North Yorkshire Council
Community Development Services
Selby and Ainsty Area Planning Committee
8 july 2026
2023/0030/FULM - Residential development of 204 residential dwellings - Land Off Mill Lane, Brayton, Selby, North Yorkshire
BY NORTH YORKSHIRE COUNCIL
Report of the Assistant Director – PLANNING – COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
|
1.0 Purpose of the Report 1.1 To determine an application for full planning permission for residential development of 204 residential dwellings at Land off Mill Lane, Brayton, Selby, North Yorkshire.
1.2 This application is reported to Committee because the Head of Development Management considers this application to raise significant planning issues.
1.3 The application was considered by this Planning Committee on 13th May 2026, where Members resolved to defer the application for the following reasons:
To
allow discussions to take place between the Applicant, the Division
Member and Planning Officers to explore potential amendments to the
scheme to better reflect the character of the area in terms of
density and appearance, and to allow time for clarification of the
agricultural land classification. 1.4 This application has been brought back to this Committee for consideration and determination following submission of further supporting information with regards to the areas of concern raised at the May Planning Committee, notably Agricultural Land Classification and character and appearance. The full report to the May Planning Committee is appended and should be read in conjunction with this report. |
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to prior completion of a Section 106 Agreement and subject to the conditions detailed below.
2.1. This is a full planning application for the development of agricultural land for 204 dwellings with associated infrastructure, landscaping and open space at Mill Lane Brayton. The proposed site layout shows internal roads, provision of open space and drainage. The site adjoins existing development to the north and east, there are dwellings to the south and agricultural fields to the west. The site was intended to be an allocation (BRAY-X) within the former emerging Selby Local Plan.
2.2. The Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land. Although the principle of locating the majority of development towards the towns, local service centres and the designated service villages defined within Policy SP2 of the CSLP still carries weight, the absence of a five-year supply means it can no longer be required to locate this development exclusively within their development limits (DL’S) as required by SP4. Policy SP5 is out of date and carries no weight because the housing need figure it contains is not calculated based on the required standard method. In this regard, the proposed DL’s adjacent to sustainable settlements designated in Policy SP2, are a starting point from where applications can be considered on their own merits. This should be done in accordance with paragraph 11d from the NPPF. Permission should be granted unless the proposal fails to satisfy the tests in NPPF paragraph 11d. It requires consideration of whether the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
2.3. On this site the benefits include the site being in a reasonably sustainable location; the proposal makes a significant contribution to market and affordable housing (great weight is given to this consideration); the housing mix will deliver a mixed and balanced community; there will be contributions to recreational open space and biodiversity net gain and ecological enhancements; economic development both during construction phase and once the houses are occupied which are afforded moderate weight.
2.4. Neutral matters include the lack of conflict with mineral policies; density of development; the site specific flood risk implications are acceptable and suitable drainage can be controlled by condition; there would be no harm arising from highway access; there would be no harm to protected species or designated sites; the site can be made safe from contamination and residential amenity would not be harmed.
2.5. The adverse impacts include visual and landscape character harm; the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land; and conflict with the development plan.
2.6. Consideration has been given to the further information provided by the applicants following the deferral of the application at the May Selby and Ainsty Planning Committee, which involved an Agricultural Land Classification assessment and a Design Statement with appendices, and whilst these are noted there remains minor adverse harm to visual and landscape character and loss of best and most versatile agricultural land.
2.7. It is concluded that the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The proposal benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Therefore, planning permission should be granted subject to conditions and the prior completion of a S106 agreement.
2.8.
3.0 UPDATES ON REASONS FOR DEFERRAL AND APPLICANTS CASE IN RESPONSE
Loss of agricultural land
3.1. Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy seeks to sustain the natural environment by steering development to areas of least agricultural quality. NPPF paragraph 187 states that decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Policy SP18 is consistent with the NPPF and is given significant weight.
3.2. Agricultural land is classified using grades 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4 and 5. Best and most versatile agricultural land is defined as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification.
