North Yorkshire Council
Community Development Services
Strategic Planning Committee
11 August 2026
25/02006/OUTMAJ - OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 210 DWELLINGS (USE CLASS C3) ALL MATTERS RESERVED WITH ACCESS TO BE PROVIDED FROM A661 ON BEHALF OF LICHFIELDS
Report of the Head of Development Management – Community Development Services
|
1.0 Purpose of the Report
1.1 To determine an Outline planning application (all matters reserved) for residential development with access from Harrogate Road at land to the north-east of Harrogate Road, Wetherby.
1.2 This application is referred to Strategic Planning Committee for determination due to the sensitivity of the application and its location on the boundary with Leeds City Council.
|
2.0 SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions listed below and prior completion of a S106 legal agreement with terms as detailed in Table 1.
2.1 The application seeks outline planning permission for up to 210 dwellings with all matters reserved, save for access from the A661, on land north-east of Harrogate Road, Wetherby. The site lies outside defined development limits but directly adjoins the built-up area of Wetherby and is considered to represent a sustainable location for residential development.
2.2 The Council is currently able to demonstrate only a 2.2-year housing land supply. Accordingly, paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is engaged and the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies. In these circumstances, planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole, or unless policies protecting areas or assets of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusal.
2.3 The proposal would deliver up to 210 dwellings, including 84 affordable homes, in an area experiencing a significant shortfall in housing land supply. Additional benefits include economic investment during construction and occupation, biodiversity net gain in excess of the statutory minimum requirement, green infrastructure enhancements, education contributions in excess of £2 million, affordable housing secured through a Section 106 Agreement and off-site highway improvements. These benefits attract substantial weight in favour of the proposal.
2.4 The proposal would result in the permanent loss of agricultural land, including areas of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land, and would also result in moderate adverse landscape and visual effects arising from the extension of built development into the countryside. Whilst significant mitigation is proposed, including structural landscaping and long-term management measures, these harms would remain and weigh against the proposal in the planning balance.
2.5 No heritage harm has been identified and the proposal would preserve the significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets. In relation to Kirk Deighton SAC, the applicant submitted Information to Inform a Habitats Regulations Assessment together with a Shadow Appropriate Assessment. Having regard to that information, the advice of the Council's Principal Ecologist and the response from Natural England, it is concluded that the proposal would not result in an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC. Other technical matters, including residential amenity, highway safety, ecology, flood risk and drainage, air quality and contamination, can be satisfactorily addressed through planning conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement.
2.6 When assessed against the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole, it is not considered that the identified adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the substantial social, economic and environmental benefits arising from the proposal. Furthermore, no policies within the NPPF that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusing the application.
2.7 The tilted balance therefore falls in favour of the proposal and the application is recommended for approval, subject to the imposition of planning conditions and the prior completion of a Section 106 Agreement securing the necessary obligations.
3.0 Preliminary Matters
3.1. Access to the case file on Public Access can be found here:
3.2. A previous application has been presented to Members at Planning Committee on two previous occasions (albeit the former Harrogate BC Planning Committee. HGT17/01897/OUTMAJ: Outline application for the erection of up to 210 dwellings and associated infrastructure, with access to (but not within) the site considered. (Site Area 13.17Ha).
3.3. The scheme was initially presented to the Harrogate Borough Council Planning Committee on 05th April 2018 recommending approval. Members deferred determination to a future committee to seek clarity on education matters.
3.4. The scheme returned to committee with a recommendation of approval on 14th August 2018 where members were minded to refuse the application on health, education and highway grounds but instead chose to again defer determination to seek further information regarding health (lack of doctor/dentist provision), education (lack of education provision), and highway infrastructure being unable to carry more traffic.
3.5. The scheme went back to committee on 25th September 2018 where the members were minded to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement.
3.6. Prior to signing the Section 106 Agreement the applicant appealed against non-determination. The application then returned to planning committee with an updated recommendation for refusal due to the former Harrogate Borough Council being able to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply.
