North Yorkshire Council
Community Development Services
Selby and Ainsty Area Planning Committee
8th october 2025
ZG2023/1275/FULM – APPLICATION FOR Planning PERMISSION FOR The demolition of the farm house and agricultural buildings and the subsequent erection of 107 dwellings together with the creation of a new access onto Low Eggborough Road, internal roads, landscaping, drainage and the formation of an emergency access onto the A19 AT Land Off Low Eggborough Road, Eggborough,
North Yorkshire ON BEHALF OF PERSIMMON HOMES YORKSHIRE.
Report of the Assistant Director - Planning – Community Development Services
|
1.0 Purpose of the Report 1.1 To determine an application for planning permission for 107 dwellings on land off Low Eggborough Road, Eggborough, North Yorkshire. 1.2 This application is reported to Committee because the Head of Planning 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 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be granted subject to conditions and prior agreement of a s106 agreement.
2.1. This is an application for planning permission for 107 dwellings. Access would be from Low Eggborough Road with emergency access from the A19. One main road would loop through the site and a series of cul-de-sacs radiate from it. A linear open space is proposed along the south eastern and south western boundaries which includes play equipment as well as drainage infrastructure. The site is 3.63ha in area and slopes down gradually from Low Eggborough Road and the main body of the site is relatively flat. The eastern section of the site currently contains a farmstead and the remainder is overgrown grassland with peripheral trees and hedgerows, and one hedgerow within the site.
2.2. The proposal entails residential development that is primarily within allocated site EGG/3 and a small part is within the development limits, making the proposal acceptable in principle in accordance with Policy H2, SP1, SP2 and SP4. Policies H2, SP2, SP4 and SP5 are the most important for determining the application and are out of date because the LPA can demonstrate only a 2.4 year supply of deliverable housing sites. No NPPF policy relevant to the areas or assets noted in NPPF foot note 7 would provide a strong reason to refuse development. The adverse impacts of granting permission do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in NPPF paragraph 11d applies to the proposal. The proposal is in a fairly sustainable location with some alternatives to car-based travel.
2.3. The non-allocated section of the site is approximately 0.5ha in area. Therefore, its loss as potential agricultural land is considered inconsequential and acceptable. It would not be economically viable to extract minerals from the site. Potential mineral resource impacts are considered acceptable in accordance with Policy S02.
2.4. The proposals density will be 43 dwellings per net developable hectare which is appropriate and makes efficient use of land. An appropriate mix of market and affordable housing is proposed, and all dwellings are compliant with part M4(2) of the Building Regulations and 6 dwellings are compliant with part M4(3) of the building regulations (wheelchair-user adaptable dwellings (constructed to be adjustable for occupation by a wheelchair user)). The applicant has resisted the inclusion of self build plots within the scheme. This failure to meet a part of the housing mix weighs against the proposal in a very minor way.
2.5. The design is appropriate in itself and in relation to its surroundings. Despite not complying with requirements 2, 3 and 4 of the allocation policy, the character and appearance impacts are limited and local to the site and only modest tree removal or trimming is proposed. No significant harm to the character and appearance of the area would arise from the proposal.
2.6. The site is generally at low risk of flooding with a small part at medium risk of surface water flooding. There are no reasonable available sites at lower risk of flooding than the application site because there are no such sites with planning permission that are not being built out or allocated sites that have not been built out, or any other form of preferable site. The sequential test is passed. The exceptions test is not required in relation to surface water flood risk. Foul and surface water details are acceptable and complies with requirement 5 of EGG/3.
2.7. The application shows the internal site layout is acceptable and alterations to the highway network would be appropriate. Overall, the impact on highway safety and convenience is acceptable. Contributions towards bus service enhancements are secured. A travel plan would encourage non-car based travel. The application shows cumulative insurmountable issues that will prevent access through the remainder of the allocation. This conflicts with a requirement in allocation EGG/3 but the alternative access via Low Eggborough Road is safe and acceptable. 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. The problems achieving allocation compliant access and proposals for a suitable alternative are a material consideration that indicates the LPA should depart from the development plan requirement in EGG/3. Otherwise, an allocated housing site would be needlessly sterilized at a time when the LPA has a 2.4 year housing land supply.
2.8. Impacts upon nature conservation sites and protected species are acceptable and biodiversity net gain is secured, subject to conditions and s106 agreement. 10% affordable housing with a mix of affordable rent and shared ownership tenures, which reflects local need, is secured. Affordable housing requirements of EGG/3 are met and exceeded.
2.9. Appropriate onsite open space and play equipment are secured. Potential contamination is dealt with by condition. Dwellings are sufficiently removed from and or appropriately orientated in relation to neighbouring properties such that harm to residential amenity would not arise. Construction impacts would be mitigated by conditions. Noise pollution and construction phase air quality matters are controlled by condition. Healthcare and bin contributions are secured by s106.
2.10. Significant weight is given to the social benefits that arise from the provision of housing and affordable housing in an area with significant unmet need for both. Provision of housing that is adaptable for wheelchair users also weighs in favour of the proposal. Bus service enhancement contributions would be of slight social benefit to the existing community. Limited positive weight is given to economic spending arising from the construction phase and occupants spending during the occupational phase. A commitment to biodiversity net gain is of moderate positive weight in environmental terms. The lack of self build provision weighs against the proposal in a very limited way as part of the areas housing demand may not be met by the proposal. Limited and localised character and appearance impacts weigh against the proposal to a limited degree. The adverse impacts of granting permission do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Therefore, planning permission should be granted.
3.0 Preliminary Matters
3.1. Access to the case file on Public Access can be found here:- ZG2023/1275/FULM | The demolition of the farm house and agricultural buildings and the subsequent erection of 109 dwellings together with the creation of a new access onto Low Eggborough Road, internal roads, landscaping, drainage and the formation of an emergency access onto the A19 | Land Off Low Eggborough Road Eggborough East Yorkshire
3.2. During the course of the application several rounds of amendments were submitted. The following relevant planning history has been identified for the application site:
Application Number: 2021/0243/FULM
Description: Erection of 114 new residential units with access and associated works
Decision: Withdrawn by the applicant on 9/6/2023.
3.3 Planning history for the land to the north west (Harron Homes site):
CO/2003/1311 Proposed erection of 75 dwellings with associated landscaping, recreation open space and highway works on 2.18 ha of land. Withdrawn 18/12/2003.
2014/0659/FUL Proposed development of 99 residential dwelling and associated access and landscaping works. Approved 12/11/2014. Condition 29 required details of two link roads to the southern element of the allocated site.
2014/1143/DPC Discharge of conditions 2 (Materials), 3 (Landscaping), 4 (Boundary), 5 (Highway), 9 (Highway Improvement Works), 13 (Highway Condition Survey), 14 (Site Compound), 16 (Construction Traffic), 18 (Energy), 21 (Site Noise), 23 (Noise), 24 (Archaeological) and 25 (Archaeological) of 2014/0659/FUL Proposed development of 99 residential dwellings and associated access and landscaping works. Approved 23/12/2014.
2014/1187/FUL Section 73 application for the variation of condition 28 (plans/drawings) of approval 2014/0659/FUL for proposed development of 99 residential dwellings and associated access and landscaping works. Withdrawn 15/12/2014.
2015/0898/DPC Discharge of conditions 9 (highway improvements), 10 (pedestrian island), 13 (highway condition survey), 14 (on-site parking and storage), 16 (HCV routes), 18 (renewable energy) and 26 (recreational open space) of approval 2015/0076/FUL Section 73 application for variation of Conditions 2 (materials), 3 (landscaping), 4 (boundary treatments), 5 (highways), 14 (site compound), 21 (noise, vibration dust), 23 (noise), 24 (archaeology and 28 (plans/drawings) and to remove condition 25 (archaeology) of approval 2014/0659/FUL for proposed development of 99 residential dwellings and associated access and landscaping works. Part discharged 12/2/2016.
2016/0552/DOC Discharge of condition 18 (energy supply) of approval 2015/0076/FUL (8/37/46G/PA) for section 73 application for variation of Conditions 2 (materials), 3 (landscaping), 4 (boundary treatments), 5 (highways), 14 (site compound), 21 (noise, vibration dust), 23 (noise), 24 (archaeology) and 28 (plans/drawings) and to remove condition 2 (archaeology) of approval 2014/0659/FUL for proposed development of 99 residential dwellings and associated access and landscaping works. Not discharged 15/7/2016.
2017/0112/FUL Section 73 application to vary condition 27 (plans) of approval 2015/0076/FUL Section 73 application for variation of Conditions 2 (materials), 3 (landscaping), 4 (boundary treatments), 5 (highways), 14 (site compound), 21 (noise, vibration dust), 23 (noise), 24 (archaeology) and 28 (plans/drawings) and to remove condition 25 (archaeology) of approval 2014/0659/FUL for proposed development of 99 residential dwellings and associated access and landscaping works. Approved 3/4/2017.
3.4 Land to the south west (Bowmans Mill):
2017/0542/OUTM Outline to include access (all other matters reserved) for erection of up to 120 dwellings and associated car parking, garages, landscaping, open space and details of including demolition and removal of all structures, buildings and hard standing to facilitate future development. Approved 18/9/2020.
2021/0982/REMM Reserved matters including layout, scale, appearance and landscaping for the erection of 119 dwellings, pursuant to outline planning permission LPA ref. 2017/0542/OUTM. Approved 15/1/2024.
ZG2024/0671/S73 Section 73 application to vary condition 02 (approved plans) of approval 2021/0982/REMM Reserved matters including layout, scale, appearance and landscaping for the erection of 110 dwellings, pursuant to outline planning permission LPA ref. 2017/0542/OUTM granted on 15 January 2024. Approved 19/11/2024. This development has commenced.
4.0 Site and Surroundings
4.1. The application site is rectangular in shape and 3.63ha in area. It consists of a dwelling and a series of dilapidated agricultural buildings fronting Low Eggborough Road with relatively flat undeveloped land to the south west. Parts of the site boundary feature hedgerows and trees, and there is a hedgerow within the site. The site is primarily overgrown grassland. There is a ditch that runs along part of the north west and south west boundary of the site. The site is within a brick clay, and sand and gravel mineral safeguarding area. The site is in flood zone 1 (low risk) and small parts of the site are at medium risk of surface water flooding.
4.2. The application site is approximately indicated by the blue line on the image below. The majority of the site is allocated for residential development, reference EGG/3, in the Selby District Local Plan. The eastern section of the site (beyond the black dotted area within the blue line) is not allocated for any particular use in the development plan. The entire application site is within the Eggborough development limits.
4.3. To the north east of the site are dwellings fronting Low Eggborough Road; to the south east is the A19 with associated landscaping, and open countryside beyond; to the south west is a housing development in progress on the former Bowmans Mill site; to the north west of the site is a modern residential development permitted via the aforementioned planning history, and forming part of the same allocation as the application site, EGG/3.
5.0 Description of Proposal
5.1. This is an application for planning permission for the demolition of the farm house and agricultural buildings and the subsequent erection of 107 dwellings together with the creation of a new access onto Low Eggborough Road, internal roads, landscaping, drainage and the formation of an emergency access onto the A19. The application proposes 10% affordable housing.
5.2. The primary access from Low Eggborough Road would become the major road and leads to the main road through the site. Public open space is a linear greenspace mostly adjacent to the A19 boundary with a local area for play near the south west boundary alongside a pumping station.
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 is:
- Revised Publication Selby Local Plan 2024 (Reg 19)
- North Yorkshire Local Plan
On 17 September 2019, Selby District Council agreed to prepare a new Local Plan. Consultation on issues and options took place early in 2020 and further consultation took place on preferred options and additional sites in 2021. The Pre-submission Publication Local Plan (under Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2012, as amended), including supporting documents, associated evidence base and background papers, was subject to formal consultation that ended on 28th October 2022. The responses have been considered. From 8 March to 19 April 2024 the Council held a six-week consultation on the Pre-Submission Revised Publication Selby Local Plan. The responses have been considered.
