North Yorkshire Council
Community Development Services
Richmond (Yorks) Area Planning Committee
9th OCTOBER 2025
ZD23/00562/OUT – Outline Planning Application for 25 Plots for Self and Custom-Build Residential Development and Associated Works (all Matters Reserved Including Access) AT LAND OFF JAMES LANE, TUNSTALL, NORTH YORKSHIRE
On Behalf of: Lovell Developments (Yorkshire) Ltd
Report of the Head of Development Management – Community Development Services
|
1.0 Purpose of the Report 1.1. To determine a planning application for Outline Planning Permission for 25 Plots for Self and Custom-Build Residential Development and Associated Works (all matters reserved) at Land off James Lane, Tunstall, North Yorkshire. 1.2. This application is brought to planning committee due to it giving rise to significant material planning considerations by providing 25 self and custom build houses for which there is a shortfall in the Adopted Development Plan area. |
2.0 SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be REFUSED.
2.1. This application seeks outline permission for 25 Plots for Self and Custom-Build residential development and associated works.
2.2. The application site is situated in the countryside outside and away from the development limits and built up extent of Catterick Garrison. The application relates to a rectangular parcel of land measuring approximately 2ha which currently comprises improved grassland. The site is bounded to the east by James Lane, to the south and west by open countryside, and to the north by Somme Barracks which forms part of the Ministry of Defence complex.
2.3. The application site is located beyond reasonable walking distance of the nearest facilities and services within Catterick Garrison, and a significant distance from the nearest public transport links, resulting in future occupiers of the proposed development being reliant on private vehicles to access day to day services and employment. The application site is therefore considered to be an unsustainable location for new residential development.
2.4. It is acknowledged that the application proposes self and custom-build housing, which carries moderate positive weight in the assessment of this application. However, this would not outweigh the policy conflict identified above in respect of the siting of the development in an unsustainable location a significant distance from the development limits of Catterick Garrison.
2.5. Furthermore, the proposals would result in an encroachment into the open countryside, which would cause harm to the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings, which would be contrary to the requirements of Policies CP3 and CP8 of the Local Plan.
2.6. The Highway Authority has objected to the proposals as insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the minimum footway width could be achieved which would link the site to the existing footpath network, and that it would not impact upon highway or public safety in the area.
2.7. There is also an objection in place from the LLFA as insufficient information has been submitted in respect of drainage.
2.8. No proposals have been put forward by the applicant in respect of affordable housing provision, and there is no mechanism in place to secure affordable housing as required by Local Plan Policy CP6 and the NPPF.
2.9. Whilst the proposals would contribute towards the housing supply with the area, it is considered that the above cumulative adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations and providing affordable homes, individually and in combination.
Figure 1: Site Location Plan
3.0 Preliminary Matters
3.1. Access to the case file on Public Access can be found here:- Planning Documents
3.2. There is no relevant planning history for the application site.
3.3. Land to the north-east has/had planning permission for 170 dwellings (references 17/00387/OUT and 21/00181/AORM). It is not known if these permissions are extant or not. The associated S106 limited the occupation of all these houses for ‘entitled service personnel and eligible service personal and their dependants, children, other occupants and visitors…”.
4.0 Site and Surroundings
4.1. The application relates to a rectangular parcel of land measuring approximately 2ha located adjacent to the southern edge of Catterick Garrison. The site currently comprises improved grassland, with the east and western boundaries of the site served by hedgerows, and the north boundary by broadleaved woodland.
4.2. The site is bounded to the east by James Lane, to the south and west by open countryside, and to the north by Somme Barracks which forms part of the Ministry of Defence complex.
4.3. The site is located approximately 1.7km to the south of the shops and services located on Hildyard Row, and approximately 2.5km to the south east of the settlement’s main retail and leisure centre at Richmond Road. Other shops and services are located around 1.75km to the west in Scotton. The nearest bus stop which provides bus links to Richmond and Darlington is located approximately 1km to the north of the site.
5.0 Description of Proposal
5.1. Planning permission is sought for the construction of 25no. self and custom build houses. The application has been submitted in outline form with all matters reserved for subsequent approval.
