North Yorkshire Council

Community Development Services

Thirsk and Malton Area Committee

16 October 2025

ZE24/01683/MOUT Application for outline planning permission (with all matters reserved except the main points of access) for the construction of up to 200 residential dwellings, open space, landscaping, habitat enhancement, drainage infrastructure and associated works at land off Rainbow Lane, Peasey Hills, Malton

Report of the Head of Development Management – Community Development Services

1.0

Purpose of the report and background

1.1

To seek a view from the Committee on the direction of defence at an appeal for non-determination in relation to an outline planning permission (with all matters reserved except the main points of access) for the construction of up to 200 residential dwellings, open space, landscaping, habitat enhancement, drainage infrastructure and associated works.

2.0 Summary

2.1 RECOMMENDATION: That members resolve that the proposal should be refused and direct officers to represent this position at the non-determination appeal.

2.2 The proposal is for outline planning permission (with all matters reserved except for access) for the construction of up to 200 residential dwellings.

2.3 The site is outside Development Limits, to the north-east of Malton and formed from three agricultural fields designated as a Visually Important Undeveloped Area (VIUA) in the Ryedale Local Plan. The site effectively separates Old Malton from Malton.

2.4 As the proposal is located outside Development limits, in normal circumstances the principle of development would not be accepted due to conflict with Policy SP2 which sets the criteria for new housing in the local plan area. However, the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply for the Ryedale Local Plan Area and therefore Paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework is engaged (the “presumption in favour of sustainable development”). For decision-taking this means granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of granting permission. A balanced decision must be made weighing the adverse impacts of the development against the benefits taking into account sustainability, effective use of land and providing affordable homes.

2.5 In favour of the proposal, it would add 200 dwellings to the housing stock and the application site is located directly adjacent to the development limits of Malton which is considered a sustainable settlement for new housing. The site is considered large enough to accommodate the proposed scale of development as well as the ancillary open space, new habitat and drainage areas etc. The proposal also includes a policy compliant level of affordable housing. In this context it is considered that the principle of development on the site should be supported.

2.6 Against the proposal, it will result in a significant coalescence between the settlements of Malton and Old Malton and alter the character of the VIUA from which the site is formed. In addition, harm, although at the lower end of less than substantial, will be caused to the setting of the conservation area by virtue of the erosion of the green buffer on the boundary of the conservation area.

2.7 On balance, it is considered that the harm caused by the significant coalescence between the settlements of Old Malton and Malton and to the character of the VIUA, outweighs the benefit of adding 200 dwellings to the housing stock and on this basis the application is recommended for refusal.

2.8 There remain a number of technical matters, regarding highways, ecology, noise and best and most versatile agricultural land which have not yet been resolved.

2.9 As an appeal on non-determination has been submitted confirmation is sought that the Committee is in agreement with the above position and that this can be presented to the Planning Inspectorate for consideration.

3.0 Preliminary matters

3.1 The case file is available on Public Access and can be found by clicking the following link: - Documents

3.2 The development description has been amended to that requested by the applicant. The original description was “Erection of up to 200 residential dwellings, open space, landscaping, habitat enhancement, drainage infrastructure and associated works”.

3.3 Amendments to the Proposed Coloured Site Plan, Greenspace Masterplan and Drainage Strategy were received on 27.08.2025.

Planning History

3.3 23/00250/PREAPP Residential development of circa 210no. Dwellings (site area 19.8ha). Officer view; support at application stage unlikely.

4.0 Site and surroundings

4.1 The application site comprises of approx. 21.28 hectares of agricultural land to the northeast of Malton and west of Old Malton, with the proposed main and emergency accesses to the site leading off Rainbow Lane, Peasey Hills, Malton. The site has a significant downwards slope, from south to north, towards Westgate Lane and it is located c.1.2km walking distance from Malton Town Centre.

4.2 The site is bound to the north by Westgate Lane and the fields beyond, to the east by agricultural land and new dwellings off Westgate Lane, to the south by residential dwellings and to the west by Rainbow Lane, with new residential dwellings and the A64 beyond.

4.2 The site is affected by the following planning constraints:

· Outside Development Limits

· Within a Visually Important Undeveloped Area (VIUA)

· Within an Archaeologically Sensitive Area

· Partially within Flood Risk Zone 2

· Adjacent to Old Malton Conservation Area (southern site boundary)

· Adjacent to Public Rights of Way along Rainbow Lane and Westgate Lane

5.0 Description of proposal

5.1 The proposal is for outline planning permission (with all matters reserved except the main points of access) for the construction of up to 200 residential dwellings, open space, landscaping, habitat enhancement, drainage infrastructure and associated works.

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 is The Ryedale Local Plan Strategy, adopted on 5 September 2013.

Emerging Development Plan – Material Consideration

6.3 The Emerging Development Plan for this site is the North Yorkshire Local Plan. No weight can be applied in respect of The North Yorkshire Local Plan at the current time as it is at an early stage of preparation.