On 17th January 2025, a report was taken to the Selby and Ainsty Area Committee and Development Plans Committee recommending that work on the emerging Selby Local Plan is ceased. A report was taken to North Yorkshire Council’s Executive on 4 February and then North Yorkshire Council’s Full Council on 26 February with the same recommendation which has been agreed.
Having regard to the above, there is no emerging local plan to consider, but some weight may be given to the evidence base.
No weight can be given to the North Yorkshire Local Plan at the current time as it is at an early stage of preparation.
Guidance - Material Considerations
6.3. Relevant guidance for this application is:
- National Planning Policy Framework 2024
- National Planning Practice Guidance
- National Design Guide
- 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. Eggborough Parish Council: 9/2/2024 Object (summary):
· In the original consultation about the New Local Plan in December 2022 this site was rejected by Selby DC because: “The access into this site is constrained by an unresolved ransom strip to gain access from the existing development to the North West of the site.” The only reason I can see why it has been re-instated is a financial one for the council (via council tax revenues) who are willing to sacrifice the safety and well being of the residents on Low Eggborough Road and Water Lane in return for financial benefit.
· This application does not accord with the development plan, there exist no material considerations that dictate otherwise and that accordingly it should be rejected.
· Access and Highway Issues: the proposal is contrary to Policy ENV1, T1 & T2 and NPPF paragraphs 108 and 109. Using Low Eggborough Road for construction traffic for four years is intolerable. HGV access is dangerous.
· Low Eggborough Road to the South of the site has no impact on the traffic to and from the site as all traffic will have to travel North. Low Eggborough Road to the North of the site at no point exceeds 4.70m and at its narrowest is 4.0m wide.
· Condition 7 of permission 2014/0659/FUL (Harron Homes) on the Northern site states “There shall be no access or egress between the highway and the application site by any site traffic (construction/delivery/workers vehicles) other than via the public highway at Selby Road, Reason: In accordance with policies ENV1, T1 and T2 of Selby District Local Plan and to ensure a satisfactory means of access to the site from the public highway in the interests of vehicle and pedestrian safety and convenience”. Following the development of Harron Homes nothing has changed to make this situation any better since the initial application. There has been development of the local store adding additional traffic and parking hazards. 4 additional dwellings have been constructed opposite Water Lane / Selby Road junction and a further one on the opposite side at the junction of Selby Road and Water Lane. The increase in the use of the Premier store and the vehicles exiting The Granary onto Water Lane now number in excess of 50 vehicles making numerous in/out passages each day. All of which makes the current situation significantly worse than prior to the Harron Homes development starting, and for this reason alone the development should be rejected.
· The site itself is in breach of Highway safety regulations due to only having one entrance/exit. A site of this size has to have at least two, which should be through the Harron Homes development.
· Sustainability of Development. The application is in breach of Core Strategy policy SP1 and paragraph 11 of the NPPF. Additionally, the whole development falls foul of 2005 Plan policies EGG/3 and ENV1, Core Strategy policies SP1, SP15 and paragraphs 11, 127 and 170 of the NPPF and no way resembles a “sustainable development”. The plan with the only access via Low Eggborough Road presents no alternative route through the Northern site as required by 2005 Plan policy EGG/3. A single vehicle parked legally on the road on Low Eggborough Road prevents the bin lorry from passing if people forget to leave the road clear on a bin day. It will similarly pose significant issues for any construction traffic trying to use Low Eggborough Road as an access point.
· Bus services are poor. There is only one bus that can get you to Selby before 09:00 and that bus only gives you 15 mins to get from the bus station to the place of work. To return the last bus leaves Selby at 16:25 thus making it impossible to complete a full working day. If you needed to get to Doncaster, then there is no alternative than by car as the bus service Bus no 405 was cancelled on October 2nd 2022. This inadequate timetable will deter users as it does not provide the frequency and times that fit in with a working lifestyle and any commuters will be left to use their car as the only viable option of travel.
· There is a skeleton train service of only two trains a day which does not allow commuting.
· Pedestrian and cycle travel would be dangerous due to the proposed traffic increase.
· Breach of Site Allocation Policy EGG/3 in the 2005 Plan- The development is partly located on the allocated site EGG/3 as in the 2005 Plan. It will not, as stated by the applicant, secure “principal vehicular access from Selby Road and minor/secondary access onto Water Lane”. The applicant also refers to the cul-de-sacs in the Northern site being held ransom. This does not preclude them from seeking consent to secure access rights over the ransom strips. This applicant states that all alternatives to Low Eggborough Road have been exhausted. This statement is purely down to money and due to the developer being unwilling to pay for the only suitable and safe access which was designed and prescribed by Selby DC off the Herron Homes development.
7.3. 22/1/25 Previous objection remain. The proposal would endanger highway safety. It would generate 700 vehicle movements per day. The only safe access is via the ransom strips. Three floor properties are out of keeping with the village. All the foul sewage will enter the system via the 150mm foul sewage pipe on Low Eggborough Road. From the figures provided by the Community Speedwatch team while they were active traffic has increased 1000% this year compared to last year.
7.4. 11/9/25 Objection. 257 local objections to the proposal and the amendments do not address them. Access should accord with the allocation policy. The applicant has not contacted relevant parties to achieve this. Visibility at the Water Lane and Selby Road junction is insufficient. Yorkshire Water has objected to a major housing application at the northern side of Eggborough due to insufficient sewer capacity. Yorkshire Water need to reconsider their comments to ensure there is capacity. Water supply has not been considered and Yorkshire Water says it cannot supply the site without extra pipework. The applicant is putting profit before safety by failing to engage with ransom strip owners and using the access required by the allocation. The design and access statement is misleading because train services are insufficient; 107 dwellings are proposed, not 109; parts of the site are not within the allocation Egg/3; there is no petrol station in the village; 2.5 storey properties are not in keeping with Eggborough; the site is 1.1 miles from the train station; promoting easy road links for vehicular use is contrary to NPPF guidelines on sustainability; Persimmon have not meaningfully engaged with the local community as shown by the level of objection; local character assessments are ignored by proposing 2.5 storey dwellings; no local jobs and out commuting will result thus not contributing to the village at all; 3 and 4 bed houses are not wanted; profit has been pursued and the 40% affordable housing requirement ignored; the proposed road width is 5.5m but they go on to consider the 4m width of Low Eggborough Road acceptable; residents and road users beyond the site will be endangered by the proposal; active travel will not happen as employment is outside the village and there is a lack of public transport; local factories offer limited job opportunities; off site BNG is not guaranteed and may be subsequently removed; wildlife and planning will die;
7.5. NYC Affordable Housing: 16/1/2024 observations made.
7.6. 20/8/25 10% (11 units) affordable housing are proposed. Of the eleven, eight will be rented and transferred to a RP, and the other three will be First Homes and will be sold by the developer at the discounted price (30% off OMV), and as per Government and local criteria. Housing accepts the above and support a planning approval on this basis.
7.7. NYC Archaeologist:26/1/2024 No objection. 29/8/25 No additional comments.
7.8. NYC Ecology: 24/1/2024 There will be no impact upon designated sites within the local area. A comprehensive suite of ecological surveys and assessments has been completed. These have been undertaken at the correct time of year and following good practice guidelines. Appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures are set out in sections 5 and 7 of the EcIA. Rather than itemise these individually in a planning condition, it is suggested that they are incorporated into a Construction Environmental Management Plan (Biodiversity) (covering the construction phase) and a Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan (covering habitat creation and ongoing maintenance thereafter). These plans should be submitted for approval prior to commencement. In relation to invasive non-native species, a Method Statement for the control of Himalayan Balsam should be included within the CEMP (Biodiversity) and BEMP. The application is not accompanied by a BNG assessment, there is a need to submit a Defra metric in order to demonstrate that the site is capable of achieving a net gain for biodiversity in accordance with current policy. Once this has been received, and if net gain can be provided on site, I would be content for the detailed Habitat Monitoring and Management Plan (HMMP) to be secured via a condition – this could form part of the BEMP.
7.9. 12/4/2024: A BNG Defra metric, BNG assessment report and a LEMP document have now all been provided to deal with comments provided earlier in the consultation process. I am pleased to see that through a combination of on site landscaping and off site habitat creation, establishment and management, the development proposals are capable of achieving a good level of net gain, which is in accordance with current guidance and policy. The LEMP document which has been provided sets out how the habitats proposed will be created, monitored and managed. There will need to be a condition to ensure that the applicants adhere to the requirements of the BNG report and LEMP. There will also need to be a mechanism for securing the offsite area of BNG – potentially through a s106 agreement. As per my previous comments a CEMP secured via condition is recommended to deal with the construction related avoidance and mitigation measures set out within the EcIA.
7.10. 12/3/25 January 2025 EcIA should be submitted. BNG requirements can be met via a combination of on and off site. Off site BNG to be secured through s106 with monitoring fee. On site BNG can be secured by condition or s106. The BEMP contains acceptable avoidance, mitigation and enhancement proposals for habitats and species on site which can be secured by condition. Conditions are recommended to secure a construction ecological management plan; sensitive lighting scheme; adherence to the submitted BEMP; on site BNG implementation; adherence to the on site LEMP; and s106 to secure off site BNG and monitoring fee.
7.11. 4/9/25 No objection subject to condition and s106.
7.12. NYC Environmental Health: 8/2/2024 The noise impact assessment shows that with mitigation internal noise levels are likely to be acceptable. EH have concerns about the mitigation in place to address external noise (the proposed 3m acoustic barrier and 2m garden fencing). As stated in the assessment, even allowing for the upper guideline limit of 55dB for external amenity space, there will still be at least 11 dwellings that will exceed this increased limit (Section 5.7). As an upper allowance has already been made in the assessment, EH would not deem having several properties exceed this as acceptable. The applicant will need to demonstrate mitigation that would ensure the noise levels in the amenity spaces of all proposed dwellings will either be equivalent or less that the upper guideline limit. A condition is recommended to minimise the construction noise, vibration, dust and dirt impacts upon residents. Working hours and piling conditions are recommended.
7.13. 22/2/2024 EH do not believe road traffic from the proposed development will significantly upon impact air quality. The Air Quality Assessment states that details of Electric Vehicle (EV) charging points are to be provided as required. Once these details for EV charging points at the development are available, they will need to be submitted and reviewed. The previous conditions are reiterated.
7.14. 14/5/24 Noise levels in external spaces are not acceptable.
7.15. 8/1/25 The submitted Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) prepared by BWB dated November 2024 and Site Layout, Drawing Number 100, Rev C, dated September 2024 show internal noise levels are acceptable with the mitigation details in section 5. Rear garden noise levels are acceptable without mitigation. However, the external noise levels without mitigation to the front of the proposed properties (front garden and parking areas) closest the A19 is significantly above the upper threshold of 55dB. Previous noise assessments recommended a noise barrier along the southern boundary of the site so it should be secured by condition.
7.16. 15/9/25 Noise inside properties near the A19 would be excessive. Closing windows may not be sustainable long term. An overheating assessment has not yet been carried out. Previous recommendation for 3m high acoustic barrier near A19 should be considered. Does the noise model include a fence. Post completion noise assessment condition recommended.
7.17. NYC Lead Local Flood Authority: 13/2/2024 The submitted documents demonstrate a reasonable approach to the management of surface water on the site. The LLFA understands that it is not feasible for surface water to infiltrate within the site. We understand that the preferred discharge route for surface water would be via a watercourse. This would have to be agreed with the IDB. However, we see this as a reasonable approach to the management of surface water within the site. The LLFA also understand that the site will be discharging at a maximum rate of 8.8l/s. As no exceedance flow route plan has been submitted, we would like to condition this.
7.18. 24/3/25 Previous comments reiterated.
7.19. 12/9/25 The exceedance flow plan in the overall engineering layout is acceptable.