5.2. The supporting information advises that all 25 of the proposed self and custom-build plots would be delivered in accordance with the definitions under Regulation 3 of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilder Regulations (2016) and the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilder section of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). All dwellings would accord with the 2015 Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act (as amended) and would be sold to custom and/or self-builders who will be responsible for securing subsequent Reserved Matters planning consent for their individual plot and then building their own home, or commissioning a specialist custom-build developer to build a home in which they have input into the design and layout of. The development will be brought forward in phases following approval of all reserved matters applications including those by individual self and custom-builders.
5.3. Whilst the application has been submitted in outline form with all matters reserved, an illustrative layout plan has been submitted which demonstrates how up to 25 dwellings could be accommodated on the site. The supporting information indicates that the dwellings are expected to predominantly comprise detached family dwellings of 2, 3 or 4 bedrooms. Access into the site would be taken directly from James Lane to the east.
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 (ADP)
6.2. The Adopted Development Plan for this site is:
- Richmondshire Local Plan 2012-2028 Core Strategy, adopted 2014
- Saved Local Plan Policy 23 of the Richmondshire Local Plan 1999-2006
- The Minerals & Waste Joint Plan 2015 – 2030 adopted 2022
Emerging Development Plan – Material Consideration
Guidance - Material Considerations
6.3. Relevant guidance for this application is:
- National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
- National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)
7.0 Consultation Responses
7.1. The following consultation responses have been received and have been summarised below.
7.2. Colburn Parish Council: With reference to the outline planning application on land in the Tunstall parish on the border with Colburn, Councillors have received the information and have no objections although residents in Tunstall may feel the effects of further traffic on a narrow village street although speed bumps do restrict speed considerably.
7.3. Environmental Health: No objections, subject to conditions relating to noise mitigation measures and contaminated land.
Local Highway Authority: The drawings are based on inaccurate land ownership plans and so it is unclear if the figures in the drawings regarding footway widths on James Lane can be achieved. The 1.39m footway width shown already falls below the minimum 1.5m required and may not even be as wide as this. Therefore, a definitive mapping base is required to ensure the correct widths are shown. Request plans using a definitive mapping base are submitted.
7.4. Ecology: Based on the information provided, the site is of low nature conservation value and there are few issues in relation to protected species. A condition is recommended to adhere to recommendations set out in the PEA in relation to bat boxes, light levels, vegetation clearance and hedgehog protection, and root protection zones. Any hedgerow or tree removal should be made good in the landscaping scheme for the site, with replacement hedgerows consisting of similar species to the existing boundary hedges.
The applicant has not demonstrated how they could deliver net gains for biodiversity on this site, however it is understood that small scale self-build and custom housing developments are expected to be exempt from BNG requirements.
7.5. Yorkshire Water: No objection, subject to conditions
7.6. Lead Local Flood Authority: Objection - the submitted documents are limited and the LLFA recommends that the applicant provides further information before any planning permission is granted by the LPA.
7.7. North Yorkshire Local Access Forum:Concerns raised with regards to insufficient parking, and the potential for on street parking resulting in an highway safety issues on James Lane.
7.8. Designing Out Crime Officer: Whilst it is accepted that each property may be subject of an individual Reserved Matters application, below is a summary of the issues that should be addressed prior to planning permission being granted to ensure that the overall development provides a safe and secure environment for all users.
- Area of amenity space lacks overlooking
- Management plan required for amenity space
- Ensure provision of appropriate demarcation to provide defensible space to dwelling frontages
- Ensure climbing aids are not created
- Ensure provision of appropriate boundary and sub‐divisional treatments to rear gardens
- Details for provision of visitor parking required
- Each dwelling should be provided with secure cycle storage
- All properties should be fitted with security lighting
- Details of appropriate street lighting required
- Details of appropriate landscaping required
7.9. Defence Infrastructure Organisation: Concerns raised with regards to potential noise impact, security of the Somme Barracks and the potential for overlooking from the proposed dwellings. The development should not negatively impact upon the future Masterplan ambitions for the Garrison.
7.10. County Archaeologist: No objection - there are no known archaeological sites within the proposed area. The area to the north formed barracks, married quarters and stables for the army camp however there is no evidence for the use of this piece of land for military purposes on historic Ordnance Survey maps or aerial photographs.
7.11. Tree Officer - No objection, subject to conditions.
7.12. Civic Society - Whilst we have no objection to this application we would hope that, if it is granted, a design guide is issued as part of the approval to help the site achieve some visual uniformity.
7.13. Local Representations
7.15 8 local representations have been received, all of which are objecting to the proposals. A summary of the comments is provided below, however, please see website for full comments.
