North Yorkshire Council
Community Development Services
Selby and Ainsty Area Planning Committee
20 November 2025
ZG2023/1293/FULM – Proposed erection of 15no. units for uses within Class E(g)(iii), B2, B8 and F2 with ancillary offices, erection of up to 5no. units within Class E and F1 with ancillary outdoor amenity space, open storage plot, an EV charging station, parking provision, a new access road from Weeland Road, internal access roads, associated infrastructure and landscaping
Report of the Head of Development Management – Community Development Services
|
1.0 Purpose of the Report 1.1 To determine a full planning application for the proposed erection of 15no. units for uses within Class E(g)(iii), B2, B8 and F2 with ancillary offices, erection of up to 5no. units within Class E and F1 with ancillary outdoor amenity space, open storage plot, an EV charging station, parking provision, a new access road from Weeland Road, internal access roads, associated infrastructure and landscaping at the former Kellingley Colliery, Turvers Lane, Kellingley. 1.2 This application has been reported to Committee as the Corporate Director of Community Development considers the planning application to raise significant planning issues. |
2.0 SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be REFUSED for the reasons set out at Section 12 of this report.
2.1. This is an application for full planning permission for the proposed erection of 15no. units for uses within Class E(g)(iii), B2, B8 and F2 with ancillary offices, erection of up to 5no. units within Class E and F1 with ancillary outdoor amenity space, open storage plot, an EV charging station, parking provision, a new access road from Weeland Road, internal access roads, associated infrastructure and landscaping at the former Kellingley Colliery, Turvers Lane, Kellingley.
2.2. The site benefits from an extant outline planning permission (reference 2020/0155/S73), and notwithstanding the outcome of this application, further reserved matters applications for the remainder of the site (the land subject of this current application) can be made up until 6 February 2034, within the parameters of the outline planning permission.
2.3. The site is not an allocated site, and the proposal is for large scale development that will have an impact on the surrounding environment. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be a departure from the adopted Development Plan.
2.4. The proposal is for the redevelopment of a former major employment site for employment uses. The proposed uses would help to generate employment opportunities and would in part contribute towards and improve the local economy and maintain and enhance the vitality of rural communities in this countryside location, in accordance with Policy SP13. However, it is noted that the employees and customer base of the units within the employment park would be wider ranging than the local economy in this countryside location. Notwithstanding this, the principle of employment use in this location has been long established and there is an extant consent for employment use at the site (reference 2020/0155/S73).
2.5. While the employment use of the site may be established and may be acceptable in this location, the scale of that use, and any increase in the scale of that use over and above what has already been consented, needs to be given full and careful consideration. Scale in this context means the level or amount of development proposed. The extant outline planning permission currently provides for an appropriate scale development, which respects the character and amenity of the area and represents sustainable economic growth. The current proposals are not considered to provide an appropriate scale of development and are considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site, to the detriment of the character and amenity of the area and are not considered to represent sustainable economic growth, contrary to Policy SP13 C and D of the Core Strategy and ultimately contrary to Policies SP1 and SP2A (c) of the Core Strategy.
2.6. The application proposes B2 uses in close proximity to the northern boundary, adjacent to residential properties fronting Glebelands. These could be in 24-hour use. Furthermore, the application purposes a HUB area containing E and F1 uses in close proximity to the northern boundary, adjacent to residential properties fronting Glebelands. These could be in use 07:00-21:00 Monday to Sunday. It is considered that insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed uses adjacent to the northern boundary would have an acceptable impact in relation to operational noise and disturbance contrary to saved Policies ENV1 and ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraphs 135, 187 and 198.
2.7. In addition, there are discrepancies between the submitted plans regarding the ground levels and finished floor levels of Unit 5 and the level and design of the bund adjacent to the northern boundary, which introduce a level of uncertainty regarding what is being proposed at the site, contrary to paragraph 140 of the NPPF. It is therefore considered that insufficient information has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority to assess the potential for overshadowing, oppression and an overbearing impact to the neighbouring residential properties fronting Glebelands arising from Unit 5, contrary to saved Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraphs 135 and 140.
2.8. There are concerns with the proposed layout of the scheme and its impact on the character of the area, particularly in relation to Unit 5, the HUB and the permanent loss of the existing safeguarded rail infrastructure, which are indicative of an overdevelopment of the site. Notwithstanding the above, no concerns are raised with the appearance, scale, landscaping and landscape and visual impact of the proposed development including its impact on the Green Belt. Scale in this context refers to the height, length and width of individual buildings. Having regard to the above, there are some identified conflicts with saved Policy ENV1 and Policies SP18 and SP19 of the Core Strategy, and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraph 135.
2.9. The development would not result in a severe impact on the highway network with the traffic volumes proposed. However, this full planning application does not specify specifically which units are in which uses and conditions to restrict the use of the site to a percentage split of use classes, as forms the basis of the Transport Assessment, would not be precise or enforceable contrary to paragraph 57 of the NPPF. This could result in much greater traffic volumes than proposed. In the absence of such a condition, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not result in a severe impact on the highway network contrary to saved Policies ENV1, T1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraph 116.
2.10. There will be an impact on highway safety for users of the site .The safety of vulnerable highway users - pedestrians, cyclists, those with reduced mobility - will be impacted should they try to utilise active travel to access the site. Inadequate mitigation measures are proposed, which could otherwise address this highway safety issues contrary to saved Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan and Policies SP15 and SP19 of the Core Strategy, which together seek to direct development to sustainable locations with good quality means of access, making provision and facilitating active travel which minimise conflicts. There would also be conflict with the NPPF, including paragraphs 89 and 115-118, which seek to ensure that significant development is focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes.
2.11. In light of the very limited likelihood of modal shift within the application, it can be expected that future users of the site will travel mainly by motorised private vehicles, and so no reductions in North Yorkshire Council parking standards would be possible. As this full planning application does not specify specifically which units are in which uses, worst case parking would need to be provided. Insufficient parking is provided at present contrary to saved Policies ENV1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraphs 109 and 115.
2.12. The proposal is acceptable in accordance with Policies S02 and S04 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan, in so far as it is not economically viable to extract the mineral resource and would safeguard the adjacent waste site. However, the proposal would result in the permanent loss of existing transport infrastructure safeguarded under Policy S05 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan and it is not considered that it has been robustly demonstrated that adequate mitigation in the form of alternative transport infrastructure could be provided. This is at a time when alternative transport options are likely to become crucial in the light of the impacts of climate change.
2.13. The proposals are considered to be acceptable in terms of flood risk and drainage, land contamination, air quality, outdoor lighting and construction noise and disturbance, subject to appropriate conditions.
2.14. The proposed development would not have any adverse impact on ecological considerations and would provide substantial net gains for biodiversity. This is not an application where statutory net gain is required, therefore this is a benefit arising from the development.
2.15. The Applicant contends that the deliverability of the site for future development will be impacted should planning permission not be granted for this amended scheme. They assert that there are several key constraints and difficulties on the site which prevent a viable development, including the mine shafts, which need to be capped and filled, as well as significant changes in site levels, and contaminated land; all of which they state can only be delivered and remediated subject to planning permission being granted. They advise that the scheme is not viable due to these constraints which require significant upfront investment in order to deliver any floorspace on the remainder of this site and that the first step in the delivery of this employment site would be planning permission being granted for this amended scheme.
2.16. However, the site constraints remain unchanged from when the extant outline consent was granted and have been ‘known knowns’ for a substantial amount of time. The current proposals are not considered to represent sustainable economic growth, but rather an overdevelopment of the site. The proposed development is not considered to be appropriate in scale and type to its location; would result in harm to the character of the area, would not ensure a good standard of amenity, and would not encourage active travel with the potential for highway safety impacts contrary to Policies SP1 and SP2A (c), SP13 C and D, SP15, SP18 and SP19 of the Core Strategy, saved Policies ENV1, ENV2, T1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan, Policy S05 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraphs 89, 109, 115-118, 135, 140, 187 and 189. It is not considered that there are material considerations which would outweigh the conflicts with the adopted Development Plan in this instance.
3.0 Preliminary Matters
3.1 Access to the case file on Public Access can be found here:- Documents for reference ZG2023/1293/FULM: Public Access.
3.2 It should be noted that the application site comprises part of the former Kellingley Colliery site, which benefits from an extant outline planning permission for the construction of an employment park comprising up to 1.45 million sqft. (135,500sqm) gross floor space (GIA) comprising of B2, B8 and ancillary B1 uses, with ancillary non-residential institution (D1) and retail uses (A1- A5) and related ancillary infrastructure (reference 2020/0155/S73).
3.3 Two reserved matters applications have subsequently been granted pursuant to the aforementioned outline planning permission. The Coalfield Regeneration Trust brought forward the first phase of development comprising the construction of three B1, B2 and B8 units on plots 15, 16 and 17 (in the area to the north east of the internal roundabout) through reserved matters application reference 2020/0123/REMM. HPREF Konect Investments S.a.r.l are currently bringing forward the second phase of development comprising the construction of four B2, B8 and ancillary B1 units on plots 09, 10, 11 and 12 (in the area to the east of the north-south spine road, south of the internal roundabout) through reserved matters application reference 2023/0210/S73. These two reserved matters applications equate to approximately 106,267sqm of consented floorspace.
3.4 The outline planning permission remains extant and further reserved matters applications for the remainder of the site (the land subject of this current application) can be made up until 6 February 2034. A further 29,233sqm of floorspace could be constructed on the remainder of the site under the extant consent, within the parameters secured under that consent.
3.5 However, HPREF Konect Investments S.a.r.l have submitted this full application for the re-development of the remainder of the site, rather than one or a series of reserved matters applications pursuant to the extant outline planning permission. It is understood that this is due to a number of factors, including:
· a desire to increase the maximum floorspace at the site, over and above what the outline planning permission would allow;
· a request to utilise the approved (but not yet implemented) Southmoor Energy Centre entrance from Weeland Road to access some of the proposed units within the site, which the outline planning permission would not allow; and
· a wish to alter the use class provision across the site from that granted at the outline planning permission stage.
3.6 Planning permission was granted for the construction of an energy centre to recover energy from waste with ancillary development on the adjacent site known as ‘Southmoor Energy Centre’ under planning permission reference NY/2013/0128/ENV and NY/2019/0005/73. The development was to be begun before 23rd February 2020. The Local Planning Authority have no evidence that this development has begun and therefore unless otherwise demonstrated, it is considered this consent has lapsed. However, it should be noted that the land subject of that consent is safeguard for a waste management facility under Policy S04 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan; while adjacent land is safeguarded for transport infrastructure for use in relation to the safeguarded waste management facility site under Policy S05 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan.
3.7 The diagram below shows the various parts of the former Kellingley Colliery site, as mentioned above, which can be identified as follows:
· Red edge – extent of the outline planning permission (application reference 2020/0155/S73).
· Blue edge - Coalfield Regeneration Trust site (application reference 2020/0123/REMM)
· Green edge - HPREF Konect Investments S.a.r.l site (application reference 2023/0210/S73)
· Yellow edge – current application site.
· Purple star - site known as ‘Southmoor Energy Centre’.
4.0 Site and Surroundings
4.1 The application site, which has an irregular shape, covers an area of approximately 23 hectares. For many years it formed part of the former Kellingley Colliery, the last deep coal mine in Britain, which officially closed on the 18th December 2015. As such, the application site comprises brownfield land.
4.2 The application site is located outside the defined development limits of any settlements and is located within the open countryside in planning policy terms. Land surrounding the application site is located within the West Yorkshire Green Belt and land to the immediate south of the application site forms part of a Strategic Leisure Corridor along the Aire Calder Navigation within Wakefield District’s administrative boundary.
4.3 An area of land within the application site is safeguarded for transport infrastructure for use in relation to the safeguarded waste management facility site under Policy S05 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan.
4.4 The application site is located within Flood Zone 1, which has a low probability of flooding. Small pockets of the site have a low, medium and high chance of surface water flooding.
4.5 To the northern boundary of the site is Weeland Road and a number of residential properties which front Weeland Road (or the Glebelands) to the south side. To the east of the application site are the first two phases of development, beyond which is a recreation ground, properties fronting The Oval, and Sudforth Lane. To the south of the application site is the site known as ‘Southmoor Energy Centre’ (which was granted planning permission for an energy from waste centre under planning permission reference NY/2013/0128/ENV and NY/2019/0005/73; and is safeguarded for a waste management facility under Policy S04 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan), and the canal. To the west of the application site are existing employment uses, including Caddick Construction, beyond which are some open fields separating the site from Knottingley (which is within 1km of the western site boundary).
5.0 Description of Proposal
5.1. This application seeks full planning permission for the proposed erection of 15no. units for uses within Class E(g)(iii), B2, B8 and F2 with ancillary offices, erection of up to 5no. units within Class E and F1 with ancillary outdoor amenity space, open storage plot, an EV charging station, parking provision, a new access road from Weeland Road, internal access roads, associated infrastructure and landscaping at the former Kellingley Colliery, Turvers Lane, Kellingley.
5.2. The proposed layout of the site is as shown on the proposed masterplan (drawing no. 21169-C4P-80-S01ZZ-D-A-8001 Rev P06). Fourteen of the units would be served from the existing main access from Weeland Road, while one unit is proposed to be served from a new access from Weeland Road (previously granted planning permission to serve the Southmoor Energy Centre development, though not yet implemented). From the main access from Weeland Road, there would be two spine roads leading from the internal roundabout. Three of the proposed units (along with the units from Phase 2) would be accessed from the easterly spine road. Twelve of the proposed units would be accessed from the westerly spine road, which would also provide access to any future rail freight area.
5.3. The proposed fifteen units would have a combined floorspace of approximately 64,470,54sqm, which would be an uplift of approximately 35,507sqm (26%) over what the outline planning permission would allow to be accommodated at the site. The proposed fifteen units would incorporate use classes E (Commercial, Business and Service), F2 (Local Community), B2 (General Industrial) and B8 (Storage and Distribution), as detailed in the following paragraphs and as summarised in the table at paragraph 5.15.