7.20. NYC Local Highway Authority: 13/3/2024: amendments and additional information are required.
7.21. 17/4/2024 The travel plan version 2 dated 4 April is acceptable.
7.22. 15/7/24 Amendments and s106 contributions are required to make the proposal acceptable.
7.23. 25/2/2025 Amendments and s106 contributions are required to make the proposal acceptable.
7.24. 9/6/25 Amendments and s106 contributions are required to make the proposal acceptable.
7.25. 18/9/25 No objection subject to conditions and s1056 contributions towards a pedestrian crossing, bus service enhancements and travel plan monitoring.
7.26. NYC Strategic Planning Team, Children and Young People's Service:26/1/2024, 5/7/24, 29/1/25, 1/4/25 and 26/8/25 No contributions sought.
7.27. NYC Waste and Recycling Officer: 11/1/2024 The road design should accommodate waste collection vehicles and swept path analysis provided. Bin presentation points are required at the junction of public and private roads, with waste vehicles able to get within 10m of the presentation point. There are concerns that there is nowhere for the vehicle to turn around next to plot 13, prior to the private drive. A presentation point has not been identified for the private drive adjacent to plots 68 to 72 and there are concerns that there is nowhere for the vehicle to turn around next to plot 67, prior to the private drive.External bin storage at each new property should be large enough to accommodate up to 4 x wheeled bins. As the application is for more than 4 properties, the developer will be required to purchase the waste and recycling containers for this development.
7.28. Danvm Drainage Commissioners – 19/1/2024 No objection. The Board requests that the agreed 6m maintenance access to the exiting open watercourse on the boundary of the site is kept completely free of obstructions, including fencing and planting. 16/1/25 No objection. 21/5/25 Previous comments reiterated.
7.29. Contaminated land consultant: 24/1/2024 The submitted contaminated land assessments are acceptable and a series of contamination conditions are recommended. 27/8/25 No additional comments.
7.30. National Highways: 5/3/2024 Recommend that planning permission not be granted for a specified period until 5/6/2024 to allow amendments and additional information to be provided.
7.31. 26/4/2024 No objection and recommends a construction traffic management plan condition.
7.32. Network Rail: 9/2/2024 Developer contributions are requested towards Whitley Bridge Station to improve station facilities such as additional cycle parking and additional customer information. It is not clear if any construction traffic associated with the site will be using routes that include any Network Rail assets. It would be NR preference that construction traffic associated with the scheme, as to avoid an increase of vehicular use over the level crossing, access the site via the A19 and Weeland Road from the M62. NR would also ask that level crossing safety leaflets are included in information/welcome packs provided to the new homeowners at the site.
7.33. NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board: 22/1/2024 The ICB considers that the directly impacted practices from this development will be GP practices within approximately 2 miles from the proposed development. The closest GP practice is Ash Grove Medical Centre: Selby Road Surgery which has no space capacity to accommodate the proposal. Based on average occupancy of 2.4 people per dwelling the proposed development will generate approximately 262 residents and subsequently increase demands upon existing services. The development would therefore have an impact on the primary healthcare provision in the area and its implications, if unmitigated, would be unsustainable. The development will give rise to a need for improvements to capacity, by way of improvements to, reconfiguration of, or extension of existing premises or providing additional resource for a new build health development. The ICB note that the S106 contribution secured from this development would fund works at the named practice and/or contribute towards a new development related to the Primary Care Network (PCN) that will accommodate the additional population created by the proposed development. A developer contribution will be required to mitigate the impacts of this proposal. The ICB calculate the level of contribution required in this instance to be £128,679. Payment should be made before the development commences. The ICB therefore requests that this sum be secured through a planning obligation linked to any grant of planning permission, in the form of a Section 106 planning obligation.
7.34. 18/8/25 Previous comments apply.
7.35. North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service: 15/1/2024, 9/1/25 and 15/8/25 No objections.
7.36. North Yorkshire Police: 24/1/2024 Management plan required for public open spaces; all dwellings should be provided with security lighting; details of appropriate street lighting required.
7.37. 15/1/25 Crime statistics overview provided.
7.38. 21/8/25 Defensive planting to the rear of plots 35, 39 and 40 is recommended. Demarcation of frontages is lacking at plots 51 and 52, and 79 and 80. Lower fencing could allow taller fencing to be climbed at plots 35, 39 and 40. Remote parking for plot 103 can result in highway issues which are detailed. Trees adjacent to boundaries may create climbing aids.
7.39. Yorkshire Water: 22/1/2024 A water supply can be provided under the terms of the Water Industry Act, 1991. Two conditions are recommended regarding waste water. Domestic foul flows can be accommodated at the wastewater treatment works.
7.40. 15/1/2025 Foul and surface water drainage conditions recommended.
7.41. 21/2/2025 Recommends a condition requiring development is carried out in accordance with the FRA rev 4.
7.42. 27/5/25 Recommends a condition requiring development is carried out in accordance with the FRA rev 5.
Local Representations
7.43. 263 local representations have been received of which 1 is in support and 262 are objecting. A summary of the comments is provided below, however, please see website for full comments.
7.44. Support:
- We need more homes and they cannot always be away from the village.
- The village needs a school nearer to where most people live.
- Eggborough is near the motorway with easy access to big towns.
- Young people find it hard to get on the housing ladder as demand exceeds availability.
- Many would like to live in a small village and resent development but for future generations it is essential to provide homes.
- Eggborough has several shops/services.
- Support the proposal subject to the promises made by the developer.
7.45. Object:
- The village is not equipped with infrastructure and facilities to accommodate more dwellings and the proposal does not upgrade them.
- Contrary to policy SP2 because of disproportionate housing growth.
- Poor public transportation; doctors, school and nursey capacity; power cuts, water supply/pressure and foul/surface water drainage problems.
- Ecological and landscape harm. Loss of trees.
- Noise and air pollution, including from placing houses so close to the A19.
- Eggborough should remain a small village. Cumulative harm to the character and form of the village from housing developments.
- Harm to human health including by air pollution.
- Access from Low Eggborough Road is contrary to the allocation requirements in EGG/3 which requires access from Selby Road and Water Lane. The roads in phase 1 have been built to link to the proposal.
- The proposal does not provide the 20m wide landscape buffer required by EGG/3.
- There is no justification regarding why ransom strips cannot be negotiated to provide access as originally planned. Roads to the north could still be adopted up to the boundary with the application site to allow access.
- The poor suitability of Low Eggborough Road/Water Lane to accommodate additional traffic, leading to a detriment to Highway Safety.
- Emergency vehicle access.
- Road vibrations causing damage.
- Road widening and give way area will be unsafe.
- The emergency access is unsafe.
- Eggborough is being targeted with far more new houses than any other Designated Service Village.
- The eastern part of the proposal is outside the allocation boundary. A draft of the emerging local plan rejected the application site as an allocation.
- Contrary to policy SP2 because it is not sustainable rural development. Buses and trains are not suitable for most commuters given their times of operation and with buses only running at 1 per hour and trains at 2 per day this cannot be considered adequate public transport. Most people in the village are forced to rely on their cars given the limited local employment opportunities.
- Contrary to policy T1 because the Selby Road/Water Lane junction is dangerous.
- Contrary to policy T2 because Low Eggborough Road and Water Lane are insufficient to accommodate the proposal with the former only 4m wide at its narrowest. Construction and accommodation traffic cannot be accommodated. There would be traffic problems and harm to the safety of highway users. Low Eggborough Road does not have a footpath along its full length.
- Contrary to policy SP4 due to unsafe access.
- The M62 roundabout is dangerous.
- Lack of affordable housing. Most of the housing will not be affordable to local people.
- Increased car use does not align with net zero targets.
- Residential amenity- loss of privacy, increased traffic; overlooking existing homes, the 3 storey homes especially, as all homes in the surrounding area are all 2 storey.
- Three storey homes are out of character.
- Increased flood risk including high groundwater.
- Increased crime risk.
- Property devaluation.
- Site rejected from emerging local plan but is back in the latest draft which is unfair.
- Lack of affordable housing.
8.0 Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
9.0 Main Issues
9.1. The key considerations in the assessment of this application are:
- Loss of agricultural land
- Minerals
- Housing density and mix
- Design
- Character and appearance
- Flood risk, drainage and climate change
- Highways
- Impact upon nature conservation and protected species
- Contaminated land and ground conditions
- Residential amenity
- Archaeology
- Noise and air pollution
- Education, healthcare, waste and re-cycling
10.0 ASSESSMENT
Principle of development
10.1. Core Strategy Policy SP1 provides a presumption in favour of sustainable development which reflects that found within the NPPF. Selby District Local Plan Policy H2, reference EGG/3, allocates a parcel of land for development of 210 dwellings. Planning permission 2017/0112/FUL for 99 dwellings has been built out by Harron Homes and occupies approximately the northwestern half of the allocation. Approximately the southeastern half of the allocation remains undeveloped. The remaining capacity of the allocation is 111 dwellings. The proposal entails the erection of 107 dwellings. Approximately 95 of these are located within the allocated site, bringing the potential total within the allocation boundary to 194 which does not exceed the quantum of development envisaged by Policy H2 reference EGG/3.
10.2. The northeastern section of the application site, including approximately 12 dwellings, nearest to Low Eggborough Road is not allocated for residential development. The entire application site is located within the Eggborough development limit. Core Strategy Policy SP2 provides a spatial development strategy wherein the designated service village of Eggborough has some scope for additional residential growth and requires proposals for development on non-allocated sites must meet the requirements of Policy SP4.
10.3. Policy SP4 supports appropriate scale residential development on greenfield land within development limits. The majority of the northeastern section of the application site accords with this provision where there are disused agricultural buildings, farmland and residential garden. The remainder of the northeastern section of the application site which is brownfield land such as the farmhouse would be redevelopment of previously developed land. The policy expects the proposal to protect local amenity,to preserve and enhance the character of the local area, and to comply with normal planning considerations, with full regard taken of the principles contained in Design Codes (e.g. Village Design Statements). Appropriate scale will be assessed in relation to the density, character and form of the local area and should be appropriate to the role and function of the settlement within the hierarchy. There is no village design statement for Eggborough but the scale of development beyond the allocation limit is considered appropriate. Other considerations are discussed below. The detailed requirements of Policies H2 reference EGG/3 and SP4 are considered below.
10.4. NPPF paragraph 11 sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development which states “11. Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development……..For decision-taking this means:….. d) where……… the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date 8 , granting permission unless: i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance7 provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination 9.”
10.5. Policies H2, SP2, SP4 and SP5 are the most important for determining the application and are out of date because the LPA cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Furthermore, Policy SP5 is out of date because the housing need figure it contains is not calculated based on the required standard method. There is a 2.4 year supply based on the latest standard method calculation. No NPPF policy relevant to the areas or assets noted in NPPF foot note 7 would provide a strong reason to refuse development. These are “(7) The policies referred to are those in this Framework (rather than those in development plans) relating to: habitats sites (and those sites listed in paragraph 189) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, a National Landscape, a National Park (or within the Broads Authority) or defined as Heritage Coast; irreplaceable habitats; designated heritage assets (and other heritage assets of archaeological interest referred to in footnote 75); and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change.” The adverse impacts of granting permission do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits as described in paragraph 11d ii, with particular regard to the key policies. These are defined in footnote 9 as “(9) The policies referred to are those in paragraphs 66 and 84 of chapter 5; 91 of chapter 7; 110 and 115 of chapter 9; 129 of chapter 11; and 135 and 139 of chapter 12.” These are detailed in the relevant sections below. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies to the proposal.