3.3. The Yorkshire and Humber Agricultural Land Classification indicated the site to be grade 3 “Good to Moderate” agricultural land. Concerns were raised at committee that no Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) had been carried out for the site and therefore it was not possible to know how much of the site was grade 3a (best and most versatile).
3.4. The applicant has carried out and submitted an (ALC) for the site. The site comprises a majority of Grade 3b land with a small percentage of Grade 3a located in the south-western corner of the site. The following table and map are extracts from the ALC report identifying the percentage and extent of grade 3a land.
3.5. Natural England was not consulted on the application as the proposed development does not meet the statutory consultation threshold of 20-hectares specified within Article 18 and Schedule 4 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). The ALC confirms that although the site extends to approximately 8ha in total only 1ha comprises Best and Most Versatile land (Grade 3a). As this is significantly below the threshold of 20ha there is no requirement to consult Natural England on this application.
3.6. BMV is a resource protected under national policy. The ALC confirms that a limited area of BMV would be lost as part of this proposal. As the site lies outside of the village development limits there is conflict with the spatial development strategy, where this loss is considered unnecessary. However, the limited amount of BMV is minor in the context of the wider site and well below the threshold at which significant weight can be attributed to its loss. The harm is therefore considered to be minor and has to be set against the significant weight afforded to the delivery of new housing to meet identified housing needs. On balance it is considered that significant benefits of delivering housing outweighs the limited harm arising from the loss of a limited area of BMV.
Character and appearance of the area
3.7. Policy ENV1 of the SDLP requires that the impact of new development on the character of the area and the standard of design, relative to the site and its context, is given due consideration when assessing planning proposals. Similarly, Core Strategy Policy SP18 seeks to sustain high-quality environments and local distinctiveness by protecting, and where possible enhancing, the historic and natural environment, including the landscape character and the setting of areas recognised for their importance.
3.8. Policy SP19 requires that residential developments should: “Incorporate new and existing landscaping as an integral part of the design of schemes, including off-site landscaping for larger sites and those located on the edge of settlements where appropriate.”
3.9. Paragraph 135 of the Framework outlines a series of expectations for achieving high-quality design in new development, while Paragraph 187 of the Framework encourages planning decisions to contribute to, and enhance, the natural and local environment by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.
3.10. NPPF Footnote 9 requires consideration to Paragraph 135, which requires that planning decisions should ensure developments that are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, provide effective landscaping, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities). Paragraph 139 resists bad design and supports good design.
3.11. The adopted Brayton Village Design Statement sets out design guidance for development in the village.
3.12. The application was deferred partly To allow discussions to take place between the Applicant, the Division Member and Planning Officers to explore potential amendments to the scheme to better reflect the character of the area in terms of density and appearance.
3.13. Since Planning Committee, the applicant has met with the Division Member Councillor Crane. It is understood that discussions focused on over density of development, on-site car parking, open space management, provision of bungalows, the Mill Lane/A19 junction and Mill Lane speed limit.
3.14. Planning Committee also raised concerns that the recommendations and concerns within the consultation response from Urban Design and Landscape had not been considered by the applicant. In response the applicant has prepared and submitted a Design Statement addressing the points raised by consultees and concerns raised at committee. The Design Statement considers the following:
· overall design approach
· character and appearance
· site layout and movement through the site
· density, form and residential amenity
· landscape integration
· infrastructure and housing mix
The main points considered are set out in the following
paragraphs.
3.15. The density of the development has been recalculated by the applicant. The density of adjacent development and the Persimmon Homes development in Brayton have also been calculated.
|
Site |
No. of dwellings |
Site area net (ha) |
Dwellings per hectare (dph) net |
|
Application site |
204 |
6.61 |
30.68 |
|
Orion Homes development (Hollytree Way) (NE of site)
|
44 |
1.67 |
26.21 |
|
Linden Homes development (Hobby Way; Kestrel Garth; Peregrine Square; Merlin Way) (N of site)
|
125 |
3.91 |
31.96 |
|
Persimmon Homes development (ZG2023/0507/OUTM & ZG2025/0822/REMM) |
67 |
2.05 |
32.68 |
3.16. At 30.68 dwellings per hectare the application proposal is comparable in density to the surrounding development to the north and east and, as such, is not considered to be out of character with the area.
