. Prior to the site preparation and construction work commencing, a scheme to minimise the impact of noise, vibration, dust and dirt on residential property in close proximity to the site, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.  Measures may include, but would not be restricted to, on site wheel washing, restrictions on use of unmade roads, agreement on the routes to be used by construction traffic, restriction of stockpile size (also covering or spraying them to reduce possible dust), targeting sweeping of roads, minimisation of evaporative emissions and prompt clean up of liquid spills, prohibition of intentional on-site fires and avoidance of accidental ones, control of construction equipment emissions and proactive monitoring of dust. The plan should also provide detail on the management and control processes.

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of the locality during construction and to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) and Selby District Council’s Policy’s SP19 and ENV2.

09. No work relating to the development hereby approved, including works of demolition or preparation prior to building operations, shall take place other than between the hours of 07:30 hours and 18:00 hours Mondays to Fridays and 07:30 hours to 13:00 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank or National Holidays.

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of the locality during construction and to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) and Selby District Council’s Policy’s SP19 and ENV2. 

10. Should any of the proposed foundations be piled, no piling shall commence until a schedule of works to set out mitigation measures to protect residents from noise, dust and vibration has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The proposals shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule.

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of the locality during construction and to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) and Selby District Council’s Policy’s SP19 and ENV2.

11. In the event that unexpected land contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken and, if remediation is necessary, a remediation strategy must be prepared, which is subject to approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation strategy, a verification report must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. It is strongly recommended that all reports are prepared by a suitably qualified and competent person.

Reason: To ensure that the site is suitable for its proposed use taking account of ground conditions and any risks arising from land contamination and to accord with Core Strategy Policy SP18.

12. No development (including any demolition or site clearance) shall commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved CEMP.

The CEMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following details:

· Contact details of the site manager and person(s) responsible for environmental management.

· Site layout plan showing compound, welfare facilities, material storage, and access arrangements.

· Hours of construction and deliveries to and from the site.

· Construction traffic management plan including routing, parking, and loading/unloading arrangements.

· Measures to control emissions during demolition and construction.

· Monitoring protocols and mitigation strategies.

· Procedures for the storage, handling, and disposal of construction waste.

· Measures to protect watercourses, trees, and biodiversity.

· Pollution prevention measures including spill response.

· Strategy for informing local residents and businesses of construction activities and contact details for complaints.

· Procedures for monitoring compliance with the CEMP and reporting breaches.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the area and to ensure that the development is carried out in an environmentally responsible manner in accordance with Local Plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Highways

13. The development must not be brought into use until the access to the site at Land Off, The Fossards, Osgodby has been set out and constructed in accordance with the ‘Specification for Housing and Industrial Estate Roads and Private Street Works” published by the Local Highway Authority and the following requirements:

The access must be formed with 6 metres radius kerbs, to give a minimum carriageway width of 4.5 metres, and that part of the access road extending 6 metres into the site must be constructed in accordance with Standard Detail number E50 and the following requirements.

· Any gates or barriers must be erected a minimum distance of 6 metres back from the carriageway of the existing highway and must not be able to swing over the existing or proposed highway.

· Provision should be made to prevent surface water from the site/plot discharging onto the existing or proposed highway in accordance with the specification of the Local Highway Authority.

· Measures to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear.

All works must accord with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of access to the site from the public highway in the interests of highway safety and the convenience of all highway users in accordance with Policies ENV1, T1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan and Core Strategy Policy SP15 and SP19.

14. Except for investigative works, no excavation or other groundworks or the depositing of material on site in connection with the construction of any road or any structure or apparatus which will lie beneath the road must take place on any phase of the road construction works, until full detailed engineering drawings of all aspects of roads and sewers for that phase, including any structures which affect or form part of the highway network, and a programme for delivery of such works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The development must only be carried out in compliance with the approved engineering drawings.

Reason:  To secure an appropriate highway constructed to an adoptable standard in the interests of highway safety and the amenity and convenience of all highway users in accordance with Policies ENV1, T1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan and Core Strategy Policy SP15 and SP19.

15. No part of the development to which this permission relates must be brought into use until the carriageway and any footway or footpath from which it gains access is constructed to binder course macadam level or block paved (as approved) and kerbed and connected to the existing highway network with any street lighting installed and in operation.

The completion of all road works, including any phasing, must be in accordance with a programme submitted to and approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is brought into use.