10.6. It is still possible to give weight to development plan policies even if they are considered out of date. As set out in NPPF paragraph 232, due weight should be given to policies, according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). NPPF paragraph 61 states “To support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed………. The overall aim should be to meet an area’s identified housing need, including with an appropriate mix of housing types for the local community.” Policy H2 allocates part of the application site for residential development so is consistent with this aim of the NPPF and is given significant weight. 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, Policy SP2 does not include the more nuanced approach to the consideration of development that is found in the NPPF. Policy SP2 is inconsistent with the NPPF and should be given limited weight. Policy SP4 part a) seeks to restrict the types of non-allocated development within development limits that will be supported. This is more restrictive than the NPPF so this section should be given diminished weight. The remaining sections relate to design, amenity, character and green belt amongst other matters which are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.7. In respect of sustainability, the village contains a primary school, train station offering a skeleton service, village hall with play area, doctors surgery and pharmacy, convenience stores, churches, cricket club, pub, takeaways, coffee shop, a somewhat limited bus service, and adjacent industrial development offering employment opportunities. In terms of access to services and facilities and a choice of mode of transport, the site can be considered as being in a fairly sustainable location with some alternatives to car-based travel. NPPF paragraph 84 which restricts isolated dwellings does not apply, nor does paragraph 91 which relates to main town centre uses.
10.8. Section 149 of The Equality Act 2010- 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.
10.9. The development of the site for residential purposes would not result in a negative effect on any persons or on persons with The Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics and could in the longer term have a positive effect.
Loss of agricultural land
10.10. The site has previously been used for agricultural purposes but is now in a disused overgrown state. 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.
10.11. The SDLP states “The site comprises a series of paddocks and overgrown meadowland situated to the rear of properties in Selby Road and extending as far as the embanked A19 bypass”. The allocation of the vast majority of the application site for housing development means it is considered the loss of potential agricultural land has already been agreed in principle. The non-allocated section of the site is approximately 0.5ha in area. Therefore, its loss as potential agricultural land is considered inconsequential and acceptable.
Minerals
10.12. The site is within a brick clay safeguard area, and a sand and gravel safeguard area designated by the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan. Policy S01 safeguards these resources from other forms of surface non-mineral development. Policy S02 permits development other than minerals extraction in safeguard areas in a number of scenarios including if it can be demonstrated that the mineral in the location concerned is no longer of any potential value as it does not represent an economically viable and therefore exploitable resource; and if the proposal is exempt which includes applications for development on land which is already allocated in an adopted local plan. Policy S07 requires consultation with NYC prior to permission being granted. NYC Minerals and Waste Team was consulted but did not reply.
Housing density and mix
Density
10.14. Policy H2B of the Local Plan states “Proposals for residential development will be expected to achieve a minimum net density of 30 dwellings per hectare in order to ensure the efficient use of land. Higher densities will be required where appropriate particularly within the market towns and in locations with good access to services and facilities and/or good public transport. Lower densities will only be acceptable where there is an overriding need to safeguard the existing form and character of the area or other environmental or physical considerations apply.”
10.15. Selby District Local Plan Policy H2, reference EGG/3, allocates a parcel of land for development of 210 dwellings. Planning permission 2017/0112/FUL for 99 dwellings has been built out by Harron Homes and occupies approximately the northwestern half of the allocation. Approximately the southeastern half of the allocation remains undeveloped. The remaining capacity of the allocation is 111 dwellings. The proposal entails the erection of 107 dwellings. Approximately 95 of these are located within the allocated site, bringing the potential total within the allocation boundary to 194 which is in accordance with the quantum and density of development envisaged by Policy H2 reference EGG/3.
10.16. 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”.
10.17. NPPF footnote 9 requires consideration of NPPF paragraph 129 which requires “Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account: (a) the identified need for different types of housing and other forms of development, and the availability of land suitable for accommodating it; (b) local market conditions and viability; (c) the availability and capacity of infrastructure and services – both existing and proposed – as well as their potential for further improvement and the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use; (d) the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting (including residential gardens), or of promoting regeneration and change; and (e) the importance of securing well-designed, attractive and healthy places.” Paragraph 130 encourages consideration of minimum densities “where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs”.
10.18. The site has a net developable area is approximately 2.5ha. Therefore, the proposals density will be 43 dwellings per net developable hectare.
10.19. The minimum density requirement in Policy H2B is in conflict with the design led approach in Policy SP19. Under section 38(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 if a policy contained in a development plan for an area conflictswith another policy in the development plan, the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy which is contained in the last document to be adopted which is Policy SP19. The overall design of the proposal is appropriate as discussed below and it is considered the proposed housing density is appropriate in these circumstances and makes efficient use of land.
Mix
10.20. Policy SP8 Housing Mix states “All proposals for housing must contribute to the creation of mixed communities by ensuring that the types and sizes of dwellings provided reflect the demand and profile of households evidenced from the most recent strategic housing market assessment and robust housing needs surveys whilst having regard to the existing mix of housing in the locality.” NPPF paragraph 64 seeks to create mixed and balanced communities through affordable housing provision. This policy is consistent with the NPPF and is given significant weight.
10.21. The Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) (2025) recommends the following mix:
10.22. Market housing mix is 1 Bed 2.1% (2), 2 Bed 36.5% (35), 3 Bed 39.6% (38) and 4 Bed 21.9% (21). Affordable home ownership mix (shared ownership in this case) is 2 bed 33.3% (1) and 3 bed 66.6% (2). Affordable rented housing mix is 1 bed 75% (6) and 2 bed 25% (2). This is considered acceptable given the overall need for affordable housing.
10.24. The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Report 2024 December 2024 shows, on 30th October 2023, there were 39 individuals on the Selby register. The report also says 188 plots were permissioned between 1 April 2016 and 30 October 2023. However, there is some uncertainty going forward as to whether these permissions would count against need because the most recent appeal decisions show a need to secure self and custom build by s106 for it to count. The applicant has resisted the inclusion of self build plots within the scheme. This failure to meet a part of the housing mix weighs against the proposal.
10.25. The proposed housing mix will be weighed in the planning balance.
Design
10.26. Policy SP18 seeks to sustain the high quality and local distinctiveness of the natural and man-made environment by safeguarding and, where possible, enhancing the historic and natural environment including the landscape character and setting of areas of acknowledged importance. Policy SP19 requires proposals for all new development will be expected to contribute to enhancing community cohesion by achieving high quality design and have regard to the local character, identity and context of its surroundings including historic townscapes; positively contribute to an area’s identity and heritage in terms of scale, density and layout. Policy ENV1 supports proposals that achieve a good quality of development and requires consideration of the effect upon the character of the area, the standard of layout, design and materials in relation to the site and its surroundings and associated landscaping.
10.27. NPPF paragraph 131 states the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities. NPPF paragraph 132 requires “Plans should, at the most appropriate level, set out a clear design vision and expectations, so that applicants have as much certainty as possible about what is likely to be acceptable. Design policies should be developed with local communities, so they reflect local aspirations, and are grounded in an understanding and evaluation of each area’s defining characteristics.” NPPF paragraph 135 requires “Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: (a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; (b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; (c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); (d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit”.
10.28. Paragraph 139 states “Development that is not well designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies and government guidance on design, taking into account any local design guidance and supplementary planning documents which use visual tools such as design guides and codes.” These development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.29. To the northwest of the site is a modern residential housing estate consisting primarily of detached two storey dwellings as well as a smaller number of semi-detached and terraced dwellings. External finishing materials include yellow and red bricks, and grey concrete roof tiles and red pantiles. These dwellings are rectangular in footprint and form, with front projections providing gable features. The primary road leads to a series of cul-de-sacs. To the south west of the site residential development is being built with similar design characteristics. To the north east of the site, along Low Eggborough Road, are a collection of modern estate type dwellings, as well as modern individual dwellings and occasional older property with red brick and render to walls, and grey and red roof tiles. The local area can be described as having a wide range of dwelling types and designs primarily finished with red bricks and concrete roof tiles. There is no adopted village designed statement for Eggborough to provide local design guidance.
10.30. The proposal entails primarily two storey dwellings with a smaller number (12) of 2.5 storey dwellings. Detached and semi-detached dwellings are proposed. Main architectural features include front gable ends, brick plinth effect to the front elevation, entrance canopies or porches, reconstituted stone window cills and brick arch headers, exposed roof rafter foot detail, bricked up window openings, dormer windows (pitched roof and flat) to front or rear elevations and rooflights. External finishing materials include grey or terracotta roof tiles, red brick, first floor tile hanging and part or full render. These design features and external finishing materials are combined in various house types across the proposal. Dual aspect dwellings are proposed where they face two road frontages. This is good design that avoids dead frontages. The elongated form and height of the 2.5 storey dwellings, which make up a minority of proposed dwellings, is considered to be acceptable design. Private gardens are enclosed by 1.8m close boarded fencing except where private gardens side on to roads in which case a brick wall with fencing is proposed, while plot 1 has a stone wall. Knee rails demarcate boundaries within the public realm. The comments of the Police regarding matters such as defensive planting, plot demarcation and remote parking are relatively minor design details and given the progress that has been made with improvements to safe layout and the low crime nature of the area, it is not considered necessary to secure such amendments.
10.31. Overall, the design is considered to be acceptable.
Character and appearance
10.32. 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. The aforementioned design policies are also relevant.
10.33. NPPF footnote 9 requires consideration of paragraph 135 which requires planning decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting. NPPF paragraph 136 states “Trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban environments and can also help mitigate and adapt to climate change. Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new streets are treelined, that opportunities are taken to incorporate trees elsewhere in developments (such as parks and community orchards), that appropriate measures are in place to secure the long-term maintenance of newly planted trees, and that existing trees are retained wherever possible. Applicants and local planning authorities should work with highways officers and tree officers to ensure that the right trees are planted in the right places, and solutions are found that are compatible with highways standards and the needs of different users.” Paragraph 139 resists bad design and supports good design.
10.34. Furthermore, allocation reference EGG/3 requires “2) The establishment of a 20 metre wide permanent tree belt adjacent to the A19 bypass”; “3) An interlinked system of amenity space and footpaths providing access to adjoining residential areas”and “4) The retention and strengthening of boundary hedgerows”.
10.35. The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) considers the landscape effects of the development are of purely site and local importance; the visual effects of the development are restricted to the immediate area north west and north east of the site. In allocating the majority of the site for residential development the LPA has already agreed to the significance of change associated with such development in the context of typical 2/3 storey development. The unallocated portion of the site is of modest scale and would infill a gap between existing or proposed dwellings on all sides.
10.36. The Landscape Masterplan has the following features:
• Retention of perimeter trees and hedgerows;
• Retention of a green buffer strip along the site’s south eastern boundary with the A19;
• Creation of new areas of accessible public open space along the north eastern, south eastern and south western boundaries;
• Creation of a LAP in the south western public open space, and a linear open space with play equipment along the south eastern boundary;
• Introduction of street trees of various sizes in front gardens and the street frontages of the public open space;
• The seeding and management of extensive areas of meadow grassland with wild flowers.
10.37. With regard to requirement 2 of EGG/3, the proposal does not entail the establishment of a 20 metre wide permanent tree belt adjacent to the A19 bypass. Instead, it is proposed to retain the existing vegetation along this boundary, aside from the location of the emergency access, and plant a more open linear public open space adjacent to the boundary. The proposal conflicts with this requirement.
10.38. With regard to requirement 3 of EGG/3, the proposal does not provide an interlinked system of amenity space and footpaths providing access to adjoining residential areas. The open space within the application site is linked together but the site is divorced from the remainder of the allocation and has only one footpath entrance to Low Eggborough Road. The consenting process for the northern half of the allocation and ransom strips between the sites has not enabled the degree of connectivity envisaged by the allocation policy. The Highways section below discusses this is greater detail. The proposal conflicts with this requirement.
10.39. With regard to requirement 4 of EGG/3, which requires the retention and strengthening of boundary hedgerows, this is largely proposed with only the emergency access necessitating removal of a small section, and hedgerows along the northern boundary being removed. Strengthening is not proposed. Overall, there are elements of conflict and compliance with this requirement.