5.4. Unit 5 would be split into 7 smaller units (A-G) and would comprise a total Gross Internal Area (GIA) of 5,985,66sqm. The units are proposed to comprise use classes E, F2 and B2. The building would be sited 20 metres from common boundary with the neighbouring properties fronting Glebelands and would measure approximately 30 metres in depth by 185 metres in width, with a haunch height of 8 metres above the finished floor level, pitched roof with eaves height of 9.5 metres above the finished floor level, and ridge height of 11 metres above the finished floor level. The finished floor level would be 13.650 AOD giving a maximum height of 24.65 AOD.
5.5. Unit 6 would be sited to the south of the internal roundabout of the main Weeland Road access would have a total GIA of 7,262,59sqm. The unit would have a vehicular access from the easterly spine road and is proposed to comprise use classes B2 and/or B8. The building would measure approximately 74 metres in depth, by 118 metres in width, with a haunch height of 12.5 metres above the finished floor level, pitched roof with eaves height of 14.5 metres above the finished floor level, and ridge height of 16 metres above the finished floor level. The finished floor level would be 15.350 AOD giving a maximum height of 31.35 AOD.
5.6. Unit 7 would be located to the south of units 6 and 11 have a total GIA of 19,528,53sqm. The unit would have a vehicular access from the easterly spine road and is proposed to comprise use classes B2 and/or B8. The building would measure approximately 95 metres in depth, by 202 metres in width, with a haunch height of 15 metres above the finished floor level, pitched roof with eaves height of 17 metres above the finished floor level, and ridge height of 19 metres above the finished floor level. The finished floor level would be 13.500 AOD giving a maximum height of 32.50 AOD.
5.7. Unit 8 would be located to the north of the Southmoor Energy Centre site and would have a total GIA of 8,737,62sqm. The unit would have a vehicular access from the westerly spine road and is proposed to comprise use classes B2 and/or B8. The building would measure approximately 82 metres in depth, by 128 metres in width, haunch height of 12.5 metres above the finished floor level, pitched roof with eaves height of 14.5 metres above the finished floor level, and ridge height of 16 metres above the finished floor level. The finished floor level would be 13.669 AOD giving a maximum height of 29.669 AOD.
5.8. Unit 9 would be located to the south of the site adjacent to the Southmoor Energy Centre site, the canal, and the railway line and would have a total GIA of 8,175,43 sqm. The unit would have a vehicular access from the westerly spine road and is proposed to comprise use classes B2 and/or B8. The building would measure approximately 64 metres in depth, by 122 metres in width, with a haunch height of 12.5 metres above the finished floor level, pitched roof with eaves height of 14.5 metres above the finished floor level, and ridge height of 16 metres above the finished floor level. The finished floor level would be 11.880 AOD giving a maximum height of 27.88 AOD.
5.9. Unit 10 would be located to the west of the site and would be the only unit to be accessed from a new vehicular access from Weeland Road (previously granted planning permission to serve the Southmoor Energy Centre development, but not yet implemented). Unit 10 would have a total GIA of 6,131,58sqm and is proposed to comprise use classes B2 and/or B8. The building would measure approximately 61 metres in depth, by 96 metres in width, with a haunch height of 12.5 metres above the finished floor level, pitched roof with eaves height of 14.5 metres above the finished floor level, and ridge height of 16 metres above the finished floor level. The finished floor level would be 12.494 AOD giving a maximum height of 28.494 AOD.
5.10. Unit 11 would be located to the south of unit 6 would have a total GIA of 5,992,24sqm. The unit would have a vehicular access from the easterly spine road from the main access from Weeland Road and is proposed to comprise use classes B2 and/or B8. The building would measure approximately 54 metres in depth, by 109 metres in width, with a haunch height of 12.5 metres above the finished floor level, pitched roof with eaves height of 14.5 metres above the finished floor level, and ridge height of 16 metres above the finished floor level. The finished floor level would be 14.750 AOD giving a maximum height of 30.75 AOD.
5.11. Unit 12 would be located to the south of unit 5, sitting perpendicular to it, and would be split into two smaller units (A and B) comprise a total GIA of 2,292,88sqm. The units would have a vehicular access from the westerly spine road and are proposed to comprise use classes B2 and/or B8. The building would measure approximately 34 metres in depth, by 62 metres in width, with a haunch height of 8 metres above the finished floor level, pitched roof with eaves height of 9.5 metres above the finished floor level, and ridge height of 11.3 metres above the finished floor level. The finished floor level would be 15.490 AOD giving a maximum height of 26.79 AOD.
5.12. The ‘HUB’ would be located to the west of the existing main access from Weeland Road and would comprise up to 5no. units within use classes E and/or F1 with ancillary outdoor amenity space. The five units would be formed from shipping containers (single stacked) and would be intended to serve both the employees of the industrial units and the wider community. An EV charging station would be located to the west with the vehicular access from the westerly spine road.
5.13. The open storage plot would be located to the west of Unit 10 and would be accessed from a new vehicular access from Weeland Road (previously granted planning permission to serve the Southmoor Energy Centre development, but not yet implemented). No details have been provided regarding what could be stored within this plot – an unrestricted consent is sought.
5.14. A landscaping scheme incorporating attenuation ponds would be provided as shown on the proposed masterplan (drawing no. 2288-EXA-00-00-DR-L-00100 Revision P18) and detailed planting plans. Landscaping would be provided adjacent to the spine roads and informal footpaths throughout the site; there would be a bund provided to the north of unit 5, and there would be a landscape and ecological area to the west of the open storage plot. Two access points for pedestrians and cyclists would be provided to the canal at either side of the site known as ‘Southmoor Energy Centre’ and an informal footpath and cycle route would be provided through the application site to connect the two. It is also noted that the submitted plans show the provision of some proposed landscaping outside of the application site boundary, to the east of unit 9.
5.15. The table below summarises the size and use class of each of the proposed fifteen units, including details of the HUB area and the open storage plot.
5.16. No operational hours have been specified for the proposed fifteen units. Assessments submitted as part of the application (i.e. the Noise Impact Assessment) have been undertaken on a ‘worst case’ basis of daytime and nighttime operation – essentially 24-hour operation. Operational hours for the HUB have been provided – those being 07:00 to 21:00 Monday to Sunday. No operational hours have been specified for the open storage plot, therefore an unrestricted 24-hour operation is assumed.
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 the Development Plan so far as material to the application unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Adopted Development Plan
6.2. The Adopted Development Plan for this site is:
- Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan, adopted 22 October 2013
- Those policies in the Selby District Local Plan, adopted on 8 February 2005, which were saved by the direction of the Secretary of State and which have not been superseded by the Core Strategy
- Minerals and Waste Joint Plan, adopted 16 February 2022
Emerging Development Plan – Material Consideration
6.3. The Emerging Development Plan for this site was the Selby Local Plan revised publication 2024 (Reg 19). Following reports to committees and finally to North Yorkshire Council’s Full Council on 26 February, work on the ELP has ceased.
6.4. Having regard to the above, there is no emerging local plan to consider, but some weight may be given to the evidence base.
6.5. The North Yorkshire Local Plan is the emerging development plan for this site however no weight can be applied in respect of this document at the current time as it is at an early stage of preparation. As the emerging Local Plan progresses through the various stages, it can attract increasing weight in decision making. At the point of adoption, it is a statutory document to which Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 can apply.
Guidance - Material Considerations
6.6. Relevant guidance for this application is:
- National Planning Policy Framework, December 2024 (as updated February 2025)
- National Planning Practice Guidance
7.0 Consultation Responses
7.1. The following consultation responses have been received and have been summarised below, but full details can be found here:- Documents for reference ZG2023/1293/FULM: Public Access.
7.2. Parish Council (Beal): Object to the application for a number of reasons as follows:
· No construction working hours are provided, which has the potential to impact on residential amenity.
· The maximum height of 29 AOD should not be exceeded in order to protect residential amenity.
· No height to ridge or finished floor levels shown on plans. Request this information alongside existing levels so height of buildings can be fully understood.
· Highway safety concerns regarding new vehicular access onto Weeland Road, which is on a bend.
· Concern regarding bund to rear of Unit 5. Request for existing conifers not to be removed as they act as a buffer between the residents fronting Glebelands and the application site, but also contain wildlife.
· Concern regarding Noise Impact Assessment.
· Request for application to go to planning committee.
7.3. Active Travel England: Not currently in a position to support this application and request further assessment, evidence, revisions and/or dialogue. The application needs to do more to more thoroughly support active travel and meet the requirements of the NPPF paragraphs 109 and 117 in particular, including the following:
· A bolstered Transport Assessment that sets out a vision led approach placing pedestrians and cyclists as first considerations, supported and underpinned by active travel route audit work;
· A full contribution towards lighting the Weeland road, along with wider active travel measures as identified by the bolstered Transport Assessment work above; and
· An enhanced travel plan with vision led ambition for active travel and percentage mode shift targets to better reflect national targets for active travel and respond to low levels of private vehicle ownership in the area.
Note: The development proposes a 27% uplift in employment space from the previously consented scheme, permission for which was granted before Active Travel England’s statutory role in the planning system.
7.4. Archaeologist: No objections.
7.5. Atkins Limited Windfarm: No objections.
7.6. Burn Gliding Club: No response.
7.7. Campaign for the Protection of Rural England: Do not object to the proposal and support the development of allocated land, particularly such a significant brownfield site. Initially raised concerns regarding the potential over-intensification of the site and subsequent loss of residential amenity and highway concerns. Therefore, support the reduction in floorspace; proposed improvements to junction capacity and access; reduced car parking; enhanced pedestrian and cycle routes; and increased on-site landscaping shown on the revised plans submitted during the course of the application.
7.8. Canal and Rivers Trust: Request a Construction Environmental Management Plan to reduce risk of contamination towards the canal and signage to assist wayfinding through the site for canal towpath users (who may need to divert past the former wharfe area of the towpath. This could be secured by way of condition. Uplift in Aire and Calder Contribution needs to be secured by s106.
Request an informative is attached to any planning permission granted highlighting that works in proximity to the waterway may need to accord with the Trust’s ‘Code of Practice for Works affecting the Canal & River Trust’.
7.9. Coal Authority: No objections to the proposed layout, which shows the areas of the mine entries and their zones of influence soft landscaped only, with built development and hard surfaced areas excluded in the main apart from a footpath to the rear of Unit 11, adjacent to its service area.
The Coal Mining Risk Assessment acknowledges the presence of the two mine entries, which are recoded to have been treated and capped. They are to be backfilled in accordance with their designed backfill specification and verified.
Ground gas protection to be incorporated into the buildings. If mine shaft backfill is successfully undertaken this should eliminate the potential for the mine shafts to act as a preferential pathway for mine gas and eliminate the requirement for venting or management of mine gas from the shafts via previous arrangements. Residual risks to be agreed with the Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO).
No objection, subject to a condition relating to the above remedial measures and verification.
7.10. Contaminated Land Officer: No objections subject to conditions relating to verification of remedial measures and report of unexpected contamination.
7.11. Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: No response.
7.12. Designing Out Crime Officer: Raise a number of points as follows:
· Lack of natural surveillance to the pedestrian and cycle route to the north of Units 8 and 10, which may reduce users’ sense of safety and security.
· Knee rails should be tapered down to ground level where the rail meets paladin security fencing.
· No details of lighting for the HUB area.
· Bollards should be introduced adjacent to areas of curtain walling.
7.13. Ecologist: No objections, subject to conditions relating to Construction Environment Management Plan, Construction Ecological Management Plan, Habitat Maintenance and Management Plan and External Lighting.
Application submitted prior to statutory Biodiversity Net Gain.
7.14. Economic Development: Support the proposed development. Provides job creation during the construction and operation phases, which we would hope would be available to local residents (including training and mentoring opportunities) – recommend a condition for local training and employment provision. Lack of suitable sites and premises within the former Selby District area and welcome the provision of small and medium sized units to address local demand – recommend a condition restricting amalgamation of smaller units to secure them for smaller occupiers for the lifetime of the development.
7.15. Environment Agency: No comments or objections.
7.16. Environmental Health: No objections subject to conditions relating to: a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP); Working Hours; Pilling and Ground Compaction Works; a Noise Management Plan; a Complaint Triggered Assessment; Building Envelope Specifications; Zone 4 Cumulative Noise Impact Assessment; Bund Conformity and Delivery and a Noise Impact Assessment for the HUB.
7.17. Landscape Architect: No objections, subject to conditions relating to a detailed landscaping scheme; details of boundary treatments; long term maintenance and management plan; outer structure planting to be implemented as advanced works in the first available planting season; public access and waymarking for the footpaths and cycleways through the site; temporary footpaths and cycleways during construction; aboricultural method statement and tree protection; detailed external lighting scheme; details of activity zone equipment; details of retaining walls and structures; and details of Southmoor Energy Centre bund area; and uplift in Aire and Calder Contribution to be secured by s106 (consideration should be given to trigger points for release of funds to allow coordinated spend with previous contribution).
7.18. Leeds Bradford International Airport: No response.
7.19. Local Highway Authority: Object to the application for the following reasons:
· the effect of the proposal on the surrounding area and future users;
· the effect of the proposal on highway safety with regards to access for all users; and
· the proposal does not allow sustainable access to the site, and prevents future sustainable freight movements, leading to increasing pressure on the highway network.
7.20. Local Internal Drainage Board: No objections, subject to conditions relating to maintenance of surface water drainage infrastructure.
7.21. Lead Local Flood Authority: Request further information, including a maintenance plan, exceedance flow route plan and agreement with the IDB to discharge to Beal Drain. Officer Note: Further information has since been submitted, but the Lead Local Flood Authority have not commented further.
7.22. Minerals and Waste: No objections.
7.23. National Gas: No comments.
7.24. National Grid: No objections.
7.25. National Highways: No objections in principle, subject to conditions relating to the provision of a Construction Traffic Management Plan and requiring the floor space to be in use classes set out in the Transport Statement.
7.26. Natural England: No response.
7.27. Network Rail: Seek a contribution towards station facility improvements at Whitley Bridge and Knottingley stations, to be secured through s106, and require construction methodology to be agreed so no impact on operational rail network, to be secured by condition.
7.28. North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue: No objections.
7.29. Public Rights of Way Officer: No response.
7.30. Robin Hood Airport, Doncaster Sheffield: No response.
7.31. Sherburn Aero Club: No response.
7.32. Tree Consultant: No objections, subject to conditions requiring an aboricultural impact and method statements and root protection measures.