Neighbourhood Plan

6.4 The Neighbourhood Plan for Malton and Norton 2020-2027 was on 13 November 2024. The plan is now part of the development plan for this area.

Guidance - Material Considerations

6.5 Relevant guidance for this application is:

National Planning Policy Framework

National Planning Practice Guidance

7.0 Consultation responses

7.1 The following consultation responses have been received and are summarised below. Full comments are available to view on the Council’s website.

7.2 Malton Town Council: Recommend refusal.

7.3 The Council raised concerns relating to the following issues;

“[…] the Neighbourhood Plan does not allocate any additional land for residential development. The principle of this development is therefore not accepted.[…]

“Visually Important Undeveloped Areas designation; the benefits of development of this site would not significantly outweigh the loss or damage to the character of the settlement […]

“Transport assessment; is based on outdated baseline data and traffic counts and therefore not considered to be robust. Air quality assessment; does not meet the Neighbourhood Plan's requirements to assess cumulative impacts”.

7.4 Archaeology Officer: No objection subject to conditions.

“[…] The field evaluations have identified a core area of archaeological interest comprising the group of stone buildings and associated features. These buildings are of significance as they represent a previously unknown settlement on the outskirts of the Roman town at Malton. […] It is presumed that the developer could introduce adequate safeguards within their Construction Environment Management Plan to physically preserve the significant archaeological features that fall within the proposed meadow. […]. On balance this combination of preservation in situ and archaeological recording would seem to be a proportionate response and is similar to the approaches taken with similar sites within the regional including the aforementioned Bedale and Eastfield villas and similar sites elsewhere in the region e.g. at Ingleby Barwick, Stockon-on-Tees.

I recommend […] conditions to ensure physical preservation of those parts of the archaeological resource falling within the proposed meadow”.

7.5 Conservation Officer: Object.

[…] In my opinion harm will be caused to the conservation area by virtue of the erosion of the green buffer on this boundary of the [Old Malton] conservation area. Due to the mitigations of greenspace proposed, it is my opinion that the level of harm will be on the low side of less than substantial. Due to indicated development being concentrated in the south/west of the site, it is considered that the views from Westgate Lane across to the tower of St Mary’s are predominantly preserved and that the setting of the church is sustained.

7.6 Designing Out Crime Officer: Neutral.

“[…] Should outline Planning Permission be granted I would ask the Authority to place a condition on it, requiring full details of what crime prevention measures are to be incorporated into the site, be detailed in any Reserved Matters Application […]”.

7.7 Ecology: No objection.

[…] The initial screening stage of the sHRA [Shadow’ (draft) Habitat

Regulations Assessment] rules out any Likely Significant Effect on the River Derwent SAC except that “a low risk of a likely significant localised effect cannot be fully screened out for Otter without implementing mitigation”. This reflects the increased number of people and dogs which would potentially have some access to the river as a result of the development.

A Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment has therefore been undertaken with regards to potential effects of increased recreational pressure on SAC species (specifically Otter in this case). This reviews existing access to the north bank of the Derwent and the provision of alternative opportunities for dog-walking offered by the extensive area of on-site greenspace (12.39 ha). It concludes that no effect on the integrity of the SAC is likely.

I find the Screening procedure and Appropriate Assessment comprehensive, well-evidenced and convincing. I recommend that the council adopts the sHRA as its own and consults Natural England accordingly. A record of the council’s decision should be included in any officer’s report to Planning Committee.

Case officer note: Natural England has sent a holding reply to their consultation, which is pending receipt of an assessment of BMV agricultural land from the applicant. Not yet received.

7.8 Environment Agency Yorkshire Area: Advice given regarding necessary infrastructure.

[…] we strongly recommend adequate demonstration from the developer of how this additional water to the system from a greenfield site will not increase the risk of receiving watercourse and drainage infrastructure surcharging. […]The Environment Agency completed an ‘Initial Assessment’ in 2023 which has informed us of the likely need for capital maintenance work to sustain flood defences and our operational response.

A development on the scale proposed would be reliant on these assets and operations for the lifetime of the development through reliance on local highways, utilities and other public services whose operation is protected by those defences and risk management activities.

In view of this, we advise the LPA to review the sustainability of the proposals for this much larger community in Old Malton and Malton and recommend the consideration of a condition that requires these capital maintenance works to be confirmed and delivered prior to commencement.[…]

7.9 Environmental Health Scientific Officer; Air Quality and Land Contamination: No objection subject to conditions.

Based on the information provided in the various supporting documents, […], the scientific team have no objections in principle to the proposed development regarding air quality and contaminated land.