- Impact on highway safety in the area
- Impact on surface water run off and flood risk
- No affordable housing proposed
- Development on a greenfield site outside of the development limits
- Lack of infrastructure
8.0 Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
9.0 Main Issues
9.1. The key considerations in the assessment of this application are:
- Design and Landscape Impact
- Highway Safety
- Residential Amenity
- Noise Impact
- Contamination
- Heritage and Archaeology
- Ecological Impact and Biodiversity Net Gain
- Drainage and Surface Water
- Affordable Housing
10.0 ASSESSMENT
Principle of Development
Adopted Development Plan
10.1. This site is within the countryside, over 700m distant from the Catterick Garrison Development Limit. Policy CP4 sets out that development proposals should be in, or if deliverable opportunities do not exist within, adjacent to the settlement’s Development Limits as defined on the Local Plan 1999-2006 Proposals Map or main built up confines where they do not exist.
10.2. Spatial Principle SP2 (Settlement Hierarchy) classifies Catterick Garrison as a Principal Town which acts in a complementary manner to constitute the main focus in the plan area for housing, employment, shopping, leisure, education, health and cultural activities and facilities.
10.3. Catterick Garrison lies within Central Richmondshire, which Policy SP1 sets out is the area of greatest growth, reflecting the location of the main towns of Richmond and Catterick Garrison, the scope for development and the scale of existing facilities and infrastructure. This is the area where most housing and employment related development will take place.
10.4. Policy SP4 sets out that 79% of new housing will be in Central Richmondshire Sub Area where the site is located. Catterick is to accommodate 62% of all housing growth which is at least 1,900 dwellings to be delivered by the end of 2029. The Richmondshire District Council Monitoring Report October 2023/2024 details that 588 dwellings have been completed in the ADP area. Whilst the number of completions falls significantly short of the minimum target, since the reports publication, there have been a number of minor consents and a major consent; as well as large housing sites commencing development and being currently under construction and other live applications pending consideration.
10.5. Catterick Garrison has a Strategic Development Growth Area beyond the Development Limits which the site is not within, as defined by The Central Richmondshire Spatial Strategy (CRSS).
10.6. The application site is located away from the Catterick Garrison development limits and would result in encroachment into the open countryside. Policy CP4 & CP8 restrict development in these rural locations and therefore the principal of development is not compliant with the adopted development plan. Please see Appendix A for a map of the application site, Development Limits and Strategic Development Growth Area.
10.7. The application documents have stated the application site has consistently formed part of the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) for the last ten years, it was last updated in December 2019. This identifies the whole Site (Site Reference 214) as suitable for development, stating that the site is adjacent to existing development limits and is largely screened in its southern part, which offers scope for residential development. However, the SHELAA does not carry any significant weight in the determination of this application and is part of an evidence base for an emerging local plan for Richmondshire which has been abandoned.
5 Year Land Housing Supply
10.8. The extant Richmondshire Local Plan is now more than 5 years old. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024), the annual housing requirement for this area is 320 homes, as derived from the Standard Method. Including the relevant 5% buffer, the 5-year supply requirement for this area is 1680. Based on the most recent data (from the 2024/25 monitoring period), there is a demonstrable deliverable supply of 901 homes over a five-year period. This translates to 2.7 years of housing supply when measured again the five-year supply requirement. Therefore, paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (i.e. the “presumption in favour of sustainable development”) is engaged for applications involving the provision of housing.
10.9. NPPF paragraph 11 advises that where the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date planning permission should be granted unless:
i) the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance* provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed; or
ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination**
*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 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.
10.10. Onthe above basis, housing applications such as this one should be granted unless either two exceptions are met (i) and/or (ii).
10.11. In respect of 11(d)(ii) there are adverse impacts which will significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits which is explored in the remains of the report below. As such, the principle of development is not considered acceptable, and in accordance with NPPF paragraph 11 should be refused.
Self and Custom Build
10.12. The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016) creates a duty for Local Planning Authorities to give suitable development permission to enough suitable serviced plots of land to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding in their area. The level of demand is established by reference to the number of entries added to an authority’s register during a base period.
10.13. The application would provide 25no. self and custom build dwellings, which provides some weight in favour of the development. Paragraph 73 of the NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities should, seek opportunities, through decisions, to support small sites to come forward for self-build and custom-build housing. Small sites does not have a definition, however, it is considered 2ha is not a small site.