7.33. Wakefield Council: No response.
7.34. Yorkshire Water: No objections. At present the existing foul drainage infrastructure does not have adequate capacity to accommodate the anticipated foul water flow from the development, therefore Yorkshire Water will need to carry out an investigation for upgrade works to the local drainage network.
7.35. Yorkshire Wildlife Trust: Concur with the comments of the Council’s Ecologist. Note there are some outstanding matters in relation to ecological considerations.
Local Representations
7.36. There have been nineteen letters of representation received as a result of the publicity of the application. The nature of the representation and reasons have been summarised below, but full details can be found here:- Documents for reference ZG2023/1293/FULM: Public Access.
7.37. There have been eighteen letters of representation objecting to the proposals for the following reasons:
· The construction of Phase 1 resulted in noise, vibration, dust and working beyond permitted hours to the detriment of residential amenity. Concern that this will happen with Phase 2.
· Phase 1 has restricted views and sunlight from properties; resulted in light pollution; the green area has flooded as a result of the drainage system; the children’s play area near The Oval is no longer safe as it is accessible to the workers from the units; and the pond within the industrial estate is accessible from the park posing a safety concern.
· Additional traffic generation and insufficient road infrastructure.
· The area is becoming industrial over residential.
· Proximity to residential properties – potential for noise, disruption and light pollution.
· Impact on house values.
· Concerns of local residents are being largely ignored.
· No details of ground levels and how high the buildings would be.
· The existing units are not yet rented out, therefore why is there a need to build more. There are alternative sites that could be used, such as the former Eggborough Power Station site.
· Negative impact of advertisement signs.
· Impact of the development on the local community and environment.
· Impact of the development on wildlife and ecological features.
· Cumulative impact of a number of developments, including this and the Battery Storage development to the opposite side of the road to Glebelands.
· Do not want the conifer hedge to the rear of the properties fronting Glebelands to be removed.
7.38. There has been one letter of representation neither objecting to nor supporting the proposals, but raising concerns as follows:
· The construction of Phase 1 resulted in noise, vibration, dust and working beyond permitted hours to the detriment of residential amenity. Measure should be put in place to prevent this in Phase 2.
· Submitted plans do not accurately show existing trees at Turvers Lane and the proposals would have a negative impact on visual amenity in the Turvers Lane area unless trees are planted and have time to mature before construction is completed.
· Negative impact of light pollution.
8.0 Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
8.1. The development proposed falls within Column 1, 10(a) of Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017 (as amended) and the proposals exceed the applicable threshold of this type of development as set out in Column 2, with the area of development exceeding 0.5 hectares.
8.2. The Local Planning Authority has taken account of the criteria set out in Schedule 3 of the Regulations, has considered the indicative screening thresholds in National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) and applied the screening checklist also contained in NPPG.
8.3. Having considered the characteristics and location of the development, the Local Planning Authority consider the proposed development is not likely to have significant effects on the environment. No Environment Statement is therefore required. The screening matrix forms the Council’s screening decision and is available to view on the Public Register.
9.0 Main Issues
9.1. The key considerations in the assessment of this application are:
· Principle of Development
· Land Uses
· Layout, Appearance, Scale and Landscaping
· Ecological Considerations, including Biodiversity Net Gain
· Transport Impacts and Active Travel
· Minerals and Waste
· Residential Amenity
· Land Contamination
· Flood Risk and Drainage
· Developer Contributions
· Other Matters
10.0 ASSESSMENT
Principle of Development
10.1 Policy SP1 of the Core Strategy outlines that “when considering development proposals the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework” and sets out how this will be undertaken. Policy SP1 is therefore consistent with the guidance in Paragraph 11 of the NPPF.
10.2 The application site comprises brownfield land located outside the defined development limits of any settlements and is therefore located within the open countryside in planning policy terms. Land surrounding the application site is located within the West Yorkshire Green Belt.
10.3 Policy SP2A(c) of the Core Strategy states “Development in the countryside (outside Development Limits) will be limited to the replacement or extension of existing buildings, the re-use of buildings preferably for employment purposes, and well-designed new buildings of an appropriate scale, which would contribute towards and improve the local economy and where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, in accordance with Policy SP13”(my emphasis).
10.4 Policy SP13 C of the Core Strategy states “In rural areas, sustainable development (on both Greenfield and Previously Developed Sites) which brings sustainable economic growth through local employment opportunities or expansion of businesses and enterprise will be supported, including for example:
1. The re-use of existing buildings and infrastructure and the development of well-designed new buildings;
2. the redevelopment of existing and former employment sites and commercial premises” (my emphasis).
10.5 Policy SP13 D of the Core Strategy states “In all cases, development should be sustainable and appropriate in scale and type to its location, not harm the character of the area, and seek a good standard of amenity”(my emphasis).
10.6 At the time of the adoption of the Core Strategy (2013), Kellingley Colliery was still in active use as an employment site and therefore the site is not an allocated site within the Core Strategy.
10.7 The proposal is considered to be a departure from the adopted Development Plan, insofar as the site, although in employment use for over 50 years, is not an allocated site and the proposal is for large scale development that will have an impact on the surrounding environment.
10.9 The proposal is for the redevelopment of a former major employment site for employment uses. The proposed uses would help to generate employment opportunities and would in part contribute towards and improve the local economy and maintain and enhance the vitality of rural communities in this countryside location, in accordance with Policy SP13. However, it is noted that the employees and customer base of the units within the employment park would be wider ranging than the local economy in this countryside location.
10.10 The principle of employment use in this location has been long established. Furthermore, there is an extant consent for employment use at the site (reference 2020/0155/S73) and the site was proposed to be allocated for employment use in the now ceased emerging Selby Local Plan, on the basis of it having an extant planning permission and to safeguard the existing and potential jobs to be created through that permission. It is also noted that the Council’s Economic Development Team offer support for the proposed development on the basis that it will provide job opportunities during the construction and operation phases, which would be available to local residents (including training and mentoring opportunities).
10.11 However, while the employment use of the site may be established and may be acceptable in this location; the scale of the proposed use, and any increase in the scale of the employment use over and above what has already been consented, needs to be given full and careful consideration.
10.12 Policy SP13 C and D of the Core Strategy are supportive of sustainable economic growth which is appropriate in scale and type to its location, does not harm the character of the area and ensures a good standard of amenity.
10.13 A number of key principles were established under the extant outline consent to ensure compliance with Policy SP13 C and D of the Core Strategy, including, but not limited to the following:
· The proposed development was to retain and enhance existing infrastructure enabling it to be tri-modal, meaning it would be accessible by road, rail and water.
· The proposed development provided walking and cycling connections to the Strategic Leisure Corridor along the Aire Calder Navigation.
· The proposed development provided contributions to improve the Aire and Calder Navigation canal towpath, and to improve public transport connections to the site.
· The proposed development secured a Structural Landscape Strategy and Management Plan, in addition to development plot landscaping schemes.
· The proposed development secured an appropriate mix of land uses across the site area, ensuring uses which can be carried out in a residential area without detriment to its amenity were reserved for the area adjacent to Glebelands; and ensuring the inclusion of adequate community uses for the benefit of both the existing community and future employees.
10.14 The current proposals do not respect all of these key principles and are not considered to represent sustainable economic growth. The proposed development is not considered to be appropriate in scale and type to its location; would result in harm the character of the area and would not ensure a good standard of amenity, contrary to Policy SP13 C and D of the Core Strategy and ultimately contrary to Policies SP1 and SP2A (c) of the Core Strategy. The reasons for this are discussed in more detail in the following sections of this report.
10.15 In summary, while the employment use of the site may be established and may be acceptable in this location, the scale of that use, and any increase in the scale of that use over and above what has already been consented, needs to be given full and careful consideration. The extant outline planning permission currently provides for an appropriate scale development and further reserved matters applications for the remainder of the site (the land subject of this current application) can be made up until 6 February 2034. The current proposals are not considered to provide an appropriate scale of development and are considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site, to the detriment of the character of the area and amenity, and are not considered to represent sustainable economic growth.
Land Uses
10.16 The proposed development would include the following uses:
|
|
Proposed Use Classes |
||||
|
|
E |
F1 |
F2 |
B2 |
B8 |
|
Unit 5 (A-G) |
E(g)(iii) |
|
X |
X |
|
|
Unit 6 |
E(g)(iii) |
|
|
X |
X |
|
Unit 7 |
E(g)(iii) |
|
|
X |
X |
|
Unit 8 |
E(g)(iii) |
|
|
X |
X |
|
Unit 9 |
E(g)(iii) |
|
|
X |
X |
|
Unit 10 |
E(g)(iii) |
|
|
X |
X |
|
Unit 11 |
E(g)(iii) |
|
|
X |
X |
|
Unit 12 |
E(g)(iii) |
|
|
X |
X |
|
HUB |
X |
X |
|
|
|
|
Open Storage Plot |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
* Use Classes can be defined as follows: E (Commercial, Business and Service), E(g)(iii) (Industrial Processes), F1 (Learning and non-residential institutions), F2 (Local Community), B2 (General Industrial) and B8 (Storage and Distribution)
|
|||||
10.17 The primary uses would be B2 (General Industrial) and B8 (Storage and Distribution) with ancillary offices, as per the extant consent. The B2 and B8 uses would range in size and scale, meaning there would be units for new or small businesses and well and established and large-scale businesses. It is noted that the Council’s Economic Development Team welcome the provision of small and medium sized units to address local demand and recommend a condition restricting amalgamation of smaller units to secure them for smaller occupiers for the lifetime of the development.
10.18 However, unlike the extant consent, the B2/B8 uses would be spread out across the whole site, with B2 uses being proposed in close proximity to the northern boundary, adjacent to residential properties fronting Glebelands. This is precluded under the extant consent with only E and F1 uses (previously A1-A5, B1 and D1 uses) permitted in the area adjacent to the northern boundary for two reasons:
· Having B2/B8 use, which would be in 24 hour use, in such close proximity to the neighbouring peropties fronting Glebelands could result in poor amenities for those resients who could be affected by noise and disturbance; and
· Part of this area was retained for E uses (previously A1-A5 uses) to benefit local residents and future employees.
10.19 Taking theses points in turn, there are concerns that having B2 uses, which would be in 24-hour use, could have an adverse impact on neighbourig properties fronting Glebelands as a result of noise and disturbance – this is discussed in more detail from paragrpahs 10.28 and 10.117 of this report. B2 uses are generally not compatible in such close proximity to residential areas.
10.20 In terms of the provision of facilities to benefit local residents and future employees, local commuinity uses would be permissable (though not guaranteed) within Unit 5; while the new HUB area, located to the west of the existing main access from Weeland Road, would comprise up to 5no. units (single stacked shipping containers) within use classes E and/or F1 with ancillary outdoor amenity space. This would ensure that those uses would be retained as part of the re-development of the site. However, given the nature and location of those uses, by comparison to the extant consent, there are concerns that they could have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties fronting Glebelands as a result of noise and disturbance – this again, is discussed in more detail from paragrpahs 10.28 and 10.117 of this report.
10.21 Notwithstanding the above concerns, Policy SP14 of the Core Strategy supports local shops and services outside established town centres by promoting the establishement of new facilities to serve the day-to-day needs of existing communities and the planned growth of communities. The inclusion of the Class E, F1 and F2 uses would assist the existing rural community by increasing the range of facilities available to them, but would also assist future employees of the employment development, who will require a good level of amenities. The facilities provided would be of a scale which would support the existing rural community and future employees rather than becoming a destination in their own right.
Layout, Appearance, Scale and Landscaping
10.22 Saved Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan requires development proposals to take account of (1) the effect upon the character of the area and (4) the standard of layout, design and materials in relation to the site and its surroundings and associated landscaping. Saved Policy ENV3 of the Selby District Local Plan requires development proposals involving outdoor lighting to (4) not detract significantly from the character of a rural area. Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy seeks to protect and enhance landscape character and setting of areas of acknowledged importance. Policy SP19 of the Core Strategy requires proposals for new development to contribute to enhancing community cohesion by achieving high quality design and having regard to local character, identity, and context of its surroundings. Specifically, Policy SP19 (e) of the Core Strategy requires new and existing landscaping to be incorporated as an integral part of the design of the schemes. Policy SP12 of the Core Strategy encourages opportunities to protect, enhance and better join up existing Green Infrastructure, as well as creating new Green Infrastructure, in addition to the incorporation of other measures to mitigate or minimise the consequences of development.
10.23 These local policies accord with paragraph 187 of the NPPF which indicates that the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside should be recognised and paragraph 135 of the NPPF which seeks to ensure that developments function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but for the life of the development; are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change; establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
10.24 Paragraph 137 of the NPPF states “Applicants should work closely with those affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community”.
10.25 Paragraph 140 of the NPPF states “Local planning authorities should ensure that relevant planning conditions refer to clear and accurate plans and drawings which provide visual clarity about the design of the development, and are clear about the approved use of materials where appropriate. This will provide greater certainty for those implementing the planning permission on how to comply with the permission and a clearer basis for local planning authorities to identify breaches of planning control.”
10.26 The proposed development is as described in Section 5 of this report – ‘Description of Proposal’ – and as shown on the submitted drawings. It should be noted that amended plans and additional supporting documents have been submitted during the course of the application in response to comments made by consultees and the planning case officer. Supporting documents include a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (reference 333101183/A5/Reports/Landscape Revision A) dated January 2025, prepared by Stantec; and Landscape Statement (reference 2022_EXA_XX_XX_RP_L_900 Revision P07, dated February 2025, prepared by Exterior Architecture; and a series of proposed plans, including layout plans, landscaping plans, floor plans and elevation plans.
Layout
10.27 The proposed layout is acceptable in a number of respects, by providing tree lined streets, with units and their associated service yards and car parking areas set back from road frontages and softened with landscaping areas; the mine shafts being accommodated into the layout with soft landscaping only over the mine entries and their zones of influence; the provision of 3-metre-wide shared footway and cycleways throughout the development site, linking to the canal towpath at either side of the wharf; the provision of outdoor amenity areas throughout the site; and the provision of facilities close to the site entrance to benefit local residents and future employees.