10.40. The demolition of the series of dilapidated agricultural buildings, and the dwelling at the eastern end of the site and their replacement with new well designed dwellings would result in an enhancement to the character and appearance of that part of the site.
10.41. The submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) identifies one individual tree classified as Category A; six individual trees classified as Category B; three tree groups classified as Category B; ten individual trees classified as Category C; eight tree groups and one hedgerow classified as Category C; three individual trees classified as Category U; and one tree group was classified as Category U.
10.42. The AIA provides a detailed description of trees proposed to be removed. Only one category B (moderate quality) tree, T3, is proposed to be removed. Other trees to be removed are category C (low quality) trees. This includes the central hedgerow. T2, T13, T14 and group G11 have been identified as Category U trees which are to be removed. Crown lifting from ground level to 3m will be needed to T7, T9, T10 and T11 for footpath clearance and fencing installation; and lateral reduction only to T8 to create space for fencing installation. Manual excavation is proposed to install footpaths and fencing in root protection areas for which an arboricultural method statement will be required. Crown lifting may be required for off site tree T20 on Low Eggborough Road to allow access for larger vehicles.
10.43. Tree lined streets are achieved by a combination of using highway verges, front gardens and the public open spaces to achieve this NPPF requirement.
10.44. The majority of the site is allocated and a small section is windfall development. Despite not complying with requirements 2, 3 and 4 of the allocation policy, the character and appearance impacts are limited and local to the site and only modest tree removal or trimming is proposed and is subject to condition. No significant harm to the character and appearance of the area would arise from the proposal.
Flood risk, drainage and climate change
10.45. Relevant policies in respect of flood risk, drainage and climate change include Policy ENV1(3) of the Selby District Local Plan and Policies SP15 “Sustainable Development which seeks to apply sequential and exceptions tests, and Climate Change”, SP16 “Improving Resource Efficiency” and SP19 “Design Quality” of the Core Strategy. NPPF paragraph 170 requires “Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.” NPPF paragraph 173 requires a sequential risk-based approach should also be taken to individual applications in areas known to be at risk now or in future from any form of flooding. The proposal does not benefit from the exemption in NPPF paragraph 175. The aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source. The development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.46. The site is in flood zone 1 (low risk for river and sea flooding) and small parts of the site are at medium risk of surface water flooding. Therefore, a flood risk sequential test is required. The area of search for the test is within and immediately adjacent to the development limits of the village, as set out in the Selby District Council Flood Risk Sequential Test Developer Guidance Note - October 2019. There are no reasonable available sites at lower risk of flooding than the application site because there are no such sites with planning permission that are not being built out or allocated sites that have not been built out, or any other form of preferable site. The sequential test is passed. The exceptions test is not required in relation to surface water flood risk.
10.47. The submitted flood risk assessment considers the site to be at low risk of flooding from groundwater, sewers and other man-made sources. The FRA proposes the area of surface water flood risk identified is to be mitigated by the installation of a new surface water drainage system and flood routing incorporated into the detailed level design, although this has been provided in the overall engineering layout. The following standard mitigation measures are recommended: finished floor levels to be set a minimum 150mm above external levels to mitigate any risk from blockage and exceedance events; within the detailed drainage design blockage/exceedance events should be considered ensuring the proposed development and surrounding areas are not put at risk from overland flows; drainage is to be designed with separate foul and surface water systems. The development surface water drainage scheme is to be designed such that there is no external flooding for up to and including the 1 in 100 year event + 40% climate change and 10% urban creep.
10.48. Percolation testing was undertaken, with the infiltration insufficient to provide a percolation rate. Surface water from the development is proposed to discharge to the existing watercourse (Sleights Drain) located along the western boundary. Discharge is to be restricted to a maximum of 8.8l/s. Due to the existing topography and depth of the watercourse it is necessary to pump surface water flows. Based upon a maximum discharge rate of 8.8l/s the attenuation required for the development is 1,305m3 (1 in 100 event+ 40% c/c +10% urban creep). The attenuation will be provided in an underground storage tank below the play area. The surface water drainage designed is such that there is no flooding in the 1 in 100 year event + 40% climate change, with an allowance of 10% urban creep. The existing ditch network crossing the site is to be removed as part of the development. It is proposed to discharge the foul water flows from the development to the 150mm diameter foul water sewer in Low Eggborough Road, located to the east of the development. Due to existing topography and the depth of the foul sewer it is necessary to pump foul water flows. The pumping station is located in the southern corner of the site. The foul and surface water drainage networks are to be adopted by Yorkshire Water or an independent network operator under a Section 104 Agreement. Therefore, the maintenance of the adoptable networks will be the responsibility of the adopting water authority. The foul sewage proposal complies with requirement 5 of EGG/3 “5) Disposal of foul sewage by pumping at developer’s expense”.
10.49. The Danvm Drainage Commissioners IDB raise no objection in generic comments to the LPA. The FRA includes correspondence between the applicant’s drainage engineer and IDB in which it confirms it would accepta discharge of 8.8l/s from the site and requests that the agreed 6m maintenance access to the exiting open watercourse, Sleights Drain, on the boundary of the site is kept completely free of obstructions, including fencing and planting. The application shows no new planting or fencing within this area and the FRA surface water drainage proposes this discharge rate.
10.50. The LLFA considers the submitted documents demonstrate a reasonable approach to the management of surface water on the site. The LLFA understands that it is not feasible for surface water to infiltrate within the site and that the preferred discharge route for surface water would be via a watercourse. This would have to be agreed with the IDB. The LLFA also understand that the site will be discharging at a maximum rate of 8.8l/s. It considers the overall engineering layout provides suitable exceedance flow routes.
10.51. The Environment Agency did not reply to consultation. Yorkshire Water confirm water can be supplied to the site, that sewage can be accommodated at the wastewater treatment works, and recommends foul and surface water drainage conditions. YW conditions can be simplified to require foul and surface water drainage infrastructure and maintenance in accordance with the submitted details.
10.52. The submitted flood risk and drainage information is acceptable subject to condition securing these details.
10.53. The submitted Sustainability Statement provides an overview of measures to be implemented in the development to reduce the impact the development would otherwise have on climate change, namely, measures will be incorporated into the design of each property to achieve a water consumption lower than 110 litres per person per day; electrical vehicle charging points will be provided to every home; each home will achieve robust levels of energy efficiency through the careful selection of insulation and intelligent building design and will comply with the amended Fabric Energy Efficiency Standard; the services specification of every home will include low carbon heat pumps and modern heat pump hot water cylinders will be installed in each apartment. This heating strategy will ensure that 58.06% of the site’s regulated energy requirement will be sourced from low carbon technologies; at the first point of occupation each home will be “zero carbon ready”; and the site’s forecasted emission rate represents a 60.31% saving over Part L 2021. The sustainability statement will be listed as an approved document.
Highways
10.54. Relevant policies include Core Strategy Policy SP15 which requires the proposal to minimise traffic growth by providing a range of sustainable travel options (including walking, cycling and public transport) through Travel Plans and Transport Assessments and facilitate advances in travel technology such as Electric Vehicle charging points, and make provision for cycle lanes, cycling facilities, safe pedestrian routes and improved public transport facilities. The following policies are also relevant: Core Strategy Policy SP19, Selby District Local Plan Policies ENV1, T1, T2, T7 and CS6. The latter states “The District Council will expect developers to provide for or contribute to the provision of infrastructure and community facility needs that are directly related to a development, and to ensure that measures are incorporated to mitigate or minimise the consequences of that development” including traffic calming, footpath and cycleway links.
10.55. NPPF paragraph 109 requires transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of development proposals, using a vision-led approach to identify transport solutions that deliver well-designed, sustainable and popular places. This should involve: ensuring patterns of movement, streets, parking and other transport considerations are integral to the design of schemes, and contribute to making high quality places; understanding and addressing the potential impacts of development on transport networks; realising opportunities from existing or proposed transport infrastructure, and changing transport technology and usage – for example in relation to the scale, location or density of development that can be accommodated; identifying and pursuing opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. NPPF footnote 9 requires consideration of paragraph 110 which states requires the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of these objectives. Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. This can help to reduce congestion and emissions, and improve air quality and public health. However, opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making.
10.56. Paragraph 115 requires sustainable transport modes are prioritised taking account of the vision for the site, the type of development and its location; safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users; and any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree through a vision-led approach. Paragraph 116 states “Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios.”
10.57. Paragraph 117 requires development should give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas; and second – so far as possible – to facilitating access to high quality public transport, with layouts that maximise the catchment area for bus or other public transport services, and appropriate facilities that encourage public transport use.
10.58. The aforementioned development plan policies are considered broadly consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.59. The submitted Transport Assessment provides detailed analysis of the existing road conditions, traffic counts, vehicle speed surveys, and bus and train services. TA table 2.2 shows the 85th percentile speeds along Low Eggborough Road were recorded at between 16.7mph and 17.9mph northbound and 17.5mph to 19.4mph southbound. Personal injury collision data is detailed and mapped to show that near the site for the five year period between 1st January 2017 and 30th September 2023 there have been a total of fourteen accidents, of which 10 were classified as being slight in severity and 4 serious. No fatal accidents have been recorded. There are no specific clusters of collisions across the highway network. Furthermore, it is noted that no accidents at all have been recorded along the Low Eggborough Road and Water Lane corridors or at the Water Lane/Selby Road junction.
10.60. The TA estimates the following peak time vehicle trip generation arising from the proposal:
10.61. The TA and addendums provide capacity modelling of the following junctions: Proposed Low Eggborough Road/Site Access; Existing Selby Road/Water Lane junction; and Existing M62 Junction 34 Upper Level roundabout. Beyond these junctions the development impact dilutes further and becomes negligible and immaterial. The proposed site access is predicted to operate well within capacity. It has been demonstrated that the existing Water Lane/Selby Road priority junction would operate comfortably within capacity. The impact of the development at the existing M62 J34 Upper Level Roundabout junction is minimal/not severe and there is no requirement to undertake any mitigation.
10.62. Off site highway improvements are proposed including the continuation of the estate road along the site frontage. It would form the major road and the section of Low Eggborough Road to the south would form a T junction with it. The road to the front of the site would be 5.5m wide with a two metre wide footway on the western side and on-carriageway cycling. It would narrow to 4.1m at the existing build out feature on Low Eggborough Road (note initial LHA comments dated 13/3/24 state “At the pinch point the carriageway varies in width from 3.7 metres to 4.2 metres”). North bound traffic would have priority over southbound traffic at this build out. Signage and road markings would make this clear to road users. To the north of the build out the carriageway of Low Eggborough Road would be widened on its eastern side by approximately 0.5m to 0.7m in places to increase the carriage way width to 5.5m (note initial LHA requirement was “at least 5m”) up to where it becomes Water Lane. The existing carriageway width of Water Lane is suitable. A dropped crossing with tactile paving is proposed to Water Lane to allow pedestrians to move to the north side footway. Localised trimming back of vegetation and drainage works on the eastern side of Low Eggborough Road would be required. All of these works would take place within the highway limit. An emergency access is proposed to the A19. The scheme has been subject to a successful Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and the recommendations are included in the amended drawings secured by condition. A condition secures full details of these proposals and their installation.
10.63. A range of more minor internal layout matters have been addressed to the satisfaction of the LHA. The internal site layout provides appropriate resident and visitor parking, circulation space and service vehicle access. Parking and garaging space is protected by condition.
10.64. The applicant agrees the request for £7,000 contribution towards dropped kerbs and tactile paving near the Water Lane and Selby Road junction to allow access to the north side of Selby Road. The 476 bus between Selby and Pontefract provides service from Selby Road to Selby from 7.43am with the last return leaving Selby at 5.35pm Monday to Friday. There is also a Saturday service. The current bus service would cater for some office workers but evening services on weekdays and weekends do not exist. Equally the frequency of weekday services could be enhanced. The applicant has agreed £1266 per dwelling for bus service enhancements which enhances the sustainability of the site in terms of non-car based travel.