3.7. The appeal was dismissed on 13th February 2020 citing harmful impacts on the character and appearance of the landscape in particular impact of the development upon the bridleway 15.68/10/1 to the east of the site and from the bridleway 15.68/7/1 to the north-east of the site. Additionally, the healthy housing land supply position of 6.71 years at that time was considered to attract significant weight.
3.8 Notwithstanding the above, it is important to note that this is a fresh application which should be considered on its own merits.
4.0 Site and Surroundings
4.1. The application site comprises approximately 13.17ha of arable agricultural land within the ownership of the Stockeld Park Estate, adjacent to North Yorkshire Council’s boundary with Leeds City Council’s administrative area and adjoining the built-up area of Wetherby.
4.2. The existing boundaries between the fields proposed for development are generally native hedgerow. The landform reaches its highest point in the south-western part of the site with land falling both to the north-east, towards the built-up area of Wetherby and to a more limited extent, to the south-west, towards the A661.
4.3. To the south and east of the site, within the Leeds City Council administrative area, a development of 325 dwellings has recently been completed by Bellway Homes. A belt of trees separates the application site from this development to the south, whilst a more open, hedged boundary separates the site from this development to the east.
4.4. A Public Right of Way (Bridleway Wetherby 1) runs within the neighbouring development site, to the eastern boundary of the application site. The approved plans for the Bellway housing, show this public right of way to run within a landscaped buffer.
4.5. To the northern boundary of the site is the Harland Way cycle route, part of the National Cycle Network, which runs between Spofforth and Thorp Arch via Wetherby, along the route of a former railway line. The route enters a tree-lined cutting as it passes the site, with further agricultural land beyond to the north.
4.6. There is currently no defined boundary to the western extent of the site, with arable agricultural land gradually falling towards Ingbarrow Farm. The south-western extent of the site abuts the A661 Harrogate Road, with a native hedge boundary, occasional hedgerow tree, and a wide, grassed highway verge.
4.7. The application site is not covered by any landscape designation, nor is it located within the Green Belt. Land to the south of the A661 is contained within the statutory Green Belt but this does not extend to any part of the application site.
5.0 Description of Proposal
5.1. The application seeks outline planning permission for the construction of up to 210 dwellings with all matters reserved and access to be provided from the A661. The site is not an allocated housing site in the Council’s Local Plan.
5.2. The proposed vehicular and pedestrian accesses will be taken from a new priority junction on the A661 Harrogate Road to the south-western part of the application site. An existing track, further to the east, will be retained for emergency vehicle access.
5.3. Pedestrian and cycle connection is indicatively shown to the Harland Way, in the north-eastern corner of the site, and via the existing PROW into the adjacent development to the south but this will form part of a future reserved matters application.
5.4. As the application is in outline only, there is no detailed layout for consideration. Notwithstanding this, an illustrative masterplan, with landscaping, has been submitted. The masterplan proposes the dwellings to be located to the central and eastern parts of the site on the falling ground toward Wetherby, with sustainable drainage surface water attenuation basins on the lowest parts of the site. The northern section of the site will contain parkland open space with children’s play facilities, whilst to the west would contain the vehicular approach to the wider site and landscape mitigation.
5.5. The landscape mitigation comprises woodland structure planting, of between 10 and 20 metres in depth, to create a second woodland buffer, to define the extended urban edge of Wetherby.
5.6. To the northern part of the western boundary new hedge and hedgerow tree planting will take place, to form a defined boundary, with additional planting of individual and groups of trees within the site.
6.0 Planning Policy and Guidance
6.1. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that all planning authorities must determine each application under the Planning Acts in accordance with Development Plan so far as material to the application unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Adopted Development Plan
6.2. The Adopted Development Plan for this site is:
- Harrogate District Local Plan 2014-2035 (adopted March 2020)
- Minerals and Waste Joint Plan (adopted 16 February 2022)
Emerging Development Plan – Material Consideration
6.3. The Emerging Development Plan for this site is the North Yorkshire Local Plan though no weight can be applied in respect of this document at the current time as it is at an early stage of preparation.