10.28 However, the proposed layout also raises a number of concerns. Firstly, in terms of Unit 5, there are concerns that having B2 uses, which would be in 24-hour use, could have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties fronting Glebelands as a result of noise and disturbance – this is discussed in more detail in a subsequent section of this report. B2 uses are generally not compatible in such close proximity to residential areas. Furthermore, given the nature and location of the HUB, there are concerns that those uses could have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties fronting Glebelands as a result of noise and disturbance – this again, is discussed in more detail in a subsequent section of this report. Secondly, the layout of the proposed development would result in the permanent loss of the existing safeguarded rail infrastructure – this is discussed in more detail from paragraph 10.107 of this report.
10.29 The layout of the proposed development increases the density of development at the site by comparison to the extant consent and in doing so does not respect all of these key principles established under the extant outline consent (reference 2020/0155/S73) as referred to in paragraph 10.13 of this report.
Appearance and Scale
10.30 The appearance and scale of the units within the development are generally considered to be acceptable.
10.31 Based on the information set out in the table at paragraph 5.15 of this report, and as shown on the proposed levels and elevational plans, the heights of the units are within the parameters set out under the outline consent and would be similar to or lower than the first three units constructed under Phase 1 to the east. There are some questions over the accuracy of the site sections provided (drawing no’s 21169-C4P-80-S01ZZ-D-A-8026-P05 and 21169-C4P-80-S01ZZ-D-A-8027-P05), which show the development in relation to surrounding buildings. This is on the basis of inaccuracies in how some features such as the proposed bund to the rear of Unit 5 are shown. However, these plans have been provided for illustrative purposes and would not be conditioned as part of any consent if granted.
10.32 Buildings of this scale form a visual challenge, which is best handled by addressing short, medium and long term views and how colours and materials work together with existing and proposed landscaping, as well as the wider context. Phase 1 utilised a graded colour scheme on the elevations of the buildings, with darker colours at lower levels to help ground the buildings and provide a backdrop to help amplify the impacts of planting, particularly in the early stages while planting becomes established; and paler tones toward the top of the buildings to help lose them against the sky. Colour was used around openings to accentuate these within the mass of the buildings and break the masing of the buildings down. The current proposals seek to utilise a similar approach to the appearance of the units, which is considered to be acceptable. Refinements to the materials approach could be secured by condition to any planning permission granted.
Landscaping
10.33 A landscaping scheme incorporating attenuation ponds would be provided as shown on the proposed masterplan (drawing no. 2288-EXA-00-00-DR-L-00100 Revision P18) and detailed planting plans. Landscaping would be provided adjacent to the spine roads and informal footpaths throughout the site; there would be a bund provided to the north of unit 5, and there would be a landscape and ecological area to the west of the open storage plot. Two access points for pedestrians and cyclists would be provided to the canal at either side of the site known as ‘Southmoor Energy Centre’ and an informal footpath and cycle route would be provided through the application site to connect the two. It is also noted that the submitted plans show the provision of some proposed landscaping outside of the application site boundary, to the east of unit 9 to enhance screening, which could be secured by Section 106 legal agreement.
10.34 The level of landscaping is considered to be appropriate and proportionate to the proposed development and would soften the mass of buildings enabling the development to integrate into its surroundings.
Landscape and Visual Impact, including Impact on the Green Belt
10.35 The character of the surrounding area, which forms part of the Green Belt, is managed farmland with large open fields. This means large scale development in this location will be seen over long and short distances and the submitted Landscape Visual Impact Assessment has identified a number of vantage points. Development is required to minimise its visual impact, including on the Green Belt.
10.36 The Council’s Landscape Architect has been consulted on the application and in response to the most recently submitted information and supporting documents considers the scheme, overall, to be acceptable in both landscape and design terms, reducing landscape and visual effects where reasonable and possible. This is subject to some amendments and clarifications as follows, which are considered to be able to be dealt with by way of condition to any planning permission granted.
· Boundary treatments and screening to the south side of the site fronting the Aire Calder Navigation/boundary to the Green Belt – clarification of site boundary fencing and access control; improved tree/hedgerow planting along the boundary and within the site boundary to ensure sufficient structure planting and screening of the site using larger-growing tree species, and evergreens to ensure year-round screening.
· Review of external lighting to the north side of the site (to minimise night-time visual effects) – a detailed external lighting scheme could be controlled by condition, to minimise adverse night-time effects of lighting on nearby residents off Weeland Road.
· Screening bund to the north side of the site, adjacent to Units 5 – clarification as plans show this inconsistently, to ensure short/medium term screening until planting is more established and to offset adverse effects from removal of the existing Leyland hedgerow. Screen planting and evergreens to ensure year-round screening.
· Tree retention/improved tree planting –to ensure review of tree screen planting.
· Activity zone equipment/design – clarification of activity zone equipment/principles, public seating areas and other site furniture (type/range); site/public availability and use, long-term maintenance and management; outline proposal and principles.
· Retaining walls/structures – clarification and detailed design to be provided through condition.
10.37 Subject to the above amendments and clarifications, it is considered that the re-development of this former colliery site would not result in any adverse harm to the surrounding Green Belt, by comparison to the extant consent.
Summary on Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping
10.38 There are concerns with the proposed layout of the scheme and its impact on the character of the area, particularly in relation to Unit 5, the HUB and the permanent loss of the existing safeguarded rail infrastructure, which are indicative of an overdevelopment of the site. Notwithstanding the above, no concerns are raised with the appearance, scale, landscaping and landscape and visual impact, of the proposed development including its impact on the Green Belt. Having regard to the above, there are some identified conflicts with saved Policy ENV1 and Policies SP18 and SP19 of the Core Strategy, and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraphs 137, 140, 135 and 187, arising from the layout of the proposed development, to be weighed in the planning balance.
Ecological Considerations, including Biodiversity Net Gain
10.39 Saved Policy ENV1(5) of the Selby District Local Plan requires proposals to take account of the potential loss or adverse effect upon, inter alia, trees and wildlife habitats. Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy seeks to safeguard the natural environment and promote effective stewardship of the District’s wildlife by, amongst other things, ensuring developments retain protect and enhance features of biological interest and provide appropriate management of those features and that unavoidable impacts are appropriately mitigated and compensated for on and off-site; and ensuring development seeks to produce a net gain in biodiversity by designing-in wildlife and retaining the natural interest of a site where appropriate.
10.40 This is reflected in the national policy at paragraph 187 of the NPPF, which requires planning decisions to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by amongst other things, protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits form natural capital and ecosystem services, and minimising impacts on and providing for net gains for biodiversity.
10.41 It should be noted that the application was submitted prior to 12 February 2024 and is therefore not subject to statutory biodiversity net gain.
10.42 The application has been supported by an Ecological Impact Assessment (reference: 15266_ R01a_ O M) dated February 2025, prepared by Tyler Grange; a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (reference 15266_R08a_WR) dated April 2025, prepared by Tyler Grange; an External Lighting Layout (drawing no. P1563-NOV-XX-00-DR-E-9603 P04); a Biodiverstiy Net Gain Assessment (reference: 15266_R05c_DP) dated February 2025, prepared by Tyler Grange; and a Biodiversity Metric.
10.43 The Council’s Ecologist has reviewed the application and has advised that they have no objections subject to conditions requiring a standard Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), a Construction Ecological Management Plan (CEcMP) and compliance with the submitted Habitat management and Maintenance Plan (HMMP).
10.44 In terms of external lighting, the Ecological Impact Assessment states that sensitive areas will be maintained as dark areas (maximum 1LUX) during and post construction, to ensure bats and other wildlife are not deterred from using them. The Council’s Ecologist has raised some concerns regarding this statement and has requested a lighting plan and assurances from the Applicant’s Ecologist regarding this matter. The submitted External Lighting Layout (drawing no. P1563-NOV-XX-00-DR-E-9603 P04) shows some areas adjacent to landscaping as more than 1 LUX, therefore there it appears there is conflict. However, the Applicant has advised that their Ecologist is satisfied that a suitable lighting environment can be achieved through detailed design and that a detailed lighting plan can be agreed under condition, incorporating sensitive light features where necessary. Furthermore, the Applicant has advised that the LUX contours shown on the lighting plan do not account for site levels due to the limitations in the information available from manufacturers.
10.45 Having regard to the above, it is considered that a condition could be attached to any planning permission granted to secure a detailed external lighting scheme. This will need to be supported by sufficient information to ensure that external lighting for roadways, footways and cycleways is at an appropriate level to encourage safe and sustainable transport through the site (especially in the winter months) while maintaining sensitive areas as dark areas.
10.46 In terms of Great Crested Newts, the Applicant has provided a countersigned impact assessment and conservation payment certificate (an IACPC) from Natural England as part of their planning application. This confirms the development is suitable for district level licensing; meets the ‘favourable conservation status’ (FCS) test in the Habitats Regulations 2019; and will compensate for any impacts on great crested newts by a conservation payment. The Council’s Ecologist has confirmed that the certificate is valid, and its receipt confirms Great Crested Newts no longer need to be considered by the Council.
10.47 The application is not subject to statutory biodiversity net gain, however, as detailed in the submitted Metric and as shown on the submitted landscaping plans, does provide for an uplift of 18% for habitat units and 192% for hedgerows, to be delivered on-site. This complies with local policy and would be far in excess of the mandatory biodiversity net gain target, thereby providing a benefit arising from the development to be weighed in the planning balance.
10.48 Subject to the aforementioned conditions, it is considered that the proposed development would not have any adverse impact on ecological considerations and would provide net gains for biodiversity in accordance with saved Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan, Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy, national planning policy contained within Section 15 of the NPPF, the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
Transport Impacts and Active Travel
10.49 Saved Policies ENV1, T1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan require development proposals to have a suitable access and no detrimental impact on the existing highway network. This accords with the NPPF, which requires development proposals to have a safe and suitable access and only supports refusal of development proposals on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or if the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios (paragraph 116).
10.50 Saved Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan and Policies SP15 and SP19 of the Core Strategy, together seek to direct development to sustainable locations with good quality means of access, making provision and facilitating active travel which minimise conflicts. Paragraph 115 of the NPPF requires applications development to ensure that sustainable transport modes are prioritised taking into account the vision for the site, the type of development and its location and to ensure a safe and suitable access to the site for all users.
10.51 Within this context, paragraph 117 of the NPPF requires developments to, amongst other things, give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas; and second – so far as possible – to facilitate access to high quality public transport, with layouts that maximise the catchment area for bus or other public transport services, and appropriate facilities that encourage public transport use; address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility in relation to all modes of transport; create places that are safe, secure and attractive – which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, avoid unnecessary street clutter, and respond to local character and design standards; allow for the efficient delivery of goods, and access by service and emergency vehicles; and be designed to enable charging of plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles in safe, accessible and convenient locations.
10.52 Paragraph 118 of the NPPF requires all developments that will generate significant amounts of movement to provide a travel plan, and the application should be supported by a vision-led transport statement or transport assessment so that the likely impacts of the proposal can be assessed and monitored.
10.53 Section 8 of the NPPF, ‘Promoting healthy and safe communities’ is also of relevance in relation to Active Travel, within which paragraph 96 of the NPPF requires planning policies and decisions to aim to achieve health, inclusive and safe places, which encourage walking and cycling.
10.54 Active Travel England have been made a statutory consultee since the extant consent was granted. Active Travel England is the government’s executive agency responsible for making walking, wheeling and cycling the preferred choice for everyone to get around in England and work alongside local planning authorities to ensure new infrastructure and developments are designed with active travel at the forefront. This includes providing provision for high quality cycling and walking networks, green spaces and green routes, and supporting facilities such as cycle parking.
10.55 Given the previous use of the wider former Kellingley Colliery site, a significant amount of transport infrastructure was already in place at the site, prior to commencement of its re-development. This was one of the key reasons this brownfield site was considered acceptable in principle for re-redevelopment as an employment park at the outset. The Officer Report for the extant outline planning permission noted the following transport infrastructure:
· Three existing access points – two from Weeland Road and one from Sudforth Lane.
· An internal roundabout and network of existing roads.
· A large spine road, approximately 210 metres in length.
· Railway sidings to a length of approximately 540 metres.
· The Aire and Calder Navigation to the southern boundary.
10.56 For context, the Officer Report for the extant outline planning permission noted the following key points in relation to transport impacts:
· The main access point from Weeland Road was to be utilised and widened to allow three lanes, which was seen as an improvement. This was to be the only access to the site.
· The central spine road was to be increased to 550 metres in length.
· The railway sidings were to be retained and enhanced, which provided scope to reduce the amount of HGV movements.
· Connections were to be made to the Aire and Calder Navigation to the southern boundary of the site.
· The projected peak hours of use were to be 07:30 to 08:30 and 17:00 to 18:00 weekdays with approximately 585 and 468 two-way movements respectively.
· The trip generation was considered acceptable by the local Highway Authority.
· Conditions were proposed to secure parking in accordance with the local Highway Authority standards.
· A Framework Travel Plan aimed at a 10% modal shift from single car journeys to alternative modes of transport.
· Section 106 contributions were proposed for improvements to public transport (£100,000), improvements to the Aire and Calder Navigation (£155,000) and travel plan monitoring (£50,000).
10.57 Under the current proposals, the following key points can be noted:
· Fourteen of the units would be served from the upgraded existing main access from Weeland Road, while one unit is proposed to be served from a new access from Weeland Road (previously granted planning permission to serve the Southmoor Energy Centre development, though not yet implemented).
· From the main access from Weeland Road, there would be two spine roads leading from the internal roundabout. Three of the proposed units (along with the units from Phase 2) would be accessed from the easterly spine road. Twelve of the proposed units would be accessed from the westerly spine road, which would also provide access to any future rail freight area.
· Pedestrian and cycle access to the Aire and Calder Navigation is to be provided at two locations (either side of the wharf area).
· The existing rail transport infrastructure within the site appears to have been removed without consent in 2022/2023. This is not to be retained and enhanced through the proposal, rather an area of land (outside of the red line boundary of the application site) is shown as land safeguarded for a ‘future rail facility’ to provide mitigation for its loss. The intention is that this would be secured for such future use by Section 106 legal agreement.