10.65. Low Eggborough Road would be used as the construction access. The off site highway works condition requires a timetable for delivery to be agreed which gives the LPA control over implementation of the improvements to accommodate construction traffic, such as whether the carriageway on Low Eggborough Road is widened before on site construction commences. A Construction Management Plan (CMP) will be conditioned to mitigate such impacts such as construction hours and traffic management.
10.66. The TA demonstrates services and facilities within Eggborough including the Post Office, doctors surgery with pharmacy, pub, convenience stores, take-aways, butchers, cricket club and village hall are all within an approximate 2km/25 minute walk. Whitley and Eggborough Community Primary School can be accessed on foot via the pedestrian link across the M62. The TA also refers to Whitley Bridge train station but the service is so limited it is not a realistic option for commuters. For example, a single train to Leeds arrives there just before 9am which would not allow office workers to arrive at a typical 9am start time. The same facilities plus surrounding villages and employment opportunities can be reached within a reasonable cycling distance of 5-8km. The TA demonstrates the bus stops on Selby Road to the south of the roundabout are within a 10 minute walk or less from the proposed dwellings.
10.67. The submitted Travel Plan (TP) Rev 2 would amongst other things inform residents of walking and cycling routes, highlights cycle storage is provided to every dwelling in its shed or garage, allows the resident to obtain a £100 cycle or bus voucher. The LHA has confirmed this TP is acceptable and its implementation is conditioned. A £2,500 travel plan monitoring fee has been agreed.
10.68. The Local Highway Authority has raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions and s106 agreement securing contributions towards the aforementioned pedestrian crossing, bus service enhancements and travel plan monitoring.
10.69. National Highways raises no objection in relation to the impact on the strategic road network and recommends a construction traffic management condition which will form part of the construction management plan.
10.70. Perhaps the most numerous and strongly voiced objection to this proposal is its failure to propose access through the remainder of the allocated site, as developed by Harron Homes, instead of Low Eggborough Road contrary to EGG/3 of the Local Plan. Numerous discussions have been held with the applicant and they have made a number of submissions to the LPA on this point. Consideration has been given to other access options, including from Selby Road through the Harron Homes site to the north, but this is not possible for a number of reasons.
10.71. Firstly, the new Harron Homes estate road is not adopted highway which prevents the proposed development gaining access via a public highway and the applicant would have to negotiate rights of access. Secondly, to gain access from the Harron Homes site the draft section 38 agreement under the Highways Act 1980 for the adoption of roads within the Harron Homes site as highway would need to be extended to include additional land up to the boundary of the application site after planning permission had been granted for a road extension. Such an amendment to the draft S38 has never materialised despite Harron Homes and the LHA being aware of the issue and the landowner trying to gain planning approval on the site over several years. Thirdly, another strip of land between the application site and the Harron Homes site is owned by Poskitt et al, over which the applicant would have to negotiate rights of access, which is likely to render the development unviable. The applicant has provided a letter from Stephensons setting out that in relation to negotiations regarding a potential previous application Poskitts et al requested 30% of the land value of the application site to allow access over their land and that in their opinion they assume it would be repeated if negotiations took place in relation to the current application. A further ransom strip is owned by Harron Homes immediately adjacent to the Poskitts ransom strip. The letter from Stephensons considers it reasonable to assume Harron Homes would similarly request a ransom of 30% of land value if they were to enter into negotiations. A plan reference 205 has been submitted showing the location of the ransom strips. Fourthly, as noted above in the planning history section, planning application 2015/0076/FUL (Section 73 application for variation of Conditions 2 (materials), 3 (landscaping), 4 (boundary treatments), 5 (highways), 14 (site compound), 21 (noise, vibration dust), 23 (noise), 24 (archaeology) and 28 (plans/drawings) and to remove condition 25 (archaeology) of approval 2014/0659/FUL for proposed development of 99 residential dwellings and associated access and landscaping works) was approved by Selby District Council on 3/12/2015. Condition 29 of 2014/0659/FUL (which required details of two link roads to the southern element of the allocated site) was deleted from this permission. Whilst the description of development does not refer to condition 29, the condition was removed from the decision notice. The removal of the condition is inexplicable. This significantly weakened the Council’s ability to secure the requirements of the allocation policy for links through the Harron Homes site. Cumulatively, these issues are considered to be insurmountable. Primary access via the A19 would be unsafe. Access from the former Bowman’s Mill site is not possible because residential development is under construction.
10.72. The proposal is in conflict with requirement 1 of allocation reference EGG/3 which requires “1) Principal vehicular access to be taken from Selby Road with minor/secondary access onto Water Lane”. As noted above, 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. The problems achieving allocation compliance access and proposals for a suitable alternative are a material consideration that indicates the LPA should depart from the development plan requirement in EGG/3. Otherwise, an allocated housing site would be needlessly sterilized at a time when the LPA has a 2.4 year housing land supply. The proposed access arrangements and highway safety and capacity implications are considered to be acceptable.
Impact upon nature conservation and protected species
10.73. The submitted Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) demonstrates no statutory designated sites for nature conservation were present within 2km of the site and no European designated sites within 5km of the site. One locally designated site which was previously designated as a Site of importance for Nature Conservation (Disused Pit SINC (SE52-21)) is located 1.62km south-east from the site. Impacts to the designated sites are considered highly unlikely due to the nature of the works and the distance of the site from the designations.
10.74. Due to the suitability of the habitats within the site, great crested newt environmental DNA surveys were undertaken as well as a suite of reptile, breeding bird, bat activity and bat emergence/re-entry surveys were undertaken in 2021, with bat emergence surveys also undertaken in 2023. The results of the species surveys identified the likely absence of great crested newts, water vole and reptiles within the site, and the assemblage of breeding birds found to comprise common and widespread species. Hedgehogs, common invertebrates and other mammals including rabbit and roe deer, foraging and commuting bats all utilise the site.
10.75. The bat emergence surveys in 2021 and 2023 confirmed a brown long-eared bat night roost and whiskered bat day roost, which will be lost as part of the development. Any work which involves either the damage, destruction or disturbance of a bat roost (including the various roosting types), requires either a European Protected Species Mitigation Licence (EPSML) or if suitable, a Bat Mitigation Class Licence (BMCL). Due to the size and type of roost present a Natural England Bat Mitigation Class Licence is considered to be the most suitable option for the works.
10.76. The development proposals will result in the loss of all of the improved grassland, central hedgerow, buildings, amenity grassland, introduced shrub, dry ditches and areas of scrub. The development will retain most of the boundary hedgerows, wet ditch and other boundary habitats.
10.77. A construction ecology management plan (CEMP) will be conditioned to secure avoidance and mitigation measures during the construction phase indicated in the EcIA as well as a method statement for himalayan balsam.
10.78. The submitted Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan 2025 recommends a series of avoidance, mitigation and enhancement measures during the construction and occupation phases. However, it cannot be conditioned as an approved document because it is not based on the current layout plan and overlaps with the CEMP which would lead to a lack of clarity. A BEMP is conditioned.
10.79. The submitted Landscape Environment Management Plan is unnecessary because such matters are controlled by the on site landscaping condition or off site BNG s106 matters.
10.80. The proposal was submitted before the start of mandatory biodiversity net gain requirements. The submitted biodiversity metric received August 2025 shows -37.91% in on site habitat units and +14% in on site hedgerow units. The submitted biodiversity net gain assessment August 2025 shows how the latter would be achieved. There are some inconsistencies in these documents which will require a condition to secure BNG. The BNG Assessment concludes it will be necessary to use off site land or units bought from a habitat bank to secure a net gain in area based units. Hedgerow habitat units may also have to be delivered in the same way. A condition will require submission of a landscaping scheme, its delivery and maintenance, and a BNG metric and assessment of it to show the actual changes on site. If a net gain is not delivered on site the s106 will secure it off site and or by purchase of habitat bank units. Furthermore, the landscape masterplan shows a significant length of dense native hedgerow being planted on the south western boundary of the site. However, this is within the IDB easement and is not permissible. Hence, this specific element will be excluded by condition whilst securing the remainder of the masterplan.
10.81. Natural England did not reply to consultation. The Council Ecologist recommends a series of planning conditions but in light of the above these have been adapted or form part of s106 requirements given the problems with the submitted information.
10.82. Subject to these conditions and s106, the ecological implications of the proposal are acceptable.
Affordable housing
10.83. Policy SP9 Affordable Housing seeks to achieve up to 40% affordable. The tenure split and the type of housing being sought will be based on the Council’s latest evidence on local need which is the North Yorkshire Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment May 2025. 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 Selby Local Plan and CIL Viability Assessment (August 2022) indicates 10% affordable housing should be sought for this area. Appeal decision APP/U2750/W/24/3347885 dated 30th January 2025 for a site in Hambleton adopted that approach as did appeal decision APP/U2750/W/24/3347833 dated 20th February 2025 in Carlton.
10.84. 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.”
10.85. Policy SP9 provides a broad basis for securing affordable housing and is consistent with the NPPF.
10.86. The application proposes 11 (10%) affordable houses six of which are one bed, three of which are two bed and 2 of which are three bed; eight would be affordable rent and three would be shared ownership, as set out below:
Plot 43 Rockliffe 1 bed (Affordable Rent)
Plot 44 Rockliffe 1 bed (Affordable Rent)
Plot 45 Haldon 2 bed (Intermediate)
Plot 49 Saunton 3 bed (Intermediate)
Plot 50 Saunton 3 bed (Intermediate)
Plot 51 Rockliffe 1 bed (Affordable Rent)
Plot 52 Rockliffe 1 bed (Affordable Rent)
Plot 53 Haldon 2 bed (Affordable Rent)
Plot 78 Haldon 2 bed (Affordable Rent)
Plot 79 Rockliffe 1 bed (Affordable Rent)
Plot 80 Rockliffe 1 bed (Affordable Rent)
10.87. The affordable housing proposals comply with the latest viability information and evidence of tenure requirements. This is in accordance with Policy SP9.
10.88. The officer report for 2017/0112/FUL refers to the Harron Homes development having provided 16 affordable units. The proposal for 11 further units would result in an overall provision of 27 affordable dwellings from 206 dwellings, which exceeds the requirement in EGG/3 for 20 affordable units, although this element of the allocation is out of date because subsequent evidence supersedes it. The proposal complies with this requirement of EGG/3.
10.89. A s106 agreement will secure this affordable housing.
Recreational open space
10.90. 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.”
10.91. The Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document 2007 provides further guidance on the provision of open space.
10.92. 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.
10.93. Policy RT2 is considered consistent with the NPPF and is given significant weight.
10.94. The proposed dwellings result in an open space requirement of 6,420sqm. The proposal includes a linear public open space plan which shows 7384sqm is proposed. A local area for play for young children is proposed which meets the minimum size standard of 100 sqm. A linear locally equipped area for play is provided within the open space adjacent to the A19. The public open space plan indicates fixed play equipment in both areas but provides no further details. A condition will secure the design of these play areas and equipment.
10.95. The ownership, maintenance, management and trigger for delivery for all open space and equipped play areas will form part of the s106. Recreational open space proposals are acceptable subject to condition and s106.
Contaminated land and ground conditions
10.96. Policy ENV2 of the Local Plan and Core Strategy Policy SP18 require consideration of contaminated land. NPPF paragraph 187 requires consideration of contamination matters.
10.97. These development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.98. A suite of reports has been submitted considering geoenvironmental matters. The reports are appropriate, and it is agreed that further investigation is needed in the northeast of the site, in the former earthworks/suspected pond area, and in the southwest part of the site regarding potential contamination. Appropriate remedial action will be required to make the site safe and suitable for its proposed use. Conditions are recommended regarding investigation of land contamination; submission of a remediation strategy; verification of remediation works; and reporting of unexpected contamination. Ground conditions may result in a requirement for piled foundations which will require a condition controlling related amenity impacts. Contaminated land and ground condition matters are acceptable subject to conditions.