10.14. The Council published a Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Report 2024, December 2024. This states the self and custom build demand of 37 individual has been met through 39 plots. Having examined this document the identified plots have no S106 or Unilateral Undertaking or condition securing these as self/custom build. As such, it is not considered these plots can be included for development management decisions.
10.15. Separate to this report the following Richmondshire Plan Area self/custom build permission have been identified:
- 5no. self or custom-build dwellings as part of a larger scheme at The Ashes Farm, Barton (ref: 19/00635/OUT) which was allowed at appeal on 5th January 2022
- 1no. self build dwelling approved on 4th May 2023 on land adjacent to Springfield in Middleton Tyas (23/00124/FULL).
Due to the Mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain exemption, more self and custom build plots are expected.
Principle of Development Conclusion
10.16. The application site is a significant distance from the nearest services and facilities. The site is located over 1.6km from the nearest services located on Hildyard Row to the north west of the site, and 1km from the nearest bus stop on Horne Road. The acceptable maximum walking distances to a town centre set out in “Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot, IHT” is 800 metres, whereas the distance between the application site and the nearest services, which fall short of providing what are considered town centre facilities, is double this distance. Therefore, the application site is not considered an appropriate or acceptable distance for new residential development, and would be contrary to the provisions of Policy CP4 which requires development to be accessible and well related to existing facilities.
10.17. This view was supported within a recent appeal decision against the refusal of an application for 9no. dwellings at The Smallways Inn near Newsham (appeal ref: APP/U2750/W/25/3359331). Within the decision, the Inspector stated:
“8. The appeal site is thus not adjacent to the settlement’s development limits or main
built-up confines, and it is not well related to existing facilities or accessible by
means other than the private car. The proposal would therefore conflict with the
spatial strategy set out within the development plan in this regard.”
10.18. The application site is not located within or adjacent to a settlement or it’s built up confines, as required by Policies CP4, SP4 and CP8. Whilst this ADP area does not have a 5 year land supply area, NPPF paragraph 11 (d(ii.)) sets out permission should be granted for housing development unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, as well as other matters.
10.19. In this case, whilst the self/custom build tenure is a moderate benefit in favour of the development, and the provision of housing is given great weight, this is not considered to outweigh the significant adverse impacts of the unsustainable location away from services and facilities; and encroaching into the countryside visually and causing landscape harm. As such it is considered the application is not acceptable in principal.
Design and Landscape Impact
10.20. Policy CP13 requires high quality design of both buildings and landscaping is a priority in all development proposals. Support will be given for proposals that, amongst other things, respect and enhance the local context and its special qualities, including its design features, landscape.
10.21. The site itself is agricultural grassland which, to the east looks out onto further agricultural land to the south and west, with the built form of Somme Barracks located immediately to the north of the site. The boundary between the site and Somme Barracks is served by a dense belt of mature trees. Therefore, when viewed from the south, east and west, the development would be viewed as an isolated development rather than within the context and backdrop of Catterick Garrison or the Barracks, and would appear as encroachment into the surrounding countryside.
10.22. Whilst the indicative plans demonstrate an acceptable density, and consideration with regards to layout and materials would be given at reserved matters stage, the development would be widely visible from the south of the site and would be harmful to the character site and surrounding area.
10.23. It is acknowledged that the scheme proposes the development of 25no. new self and custom build dwellings, however, the purpose of requiring housing to be sited within or adjacent to existing settlements is to ensure that it is built in the most sustainable locations where there are sufficient services and where the housing is needed. In the absence of a justified need for the dwellings to be sited in the countryside away from any Development Limit it would have a harmful impact on the character of the landscape and countryside, which is in direct conflict with the requirements of Policy CP8 which requires development not to conflict with landscape character, and CP12 requires that the landscape character of the plan area will be maintained, enhanced and, where appropriate, restored to a sustainable future for the natural and historic environment. The scheme is therefore considered to be contrary to the expectations of CP4, CP12 and CP13 in this regard; together with paragraph 187 of the NPPF which advises planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services.
Highway Safety
10.24. Following initial concerns being raised by the Highway Authority, amended plans and information have been submitted to seek to address these issues. The amended proposals indicate that the 25 dwellings will be served by a single point of access from James Lane. This access falls within the 40mph speed limit, and it has been demonstrated that the visibility splays at the junction access can be achieved as well as the forward visibility to the junction. Following consultation, the Highways Authority has confirmed that the development is acceptable in this respect.