· The Transport Assessment assesses the increase in floor area over that granted through the extant consent (i.e. it does not re-assess the transport impacts of the remaining floor space which would be constructed under the extant consent).
· The Transport Assessment is based on a B8/B2 use class split of 80%/20% respectively.
· The projected peak hours of use are noted to be 07:30 to 08:30 and 17:00 to 18:00 weekdays with approximately 102-116 and 101-118 total vehicle movements respectively, the majority of which would be by car.
· The Framework Travel Plan aims at a 14% modal shift from single car journeys to alternative modes of transport (4% walking; 5% cycling; 5% public transport).
· Additional Section 106 contributions are proposed over and above those secured through the extant outline consent, relative to the 27% uplift in floorspace proposed - public transport (£53,474), improvements to the Aire and Calder Navigation (£82,885). Furthermore, Section 106 contributions are proposed for highway street lighting on Weeland Road (£30,000), and to secure travel plan monitoring and land to be safeguarded for future rail connectivity.
10.58 The local Highway Authority, National Highways and Active Travel England have all been consulted on the application and have made comments which can be summarised as follows.
Trip Generation and Junction Modelling
10.59 The local Highway Authority consider the trip generation to be acceptable. However, they note that the TEMPRO growth is used based on 2023 traffic growth to 2028 and given the remodelling was undertaken after substantial reworking of the site layout and traffic modelling in January 2025, it is considered that the future year should be 2025 plus 5 years i.e.to 2030.
10.60 The worst-case pm peak for the A645/Kellingley Road junction has RFC of 0.849, which is close to being at capacity, but is within capacity.
10.61 National Highways consider the proposed development would not result in a severe impact on the Strategic Road Network (SRN), however, note that the proposed development would contribute towards cumulative traffic impact at Junction 34 of the M62. In order to protect the SRN by aligning the quantum of development permitted to come forward to that assessed in the transport assessment, National Highways recommend a condition restricting the level of B2 and B8 floorspace to that assessed in the Transport Assessment.
10.62 Officers note the above request for a condition, however, as this is a full planning application and the use class of each unit has not been specified in the application, it is not considered that a condition requiring maximum levels of B2 and B8 floorspace would be precise or enforceable and would therefore fail the conditions tests set out in paragraph 57 of the NPPF. That being said, no condition could result a higher proportion of B2 uses, which could result in an unacceptable trip generation and impact on the SRN. The Applicant has suggested an alternatively worded condition, which they consider would be more precise and enforceable. However, upon review of the alternative wording, this would require further modelling and mitigation measures to be agreed post consent, which is not considered to be appropriate. The impacts and proposed mitigation need to be understood at the time a decision is made.
Layout
10.63 The local Highway Authority note that southern service yard bellmouths could be reduced in width to reduce the length that pedestrians need to cross if HGVs will not be turning south from these exits. This is an important consideration as this is the route pedestrians and cyclists would take through the site when leaving and rejoining the canal towpath.
10.64 The local Highway Authority also note that there is insufficient information to explain how the ‘future rail facility’ is proposed to be linked to the allocated waste site without negatively impacting on the only access to Unit 9 and the access for non-motorised vehicles and pedestrians to the canal towpath. The Applicant has indicated that the future rail facility could include 240 one-way daily HGV vehicle movements past the entrance to Unit 9 in addition to HGVs accessing the service area of Unit 9. The local Highway Authority acknowledge that the delivery of materials by rail to the allocated waste site, and potential for delivery of materials to the proposed units within the employment park, is welcome and would keep a proportion of HGVs off the public road network, however, the proposed layout at present leads to safety concerns for vulnerable users and Unit 9 traffic.
Parking Standards
10.65 The local Highway Authority have different parking standards for B2 and B8 uses. It is unclear at this stage which unit is to be used for which use class, and therefore it is not possible to determine whether the parking provided for each unit is adequate.
10.66 The parking calculations show that, overall, the site works for a 20% B2 and 80% B8 split. However, while this may work in terms of site-wide parking provision, each individual unit is likely to be either a B2 use or a B8 use. The parking provision proposed for both operational vehicles and staff parking is therefore either too high or too low for any one individual unit. The layout of the units makes it impractical that parking spaces can be shared between units and there is not suitable pedestrian access shown between units to facilitate this shared parking usage. HGV and trailer parking is unlikely to be shared between different units. The parking provision is therefore not considered to be acceptable as proposed.
10.67 The local Highway Authority also note that accessible parking spaces based on worst case B2 usage of a unit are less than the 6% provision require, however, they are adequate for B8 usage.
10.68 HGV and trailer parking numbers should be in adherence with the requirements of the local Highway Authority standards at 1 space per 500m2 for B2 use and 1 space per 250m2 for B8 use. HGV and trailer parking as proposed for all units is suitable for B2 use, but units 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 have inadequate provision for B8 use.
10.69 Lack of appropriate parking provision is of concern to the local Highway Authority. If exact uses are not known at this stage, worst case parking should be provided. While the Applicant has stated that ‘fly parking’ along the site roads would be controlled and restricted, the implication of this may be that parking is pushed onto the public highway in unsuitable locations nearby. The local Highway Authority are aware of locations in the former Selby District area where occupiers of industrial units have underestimated the need for parking and other business requirements and resultant parking on the road outside the unit has had an impact on the road and access for other vehicles. Provision of adequate parking is only one of many considerations for potential occupiers but is a major consideration for the local Highway Authority.
Travel Plan
10.70 The local Highway Authority and Active Travel England consider the provisions of the Travel Plan to be generally inadequate to ensure the modal shifts proposed and consider an enhanced travel plan is required with a vision led ambition for active travel and percentage mode shift targets to better reflect national targets for active travel and to respond to low levels of private vehicle ownership in the area.
Pedestrian and Cycle Access
10.71 Whilst pedestrian facilities and cycle facilities are provided within the site, there is a discontinuity of these once users leave the site and wish to continue their journey home. Both cycle and pedestrian access to the north of the site is poor and unlikely to encourage future employees or visitors to utilise these modes of transport. This would be contrary to the aspirations of sustainable travel in local and national planning policy.
10.72 The Transport Assessment acknowledges that travel distance from the local villages to the east is ideal for access on foot and by cycle. Knottingley is also within walking and wheeling distance of the site to the west. Existing footways at one metre wide are stated by the Applicant to be unsuitable for everyone. The opportunity to improve these has not been taken up by the Applicant to ensure that employees within walking distance of the site and future users of the community facilities can safely access the site without using private cars. Provision of an adequate footway and cycle off-road provision from the site entrance to Lunn Lane in the east and Knottingley to the west has not been included within this application, which proposes a 27% uplift in floorspace over and above the extant consent.
10.73 The Framework Travel Plan states that some local roads are suitable for confident cyclists, and that there are no dedicated cycle facilities nearby. This lack of provision will not enable safe cyclist access to the site along the A645, which appears to be the only viable route to site for cyclists from the east and for all cyclists in the hours of darkness.
10.74 Consultees note that a further £82,885 is proposed to improve the Aire and Calder Navigation towpath and allow easier access to Knottingley. However, there would still be a requirement for visitors on foot or cycling to the site to use the A645 at times, either because the towpath is unlit or because of safety concerns. The Applicant has offered to make the footway safer by providing street lighting over the 1km missing section up to the Wakefield boundary and has suggested that this is achieved through a Section 106 legal agreement. This is welcomed, but the sum offered is insufficient. The cost of a suitable lighting scheme along this section has been estimated by North Yorkshire Council Lighting to be around £169,000, with the Applicant offering only £30,000.
10.75 This route is noted also due to the very limited private car ownership levels in the adjoining community, up to 53% of household do not have access to a private vehicle according the ONS 2021 data. Whilst improvements to the canal towpath would support some active journeys, this is an isolated route with no lighting, therefore it would not be supportive of all year-round mode shift. Active Travel England also understand that the public transport contribution is not expected by the local Highway Authority to fund bus provision to fully support a timetable to meet a range of anticipated shift times. Without fully funded measures to improve active and sustainable transport nearby, households could be excluded from this new local employment.
10.76 The application states that the site is accessible for those with disability and by public transport. The nearest bus stops are of reasonable quality but are 250m from the site entrance, and the usable width and quality of footway appears inadequate for users with disability. It would be appropriate for the Applicant to make provision for improving the footway to enable its use by all between the site entrance and the bus stops for those with reduced mobility, including wheelchair users. The Applicant is not proposing to do this as part of the current application.
10.77 Lighting needs to be continuous past Unit 10 for pedestrians and cyclists using the western entrance to access the main site. This would provide a safer, more direct access to the west which avoids walking/cycling along the A645 further than necessary – which might otherwise be a detour of up to 1km.
10.78 In summary, cycle access to site is difficult along a National Speed Limit route with no cycle provision. Walking access is poor due to inadequate footway widths.
Public Transport
10.79 It is noted that the Travel Plan discusses a Public Transport Contribution and that National Highways has requested a review of whether the proposed Konect and Konect 2 contribution (Phase 1 and the current application) was sufficient to provide public transport services. This has been reviewed to assess whether the agreed one-off contribution of £100,000 (Phase 1) plus the proposed additional £50,000 (under the current application) is sufficient to provide an adequate upgrade to the bus service to enable its reasonable use by employees.
10.80 The only bus service passing the site currently would appear to be the 476 service between Pontefract, Knottingley and Selby. Of the towns on this bus route, Knottingley (2 miles to the west) has a population of 13,000, and Pontefract (5 miles west) has a population of 29,000. Selby is 10 miles north-east with a population of 17,000. The nearest source of employees is to the west of the site. Travelling from the west on the 476 service, the earliest bus arrives at 09:30 and the latest departure is at 16:23. This service is not suitable for standard eight-hour working day at the site.
10.81 The application shows peak arrivals and departures at the site are predicted to be 07:30-08:30 and 17:00- 08:00 as stated in the Transport Assessment. It would seem reasonable to assume that these are the peak arrival and departure times for staff, and these at least need to be catered for in any bus service, plus at least an hour before and after to account for non-peak arrivals and departures. The modal shift to public transport, as predicted (5%), is unlikely without provision of an improved bus service. There is a need for additional morning and evening peak services to extend the current operating times to allow for daytime working patterns. It is standard that this supplement is provided for 5 years to allow the customer base to develop and render the service financially feasible in the long term.
10.82 North Yorkshire Council Passenger Transport Office has been consulted to estimate the cost of the extra provision. The cost of additional services to ensure useful bus services are available for staff is £150,000 per year for 5 years. This totals £750,000. The local Highway Authority proposes that this total figure be used to provide such a service to the site. This would be £650,000 in addition to the original £100,000 from the outline application. A suitable start date for the payment would be three months prior to occupation of the first unit of this application. This would provide the most benefit for the most employees for the longest time, and before car commuting habits are ingrained in the new workforce.
10.83 In the absence of improving the offsite active travel provision along the A645 for walking and cycling, the mode shift from private car to public transport is vital to improving sustainable accessibility for future employees. In order to see whether this meets the tests set out in paragraph 58 of the NPPF and CIL Regulation 123, it is useful to compare the current bus provision with that available at the time of the previous approved application to check whether a similar level of service is being requested at this time. The Officer Report for application 2016/1343/OUTM showed buses in 2016 arriving from the west at 07:55 and 08:12 (from Wakefield, Pontefract and Ferrybridge) on weekdays. The report noted that the loss of the first bus from Selby and the last bus to Selby just two days prior to the report. It would seem that the Section 106 public transport contributions of the 2016 outline application were based on supplementing a bus service that was more extensive than the one currently serving the site in 2025. The local Highway Authority figure of an additional £650,000 is realistic to provide a level of service that would enable employees from the west to undertake an 8-hour working day at the site and be equivalent to the service planned in the 2016 application.
HGV Movements and Mode Shift to Rail and Canal Freight
10.84 It is noted that the extant outline consent for this site envisaged and accounted for future goods movements to be possible by both rail and by canal.
10.85 The proposed layout for the extant consent clearly shows the proposed rail and canal connectivity and feasible future usage, as indicated in the extract below.
10.86 The safeguard rail infrastructure is shown in yellow and the multi-modal area in blue. The existing canal link is shown along the canal frontage of the site, and the route is also shown in darker blue arrows over some length of the canal. The extant outline consent retained the potential for rail and canal freight movements, and this modal shift would have beneficial impact of reducing HGV movements on the local highway network, and using up capacity when this can be avoided.
10.87 The opportunity for rail or canal freight movements is either lost or greatly reduced as a result of the currently proposed layout of the development for the remainder of the site. The local Highway Authority consider the effect on this loss of future potential freight movement by rail or canal places a permanent burden on the highway network, using up capacity when freight could otherwise at some future time be diverted onto alternative rail and canal routes. The highway network has limited capacity, and most other developments do not have opportunity to utilise alternative freight methods via access to existing infrastructure.
10.88 The local Highway Authority would welcome the retention of existing transport infrastructure within the site to enable the potential for future rail and canal connectivity, which has the potential to remove unnecessary HGV movements from the highway network. It is noted that alterative provision is made for a ‘future rail facility’ but this is not considered to be adequate alternative provision as discussed in more detail later in this report.
Summary on Transport Impacts and Active Travel
10.89 The impact of the proposed changes on capacity of the highway network is unlikely to be severe with the traffic volumes as detailed in the application. However, this full planning application does not specify specifically which units are in which uses and conditions to restrict the use of the site to a percentage split of use classes, as forms the basis of the Transport Assessment, would not be precise or enforceable contrary to paragraph 57 of the NPPF. In the absence of such a condition, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not result in a severe impact on the highway network contrary to saved Policies ENV1, T1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraph 116.
10.90 There will be an impact on highway safety for users of the site. The safety of vulnerable highway users - pedestrians, cyclists, those with reduced mobility - will be impacted should they try to utilise active travel to access the site. These could be cost-effectively mitigated by meaningful off-site access improvements for these future employees and visitors, contrary to saved Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan and Policies SP15 and SP19 of the Core Strategy, which together seek to direct development to sustainable locations with good quality means of access, making provision and facilitating active travel which minimise conflicts. There would also be conflict with the NPPF, including paragraphs 89 and 115-118, which seeks to ensure that significant development is focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes.