Reason:  To ensure safe and appropriate access and egress to the premises, in the interests of highway safety and the convenience of all prospective highway users in accordance with Policies ENV1, T1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan and Core Strategy Policy SP15 and SP19.

INFORMATIVE TO CONDITION:

Applicants are reminded that in addition to securing planning permission other permissions may be required from North Yorkshire County Council as Local Highway Authority. These additional permissions can include, but are not limited to: Agreements under Sections 278, 38, and 184 of the Highways Act 1980; Section 38 of the Commons Act 2006, permissions through New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991 and Local Authorities’ Traffic Order(Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (as amended and including all instruments, orders, plans, regulations and directions).

Further information on these matters can be obtained from the Local Highway Authority. Other permissions may also be required from third parties. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure all necessary permissions are in place.

16. No development must commence until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Construction of the permitted development must be undertaken in accordance with the approved plan.

The Plan must include, but not be limited, to arrangements for the following in respect of each phase of the works:

1. details of any temporary construction access to the site including measures for removal following completion of construction works;

2. restriction on the use of Land Off, The Fossards, Osgodby access for construction purposes;

3. wheel washing facilities on site to ensure that mud and debris is not spread onto the adjacent public highway;

4. the parking of contractors’ site operatives and visitor’s vehicles;

5. areas for storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development clear of the highway;

6. details of site working hours;

7. details of the measures to be taken for the protection of trees; and

8. contact details for the responsible person (site manager/office) who can be contacted in the event of any issue.

Reason:  In the interest of public safety and amenity during construction and to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and Selby District Council’s Policy’s SP19 and ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan.

Landscaping/biodiversity

17. The scheme hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Preliminary Roost Assessment mitigation. The scheme shall be implemented and retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of safeguarding local ecology and to accord with Core Strategy Policy SP18 and the NPPF

18. Prior to commencement of development, a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved, the LEMP shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details for the lifetime of the development. The LEMP shall include, but not be limited, to arrangements for the following:

•           description and evaluation of features to be managed;

•           ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management;

•           aims and objectives of management;

•           appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives;

•           prescriptions for management actions;

•           preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a five-year period);

•           details of the body or organization responsible for implementation of the plan;

•           ongoing monitoring and remedial measures;

•           details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body responsible for its delivery;

•           how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the approved scheme (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the Plan are not being met).

Reason: In the interests of ecology and in order to comply with saved Policy ENV1 (5) of the Selby District Local Plan, Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy and national planning policy contained within the NPPF.

19. The approved landscape scheme for soft works (Soft landscaping proposal PP.001 Rev PL02) shall be implemented within a period of six months of the practical completion of the development. Any trees or plants which within a period of ten years from the substantial completion of the planting and development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority agrees alternatives in writing.

Reason: To ensure a good quality of development and in order to comply with saved Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.

20. No development shall commence on site before the developer has implemented the submitted (AWA Arboricultural Report dated Jan 2023) root protection area(s) (RPA) fencing in line with the requirements of British Standard BS 5837: 2012 (section 6.2.2 figure 2) Trees in Relation to Construction – Recommendations, or any subsequent amendments to that document, around the trees or shrubs or planting to be retained, as indicated on the approved plan.  The developer shall maintain such fences until all development subject of this permission is completed.

Reason: To ensure the preservation and planting of trees in accordance with s.197 of the Act and in order to comply with saved Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.

21. No operations shall commence on site in connection with the development hereby approved (including any demolition work, soil moving, temporary access construction and/or widening or any operations involving the use of motorised vehicles or  construction machinery) until the root protection area (RPA) works required by the approved tree protection scheme and ground protection detail (no dig) are in place. The level of the land within the fenced areas shall not be altered. 

Reason: To ensure the preservation of trees in accordance with s.197 of the Act and in order to comply with saved Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan

Materials

22. Prior to the development reaching above slab level, details of the materials to be used in the construction of the exterior walls and roof of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only approved details shall be utilised.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and in order to comply with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.

23. The first floor window(s) in the side elevations of plots 14, 15, 18 and 19 shall be glazed with obscure glass to a minimum level of obscurity equivalent to Pilkington Level 3 or higher. The window(s) shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of neighbouring residential amenity and to comply with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.

Target Determination Date: 19.07.2024

Case Officer: Linda Drake

Appendix A – Proposed Layout Plan