10.25. However, the Highways Authority has advised that the submitted drawings are based on inaccurate land ownership plans and so it is unclear if the dimensions shown regarding proposed footway widths on James Lane can be achieved. The 1.39m footway width shown already falls below the minimum 1.5m, and the Highway Authority has raised concerns that it may not even be as wide as this. Therefore, a definitive mapping base would be required to ensure the correct widths are shown.
10.26. The applicants have not provided this information, and following discussions regarding the matter have suggested that a suitably worded condition allowing the mapping issues to be worked out at a later stage, with the proposed footway to have a minimum width of 1.5m being attached to any grant of permission would resolve this issue. However, the use of a planning condition is not considered to be appropriate in this instance given the uncertainty regarding whether this width could actually be achieved, and if not then the proposals would not be acceptable in highway safety terms. The Highway Authority has advised that it cannot offer support to the scheme in the absence of definitive information on the land ownership and thereby the minimum footway widths.
10.27. The Highways Authority have raised concern with the indicative plan, however, this is a reserved matters and the density is not high for the site area.
10.28. NPPF paragraph 115 advises that 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 would be severe. For this proposal, it is not possible to clarify if these thresholds have been met as the necessary technical information has not been submitted. Therefore the proposal is not in accordance with adopted Local Plan Policy CP4 and paragraph 115 of the NPPF. More specifically, CP4 required developments not to cause significant adverse impact on highway safety.
Residential Amenity
10.29. The application site is bounded to the north by Somme Barracks, to the east by a highway with open fields beyond and by open fields to the south and west. Environmental Health have considered the potential impact on amenity and the likelihood that the proposed development will cause a nuisance to neighbouring properties to be low. The nearest neighbouring property is The White Bungalow which is located on the opposite side of James Lane. As there is a separation distance of over 20 metres from the west elevation of this property and the site boundary, it is considered that the site could be developed for residential development without having a significant adverse impact upon the occupiers of this nearby property in terms of loss of light, outlook or privacy. Careful consideration would need to be given as part of any subsequent application with regards to the layout of the site and siting of dwellings close to the eastern boundary of the site, and with regards to orientation and window openings.
10.30. As the application has been submitted in outline form with all matters reserved for subsequent approval, specific details such as site layout, orientation and design have not been provided as part of this application. However, the indicative layout proposed demonstrates that 25no. dwellings could be achieved on the site providing adequate separation distances between the proposed dwellings within the site.
10.31. It is considered that, subject to any forthcoming reserved matters of landscaping, design, layout, location and orientation, the site is capable of providing a scheme of 25no. dwellings which would not adversely affect the outlook or privacy of any residents: either within existing dwellings or the proposed units. Site sections and levels information would be required with the reserved matters application to ensure privacy levels are appropriate. The proposal is considered to meet the requirements of Local Plan Policy CP4 and paragraph 135(f) of the NPPF.
Noise Impact
10.32. Due to raised noise levels present at the site, habitable rooms on most facades, particularly elevations facing James Lane, and the Northern boundary will not achieve the recommended internal noise levels for habitable rooms with windows open. However, with windows in the closed position the recommended internal noise levels can be met, this coincides with ProPG Planning guidance. The guidance advises that internal noise levels can be assessed with windows closed where it is not possible to meet internal target levels provided good acoustic design is followed.
10.33. The Noise Impact Assessment proposes mitigation measures in the acoustic design of the properties which would mean noise levels in habitable rooms could meet the recommended levels. Following consultation, the Environmental Health team has advised that the proposals are acceptable in terms of noise impact, providing a condition requiring the construction details put forward in the Noise Impact Assessment being adhered to and implemented prior to any dwellings being occupied to ensure the recommended internal noise levels set out in BS 8233:2014 are achieved.
10.34. There is the potential for adverse impact from noise and dust during the construction phase. The applicant has not provided any information on how noise and dust will be controlled during the construction phase and therefore conditions requiring the submission of a Construction Management Plan and controlling the construction hours would be imposed to any approval granted.
Providing these condition be imposed to any grant of permission, the proposal are considered acceptable in terms of noise impact, in accordance with Policy CP3 of the Local Plan, which supports development which promotes the health, economic and social well-being, amenity and safety of the population; together with paragraph 135(f) of the NPPF.