7.10 Environmental Health Scientific Officer; Noise: No comment received to date.

7.11 Highways: Additional information has been requested by the Highways officer. It has been received and is under review:

[…] “The Transport assessment has been reviewed and the following points should be considered;

1) In section 2.8 of the Transport Assessment, the applicant has used Crashmap data for collision analysis. The LHA request that the applicant approaches NYC Traffic engineering team for full stats – 19 output

2) More recent Baseline traffic flow surveys than 2015 and 2021 and 2022 should be used for junction capacity testing

3) Reference is made to 2024 baseline conditions but there appears to be no raw data to support this. […]”

7.12 Housing Services: No objection.

The scheme proposes 35% affordable housing, this is acceptable

7.13 Humber & North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board (ICB): No objection subject to S106 financial contribution.

“The development would therefore have an impact on the primary healthcare provision in the area and its implications, if unmitigated, would be unsustainable. […] The ICB calculate the level of contribution required in this instance to be £235,732. 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.[…]

Case officer note. Infrastructure provision is funded by CIL contributions. As such the request by the ICB cannot be supported.

7.14 Landscape Officer NYC: No comment received.

7.15 Lead Local Flood Authority: Holding objection, subject to further details.

[…] Runoff Destinations

Infiltration testing to BRE 365 has been carried out at 10 areas on site, the rates provided from this suggest that infiltration is feasible. It is noted that high ground water levels make infiltration unsuitable, however it is asked whether this is supported with site specific information as within the Phase 2 Geo-Environmental report it is said that ‘no groundwater was encountered’.

Instead, a pumped connection to a 300 mm surface water culvert is proposed. A CCTV survey has been carried out showing a connection to the Riggs Road Drain, a Vale of Pickering Internal Drainage Board surface water sewer. This then discharges into the river Derwent. The Environment Agency has raised concerns about the capacity of the Riggs Road Drain, with it being highlighted that there is almost annual deployment of temporary pumps in this area due to insufficient drainage.

Further clarification is required. […]

7.16 Natural England: Holding comment; provision of an Agricultural Land Classification and soil assessment remains outstanding.

In response to its first consultation Natural England advised that there is insufficient information provided to enable Natural England to provide a substantive response to the consultation. The following was requested:

· A Habitats Regulation Assessment

· An Agricultural Land Classification and soil assessment

Subsequently an Ecological Impact Assessment dated April 2025 and a Habitat Regulations Assessment and shadow Appropriate Assessment dated June 2025 was provided by the applicant. Natural England were re-consulted and replied:

“In our previous advice letter dated 27/09/2024 we asked for further details around assessment of BMV agricultural land. Please could you advise if there is any update on this aspect?

On receipt of the information requested, we will aim to provide a full response within 21 days of receipt.”

Provision of an Agricultural Land Classification and soil assessment remains outstanding.

7.17 Northern Powergrid: No comment received.

7.18 Public Rights of Way: No objection. Advice provided.

“The Public Bridleway adjacent to the site must remain open and available to the public at all times. Should this not be possible an application for a temporary closure must be discussed with the Countryside Access Service, and if a closure application is submitted a suitable alternative route through the site must be provided and maintained for the duration of the closure.”

7.19 Tree & Woodland Section: No comment received.

7.20 Vale of Pickering Internal Drainage Board: No objection

The Board has no objection to the application.

Separate Land Drainage Consent is required for surface water drainage discharge.

7.21 Yorkshire Water: Objection.

“It should be noted that the site is not included in the adopted North Yorkshire Local Plan and is instead classed as 'Visually Important Undeveloped Area’. As such the site has not been factored into Yorkshire Water's proposed asset reinforcement for the Malton area. It is believed that the proposed foul water discharge would cause the receiving infrastructure to become overloaded. We therefore OBJECT to the proposal”.

Local Representations:

7.22 39 local representations have been received from members of the public of which 36 are objecting, 2 are supporting and one is neutral. A summary of the comments that are material to this application is provided below. Please see website for full comments.

7.23 Objections:

Principle of development

· This is a non-allocated site. The local plan states that there are already sufficient sites without using this.

· Brownfield sites should be used.

· Development incompatible with local business including the Equine Hospital.

Impact on the local highways and footpaths

· Development will lead to a significant increase in traffic.

· Improvements to A roads is needed before more large housing estates are built.

· Rainbow Lane access is potentially dangerous.

· The limited access via Rainbow Lane from Pasture Lane would be inappropriate for the level of traffic.

· Access is in very close proximity to two Primary schools and passes a children's playground.

· Westgate is a single track road. Westgate is not suitable as an emergency access.

· If access is given from the site onto Westgate that would increase traffic along an already very busy and narrow road.

· Westgate Lane is not proposed as primary site access, yet it is already being used as such by ground workers.

· Westgate Lane is already of limited quality and not maintained by the national highways.

· Provision should be made to ensure that maintaining of the lane be the responsibility of the development.

· Placement of bollards is necessary to limit vehicular access to emergency vehicles only.

· There are a number of public rights of way that would be impacted by this development.

· Increased traffic will be harmful to the safety of pedestrians.

· New traffic calming measures will be required as a result of the extra traffic.

· Improved cycling and walking infrastructure is needed.

· The bus route times quoted in the Report are incorrect.

· The Traffic Consultation has used data from 2018-2022.