Residential amenity
10.99. 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.
10.100. The key considerations in respect of residential amenity are considered to be the potential of the proposal to result in overlooking of neighbouring properties, overshadowing of neighbouring properties and whether oppression would occur from the size, scale and massing of the development proposed.
10.101. The proposed dwellings along the south western boundary will be more than 21m from the dwellings under construction on the former Bowmans Mill site which would prevent harm to residential amenity. Existing dwellings to the north that side on to the proposed development have very limited side openings. The proposed dwellings along the north western boundary of the site have a variety of relationships with existing dwellings including front to rear, side to side, rear to side or rear to front. The location, orientation and openings of proposed dwellings would not cause harm to residential amenity. No existing dwelling or garden would suffer harm from the proposed development with regard to the aforementioned key considerations.
10.102. Proposed dwellings fronting Low Eggborough Road are in excess of 21m from dwellings on the eastern side of said road. Plots 104 to 107 have reasonable sized rear gardens of 9-11m in depth which means there would not be harmful overlooking from the rear elevations or an overbearing relationship with Chiltern Cottage on Low Eggborough Road. Retained planting would assist in preventing overlooking from plot 102. The proposed layout provides a separation distance of 21m between proposed dwellings and 2 Meadow View which has a number of side openings that overlook the application site. This would not result in harm to residential amenity. The intervening open space and road would not give rise to harm to residential amenity.
10.103. The noise and disturbance generated by a residential development in proximity to existing residential development is not considered to result in harm to residential amenity. These land uses are compatible. The proposed dwellings have approximately 10m deep rear gardens and apartments have access to private gardens which provides a reasonable level of amenity space for future residents. The separation distances between proposed dwellings is appropriate with approximately 21m between properties that back on to each other. The application includes a table demonstrating each dwelling complies with the Nationally Described Space Standards which indicates the dwellings themselves will provide a reasonable level of space for the amenity of future residents.
10.104. Construction disturbance and inconvenience will be minimised by a construction management plan condition which will control matters such as hours of construction, dust and deliveries. Overall, the impact upon residential amenity is considered to be acceptable subject to conditions.
Archaeology
10.105. Policy ENV28 requires consideration of archaeological matters as does NPPF paragraph 207. The LPA archaeologist does not require archaeological investigation and raises no objections to the proposal. Archaeological impacts are acceptable.
Noise and air pollution
10.106. The policies referred to in the contaminated land section above are relevant. The submitted amended Noise Impact Assessment shows all rear garden spaces are predicted to achieve the upper guideline value of 55dB LAeq,16h with the majority of garden spaces predicted to achieve the desirable’ 50dB LAeq,16h recommended guideline threshold. Therefore, mitigation is not warranted for rear gardens. In terms of internal noise, enhanced glazing and acoustic ventilation, and potentially a positive input ventilation system are recommended. These measures are necessary to achieve the daytime internal noise criterion of 35dB LAeq,16h and 30dB LAeq,8h and 45dB LAFmax during the night-time.
10.107. Environmental Health considers that without mitigation, external noise levels in rear gardens should be at acceptable levels. EH raise a number of points regarding internal noise which can be addressed by condition securing a glazing, trickle vent and acoustic ventilation scheme. A condition will secure the mitigation measures.
10.108. EH note the external noise levels without mitigation to the front of the proposed properties closest the A19 is significantly above the upper threshold of 55dB. Section 4.5 of the NIA states that the nearest proposed façade (which includes as parking/front garden) to the A19 would be exposed to equivalent continuous noise levels of 65dB LAeq,16hr during the daytime, and 56dB LAeq,8hr during the night-time at first floor level. On the previous submitted NIA dated April 2024, the site was remodelled with a 3m high acoustic barrier located at the southern boundary which showed that the area where the new site layout now has the closest façades and parking/front garden could achieve external noise levels of less than 60dB. Based on the above, the predicted noise levels at nearest proposed façade (which includes as parking/front garden) to the A19 being exposed to equivalent continuous noise levels of 65dB LAeq,16hr is excessive and EH would recommend a condition to secure a 3m high acoustic barrier along the A19 site boundary.
10.109. Such a condition is considered unnecessary because the A19 is well landscaped in this area so the addition of a large fence would cause significant harm to the character of the area. Furthermore, the area effected by high noise levels is proposed to be front gardens and parking areas. Such areas are typically not used by residents for extensive periods of time. Gardening, parking, cleaning and maintaining vehicles may occur amongst other activities. Typically, rear gardens are used in preference to front gardens. This is likely to be the case in this instance because rear gardens are larger and private compared to those at the front. The recommended condition is not attached. EH also recommend a post completion noise assessment to show the mitigation measures work. However, this fails the test of necessity because there is no indication in the assessment that it will fail.
10.110. The proposal would comply with requirement 6 of EGG/3 which requires noise mitigation measures identified in the noise assessment.
10.111. The submitted Air Quality Assessment concludes construction phase dust impacts on people and property to be medium risk and low risk in relation to human health. It considers that if appropriate mitigation measures are used the residual effect from dust emissions during the construction phase would not be significant. Operational phase road traffic impacts are assessed to be insignificant on local air quality and that no further assessment is required because there is large headroom based on existing air quality measurements. As such, with the promotion of electric vehicle charging points, as required by the Building Regulations, road traffic impacts associated with operation of the Proposed Development can be considered as having an insignificant effect on local air quality and no further assessment is required. Environmental Health concur there would not be a significant impact upon air quality during the operational phase; requests EV details be reviewed upon receipt; and recommends conditions to reduce construction impacts upon residents. EV details are now controlled by the Building Regulations hence there is no need to require details at via planning condition. The recommended conditions regarding noise, vibration, dust and dirt minimisation; working hours; and piling are attached.
Education, healthcare, waste and re-cycling
10.112. 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.
10.113. Policy CS6 states “The District Council will expect developers to provide for or contribute to the provision of infrastructure and community facility needs that are directly related to a development, and to ensure that measures are incorporated to mitigate or minimise the consequences of that development”.
10.114. 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.
10.115. The Developer Contributions SPD provides further guidance regarding contributions towards waste and recycling facilities; education facilities; and primary health care facilities amongst others.
10.116. 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.
10.117. These development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.118. NYC Strategic Planning Team, Children and Young People's Service do not require contributions towards local education settings because capacity is forecast to be available to meet demand from the development at the catchment school for primary provision, Whitley and Eggborough Community Primary School; capacity is forecast to be available to meet demand from the development at the catchment school for secondary provision, Brayton Academy; and as there are less than 100 dwellings with two or more bedrooms, no assessment has been made.
10.119. NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board considers that the directly impacted practices from this development will be GP practices within approximately 2 miles from the proposed development. The closest GP practice is Ash Grove Medical Centre: Selby Road Surgery which has no space capacity to accommodate the proposal. Based on average occupancy of 2.4 people per dwelling the proposed development will generate approximately 262 residents and subsequently increase demands upon existing services. The development would therefore have an impact on the primary healthcare provision in the area and its implications, if unmitigated, would be unsustainable. A developer contribution will be required to mitigate the impacts of this proposal. The development will give rise to a need for improvements to capacity, by way of improvements to, reconfiguration of, or extension of existing premises and/or contribute towards a new development related to the Primary Care Network (PCN) that will accommodate the additional population created by the proposed development.
10.120. The ICB calculate the level of contribution required in this instance to be £128,679. This response was based on a proposal for 109 dwellings whereas 107 are proposed. Therefore, the amount has been proportionally reduced to £126,105.42. It requests that payment should be made before the development commences. This will be secured by s106.
10.121. The s106 will secure a payment of £65 per property, totalling £6,955, to pay for bins in accordance with the developer contributions SPD.
10.122. Network Rail requests developer contributions Whitley Bridge Station to improve station facilities such as additional cycle parking and additional customer information. However, in the absence of any meaningful train service for the station and the failure to set out any amounts and how they were calculated the contribution is unnecessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.
10.123. These contributions comply with the CIL regulation tests. A s106 is used to secure the contributions and appropriate triggers for payment.
11.0 PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
11.1. The proposal entails residential development that is primarily with allocated site EGG/3 and a small part is within the development limits, making the proposal acceptable in principle in accordance with Policy H2, SP1, SP2 and SP4. Policies H2, SP2, SP4 and SP5 are the most important for determining the application and are out of date because the LPA can demonstrate only a 2.4 year supply of deliverable housing sites. No NPPF policy relevant to the areas or assets noted in NPPF foot note 7 would provide a strong reason to refuse development. The adverse impacts of granting permission do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in NPPF paragraph 11d applies to the proposal. The proposal is in a fairly sustainable location with some alternatives to car-based travel.
11.2. The non-allocated section of the site is approximately 0.5ha in area. Therefore, its loss as potential agricultural land is considered inconsequential and acceptable. It would not be economically viable to extract minerals from the site. Potential mineral resource impacts are considered acceptable in accordance with Policy S02.
11.3. The proposals density will be 43 dwellings per net developable hectare which is appropriate and makes efficient use of land. An appropriate mix of market and affordable housing is proposed, and all dwellings are compliant with part M4(2) of the Building Regulations and 6 dwellings are compliant with part M4(3) of the building regulations (wheelchair-user adaptable dwellings (constructed to be adjustable for occupation by a wheelchair user)). The applicant has resisted the inclusion of self build plots within the scheme. This failure to meet a part of the housing mix weighs against the proposal in a very minor way.
11.4. The design is appropriate in itself and in relation to its surroundings. The majority of the site is allocated and a small section is windfall development. Despite not complying with requirements 2, 3 and 4 of the allocation policy, the character and appearance impacts are limited and local to the site and only modest tree removal or trimming is proposed. No significant harm to the character and appearance of the area would arise from the proposal.
11.5. The site is generally at low risk of flooding with a small part at medium risk of surface water flooding. There are no reasonable available sites at lower risk of flooding than the application site because there are no such sites with planning permission that are not being built out or allocated sites that have not been built out, or any other form of preferable site. The sequential test is passed. The exceptions test is not required in relation to surface water flood risk. Foul and surface water details are acceptable and complies with requirement 5 of EGG/3.
11.6. The application shows the internal site layout is acceptable and alterations to the highway network would be appropriate. Overall, the impact on highway safety and convenience is acceptable. Contributions towards bus service enhancements are secured. A travel plan would encourage non-car based travel. The application shows cumulative insurmountable issues that will prevent access through the remainder of the allocation. This conflicts with a requirement in allocation EGG/3 but the alternative access via Low Eggborough Road is safe and acceptable. 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. The problems achieving allocation compliance access and proposals for a suitable alternative are a material consideration that indicates the LPA should depart from the development plan requirement in EGG/3. Otherwise, an allocated housing site would be needlessly sterilized at a time when the LPA has a 2.4 year housing land supply.
11.7. Impacts upon nature conservation sites and protected species are acceptable and biodiversity net gain is secured, subject to conditions and s106 agreement. 10% affordable housing with a mix of affordable rent and shared ownership tenures, which reflects local need, is secured. Affordable housing requirements of EGG/3 are met and exceeded.
11.8. Appropriate on site open space and play equipment are secured. Potential contamination is dealt with by condition. Dwellings are sufficiently removed from and or appropriately orientated in relation to neighbouring properties such that harm to residential amenity would not arise. Construction impacts would be mitigated by conditions. Noise pollution and construction phase air quality matters are controlled by condition. Healthcare and bin contributions are secured by s106.
11.9. Significant weight is given to the social benefits that arise from the provision of housing and affordable housing in an area with significant unmet need for both. Provision of housing that is adaptable for wheelchair users also weighs in favour of the proposal. Bus service enhancement contributions would be of slight social benefit to the existing community. Limited positive weight is given to economic spending arising from the construction phase and occupants spending during the occupational phase. A commitment to biodiversity net gain is of moderate positive weight in environmental terms. The lack of self build provision weighs against the proposal in a very limited way as part of the areas housing demand may not be met by the proposal. Limited and localised character and appearance impacts weigh against the proposal to a limited degree. The adverse impacts of granting permission do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Therefore, planning permission should be granted subject to conditions and a s106 agreement.