Contamination
10.35. The application introduces a vulnerable end use in the form of 25no. dwellings onto the application site. Following consultation, the Environmental Health team has advised that, although its current use is agricultural/open land, it is located on the periphery of a large military development which carries contamination risks from buried ordinance etc. As such, any risks to the future occupants of the site in relation to contamination need to be assessed. Environmental Health has therefore advised that, for a development of this size, a Phase 1 Preliminary Risk Assessment would be required to assess the risks from contaminated land. This would not be required prior to the determination of this application, and could be secured by the imposition of a planning condition to any grant of permission.
10.36. Subject to a condition being attached to any grant of permission requiring the submission of a Phase 1 Assessment, the proposals would accord with Policy CP3 of the Local Plan and the provisions of the NPPF.
Heritage and Archaeology
10.37. The proposed development is not within or adjacent to any Conservation Area and is a significant distance the nearest Listed Buildings as to not materially affect their respective settings. Following consultation, the County Archaeology has raised no objection to the proposals. The proposals therefore accord with both Local Plan Policies CP3, CP4 and CP12 and the provisions of the NPPF in this regard which require weight and safeguarding of heritage assets.
Ecological Impact and Biodiversity Net Gain
10.38. Local plan Policies CP3 and CP4 support proposals that promote and seek to protect biodiversity. NPPF paragraph 187 advises planning decisions should minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity; and paragraph 193 advises local authorities if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.
10.39. Based on the information provided, the site is of low nature conservation value and there are few issues in relation to protected species. The field is agriculturally-improved grassland and the tree belt on the northern margin would be retained, along with existing hedgerows on the site boundaries. Following consultation, the County Ecologist has recommended conditions in relation to bat boxes, light spill, vegetation clearance, hedgehog protection and root protection zones.
10.40. The County Ecologist has noted that the submitted information does not seem to address any hedgerow removal for access purposes, however it would be expected that any hedgerow or tree removal would be made good in the landscaping scheme for the site, with replacement hedgerows consisting of similar species to the existing boundary hedges.
10.41. The applicant has not demonstrated how they could deliver net gains for biodiversity on this site. However, Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirements only became mandatory for new planning applications for major development made under the Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) 1990 from 12th February 2024 onwards. As this planning application was submitted before this date, the application is exempt from mandatory BNG requirements.
10.42. However, paragraph 187 of the NPPF requires developments to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity. Therefore, a condition would be attached to any grant of permission requiring the submission of a BNG plan requiring at least a 2% net gain in biodiversity. Subject to this condition, the proposal would accord with policies CP3, CP4, CP12 and paragraph 187 (d) of the NPPF. Policy CP12 sets out development will be supported where they conserve and enhance the significance of the plan area’s assets.
Drainage and Flood Risk
10.43. The site is located within Flood Zone 1 and is at a Low risk of Surface Water flooding. The applicant has provided a detailed flood risk assessment, analysing all potential sources of flooding and their associated risk. Following consultation, the LLFA has confirmed that this is acceptable.
10.44. The applicant has attempted to follow the drainage hierarchy as per Building Regulations, part H. Infiltration has been deemed unsuitable due to “expected clayey nature of site ground conditions”. However, no site-specific evidence of this has been provided in the form of a ground investigation or infiltration testing. The LLFA has advised therefore that further information would be required to address this matter.
10.45. As greenfield development, the peak flow rate should be restricted to predevelopment levels. The greenfield run off rate should be calculated using the IH24 or FEH Method Peak runoff rate from the developed site, for the 1 in 1, 1 in 30 and 1 in 100 year rainfall events to include for urban creep where required and climate change, must not exceed the peak greenfield runoff rate from the site for the same event. It is noted the applicant is proposing to use a pump to discharge flows to the outfall. Surface water pumping stations should only be used by exception. Evidence has not been provided as to why a gravity outfall cannot be used. Following consultation, the LLFA has advised that clear justification as to why a pumping station needs to be used is required however this has not been provided.
10.46. In respect of volume control, it is noted the applicant intends to attenuate surface water in oversized pipes 1350mm dia. within the proposed adopted highway, however NYC Highways will not adopt Pipework that exceeds 900mm dia. Therefore, the LLFA has advised that an alternative approach to attenuation/SuDs needs to be explored and further information would be required to adequately address this issue.