· The Baseline Traffic Flow Survey was conducted on 29th June 2021, when the country was in total lockdown.

Amenity

· Will lead to a loss of privacy for outdoor activities at Rainbow Equine Hospital

· Development would directly overlook the equine hospital paddocks and the exercising school.

· Development will involve months, perhaps years of upheaval, noise, traffic, dirt and disruption.

· Proposed landscaping with trees will block light to neighbouring dwellings.

· Will harm the outlook from neighbouring properties.

· The proposed retention and flood storage pond presents a danger to children.

Character of the area

· Will harm the rural character of Westgate Lane.

· Continual expansion of Malton is changing its character

· The site is currently an agricultural asset that frames old Malton

Infrastructure and drainage

· Surface water drainage is towards an existing area of fluvial flooding.

· Old Malton suffers flooding from surface water and this development will exacerbate this.

· Loss of drainage land will exacerbate surface water runoff

· Old Malton already has a problem with flooding and the drains are already over capacity.

· The existing sewage system is already overloaded

· Infrastructure in Malton already cannot cope.

· More houses will increase demand on schools and medical facilities which are already struggling.

· Improvements to infrastructure is needed before more large housing developments are built.

· The emergency services would be even more over stretched.

Environment

· The site is currently farmland and the crops that grow there are important for the country's food security

· Proposed orchard may never be planted.

· New tree planting is needed to improve biodiversity and air quality.

· Additional vehicles will harm air quality

· Will result in the loss of 21Ha of agricultural land.

· Will have an impact on archaeological remains.

· Will cause a loss of biodiversity

· Will negatively impact on the character of the well-used bridleway.

· Gases from contaminated land in the site may harm occupants of neighbouring land.

Crime

· Increased numbers of pedestrians along Westgate Lane will increase security problems for local businesses.

7.24 Support:

· The location and access to the site is perfect for fitting in more homes into Malton. Perfect location for school so long as the school has the capacity to fit the extra load, along with reasonable access to A64 as well.

8.0 Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)

8.1 The development falls within Schedule 2 Category 10(b) Urban Development Projects of The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017 (as amended) and exceeds threshold (ii) and (iii) due to the development including more than 150 dwellings and the site being over 5ha. As such the Council as Local Planning Authority have screened the development and found that it is not EIA development and no Environmental Statement is required to be submitted with the application. The Screening Checklist which acts as the report and decision is available to view on the Council’s website. Nothing has changed since the Screening Decision, and it is still effective for the Committee Decision. No conditions are required to rule of a likely significant environmental effect.

9.0 Main issues

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

· Principle of development

· Affordable Housing and Mix

· Drainage and Flood risk

· Highways Safety

· Landscape and impact on the Visually Important Undeveloped Area

· Biodiversity

· Amenity

· S106 Agreement

10.0 Assessment

Principle of Development

10.1 The site is located outside of but adjacent to the development limits for Malton and Norton. Policy SP1 (General Location of Development and Settlement Hierarchy) of the Local Plan Strategy sets out a hierarchy of settlements and seeks to focus new developments within the principal towns, market towns and service villages. Malton is a Principal Town in the settlement hierarchy and a primary focus for growth. Policy SP1 states that the settlement is expected to be a focus for the majority of new development and growth including new housing, employment and retail space

10.2 The principle of the settlement hierarchy is to ensure that development is distributed to locations with appropriate infrastructure and additionally to ensure that the rural nature of the district particularly those locations lower down the hierarchy is maintained.

10.3 Policy SP2 (Delivery and Distribution of new housing) of the Local Plan Strategy provides guidance on the distribution of new homes within Ryedale. The distribution of new housing reflects the hierarchy with Malton and Norton allocated 1500 new homes, which equates to 50% of the identified need in the Plan over the period 2012-2027.

10.4 Recent updates to the National Planning Policy Framework introduced a new standard method for assessing housing need. This has resulted in an increase in housing need for many Councils across the country. The extant Ryedale 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 377 (up from 373) homes, as derived from the Standard Method. Including the relevant 5% buffer, the 5-year supply requirement for this area is 1977 (up from 1959). Based on the most recent data (from the 2023/24 monitoring period), there is a demonstrable deliverable supply of 332 homes over a five-year period. This translates to 0.8 years of housing supply when measured against the five-year supply requirement. Due to this shortfall in housing supply, 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.

10.5 Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision-taking this means: 11d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

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

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

Footnote 8 clarifies that ‘out of date’ includes situations where the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.

10.6 The proposal site is located outside of development limits. In normal circumstances the principle of development would not be accepted due to conflict with Policy SP2 which sets the criteria for new housing in the local plan area. However, as paragraph 11 is engaged, a balanced decision must be made weighing the adverse impacts of the development against the benefits, taking into account; sustainability, effective use of land, securing well designed places and providing affordable homes.