11.10. It is considered that a decision made in accordance with this recommendation would not result in any breach of convention Rights in theHuman Rights Act 1998. It is considered that a decision made in accordance with this recommendation would not result in any breach of Rights under the Equality Act 2010 and fulfils the Council’s duties and obligations accordingly.
12.0 RECOMMENDATION
12.1 That planning permission be granted subject to conditions and prior completion of a s106 agreement.
S106:
£2,522 BNG monitoring fee.
In the event the biodiversity metric submitted under the landscaping scheme condition shows no on-site net gain across all relevant typologies, a scheme of off-site biodiversity net gain and all related matters including monitoring fees and or purchase of habitat bank units shall be secured.
£7,000 contribution towards dropped kerbs and tactile paving near the Water Lane and Selby Road junction.
£2, 500 for travel plan monitoring.
£135,462 bus service enhancements.
11 affordable dwellings as set out in the committee report.
The ownership, maintenance, management and trigger for delivery for all open space and equipped play areas.
£126,105.42 for improvements to capacity, by way of improvements to, reconfiguration of, or extension of existing premises Ash Grove Medical Centre: Selby Road Surgery and/or contribute towards a new development related to the Primary Care Network (PCN) that will accommodate the additional population created by the proposed development.
£6,955 for bins.
1. 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.
2. Development shall proceed in accordance with the following approved drawings and information:
Winterfold - Winterfold (AS-OP) STD-HT-T-000-02.A-WI-WI (AS-OP)
Saunton (AS-OP) STD-HT-T-200-02.A-SA-SA
Rockliffe - Haldon (AS-AS) STD-HT-T-200-02.A-RK-HD (AS-AS)
Lambridge (OP) STD-HT-T-200-02.A-Lb (OP)
Lambridge (AS) STD-HT-T-200-02.A-Lb (AS)
Haldon - Rockliffe (OP-OP) STD-HT-T-200-02.A-HD-RK (OP-OP)
Addleborough - Chiltern (AS-OP) STD-HT-T-200-02.A-AR-CT (AS-OP) Rev 0
Sherwood (OP) STD-HT-T-000-02.A-Sh (OP)
Kielder (OP) STD-HT-T-000-02.A-Ki (OP)
Kielder (AS) STD-HT-T-000-02.A-Ki (AS)
Kingley (OP) STD-HT-T-000-02.A-KG (OP) Rev A
Kingley (AS) STD-HT-T-000-02.A-KG (AS) Rev A
Haldon - Haldon (OP-AS) STD-HT-T-000-02.A-HA-HA (OP-AS)
Greenwood (OP) STD-HT-T-000-02.A-GW (OP) Rev A
Greenwood (AS) STD-HT-T-000-02.A-GW (AS) Rev A
Galloway (OP-AS) STD-HT-T-000-02.A-GA (OP-AS)
Charndale (AS) STD-HT-T-000-02.A-Cd (AS)
Burnham (OP) STD-HT-T-000-02.A-BU (OP)
Burnham (AS) STD-HT-T-000-02.A-BU (AS)
Barndale (OP) STD-HT-T-000-02.A-BE (OP)
Barndale (AS) STD-HT-T-000-02.A-BE (AS)
Addleborough - Addleborough (AS-OP) STD-HT-T-000-02.A-AR-AR (AS-OP) Rev 0
Twin Garage Plans, Elevations & Section Ga2.2_MA_R21 901
Double Garage Plans, Elevations & Section Ga2.1_MA_R21 901 Rev A
Single Garage Plans, Elevations & Section Ga1.1_MA_R21 901
Type 14 - 900mm Dry Stone Wall
POS Plan 102 Rev E
Materials layout 101 Rev F
Site layout 101 Rev H
Location plan 001
Landscape masterplan 6018-99-01 Rev H (excluding the new hedgerow adjacent to Slights Drain)
23114/GA/04 Rev B (carriageway widening)
23114/GA/03 Rev C (site access)
23114/GA/02 Rev D (emergency access within stage 1 RSA),
Sustainability statement
Schedule of accommodation
NDSS table V1
Overall engineering layout D200 Rev 3
Reason: For the sake of clarity and in the interests of proper planning.
3. No development shall take place until engineering drawings of the off site highway works shown on drawings 23114/GA/04 Rev B and 23114/GA/02 Rev D and a timetable for their completion have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. An independent Stage 2 Road Safety Audit carried out in accordance with GG119 - Road Safety Audits or any superseding regulations must be included in the submission and the design proposals must be amended in accordance with the recommendations of the submitted Safety Audit prior to the commencement of works on site.
The approved details shall be completed in accordance with the approved timetable.
Reason: To secure necessary off site highway works in pursuance of highway safety and Policies ENV1 and T1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
4. No development shall take place until engineering drawings of all aspects of on site roads and sewers, 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.
5. No part of the development 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.
6. Prior to first occupation of any dwelling in the development splays shall be provided at the emergency access giving clear visibility of 90 metres measured along both channel lines of the major road from a point measured 2.4 metres down the centre line of the access road. In measuring the splays, the eye height must be 1.05 metres and the object height must be 0.6 metres. Once created, these visibility splays must be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained for their intended purpose at all times.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
7. There must be no access or egress by any vehicles between individual driveways or private roads and the highway or proposed highway within the site until visibility splays providing clear visibility of 2.0 metres x 2.0 metres measured down each side of the access and the back edge of the footway of the major road have been provided. In measuring the splays the eye height must be 1.05 metres and the object height must be 0.6 metres. Once created, these visibility splays must be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained for their intended purpose at all times.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
8. No part of the development must be brought into use until the access, parking, manoeuvring and turning areas for all users on the site have been constructed in accordance with the details approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once created these areas must be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained for their intended purpose at all times.
Reason: To provide for appropriate on-site vehicle facilities in the interests of highway safety and the general amenity of the development in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) or any subsequent Order, the garage(s) shall be retained as parking space and shall not be converted into domestic accommodation without the granting of an appropriate planning permission.
Reason: To ensure the retention of adequate and satisfactory provision of off-street accommodation for vehicles generated by occupiers of the dwelling and visitors to it, in the interest of safety and the general amenity the development.
10. The development must be carried out and operated in accordance with the approved Residential Travel Plan Rev 2. Those parts of the Approved Travel Plan that are identified therein as being capable of implementation after occupation must be implemented in accordance with the timetable contained therein and must continue to be implemented as long as any part of the development is occupied.
Reason: To establish measures to encourage more sustainable non-car modes of transport.
11. No development shall take place until an arboricultural method statement setting out precise tree works, measures for tree protection during construction and no-dig construction methods for works within root protection areas in accordance with the principles established in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment Rev P5 as amended by Tree Assessment Plan 4519 Rev 7 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed details shall be carried out as part of the development.
Reason: To retain trees in pursuance of Core Strategy Policy SP18.
12. 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 Construction Management Plan. The Plan must include, but not be limited, to arrangements for the following:
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 access for construction purposes;
3. wheel and chassis underside 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. measures to manage the delivery of materials and plant to the site including routing and timing of deliveries and loading and unloading areas;
7. details of the routes to be used by HGV construction traffic and highway condition surveys on these routes;
8. protection of carriageway and footway users at all times during demolition and construction;
9. protection of contractors working adjacent to the highway;
10. details of site working hours;
11. erection and maintenance of hoardings including decorative displays, security fencing and scaffolding on/over the footway & carriageway and facilities for public viewing where appropriate;
12. means of minimising dust emissions arising from construction activities on the site, including details of all dust suppression measures and the methods to monitor emissions of dust arising from the development;
13. measures to control and monitor construction noise;
14. an undertaking that there must be no burning of materials on site at any time during construction;
15. removal of materials from site including a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works;
16. details of the measures to be taken for the protection of trees;
17. details of external lighting equipment;
18. details of ditches to be piped during the construction phases;
19. a detailed method statement and programme for the building works; and
20. 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 in pursuance of Selby District Local Plan Policy ENV1.
13. Flood risk mitigation, foul and surface water drainage shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the overall engineering layout D200 Rev 3, the proposed drainage strategy 1189 - 004 Rev D and flood risk assessment Rev 5.
Reason: To reduce flood risk and ensure appropriate drainage in pursuance of Core Strategy Policy SP15 and Selby District Local Plan Policy ENV1.
14. No development shall take place until a Construction Ecology Management Plan (CEMP) in accordance with principles set out in the submitted Ecological Impact Assessment 2023 that secures avoidance and mitigation measures for protected and notable species on and near the site and a method statement for Himalayan balsam during the construction phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed measures shall be used throughout the construction phase.
Reason: To protected species and habitats in accordance with Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy.
15. No development above damp proof course level shall take place until a sensitive external lighting scheme which demonstrates avoidance of light spill onto semi-natural and sensitive habitat has been submitted to and approved in writing. Lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To protected species in accordance with Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy.
16. No development shall take place until a Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan (BEMP), a method statement for Himalayan balsam during the occupational phase, and a timetable for implementation and completion has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed measures shall be installed and completed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To protected species and habitats in accordance with Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy.
17. No development above damp proof course level shall take place until a detailed landscaping scheme based on the approved landscape masterplan but excluding the new hedge adjacent Sleights Drain, a timetable for its completion, 30 year management and maintenance details and a biodiversity metric for the scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. If any landscaping dies, is significantly damaged or removed it shall be replaced with the same of similar species in the next available planting season.
Reason: To secure landscaping and biodiversity net gain in pursuance of Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy.
18. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling, design details of the play area and play equipment shown on the approved site layout plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To secure play areas in accordance with Selby District Local Plan Policy RT2.
19. No foundation piling shall take place until a schedule of works to identify those plots affected and setting out mitigation measures to protect residents from noise, dust and vibration has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To protect residential amenity in pursuance of Policy ENV1.
20. No development shall take place, until a site investigation and risk assessment has been undertaken to assess the nature, scale and extent of any land contamination and the potential risks to human health, groundwater, surface water and other receptors, and it shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure the site is fit for occupation in pursuance of Selby District Local Plan Policy ENV2.
21. Where remediation works are shown to be necessary, no development shall take place until a detailed remediation strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The remediation strategy must demonstrate how the site will be made suitable for its intended use and must include proposals for the verification of the remediation works.
Reason: To ensure the site is fit for occupation in pursuance of Selby District Local Plan Policy ENV2.
22. Prior to the occupation of the relevant phase of the development, remediation works should be carried out in accordance with the approved remediation strategy. On completion of those works, a verification report (which demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. After remediation, as a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act.
Reason: To ensure the site is fit for occupation in pursuance of Selby District Local Plan Policy ENV2.
23. 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 in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the site is fit for occupation in pursuance of Selby District Local Plan Policy ENV2.
24. No development above damp proof course level shall take place until a noise mitigation scheme including enhanced glazing, trickle ventilators, a TM59 overheating assessment, and if required a scheme of mechanical ventilation demonstrating compliance with BS8233/WHO internal noise criteria has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the particular dwelling and shall be retained.
Reason: To protect residential amenity in pursuance of Selby District Local Plan Policy ENV1.
25. Plot 1 may be constructed and used as a show home, sales office and associated vehicle parking area as shown on the ‘Sales Area’ inset plan of approved Site Layout until such time as the sale of dwellings in the development by the housebuilder have concluded. Within 6 months of such conclusion, the layout and landscaping shall revert to that shown on the main site layout and approved landscaping details.
Reason: In accordance with the terms of the application and to allow a temporary sales area to be established in pursuance of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
Target Determination Date: 15/10/2025
Case Officer: martin.evans@northyorks.gov.uk
Appendix A – Site layout 101 Rev H
APPENDIX A