10.91 The proposal as it stands is unlikely to encourage many employees to access it except via motorised private vehicle or possibly a small number of bus passengers from the east. It is regrettable that the Applicant is unwilling to improve the active and sustainable access to the site in a meaningful way and in line with national and local policies as identified above.
10.92 In light of the very limited likelihood of modal shift within the current proposal, it can be expected that future users of the site will travel mainly by motorised private vehicles, and so no reductions in North Yorkshire Council parking standards would be possible. To this end, each unit should be provided with worst case parking standards for both operational and visitor parking. If B2 usage is to apply to specific units, then these units will need B2 level parking provision, whilst all the other units being B8 will need B8 parking provision. If the Applicant is not able to specify at this stage which units will have which usage, then the worst case parking will need to be provided throughout to ensure that no unit will have a deficit of parking spaces. Insufficient parking is provided at present contrary to saved Policies ENV1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraphs 109 and 115.
10.93 The Applicant is expected to encourage modal shift to bus travel and active travel. No reduction in parking standards will be considered without this. This modal shift would include providing £169,000 for lighting of Weeland Rd and £650,000 for bus improvements as well as improving the footways to the bus stops. These measures are not forthcoming from the Applicant.
10.94 The application removes future rail and canal freight movement opportunities and the result of this would be a permanent increase in HGV traffic that might otherwise be diverted off the public highway. Using the rail and canal links in the future would release highway capacity for other developments that do not have the opportunity for such modal shift for freight through utilising existing transport infrastructure.
10.95 Having regard to the above, the proposal is considered to be contrary to saved Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan and Policies SP15 and SP19 of the Core Strategy, which together seek to direct development to sustainable locations with good quality means of access, making provision and facilitating active travel which minimise conflicts. There would also be conflict with the NPPF, which seeks to ensure that significant development is focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes.
10.96 It is noted that the Applicant has acknowledged the importance of supporting active and sustainable travel and ensuring safe and suitable access for all users. However, they have advised that there is no additional funding available for improvements and contributions beyond what has been proposed as part of the application and have provided a viability note to evidence this. The Applicant has advised that the scheme has been designed to prioritise pedestrian and cycle movements and provide improvements where possible within the site and on land within the control of the Applicant, confirming that there is no additional funding available for further offsite improvements, which is also constrained by the site’s countryside location.
10.97 While the above points made by the Applicant are noted, this does not remove the aforementioned conflict with local and national policies and would need to be weighed in the planning balance.
Minerals and Waste
10.98 The application site is located within a Surface Minerals Safeguarding Area for sand and gravel and brick/clay.
10.99 Part 1 of Policy S02 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan relates to surface mineral resources and states:
“Within Surface Minerals Safeguarding Areas shown on the Policies Map, permission for development other than minerals extraction will be granted where:
i) It would not sterilise the mineral or prejudice future extraction; or
ii) The mineral will be extracted prior to the development (where this can be achieved without unacceptable impact on the environment or local communities), or
iii) The need for the non-mineral development can be demonstrated to outweigh the need to safeguard the mineral; or
iv) It can be demonstrated that the mineral in the location concerned is no longer of any potential value as it does not represent an economically viable and therefore exploitable resource; or
v) The non-mineral development is of a temporary nature that does not inhibit extraction within the timescale that the mineral is likely to be needed; or
vi) It constitutes ‘exempt’ development (as defined in the Safeguarding Exemption Criteria list).”
10.100 The proposed development is on previously developed land and so it is not economically viable to extract the mineral resource so this satisfies the requirements of Policy S02 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan. The Minerals and Waste Team have confirmed this position.
10.101 Policies S04, S05 and S06 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan deal with the safeguarding of individual waste sites, transport infrastructure (rail and wharves), and stand-alone minerals ancillary infrastructure. The aim of safeguarding the sites is to protect them from replacement or from the encroachment of unsuitable development which could limit or stop the use of the site for minerals and waste activities.
10.102 The site known as ‘Southmoor Energy Centre’ (shown edged red in the diagram below) is safeguard for a waste management facility under Policy S04 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan.
10.103 Part of the proposed development would share the same access as that shown for the ‘Southmoor Energy Centre’ site, but would otherwise not prevent or unduly restrict the use of the allocated site for the provision of a waste development. Therefore, there would be no conflict with Policy S04 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan. Furthermore, while the previous consent for the Southmoor Energy Centre’ site is considered to have lapsed, it is noted that a bund required in associated with the previous consent for this allocated site (located outside of the red line boundary shown above), is shown on the proposed site plan and could be secured to be delivered under this consent, if required, or the land would remain available to be developed under an alternative consent in future.
10.104 However, part of the proposed development would be located on land safeguarded for transport infrastructure for use in relation to the allocated waste site under Policy S05 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan (shown edged red in the diagram below).
10.105 Policy S05 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan states:
“Railheads, rail links and wharves identified on the Policies Map and in Appendix 2, with a 100m buffer zone, will be safeguarded against development which would prevent or unduly restrict the use of the infrastructure for minerals or waste transport purposes, unless:
i) The need for the alternative development outweighs the benefits of retaining the facility; and
ii) Where the minerals or waste transport infrastructure is in active use on the land, a suitable alternative location can be provided for the displaced infrastructure; or
iii) The infrastructure is not in use and there is no reasonable prospect of it being used for minerals or waste transport in the foreseeable future;
iv) The site is not viable or capable of being made viable.
Where development, other than exempt development as defined in the Safeguarding Exemption Criteria list, as set out in paragraph 8.55 is proposed within an identified buffer zone permission will be granted where adequate mitigation can, if necessary, be provided to reduce any impacts from the existing or proposed adjacent minerals or waste transport infrastructure uses to an acceptable level, and the benefits of the proposed use outweigh any safeguarding considerations.”
10.106 Taking these in turn:
i) The need for the alternative development (i.e. further employment development) does not outweigh the benefits of retaining the facility. There is an extant consent (reference 2020/0155/S73) on the site which provides for a further 29,233sqm of employment floorspace while retaining the facility. Furthermore, in a recent appeal decision (reference APP/U2750/W/25/3364391 at Land on the south of the A63 bypass, Selby) it was determined that (including the extant consent on the former Kellingley Colliery site) there is over one hundred hectares of undeveloped permitted employment land or existing allocated sites in the former Selby District. The Inspector noted that “Whilst there could be requirements for additional employment land in the future, as it stands, over one hundred hectares of land would be, to my mind, a considerable outstanding supply for the former Selby district.”
ii) The minerals or waste transport infrastructure is not in active use. It appears to have been removed without consent in 2022/2023.
iii) The infrastructure is not in use, but it has not been demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of it being used for minerals or waste transport in the foreseeable future.
iv) It has not been demonstrated that the site is not viable or capable of being made viable.
10.107 In terms of the final paragraph of Policy S05 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan, the development could be considered acceptable where adequate mitigation can, if necessary, be provided to reduce any impacts from the existing or proposed adjacent minerals or waste transport infrastructure uses to an acceptable level, and the benefits of the proposed use outweigh any safeguarding considerations.
10.108 The proposed masterplan (drawing no. 21169-C4P-80-S01ZZ-D-A-8001 Rev P06) shows a number of units and their associated service yards and parking areas built over the safeguarded rail infrastructure, which would result in its permanent loss. To mitigate this, an area of land (outside of the red line boundary of the application site) is shown as land safeguarded for a ‘future rail facility’. The intention is that this would be secured for such future use by Section 106 legal agreement.
10.109 A document titled ‘Rail Freight Overview’, dated August 2024, prepared by Intermodality has been submitted in support of the application which seeks to demonstrate how the proposals represent adequate mitigation. The document notes the following points:
· Site Background & Development Intentions: The Konect development is located on the former Kellingley Colliery site, which historically handled up to 17 coal trains per day. The new proposal aims to retain rail access for 1–4 trains per day to support the site's redevelopment, including an Energy from Waste (EfW) facility.
· Main Line Access & Infrastructure: The site connects to the national rail network at Kellingley Colliery Junction, close to the Strategic Freight Network. The main line supports W8 gauge freight trains up to 4,050 tonnes and 531m in length, with infrastructure in place to handle standard and deep-sea containers.
· Track Layout & Operational Readiness: Existing infrastructure includes three reception sidings (each 481m), a headshunt siding, and dual access lines across Sudforth Lane Level Crossing. These enable safe and efficient train movements in both directions, with procedures based on historic operations.
· Timetabling & Capacity: Analysis of the Working Timetable (WTT) shows sufficient “white space” (gaps between trains) to accommodate additional freight services. Up to 24 suitable 20-minute windows exist daily, ensuring feasibility for the proposed rail traffic.
· Terminal Design & Handling: The proposed terminal layout (340m x 28m) includes two sidings and a container transfer apron. Operations would mirror other EfW facilities, using gantry cranes and internal road vehicles to move containers between trains and the EfW plant.
· Rolling Stock & Future Potential: Trains will likely use Class 66 or 70 diesel locomotives with 20m wagons carrying 20’ containers. The site’s rail and waterway links may support broader freight uses in future, subject to commercial viability and user interest.
10.110 The Minerals and Waste Team have been consulted on the application and have raised no objections. However, in doing so they have taken the statement from the Applicant that adequate mitigation can be provided at face value.
10.111 The ownership of the ‘Southmoor Energy Centre’ site and future plans for the site are unclear. While no representations have been received from the owners regarding the acceptability of the loss of the safeguarded rail infrastructure and the alternative provision, the Local Planning Authority cannot assume that this means there are no objections. It has not been confirmed that the alternative provision would provide adequate mitigation and suitable provision for any future development of the allocated waste site.
10.112 The area of land shown as safeguarded for a ‘future rail facility’ would not be as well related to the allocated waste site; would involve vehicles unloading freight navigating a main spine road through the development site (where there could be conflict with vehicles accessing Unit 9 and pedestrians and cyclists accessing Unit 9 and the canal towpath; and would reduce the number and capacity of trains accessing the site. Officers have concerns regarding the future proofing of the infrastructure, which once lost, would be difficult to replace, at a time when there are ambitions for a modal shift towards more sustainable modes of transport and a reduction in carbon emissions. Furthermore, it is not clear how securing an area of land for a ‘future rail facility’ would secure adequate mitigation as per Policy S05 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan. Any future facility on the land would be subject to a separate planning application and there is no certainty of it being applied for or being granted planning permission.
10.113 While the transport infrastructure is safeguarded in relation to the waste facility only at present, it is noted that Policy IC6 of the now ceased emerging Local Plan sought to protect it for the wider purpose of ensuring the continued availability of sustainable and alternative transport options for the employment site in the longer term, which are likely to become crucial in the light of the impacts of climate change. The extant planning permission (reference 2020/0155/S73) achieved this goal, while the current proposals unduly restrict the feasibility if this for the future. While Transport for the North's Freight and Logistics Strategy is being developed to focus on how a modal shift in freight could be maximised within the region, a shift towards increased use of rail transport would most likely arise through bringing into use existing infrastructure which is currently inactive, as this is likely to require less investment. The loss of the existing infrastructure and provision of inadequate mitigation is therefore not considered acceptable and contrary to Policy S05 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan. The benefits of the of the proposed use are not considered to outweigh any safeguarding considerations, as the area benefits from a sufficient amount of employment land and the extant consent strikes an appropriate balance between providing an appropriate scale of employment land on this site whilst safeguarding the existing transport infrastructure.
10.114 Having regard to the above, it is not considered that it has been robustly demonstrated that adequate mitigation in the form of alternative transport infrastructure could be provided, contrary to Policy S05 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan.
Residential Amenity
10.115 Saved Policy ENV1(1) of the Selby District Local Plan requires development proposals to take account of the amenity of adjoining occupiers. Saved Policy ENV2 resists development which would give rise to unacceptable levels of noise or nuisance unless satisfactory remedial or preventative measures are incorporated as an integral element of the scheme. Policy ENV3(3) requires any proposals for outdoor lighting to not have a significant adverse effect on local amenity.
10.116 Paragraph 140 of the NPPF states “Local planning authorities should ensure that relevant planning conditions refer to clear and accurate plans and drawings which provide visual clarity about the design of the development, and are clear about the approved use of materials where appropriate. This will provide greater certainty for those implementing the planning permission on how to comply with the permission and a clearer basis for local planning authorities to identify breaches of planning control.”
10.117 The nearest sensitive receptors to the application site are the properties fronting Glebelands to the northern boundary of the site and properties at The Oval to the east of the site.
10.118 The extant consent demonstrates that the proposed development would have a separation distance of 20 metres to the common boundary with the neighbouring properties; would be capped at a height of 29 AOD in the area south of the northern boundary; and would comprise E and F1 uses only (previously A1-A5, B1 and D1 uses) in that area. This is in the interests of residential amenity.
 |
10.119 Under the current proposals, Unit 5 would be located 20 metres from the common boundary with the neighbouring properties and would have a maximum height of 11 metres above the finished floor level which would give Unit 5 a maximum height of 24.65 AOD. However, while the illustrative section on the Proposed Levels Plan (drawing no. 21078-XOS-XX-XX-SK-C-5550 Revision P3) shows this arrangement, the submitted Illustrative Section F (drawing no. 2288 EXA-00-00-DR-L-00503 Revision P07) does not show this arrangement, instead showing Unit 5 to be set at a lower finished floor level and with an alternatively designed planted bund. The two alternative proposals are shown on the two extracts below and the discrepancies between the plans introduce a level of uncertainty regarding what is being proposed at the site, contrary to paragraph 140 of the NPPF.
 |
10.120 Notwithstanding the discrepancies between the plans, the proposed plans consistently show the proposed removal of the existing hedge adjacent to the northern boundary, with some form of planted bund proposed to replace this and to provide longer term screening to the northern boundary.
10.121 The arrangement shown on the Illustrative Section F (drawing no. 2288 EXA-00-00-DR-L-00503 Revision P07) would appear to result in less impact on residential amenity in terms of the potential for overshadowing, oppression and an overbearing impact to the neighbouring residential properties fronting Glebelands, however, it is not believed that this is what is being proposed, as it is inconsistent with the remainder of the plans including the Proposed Levels Plan (drawing no. 21078-XOS-XX-XX-SK-C-5550 Revision P3), which has been used for the purposes of describing the proposed development in Section 3 of this report.