10.7 The application site is located directly adjacent to the development limits of Malton and Norton which, as outlined above, is considered a sustainable settlement for development, as identified in the Ryedale Local Plan. The land area of the application site is large enough to accommodate the proposed scale of development as well as the ancillary open space and drainage areas etc. and the proposal also includes the required level of 35% affordable housing. In this context it is considered, under Paragraph 11d of the NPPF, that the principle of development on the site should be supported.

Affordable Housing and Mix

10.8 Local Plan Policy SP3, Affordable Housing, states that the Local Planning Authority will seek the provision of 35% of new dwellings as affordable housing on-site (in settlements outside West and South West Ryedale) as part of developments of 5 dwellings or 0.2 ha. Where the on-site contribution does not equate precisely to whole numbers of units, equivalent financial contributions will be sought.

10.9 The application is in outline for up to 200 dwellings. The original proposal included on site provision of affordable housing up to 50% of the total new dwellings on site, consequently the intended affordable housing provision exceeds the current policy requirements. However, in the applicant’s appeal Statement of Case the affordable housing offer has been reduced to 35%.

10.10 The affordable housing contribution should be secured through the S106 legal agreement. As the proposal is for ‘up to’ 200 dwellings the final number of affordable dwellings to be provided cannot be confirmed until reserved matters stage. At this stage, however the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of affordable housing and meets the requirements of Policy SP3.

Amenity

10.11 As required by Policy SP20 (Generic Development Management Issues) the development should respect the character of the area without having a material adverse impact on the amenity of present or future occupants, the users or occupants of neighbouring land and buildings or the wider community. Impacts on amenity can include, for example, noise, dust, odour, light flicker, loss of privacy or natural daylight or be an overbearing presence.

10.12 The application is in outline with design and layout reserved matters; therefore, only general principles of amenity can be considered at this stage. The proposed site is adjacent to a residential area on the edge of the settlement. To the northwest of the site is Rainbow Equine Hospital. The proposed residential use would not conflict with or compromise the existing uses of neighbouring land. The site, at approx. 21ha, is of sufficient size to allow a design that would avoid issues of loss of privacy, daylight loss and overbearing impacts for occupants of neighbouring land or of the proposed development.

10.13 Although layout and landscaping are reserved matters, it is noted that the Greenspace Masterplan and Arboricultural Impact Assessment suggest that the trees along the southern site boundary will be removed to facilitate the development. This would affect the outlook from the rear of existing dwellings to the south. However, this would not significantly harm the amenity of these dwellings.

10.14 The noise environment at the site is principally influenced by road traffic noise from the A64 to the north of the site. A Noise Impact Assessment dated 15.06.2024 was submitted by the applicant as part of the original suite of documents. This has been superseded by a revision dated 22.08.2025. The report concludes that, of the 200 proposed units, only 39 will require alternative glazing and ventilation to achieve internal acoustic design levels. The remaining 161 units can be naturally ventilated without internal noise levels exceeding the British Standard criteria.

10.15 With regards to external noise levels the Assessment finds that “exceedances above the upper guideline value of 55 dB LAeq,T are predicted only within two external amenity spaces in the north-western corner of the development, closest to the A64 (Plots 194 and 195). Other exceedances on site are confined to the more exposed gardens associated with Plots 191 to 193 and 196 to 197, around the same location, where levels are predicted to remain below the upper guideline value but above the desirable criterion. To mitigate these impacts, specific noise control measures have been considered. These consist of uprated garden fences with close-board construction, providing a minimum surface mass of 10 kg/m² and a height of 2.5 m, to deliver adequate screening and noise attenuation”.

10.16 The Assessment concludes that planning consent can be granted subject to the inclusion of suitable noise conditions reflecting the mitigation measures detailed within the report, including glazing specifications, ventilation systems, and boundary treatments like fences.

10.17 Consideration should also be given to Local Policy SP17 which requires developers to apply the highest standards outlined in the World Health Organisation, British Standards and wider international and national standards relating to noise. This standard exceeds the minimum acceptable British Standards and requires acceptable noise standards to be achieved with windows open. However, in a recent appeal decision APP/U2750/W/25/3362561 (Land to the south of Riccal Drive, Helmsley) the inspector commented:

The main parties disagree as to whether there should be a requirement to meet the indoor ambient noise levels with windows open, or if it should be permitted to meet them with windows closed and ventilation provided. At the hearing the appellant referred to a risk that the levels might not be achieved in some rooms with windows open given the proximity to the proposed employment uses. However, BS4142: 2014 refers to scenarios where windows are open. As there are alternatives to open windows, I do not consider it to be reasonable or necessary to impose such a restrictive condition. I also do not consider that this undermines the objectives of Policy SP20 of the LPS in terms of providing the highest levels of amenity.

10.18 The Environmental Health officer has not yet commented on the applicant’s Noise Impact Assessment. The officer’s report will be made available to the Committee prior to the Committee date.

10.19 A Construction Management Plan is considered necessary to protect amenity and highway safety during construction. The plan should cover measures to minimise noise, light and dust arising from works, identification of a person responsible for recording, investigation and dealing with complaints, communication strategy, operating hours and review measures.