3.17. Figure 03 of the Design Statement demonstrates the proposed dwellings facing Mill Lane to be forward facing and set back between 9.8m and 34.8m from the highway. This is greater than the setbacks to the south of Mill Lane which are between 7.5m and 13.8m.
3.18. The same figure also confirms the separation distances between existing and proposed dwellings to the eastern and northern boundaries. Back-to-back separation distances along the northern boundary are a minimum of 23.2m and 21.2m (oblique angle) to the eastern boundary. Side to back distances along the northern boundary area minimum of 16.5m and 17.7m along the eastern boundary. The separation distances are within normal tolerances and acceptable levels of privacy, outlook and amenity provided.
3.19. The applicant accepts that there is some repetition of built form across the site, however, highlights the variation in house types and landscaping to create visual interest. Compared to the adjoining developments at Hollytree Way and Kestrel Garth, the proposal includes street trees, specimen trees and a community orchard, as well as a landscape buffer to the western and southern boundaries. It is noted that there is repetition of house type within adjoining developments and on Mill Lane, which are developments which contribute to the character of the area.
3.20. An updated response has also been received from Urban Design and Landscape officers. They continue to have concerns regarding the overall site character, relationship to the surrounding settlement pattern, and the quality of the proposed layout in urban design and placemaking terms, however, they recognise the current planning context, in particular the absence of a demonstrable five-year housing land supply. They have advised that the identified issues are not of such significance as to recommend refusal on Landscape and Urban Design grounds. They recommend that design be controlled by suitable conditions. There remains minor adverse harm to visual and landscape character. They do not have any objection to the application in principle.
3.21. Following consideration of the matters raised by Members and comments from Landscape and Urban Design, the application does not propose further amendment to the site layout. However, it is recognised that proposed conditions, including condition 24 (landscaping) and condition 30 (materials) will allow for ongoing officer involvement to help secure quality landscape design and material choices. These conditions are considered proportionate, and no additional conditions are considered necessary.
3.22. In conclusion, the applicant has proactively sought to address the concerns raised by Planning Committee and from Urban Design and Landscape. They have engaged with the Division Member and have submitted further information in support of their case.
4.0 Developer Contributions
4.1 The developer contributions arising from the development, as set out in section 10 of the May 2026 committee report, are reproduced below. The BNG monitoring fee was found to have been missed from the list in error and has now been added, with the applicant’s agreement.
4.2
The agreed Heads of Terms are set out below:
|
Category/type |
Contribution |
|
Education |
£680,539.86 – Secondary £152,246.16 – Special £173,007.00 – Early Years Total £1,005,793.02 |
|
Healthcare |
£240,660 |
|
Highways – Bus service improvements |
£1,266 per dwelling |
|
Highways – Brayton Lights |
£50,000 |
|
Highways – Gowthorpe Lights |
£10,000 |
|
Highways – Extension of 30mph speed limit on A19 |
£7,500 |
|
Highways – Traffic Regulation Order |
£3,000 |
|
Highways – Brayton-Selby cycle link |
£1,350 per dwelling |
|
Highways – Travel Plan monitoring fee |
£5,000 – payable 3 months prior to occupation |
|
Affordable Housing |
10% of all units Submission of Affordable Housing scheme |
|
Recreational Open Space |
Submission of ROS scheme Implementation and maintenance |
|
S106 Monitoring fee |
£505.00 |
|
BNG Monitoring fee |
£2955.00 |
4.3 It is considered that the above S106 Heads of Terms are necessary, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and as such complies with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010.