10.47. In light of the above, and the comments made by the LLFA, it is considered that insufficient information has been provided to be able to conclude that the scheme is able to provide sustainable drainage. Therefore, the proposals are not considered to comply with the expectations of CP2, CP3 and CP4 of the ADP which require development proposals to be sustainably drained and free from risk of flooding, and not increase risk of flooding off site; together with the provisions of the NPPF including paragraph 181 and 182 which has similar requirements.
Affordable Housing
10.48. Core Policy CP6 seeks affordable housing in all developments where there is a net gain in dwellings, the contribution, ideally being met on site. In the Central Richmondshire Sub-Area the expected contribution is set at 40% affordable housing. No information has been provided by the applicant in respect of how affordable housing would be delivered through this development, and there is no mechanism in place to secure sale of the properties at a discounted market value. In addition, no viability evidence has been submitted. Therefore the proposed would not accord with Policy CP6 of the Local Plan or the provisions of the NPPF in providing on site affordable housing.
11.0 PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
11.1. The site is not located within or adjacent to the Development Limit or Built Up Extent of Catterick Garrison, which is a Principal Town. Instead, it is located within the countryside and therefore the principle of development conflicts with paragraphs policies CP4, SP4 and CP8
11.2. The adopted development plan area only has a 2.7 year 5 year land housing supply, and the provision of housing is therefore given great weight in support of the development. Additionally the tenure is self/custom build for which there is an identified unmet need, and is also given great weight.
11.3. NPPF paragraph 11 stipulates where the most important policies for an application are out-of-date (SP4 in respect of minimum housing delivery) that consent should be granted subject to two sets of exceptions. It is considered that exception 11(d(i.)) are met and that planning permission should be refused as set out below.
11.4. The benefits achieved as a result of the development weighing in its favour are the provision of 25no. dwellings, these being self and custom-build units, and the contribution this would make towards the housing supply and self/custom build demand within the area this is given great weight in support of the proposal. However, the following significant adverse impacts outweighs these benefits and as such permission should be refused: the application site is an unsustainable location; encroachment into the open countryside; impact on highway safety within the area; lack of affordable housing provision; and insufficient drainage information to demonstrate it can be adequately drained for flood prevention. As such, the development does not accord with NPPF paragraph 11(d) and permission should be refused.
12.0 RECOMMENDATION
12.1. That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The application site is located outside and not adjacent to the development limits or the built up extent of Catterick Garrison, and is within the open countryside. The site is a located a significant distance from the nearest services and facilities within Catterick Garrison as well as the nearest transport links. As such, the site is considered to be an unsustainable location for new residential development with any future occupiers being heavily reliant on the car to access services, education and employment. Therefore, the proposal would be contrary to Policies SP1, SP2, SP4, and CP4 of the Richmondshire Local Plan adopted 2014 as well as the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 including paragraph 11(d.ii).
2. The proposed development of 25no. dwellings would result in significant encroachment into the surrounding countryside. The development would result in harm to character and appearance of the open countryside surrounding Catterick Garrison, and would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the surrounding area. As such, the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of Local Plan Policies CP3 and CP8 which seek to protect the character and quality of local landscapes and the wider countryside, as well as the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 in this respect.
3. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the minimum footway width can be achieved along the proposed footpath link on James Lane from the application site. As the necessary technical information has not been submitted, it has not been demonstrated that the proposals would not be detrimental to highway safety within the surrounding area. Therefore the proposal is contrary to the provisions of adopted Local Plan Policices CP3 and CP4; together with paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).
4. Policies CP2 (Responding to Climate Change) and CP3 (Achieving Sustainable Development) require all new development to be designed to minimise flood risk elsewhere by incorporating Sustainable Drainage Schemes (SuDS), unless SuDS would prove impractical. The applicant has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the scheme would achieve adequate drainage provision. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies CP2 and CP3 in this regard as well as the national planning guidance with regards to this matter.
5. No affordable housing is proposed nor an economic viability appraisal submitted demonstrating affordable housing provision is not viable. As such the proposals are contrary to the provisions of Local Plan Policy CP6.
Target Determination Date: 11.09.2025
Case Officer: Joanne Wood, joanne.wood1@northyorks.gov.uk
Appendix A – Adopted Development Plan Development Limits & Strategic Development Growth Areas
Key
Solid Redline – Development Limits
Purple Dashed Line - Strategic Development Growth Areas
Yellow Star – Application site location