Air Quality and Contaminated Land

10.20 A Phase I and Phase II Geo-Environmental Report has been submitted with the application. A Council Environmental Health Scientific Officer has commented that based on the information provided in the various supporting documents, the scientific team have no objections in principle to the proposed development with regard to air quality and contaminated land.

Flood Risk and Drainage

10.21 The proposal is spread across Flood Risk Zone One and Two and is exposed to an overall low risk of surface water flooding, however areas at higher surface water flood risk are present along the northern boundary of the site in land allocated as meadow land in the Greenspace Masterplan.

10.22 A site-specific flood risk assessment has been provided. Mitigation is taken against flood risk by development only being proposed in Flood Zone One and in areas at low risk of surface water flooding. Further mitigation measures have been applied through the raising of finished floor levels by 150 mm, external site levels will be designed with falls to direct overland flows away from buildings and incoming electrical supplies will be raised. The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) finds the flood risk mitigation measures acceptable.

10.23 With regard to surface water runoff destinations, the LLFA have found conflicting data in the application documents and have requested clarification. This has not yet been provided. The LLFA notes that a pumped connection to a surface water culvert is proposed, which connects to the Riggs Road Drain, a Vale of Pickering Internal Drainage Board surface water sewer. The Environment Agency has raised concerns about the capacity of the Riggs Road Drain, with it being highlighted that there is almost annual deployment of temporary pumps in this area due to insufficient drainage.

10.24 With regard to Peak Flow Control, Volume Control and Designing for Exceedance the LLFA finds the approach taken to be acceptable.

Yorkshire Water

10.25 Yorkshire Water has objected to the development. They comment “the site has not been factored into Yorkshire Water's proposed asset reinforcement for the Malton area. It is believed that the proposed foul water discharge would cause the receiving infrastructure to become overloaded”. However, it is considered that the matter could be managed by way of a condition, which would restrict the occupation of any dwelling until confirmation is provided that sufficient capacity exists within the sewerage network to accommodate the foul drainage flows from the development. This approach would be consistent with that taken by the Inspector for appeal APP/U2750/W/25/3360685 (Land North of Middleton Road, Pickering). Subject to the recommended condition the proposal would be in accordance with the requirements of Policy SP17 which says, amongst other things, that water resources will be protected by ensuring that necessary sewerage and water treatment infrastructure improvements are provided in tandem with new development and that the scale, type, location and phasing of new development or land based activity can be accommodated without an unacceptable impact on water supply.

Highways Safety

10.26 Policy SP20 (Generic Development Management Issues) advises that “Access to and movement within the site by vehicles, cycles and pedestrians would not have a detrimental impact on road safety, traffic movement or the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. Information will be required in terms of the positioning and treatment of accesses and circulation routes, including how these relate to surrounding footpaths and roads”.

10.27 Paragraph 116 of the NPPF 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 following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios”.

10.28 The application is in outline with access only considered at this stage. The layout plan indicates that principle access will be taken from Rainbow Lane at the junction with a new housing development to the west of the site, with a secondary emergency access further north along Rainbow Lane. Highway officers are currently in discussion with the applicant regarding the suitability of the accesses and have not yet provided a formal reply to their consultation. However, the officer dealing with the matter has advised that highway impacts are likely to be acceptable, subject to details.

10.29 National Highways contacted the Council on 12/09/2025 to advise that an officer would also be making a comment on the application. The comment has not yet been received.

Landscape Impact

10.30 Policy SP12 (Heritage) states that to assist in protecting the District’s historic assets and features, the Council will seek to ensure the sensitive expansion, growth and land use change in and around the Market Towns and villages, safeguarding elements of the historic character and value within their built up areas, including Visually Important Undeveloped Areas.

10.31 Policy SP13 (Landscapes) states that the quality, character and value of Ryedale’s diverse landscapes will be protected and enhanced.

10.32 Policy SP16 (Design) states that new development should respect the context provided by its surroundings including the character and appearance of open space and green spaces including existing Visually Important Undeveloped Areas (VIUAs) or further VIUAs which may be designated in the Local Plan Sites Document or in a Neighbourhood Plan. Development proposals on land designated as a VIUA will only be permitted where the benefits of the development proposed significantly outweigh the loss or damage to the character of the settlement.

10.33 Policy SP20 (Generic Development Management Issues) requires that new development respects the character and context of the immediate locality and the wider landscape character in terms of physical features and the type and variety of existing uses.

10.34 The site is designated as a Visually Important Undeveloped Area. The original area of land was designated in the 2002 Local Plan to ensure that there was a strong sense of separation retained between Old Malton (and Conservation Area) and Malton itself. Latterly, the expansion of the designation and inclusion as a VIUA under policies SP12 and SP16 of the current Local Plan was to preserve both the character of the settlements, particularly Old Malton, and the setting and wider significance of the Grade 1 Listed St. Mary’s Priory Church. The VIUA site continues to provide an important contribution in maintaining the visual break between Malton and Old Malton, which contributes to Old Malton’s identity as a village that is distinctly separate from the neighbouring town.