Section 149 of The Equality Act 2010
4.4 Under Section 148 of the Equality Act 2010 Local Planning Authorities must have due regard to the following when making decisions: (i) eliminating discrimination, harassment and victimisation; (ii) advancing equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; and (iii) fostering good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics are: age (normally young or older people), disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation.
4.5 The development of the site for residential purposes would not result in a negative effect on any persons or on persons with The Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics and could in the longer term have a positive effect.
Human Rights Act 1998
4.6 It is considered that the proposal would not contravene Convention rights contained in the Human Rights Act 1998 in particular the right to health and the right to private and family life.
5.0 PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
5.1 The spatial development hierarchy outlined in Policy SP2 seeks to deliver sustainable development across the former District, directing new development towards the most sustainable settlements. Brayton is a Designated Service Village with scope for additional growth. This proposal is for significant development outside of the village development limits in the countryside, and as such is contrary to Development Plan Policy SP2A(c) of the Core Strategy.
5.2 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 refers to a balance, stating development should be in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Therefore, whilst the primacy of the development plan remains and its status is unaffected, there are circumstances where a scheme can be supported despite development plan conflict. To assess that requires a judgement based on the relative weights afforded to material considerations.
5.3 In favour of the scheme the applicants present that the proposal is in a sustainable location and would contribute to the housing land supply. Other benefits cited are affordable housing provision, provision of a Locally Equipped Area of Play and biodiversity net gain, although this is not mandatory for this application.
5.4 In terms of the Council wide policies on housing delivery, the Core Strategy in relation to housing is out of date because the housing needs figure it contains is not calculated based on the required standard method. Core Strategy Policy SP2 is inconsistent with NPPF paragraph 61 which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing and aims to meet an area’s identified housing need. A continued strict application of Policy SP2, which prevents market housing outside development limits in the countryside such as this, would not allow the LPA to meet the identified local housing needs. Furthermore, the weight afforded to conflict with Core Strategy Policy SP2 is diminished as it does not include the more detailed approach to the consideration of development that is found in the NPPF. Thus, the policy is inconsistent with the NPPF and should be given limited weight.
5.5 The Local Planning Authority acknowledges that it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land as required by the NPPF. Therefore, the policies most important for determining the application, SP2 and SP5, are out of date as set out in NPPF paragraph 11. Permission should be granted unless the proposal fails to satisfy the tests in NPPF paragraph 11d). The proposal complies with paragraph 11d)i because no NPPF policy that protects areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. The requirements of paragraph 11d)ii are more detailed as set out below. It requires consideration of whether the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
5.6 Benefits include the site being in a sustainable location and well related to the village; the proposal makes a significant contribution to needed market and affordable housing (great weight is given to this consideration); a suitable housing mix can be secured; there would be biodiversity net gain and ecological enhancements; economic benefits both during the construction phase and once the houses are occupied are afforded moderate weight.
5.7 In terms of neutral matters, suitable drainage can be controlled by condition; there; there would be no harm to protected species or designated sites; landscape harm can be mitigated.
5.8 In terms of harm, 1ha of BMV would be lost due to the development, however this limited amount of loss is considered to result in minor harm to self-sufficiency and food production.
5.9 The site can be made safe from contamination; there is no harm to heritage; noise and air pollution matters can be mitigated by condition; education and healthcare contributions can be secured to ensure no detriment to existing services are caused. Acceptable separation distances between proposed and existing dwellings ensures that residential amenity will not be harmed.
5.10 There would be minor adverse harm to landscape, visual appearance and character however this is not considered to be so significant as to result in refusal of the application.
5.11 It is considered that the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The proposal benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Therefore, planning permission should be granted subject to conditions and prior completion of a S106 agreement.
6 RECOMMENDATION
6.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to prior completion of a Section 106 Agreement and subject to the conditions as set out in section 12 of the May 2026 committee report attached as Appendix A.
Target Determination Date: 31.07.2026
Case Officer: Linda Drake
Appendix A: 13th May 2026 Planning Committee report