10.122 In terms of the potential for overlooking and loss of privacy, it is noted that there are no windows proposed in the northern or western elevation of Unit 5 and therefore there are not considered to be any adverse impact in this respect. Sufficient separation distances are achieved to other units to ensure no adverse impacts of overshadowing, oppression, overshadowing or loss of privacy.
Operational Noise and Disturbance
10.123 By way of background, no objections were raised in principle in respect of operational noise and disturbance under the consideration of the outline planning permission, subject to the restriction of B2 and B8 uses in close proximity to the northern boundary. It was envisaged that consideration could be given to the detailed layout, scale, appearance and landscaping of the proposed development at the reserved matters stage to ensure no adverse impacts of operational noise and disturbance.
10.124 As set out earlier in this report, the primary uses within the site would be B2 (General Industrial) and B8 (Storage and Distribution) with ancillary offices, as per the extant consent. However, unlike the extant consent, the B2 and B8 uses would be spread out across the whole site, with B2 uses being proposed in close proximity to the northern boundary, which could have an impact on neighbouring properties in relation to noise and disturbance, given the potential for 24-hour use. Furthermore, a new HUB area, located to the west of the existing main access from Weeland Road, could have an impact on neighbouring properties in terms of noise and disturbance.
10.125 The application has been supported by a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) (reference 30287/INIA4-Rev 6) dated September 2025, prepared by Hann Tucker Associates. This splits the site into four operational zones, with noise limit allocations considered accordingly. It is noted that despite repeated requests by Officers to the Applicant, the HUB and open storage plot do not form part of the submitted NIA and it is also noted that the external areas seem to be excluded from the Zones shown in the figure at paragraph 8.1 of NIA.
10.126 The NIA explains that the report is based on indicative assumptions adopted for the purposes of a feasibility study and noisier uses or an increased number of delivery events may be suitable on the site subject to appropriate mitigation. The NIA at section 4.2 notes that there is to be the provision of a bund to the north of Unit 5 and that the exact uses of the units are not known, therefore sets out that the assessment is based on the site layout provided (which does not provide specific use classes for units).
10.127 Baseline noise monitoring has been undertaken at two representative locations, on the north west side of the site (where the residential properties are located at Glebelands) and to the northeast (where the residential properties are located at The Oval). The NIA notes that construction noise on-site was present (associated with Phase 1) on weekdays until 6pm, and on Saturday until 2pm when the baseline data was taken. The NIA sets out that in the absence of information on the exact operational time and uses of each unit, a worst-case scenario daytime and nighttime internal operational activities has been taken. The NIA also provides an assessment on delivery vehicle noise.
10.128 The Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) has been consulted on the application and has considered operational noise and disturbance. The Council’s EHO considers Zones 1-3 (as shown in the extract of the NIA below) are acceptable for 24-hour B2/B8 operation with predicted noise levels falling below background levels and within the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) – this is consistent with the conclusions drawn under the extant outline planning permission.
10.129 However, the Council’s EHO notes that Zone 4 is located closest to residential properties fronting Glebelands and requires further scrutiny due to predicted exceedances of night-time noise limits. The assessment for Zone 4 relies on several assumptions:
· Roller shutter doors remain closed except during loading/unloading;
· Plant is located more than 3 metres from walls and ceilings;
· External walls and roof achieve Rw 30 dB sound reduction;
· Operational noise does not exhibit tonal, impulsive, or intermittent characteristics (i.e. no BS4142 penalties applied).
10.130 The Council’s EHO notes that while these assumptions are reasonable for modelling purposes, they may not reflect future operational realities. The predicted cumulative rating level for Zone 4 is 33 dB — just 1 dB below the apportioned night-time limit of 34 dB. However, delivery noise from Units 5A–G and 12A–B is expected to exceed the night-time limit by 3 dB, which may result in adverse impacts. Uses within the proposed use classes could involve equipment or activities that generate tonal or impulsive noise (e.g. reversing alarms, compressors, impact noise), which under BS4142 could attract penalties of up to a combined total of +15 dB. This introduces a degree of uncertainty.
10.131 The Council’s EHO considers that conditions could be used to manage operational noise and disturbance, including a noise management plan related to the units within Zone 4; a complaint triggered assessment; building envelope specification; and a cumulative noise impact assessment for Zone 4. The Council’s EHO also requests a pre-commencement condition for an NIA for the HUB prior to commencement of development and clarification over the bund which was previously granted planning permission under in relation to the adjacent waste site, but has not yet been implemented.
10.132 Officers have a number of concerns regarding the use of the proposed conditions and their suitability, including whether they meet the conditions tests set out in paragraph 57 of the NPPF. Conditions requiring future submission of a Noise Management Plan, a Noise Impact Assessment and mitigation measures following receipt of a complaint are not considered appropriate. The impacts of the development and the proposed mitigation should be known at the time of making a decision and may not be able to be satisfactorily addressed retrospectively. The proposed condition requiring a cumulative NIA is stated to be submitted once the final layout is known, but that is at the current application stage, as the application seeks full planning permission. Again, mitigation measures are left for future determination, but the extent of these and whether they are achievable, are unknown at this stage. Likewise, to defer the submission of a NIA and mitigation measures for the HUB area to post consent is not appropriate. The impacts of the development and the proposed mitigation should be known at the time of making a decision and may not be able to be satisfactorily addressed retrospectively.
10.133 On the basis that Zones 1-3 appear to be acceptable in terms of noise and disturbance, Officers consider, Zone 4 should be restricted to uses compatible with residential uses, with a revised NIA being submitted on that basis, to include the HUB area as proposed so the impacts of that on sensitive receptors can be fully understood prior to determination of the application. At present, it is considered that insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact in relation to operational noise and disturbance contrary to saved Policies ENV1 and ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan and national planning policy contained within the NPPF.
Construction Noise and Disturbance
10.134 It is noted that a number of representees have raised concerns regarding the potential for construction noise and disturbance following complaints raised during the construction of Phase 1 on the adjacent site.
10.135 The Council’s EHO considers construction noise and disturbance can be appropriately managed through conditions relating to working hours, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), and piling and ground compaction works. It is considered that the proposed conditions are precise and enforceable and would satisfactorily mitigate any adverse impacts of construction works.
Air Quality
10.136 The Council’s EHO considers impact on air quality during construction and operation to be acceptable, subject to mitigation measures during the construction phase as set out the submitted Air Quality Assessment which can be incorporated into a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of any development, as secured by way of condition.
Outdoor Lighting
10.137 As detailed earlier in this report, a condition could be attached to any planning permission granted to secure a detailed external lighting scheme. This will need to be supported by sufficient information to ensure that external lighting does not negatively impact on neighbouring residential properties, as well as ensuring lighting for roadways, footways and cycleways is at an appropriate level to encourage safe and sustainable transport through the site (especially in the winter months) while maintaining sensitive areas as dark areas for ecological reasons.
Summary on Residential Amenity
10.138 Having regard to the above and notwithstanding the comments from the Council’s EHO, Officers consider insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact in relation to operational noise and disturbance contrary to saved Policies ENV1 and ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraphs 135, 187 and 198. Furthermore, it is considered that insufficient information has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority to assess the potential for overshadowing, oppression and an overbearing impact to the neighbouring residential properties fronting Glebelands arising from Unit 5, contrary to saved Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraphs 135 and 140.
10.139 Notwithstanding this, the proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to conditions, in relation to construction noise and disturbance, air quality and outdoor lighting in accordance with saved Policies ENV1, ENV2 and ENV3 of the Selby District Local Plan.
Land Contamination
10.140 Saved Policy ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan requires proposals for development which would give rise to, or be affected by, unacceptable contamination or other environmental pollution, to not be granted unless satisfactory remedial or preventative measures are incorporated as an integral element in the scheme. Where the is a suspicion that the site might be contaminated, planning permission may be granted subject to conditions to prevent the commencement of development until a site investigation and assessment has been carried out and development has incorporated all measures shown in the assessment to be necessary.
10.141 The application has been supported by a “Remedial Options Appraisal, Remediation Strategy and Verification Plan: Konect Phase 2” dated October 2023.
10.142 The submitted information sets out that previous ground investigations show that granular made ground and ashy made ground were reported to be impacted by PAHs and asbestos respectively. These impacted soils pose a potentially unacceptable risk to human health. Furthermore, ground gas risk assessment at the site indicates the ground gas regime to be representative of CS2, for which gas protection measures are required. Gas protection measures are also recommended for any structures within a 50m radius of the two former mineshafts. A series of remediation works are proposed, including: general site clearance of structures and hardstanding; excavation and segregation of asphalt and coal tar impacted asphalt surfaces; removal of relic foundations and structures, with backfilling of resultant excavations with suitable fill material (as applicable); earthworks to bring site to the proposed levels (due to the presence of PAHs and asbestos within the granular made ground and ashy made ground, these soils are not considered geoenvironmentally suitable for use within areas of soft landscaping and shall not be used within the earthworks to bring such areas to level); verification testing to assess the chemical suitability of any material to be placed within 300mm of ground level in soft landscaped areas; off-site disposal of excess/unsuitable material; and installation of CS2 ground gas protection measures (including a cast in-situ ground bearing floor slab, and the installation and verification of a suitable gas resistant membrane).
10.143 The Council’s Contaminated Land Consultant has been consulted on the application and has advised that the proposed remediation works are considered to be appropriate for the proposed use and that the remediation works could be secured by an appropriately worded planning condition to any planning permission granted, along with verification of the remediation works. It is also recommended that a condition relating to the reporting of any unexpected contamination should be attached to any planning permission granted.
10.144 Subject to the aforementioned conditions, it is considered that the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of land contaminated in accordance with saved Policy ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraph 196.
Flood Risk and Drainage
10.145 The most up-to-date policy in relation to flooding matters is the overarching principles and Policy SP15 set out in the Core Strategy and national planning policy contained within Chapter 14 of the NPPF.
10.146 From a search of the Environment Agency Flood Maps, it is confirmed that the application site is located within Flood Zone 1, which has a low probability of flooding. Small pockets of the site have a low, medium and high chance of surface water flooding.
10.147 Paragraph 181 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere when determining planning applications and therefore requires certain applications to be supported by site specific flood risk assessments. This includes all proposals in Flood Zone 1 where the site exceeds 1 hectare.
10.148 Paragraph 173 of the NPPF requires a sequential risk based approach should be taken to individual applications in areas known to be at risk now or in the future to any form of development. Paragraph 175 of the NPPF states “The sequential test should be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding, except in situations where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that no built development within the site boundary, including access or escape routes, land raising or other potentially vulnerable elements, would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding from any source, now and in the future (having regard to potential changes in flood risk).”
10.149 In relation to paragraph 175 of the NPPF, the Planning Practice Guidance advises “In applying paragraph 175 a proportionate approach should be taken. Where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates clearly that the proposed layout, design, and mitigation measures would ensure that occupiers and users would remain safe from current and future surface water flood risk for the lifetime of the development (therefore addressing the risks identified e.g. by Environment Agency flood risk mapping), without increasing flood risk elsewhere, then the sequential test need not be applied.”
10.150 The application has been supported by a Flood Risk Assessment (reference 141-XOS-XX-XX-RP-C-5000 Revision P2), dated October 2023 prepared by XOsquare Limited Consulting Engineers. This demonstrates occupiers and users would remain safe from current and future surface water risk for the lifetime of the development without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Therefore, the sequential test need not be applied.
10.151 The Environment Agency have been consulted on the application and have raised no objections.
10.152 In terms of drainage, application has been supported by a Drainage Note (reference 141-XOS-XX-XX-RP-C-5000 Revision P3), dated January 2025, prepared by XOsquare Limited Consulting Engineers; and a Drainage Strategy (reference 141 XOS XX XX DR C 5571 Revision P6) dated February 2025, prepared by XOsquare Limited Consulting Engineers.
10.153 Surface water is to outfall into the Beal Drain to the south of the site with onsite attenuation in the form of attenuation tanks and attenuation basins. Foul water is to connect into the existing Yorkshire Water pumping station off Turvers lane.
10.154 The Lead Local Flood Authority, the local Internal Drainage Board and Yorkshire Water have been consulted on the application. The Lead Local Flood Authority raised no objections subject to the submission of an exceedance flow route plan, maintenance and management plan and confirmation from the local Internal Drainage Board that discharge of surface water to the Beak Drain was acceptable to them. An exceedance flow plan has since been submitted; a maintenance and management plan could be conditioned to any planning consent granted; and the local Internal Drainage Board have raised no objections to discharge to the Beal Drain in principle. Yorkshire Water raise no objections to the application. However, they note that at present the existing foul drainage infrastructure does not have adequate capacity to accommodate the anticipated foul water flow from the development, therefore Yorkshire Water will need to carry out upgrade works to the local drainage network.
10.155 Having regard to the above, and notwithstanding local representations, it is considered that the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of flood risk and drainage, in accordance with the overarching principles and Policy SP15 set out in the Core Strategy and national planning policy contained within Chapter 14 of the NPPF.