10.35 A Landscape and Visual Appraisal (“LVA”) accompanies this application along with a Greenspace Masterplan and the Proposed Coloured Site Plan, which provide an indicative site layout. New dwellings will be located within the south-western part of the Site, adjoining the existing settlement of Malton, and will be enclosed within a landscape structure; the north-eastern and south-eastern parts of the site are dedicated to green space, habitats, as well as flood storage and drainage attenuation. The Greenspace Masterplan allocates a generous portion of the site to be dedicated to green space and habitats. A number of trees would be planted along estate roads to soften the impact on the landscape.

10.36 The site is formed from three large, agricultural fields. The site and surrounds are rural in character. The site is bound to the north by Westgate Lane and fields beyond, to the east by agricultural land and the western edge of Old Malton, to the south by residential dwellings of Malton and to the west by Rainbow Lane. The site has a significant slope downwards towards the north.

10.37 The Site is relatively well contained and visually separate from Peasey Hills due to the nature of the surrounding topography and the layers of vegetation which partially screen the built form in the surrounding landscape. As a consequence the built form of Malton, although visible, does not significantly urbanise the rural and agricultural character of the site and its surrounds. The site, which is immediately west of Old Malton provides a green setting to the village and an important visual separation between Old Malton and Malton.

10.38 Because the application site is effectively a hillside development with a significant slope down towards public viewpoints, the proposed housing development would be difficult to screen with landscaping and consequently it will have a strongly urbanising impact on the landscape and VIUA, harmfully altering the character of the rural break between Malton and Old Malton, even after landscaping proposals have matured.

10.39 The proposed development will bring the urban form of Malton down the hillside and towards the bridleway and public footpath that run along Westgate Lane and past the western settlement edge of Old Malton respectively. As a consequence the housing development will appear prominent and in close proximity to Old Malton creating a sense of coalescence between the two settlements. For these reasons it is considered that the proposal does not contribute to the protection and enhancement of the rural landscape of the VIUA designated land nor reinforce the local distinctiveness of Old Malton as a discrete and separate settlement. It is considered that the benefits of the development proposed do not significantly outweigh the loss or damage to the character of the settlement. As such the proposal is contrary to policies SP13, SP16 and SP20.

Heritage and Archaeological Impacts

10.40 Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention is paid in the exercise of planning functions to the desirability of preserving and enhancing the character and appearance of a Conservation Area.

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

10.42 Policy SP12 (Heritage) of the Ryedale Local Plan - Local Plan Strategy states that:

"Distinctive elements of Ryedale's historic environment will be conserved and where appropriate, enhanced."

And -

"Designated historic assets and their settings, including Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Scheduled Monuments and Registered Parks and Gardens will be conserved and where appropriate, enhanced. Proposals which would result in less substantial harm will only be agreed where the public benefit of the proposal is considered to outweigh the harm and the extent of harm to the asset".

10.43 Paragraph 215 of the NPPF (2024) states:

“Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.”

10.44 At present there is a defined rural edge which separates Old Malton from the more urban centre of Malton, and the development site makes a contribution as open agricultural space which provides expansive views of the western edge of the village set within its rural context. This is an important separation and creates a visual buffer to the Conservation Area. The contribution the site makes to the setting of the Grade I listed St Mary’s church is in that it provides views looking towards the tower and enables the height and prominence of the tower to be appreciated.

10.45 Harm will be caused to the conservation area by virtue of the erosion of the green buffer on this boundary of the conservation area. Due to the mitigations of greenspace proposed, the level of harm will be on the low side of less than substantial. Due to indicated development being concentrated in the south/west of the site, it is considered that the views from Westgate Lane across to the tower of St Mary’s are predominantly preserved and that the setting of the church is sustained.

10.46 It is considered that the limited, less than substantial harm identified to the significance of the conservation area is outweighed by the public benefit of adding 200 homes to the housing stock. As such the proposal is considered to be in accordance with policy SP12 and paragraph 215 of the NPPF (2024).

Archaeology.

10.47 The applicant has provided a Phase 1 and Phase 2 Archaeological Evaluation of the site. The field evaluations have identified a core area of archaeological interest comprising the group of stone buildings and associated features. These buildings are of significance as they represent a previously unknown settlement on the outskirts of the Roman town at Malton. The Council’s Archaeologist considers that the developer could introduce adequate safeguards within their Construction Environment Management Plan to physically preserve the significant archaeological features that fall within the proposed meadow. On balance it is considered that a combination of preservation in situ and archaeological recording would be a proportionate response and is similar to the approaches taken with similar sites within the region including the Bedale and Eastfield villas and similar sites elsewhere in the region e.g. at Ingleby Barwick, Stockon-on-Tees. Subject to conditions, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with policy SP12 (Heritage).

Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)

10.48 Planning Permissions in England are deemed to be granted subject to the general Biodiversity Gain Condition as set out by Schedule 7A, paragraph 13 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) as amended by Schedule 14, Part 2, paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the Environment Act 2021. This is a pre-commencement condition. This application is not considered to meet any exemption for BNG and should permission be granted the condition will apply.

10.49 A Biodiversity Net Gain Report and the Standard Biodiversity Net Gain Metric has been submitted with the application. The Council’s Ecologist notes that the BNG uplifts in habit units would be generously compliant with policy. A definitive BNG calculation will need to be submitted at Reserved Matters stage.

River Derwent Special Area of Conservation (SAC)/ Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

10.50 Due to the proximity of the site to the River Derwent SAC and SSSI the applicant was requested to provide an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) and a shadow (draft) Habitat Regulations Assessment (sHRA). The Council’s Ecologist has commented:

[…] The initial screening stage of the sHRA [Shadow’ (draft) Habitat

10.51 As an Appropriate Assessment is required Natural England were re-consulted as the appropriate nature conservation body.

10.52 Natural England has sent the following holding response:

In our previous advice letter dated 27/09/2024 we asked for further details around assessment of BMV agricultural land. Please could you advise if there is any update on this aspect?

On receipt of the information requested, we will aim to provide a full response within 21 days of receipt.

10.53 Provision by the applicant of the requested Agricultural Land Classification and Soil Assessment remains outstanding. For this reason Natural England has not yet replied to their consultation. The Council may agree to the proposal only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site; without a response from Natural England, to date it has not been possible to do so.

Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land

10.54 Policy SP17 (Managing Air Quality, Land and Water Resources) states that proposals for major development coming forward on sites that are not allocated for development which would result in the loss of the Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land will be resisted unless it can be demonstrated that the use proposed cannot be located elsewhere and that the need for the development outweighs the loss of the resource.

10.55 An Agricultural Land Classification and Soil Assessment has not been provided. Without this information it has not been possible to make a fully informed assessment of the proposal with regard to BMV land. Whilst taken in isolation, this is not likely to form a reason for refusal, its omission counts against the application.

Arboricultural Assessment

10.56 An Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been provided with the application. A total of ten individual trees, six groups of trees, and eight hedgerows were surveyed as part of the Arboricultural Assessment. Trees were surveyed as individual trees, groups, and hedgerows as per the survey methodology.

10.57 No Category A Trees are proposed for felling. The Category C Trees / Groups of Low Quality Trees along the southern boundary will be removed as a result of the proposal.

Statement of Community Involvement

10.58 A Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) has been provided with the application. The SCI includes information and analysis of two rounds of public consultation and other stakeholder engagement. Consultation included a two-day drop in event, a freepost feedback form and a media release. The SCI states that responses of those with concerns about the proposal focused on wider issues like the availability of GP appointments and school places. Those in favour of the scheme cited the green space provision and affordable housing provision.

S106 Legal Agreement

10.59 The following Heads of Terms are considered necessary, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and as such comply with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010.

10.60 Heads of Terms have not yet been agreed.

Table 1
Category/Type	Contribution	Amount & Trigger
Affordable Housing	35% of the final number of dwellings	To be agreed.
Public Open Space and Green Space - Delivery and Maintenance	On site public open space and green space – delivery and management	Delivery to be agreed in Open Space Green Space Scheme.
Biodiversity Net Gain	Compliance, funding, monitoring and enforcement	£X index linked, monitoring fee
Travel Plan monitoring	Travel Plan monitoring	£5000 index linked, monitoring fee prior to the first occupation of development
Bus Service enhancement contribution	To be determined	Prior to first occupation of the development
S106 Monitoring	S106 Monitoring	£500 index linked, prior to commencement of development

11.0 Planning balance and conclusion

11.1 The Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply for the Ryedale Local Plan Area and therefore Paragraph 11d of the National Planning Policy Framework is engaged. As paragraph 11d is engaged, a balanced decision must be made weighing the adverse impacts of the development against the benefits, taking into account sustainability, effective use of land, securing well designed places and providing affordable homes.

11.2. The site is large enough to accommodate the proposed scale of development as well as the ancillary open space and drainage areas etc. The proposal also includes the required level of affordable housing. In this context it is considered, under provisions of Paragraph 11d of the NPPF, that the principle of development of the site for housing should be supported.

11.3 The main adverse impact resulting from the development arises from the harm caused by the resulting significant coalescence between the settlements of Old Malton and Malton and to the character of the VIUA.

11.4 On balance, it is considered that the harm caused by the significant coalescence between the settlements of Old Malton and Malton and by the loss of the VIUA, outweighs the benefit of adding 200 dwellings to the housing sock and the application should be refused.

11.5. It should be noted that whilst conditions are referred to in the main text, conditions are a matter for review and negotiation through the appeal process.

12.0 Recommendation

12.1. That members refuse the proposal and direct Officers to represent this position at the non-determination appeal.

Target determination date: 14/02/2025

Case Officer: kevin.riley@northyorks.gov.uk