Developer Contributions
10.156 There are no agreed Heads of Terms, however the applicant has submitted the following: .
|
Table 1 |
|||
|
ID |
Category/Type |
Contribution/Amount |
Justification & Trigger |
|
1 |
Aire and Calder Contribution |
£82,885 |
A contribution equivalent to a 27% uplift against the agreed contribution under the original outline (£155,000 plus indexation) in line with the uplift in floorspace sought under the Phase 2 full application (27%). The trigger point for payment being on commencement of development beyond the first 135,000sqm (that being the floorspace consented under the outline). |
|
2 |
Public Transport Contribution |
£53,474 |
A contribution equivalent to a 27% uplift against the agreed contribution under the original outline (£100,000 plus indexation) in line with the uplift in floorspace sought under the Phase 2 full application (27%). The trigger point for payment being on commencement of development beyond the first 135,000sqm (that being the floorspace consented under the outline). |
|
3 |
Highway street lighting on Weeland Road |
£30,000
|
None provided. |
|
4 |
Off-site landscaping |
In the area shown Green on the attached plan ref [21169-C4P-80-S01ZZ-D-A-8001-S2-P06]. To be maintained and retained in perpetuity. |
None provided. |
|
5 |
Land to be safeguarded for future rail connectivity |
Land identified on the attached plan ref [21169-C4P-80-S01ZZ-D-A-8001-S2-P06]. |
None provided. |
|
6 |
Public Art Strategy |
Provision of a Public Art Strategy to be submitted and agreed with North Yorkshire Council for provision of Public Art throughout the whole site - allocate the £31,722.06 contribution paid under the original s106 for this purpose.
|
None provided. |
|
7 |
Travel Plan |
- |
None provided. |
10.157 Taking each of these in turn.
ID1, the Aire and Calder Contribution
10.158 Discussions have been ongoing between the Council and the Canal & Rivers Trust regarding spending the contribution received under the extant consent. Estimates are that the upgrade works to the canal towpath between the application site and Knottingley could cost in the region of £550,000 for a 2.5-metre-wide bituminous surface which would allow it to be used in all weathers by pedestrians and cyclists, less if a crushed stone surface were to be provided. There is the potential for Section 106 contributions from the Southmoor Energy Centre consent to be pooled for this project and the Canal & Rivers Trust are exploring other avenues of funding to be pooled. A further contribution resulting from a grant of planning permission under this application, equivalent to a 27% uplift against the agreed contribution under the original outline consent, would be appropriate as additional floorspace would result in the potential for additional users who would benefit from the upgraded canal towpath. It is considered that this contribution would be necessary, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and as such complies with the tests set out in paragraph 58 of the NPPF and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010.
ID2, the Public Transport Contribution
10.159 This has already been considered in detail in paragraphs 10.82 to 10.86 of this report. The cost of additional services to ensure useful bus services are available for staff is £150,000 per year for 5 years. This totals £750,000 such that a further £650,000 is being requested by the local Highway Authority rather than the £53,474 proposed relative to the 27% uplift in floorspace. It would seem that the Section 106 public transport contributions of the outline consent were based on supplementing a bus service that was more extensive than the one currently serving the site in 2025. It is considered that the contribution sought would be necessary, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and as such complies with the tests set out in paragraph 58 of the NPPF and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010, however, the Applicant is not willing to provide the full contribution.
ID3, Highway Street Lighting on Weeland Road
10.160 The Applicant has offered to make the footway along the A645 safer by providing street lighting over the 1km missing section up to the Wakefield boundary, however, the sum offered, £30,000, is insufficient. The cost of a suitable lighting scheme along this section has been estimated by North Yorkshire Council Lighting to be around £169,000, which is considered to be necessary, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and as such complies with the tests set out in paragraph 58 of the NPPF and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010.
ID4, Off-Site Landscaping
10.161 This is considered to be necessary (for screening to the south side of the application site adjacent to the ‘future rail facility’), directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and as such complies with the tests set out in paragraph 58 of the NPPF and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010. The Section 106 could be worded to ensure that this is delivered at an early stage and maintained and retained in perpetuity in accordance with a long-term maintenance and management plan.
ID5, Land to be Safeguarded for Future Rail Connectivity
10.161 This has already been considered in detail in paragraphs 10.107 to 10.117 of this report. It is not considered that it has been robustly demonstrated that adequate mitigation in the form of alternative transport infrastructure could be provided on the land, contrary to Policy S05 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan., It is not clear how securing an area of land for a ‘future rail facility’ would secure adequate mitigation as per Policy S05 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan. Any future facility on the land would be subject to a separate planning application and there is no certainty of it being applied for or being granted.
ID6, Public Art Strategy
10.162 The Section 106 attached to the outline consent required a contribution of £30,000 (index linked) which has been paid to the Council. This requires an entrance feature at the main entrance to the development off Weeland Road, which will make reference to the previous use of the site as a former Colliery. However, the Applicant is now seeking agreement for this money to be spend on public art within the site, rather than at the site entrance specifically. This can form part of the Section 106 legal agreement as it is necessary, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and as such complies with the tests set out in paragraph 58 of the NPPF and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010.
ID7, Travel Plan
10.163 It is agreed that a Travel Plan monitoring fee would be required as part of any Section 106. This is considered to be necessary, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and as such complies with the tests set out in paragraph 58 of the NPPF and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010.
10.164 It is noted that an earlier draft of the Section 106 Heads of Terms included a contribution put forward by the Applicant for a children’s play park/playing pitch. Officers did not consider this contribution to comply with the tests set out in paragraph 58 of the NPPF or the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 as it was not necessary or directly related to the development. The Applicant has since removed this from the Section 106 Heads of Terms. However, Officers note that if this contribution arose from discussions between the Applicant and the Parish Council, it would be open to the Applicant and Parish Council to pursue this outside of the planning process as a community benefit, though it is not a material consideration in the determination of this application.
Other Matters
10.165 It is noted that the Canal & Rivers Trust raise no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions requiring a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to reduce risk of contamination towards the canal, and signage to assist wayfinding through the site for canal towpath users (who may need to divert past the former wharfe area of the towpath. The Canal & Rivers Trust also welcome the uplift in Aire and Calder Contribution, which could be secured by Section 106 legal agreement.
10.166 Network Rail comments raise no objection to the proposed development subject to a condition requiring construction methodology to be agreed to ensure development in close proximity to the rail network does not impact on its operation. Network Rail also seek a Section 106 contribution for station facility improvements at Whitley Bridge and Knottingley stations, however, this was not considered to meet the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 under the extant consent, as it was not necessary or directly related to the development, and the same applies under the current application.
10.167 Comments from representees regarding complaints to Phase 1 and the potential impact of the proposed development on house values are not material considerations in the assessment and determination of this application.
Section 149 of The Equality Act 2010
10.168 Under Section 149 of The Equality Act 2010 Local Planning Authorities must have due regard to the following when making decisions: (i) eliminating discrimination, harassment and victimisation; (ii) advancing equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; and (iii) fostering good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics are: age (normally young or older people), disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation.
10.169 The proposed development of the site would not result in a negative effect on any persons or on persons with The Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics.
Human Rights Act 1998
10.170 It is considered that the proposed development would not contravene convention Rights contained within the Human Rights Act 1998.
11.0 PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
11.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that all planning authorities must determine each application under the Planning Acts in accordance with the Development Plan so far as material to the application unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
11.2 The site is not an allocated site, and the proposal is for large scale development that will have an impact on the surrounding environment. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be a departure from the adopted Development Plan.
11.3 The proposal is for the redevelopment of a former major employment site for employment uses. The proposed uses would help to generate employment opportunities and would in part contribute towards and improve the local economy and maintain and enhance the vitality of rural communities in this countryside location, in accordance with Policy SP13. However, it is noted that the employees and customer base of the units within the employment park would be wider ranging than the local economy in this countryside location. Notwithstanding this, the principle of employment use in this location has been long established and there is an extant consent for employment use at the site (reference 2020/0155/S73).
11.4 While the employment use of the site may be established and may be acceptable in this location, the scale of that use, and any increase in the scale of that use over and above what has already been consented, needs to be given full and careful consideration. The extant outline planning permission currently provides for an appropriate scale development, which respects the character and amenity of the area and represents sustainable economic growth. The current proposals are not considered to provide an appropriate scale of development and are considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site, to the detriment of the character and amenity of the area and are not considered to represent sustainable economic growth, contrary to Policy SP13 C and D of the Core Strategy and ultimately contrary to Policies SP1 and SP2A (c) of the Core Strategy.
11.5 The application proposes B2 uses in close proximity to the northern boundary, adjacent to residential properties fronting Glebelands. These could be in 24-hour use. Furthermore, the application purposes a HUB area containing E and F1 uses in close proximity to the northern boundary, adjacent to residential properties fronting Glebelands. These could be in use 07:00-21:00 Monday to Sunday. It is considered that insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed uses adjacent to the northern boundary would have an acceptable impact in relation to operational noise and disturbance contrary to saved Policies ENV1 and ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraphs 135, 187 and 198.
11.6 In addition, there are discrepancies between the submitted plans regarding the ground levels and finished floor levels of Unit 5 and the level and design of the bund adjacent to the northern boundary, which introduce a level of uncertainty regarding what is being proposed at the site, contrary to paragraph 140 of the NPPF. It is therefore considered that insufficient information has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority to assess the potential for overshadowing, oppression and an overbearing impact to the neighbouring residential properties fronting Glebelands arising from Unit 5, contrary to saved Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraphs 135 and 140.
11.7 There are concerns with the proposed layout of the scheme and its impact on the character of the area, particularly in relation to Unit 5, the HUB and the permanent loss of the safeguarded rail infrastructure, which are indicative of an overdevelopment of the site. Notwithstanding the above, no concerns are raised with the appearance, scale, landscaping and landscape and visual impact of the proposed development including its impact on the Green Belt. Having regard to the above, there are some identified conflicts with saved Policy ENV1 and Policies SP18 and SP19 of the Core Strategy, and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraph 135.
11.8 The development would not result in a severe impact on the highway network with the traffic volumes proposed. However, this full planning application does not specify specifically which units are in which uses and conditions to restrict the use of the site to a percentage split of use classes would not be precise or enforceable contrary to paragraph 57 of the NPPF. This could result in much greater traffic volumes than proposed. In the absence of such a condition, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not result in a severe impact on the highway network contrary to saved Policies ENV1, T1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraph 116.
11.9 There will be an impact on highway safety for users of the site. The safety of vulnerable highway users - pedestrians, cyclists, those with reduced mobility - will be impacted should they try to utilise active travel to access the site. Inadequate mitigation measures are proposed, which could otherwise address the highway safety issues contrary to saved Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan and Policies SP15 and SP19 of the Core Strategy, which together seek to direct development to sustainable locations with good quality means of access, making provision and facilitating active travel which minimise conflicts. There would also be conflict with the NPPF, including paragraphs 115 to 118, which seeks to ensure that significant development is focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes.
11.10 In light of the very limited likelihood of modal shift within the application, it can be expected that future users of the site will travel mainly by motorised private vehicles, and so no reductions in North Yorkshire Council parking standards would be possible. As this full planning application does not specify specifically which units are in which uses, worst case parking would need to be provided. Insufficient parking is provided at present contrary to saved Policies ENV1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraphs 109 and 115.
11.11 The proposal is acceptable in accordance with Policies S02 and S04 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan, in so far as it is not economically viable to extract the mineral resource and would safeguard the adjacent waste site. However, the proposal would result in the permanent loss of existing transport infrastructure safeguarded under Policy S05 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan and it is not considered that it has been robustly demonstrated that adequate mitigation in the form of alternative transport infrastructure could be provided. This is at a time when alternative transport options are likely to become crucial in the light of the impacts of climate change.
11.12 The proposals are considered to be acceptable in terms of flood risk and drainage, land contamination, air quality, outdoor lighting and construction noise and disturbance, subject to appropriate conditions.
11.13 The proposed development would not have any adverse impact on ecological considerations and would provide substantial net gains for biodiversity. This is not an application where statutory net gain is required, therefore this is a benefit arising from the development.
11.14 The Applicant contends that the deliverability of the site for future development will be impacted should planning permission not be granted for this amended scheme. They assert that there are several key constraints and difficulties on the site which prevent a viable development, including the mine shafts, which need to be capped and filled, as well as significant changes in site levels, and contaminated land; all of which they state can only be delivered and remediated subject to planning permission being granted. They advise that the scheme is not viable due to these constraints which require significant upfront investment in order to deliver any floorspace on the remainder of this site and that the first step in the delivery of this employment site would be planning permission being granted for this amended scheme.
11.15 However, the site constraints remain unchanged from when the extant outline consent was granted and have been ‘known knowns’ for a substantial amount of time. The current proposals are not considered to represent sustainable economic growth, but rather an overdevelopment of the site. The proposed development is not considered to be appropriate in scale and type to its location; would result in harm to the character of the area, would not ensure a good standard of amenity, and would not encourage active travel with the potential for highway safety impacts contrary to Policies SP1 and SP2A (c), SP13 C and D, SP15, SP18 and SP19 of the Core Strategy, saved Policies ENV1, ENV2, T1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan, Policy S05 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraphs 89, 109, 115-118, 135, 140, 187 and 189. It is not considered that there are material considerations which would outweigh the conflicts with the adopted Development Plan in this instance.
11.16 The site benefits from an extant outline planning permission (reference 2020/0155/S73), and notwithstanding the outcome of this application, further reserved matters applications for the remainder of the site (the land subject of this current application) can be made up until 6 February 2034, within the parameters of the outline planning permission.
12.0 RECOMMENDATION
12.1 That planning permission is REFUSED for the following reasons:
01. The proposal does not provide an appropriate scale of development and is considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site, to the detriment of the character and amenity of the area and is not considered to represent sustainable economic growth, contrary to Policies SP1, SP2A (c), SP13 C and D, SP18 and SP19 of the Core Strategy, and saved Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
02. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed uses adjacent to the northern boundary would have an acceptable impact in relation to operational noise and disturbance contrary to saved Policies ENV1 and ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraphs 135, 187 and 198.
03. Insufficient information has been submitted to enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the potential for overshadowing, oppression and an overbearing impact to the neighbouring residential properties fronting Glebelands arising from Unit 5 , contrary to saved Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraph 135.
04. In the absence of a suitable planning condition to restrict the B2 and B8 use of the site to that assessed in the Transport Assessment, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not result in a severe impact on the highway network contrary to saved Policies ENV1, T1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraph 116.
05. The safety of vulnerable highway users - pedestrians, cyclists, those with reduced mobility - will be impacted should they try to utilise active travel to access the site, due to inadequate mitigation measures being proposed, contrary to saved Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan and Policies SP15 and SP19 of the Core Strategy and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraphs 115 to 118 .
06. Insufficient parking is provided contrary to saved Policies ENV1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan and national planning policy contained within the NPPF, including paragraphs 109 and 115.
07. The proposal would result in the permanent loss of existing safeguarded transport infrastructure and it is not considered that it has been robustly demonstrated that adequate mitigation in the form of alternative transport infrastructure could be provided, contrary to Policy S05 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan.
Target Determination Date: 30.04.2025
Case Officer: Jenny Crossley, jenny.crossley@northyorks.gov.uk
Appendix A – Proposed Layout Plan