Emerging Draft NPPF 2025
6.4 The draft NPPF remains subject to consultation and amendment. Whilst the proposed changes are capable of being a material consideration, given that they have not yet been finalised and may be subject to further revision, only limited weight can presently be afforded to them.
Guidance - Material Considerations
6.5 Relevant guidance for this application is:
- National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024)
- National Planning Practice Guidance
- National Design Guide 2021
- Affordable Housing SPD (June 2021)
- Providing Net Gain for Biodiversity SPD (June 2021)
- Provision of Open Space and Village Halls SPD (June 2021)
- Heritage Management Guidance SPD (November 2014)
- Landscape Character Assessment (February 2004)
7.0 Consultation Responses
The following consultation responses have been received and have been summarised below:
Arboricultural Officer: No objection subject to conditions
Open Space Commuted Sums: Comments provided stating Off-site provision and On-site maintenance totalling £512,127.91 for community gardens, amenity greenspace, urban greenspace, outdoor sports facilities, provision for children and young people, and village halls has been requested.
Conservation and Design and Landscaping Officer (joint response): Do not object to the scheme but provide comments regarding transition to countryside, tree-lined streets, design code, elevation and frontage articulation, pepper-potting affordable housing, and including a landscape parameters plan.
Education Officer: No objection. Contributions sought totalling £2,068,880.10 for education provision.
Environmental Health: No objections but recommend conditions for a noise impact assessment, acoustic design mitigation scheme, construction hours and dust.
Environmental Health Contamination: No objection. Due to the presence of a former railway to the north-east of the site, conditions are recommended for land contamination (Phase II site investigation report, remediation strategy, implementation, and verification report), a construction dust assessment, and further assessment of impacts upon air quality.
Estates: No objections but note the Council owns the adjacent land. Any future access to the Council land from the proposal site requires prior permission from the Council.
PROW Officer: No objection but make observations regarding the width of the connection to the public bridleway including use of surfacing materials. Informatives are also recommended to notify the applicant of measures that need to be taken if the PROW is to be temporarily, or permanently blocked, or diverted.
Harrogate and Dales Bridleway Group (& British Horse Society): Object to the proposal, as the documents refer to just walkers and cyclists but not horse riders (primary bridleway users); there must be clear sight lines at all entrances and exits for the bridleway; surface must be suitable for a shod horse (not tarmac); and the green corridor for the bridleway must be at least 10m wide.
Heritage Unit: No objection but recommend a condition for a scheme of archaeological mitigation recording is undertaken and a Written Scheme of Investigation is submitted and approved, prior to development taking place.
Housing Department: No objection. 40% affordable housing requirement equating to 84/210 dwellings. Broad location and tenure split of affordable units should be clearly shown on the site layout. However, the housing mix should be:
|
House Size |
Percentage/number of units |
|
1 bed |
20% (17 homes) |
|
2 bed |
30% (25 homes) |
|
3 bed |
35% (29 homes) |
|
4 bed |
15% (13 homes) |
Gross floor sizes should be included on the layout. While the tenure split has not being specified in the consultation response, discussions with the affordable housing officer stated that the split should be 70% affordable rent and 30% shared ownership.
Lead Local Flood Authority: Initially objected to the proposal due to insufficient information regarding flood risk and runoff destinations. However, following reconsultation, withdrew the objection, subject to the imposition of planning conditions.
Leeds/Bradford Airport: No comments received.
Leeds City Council: Object to the proposal for the following reasons:
Impact on infrastructure.
No comprehensive assessment of the need for housing, infrastructure and transport needs and the impact on green infrastructure.
LCC has evidence that housing delivery in Wetherby is meeting housing need. Additional housing needs and delivery requires full consideration through the plan-making process.
Other NYC settlements should be considered to meet housing needs before expanding Wetherby.
Increasing pressure on existing infrastructure.
If approved, S106 contributions should improve the infrastructure and services in Wetherby.
Wetherby’s housing needs would need to be met in line with the Leeds Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2025 (SHMA)
Leeds Transport Development Services:
In order to be acceptable, recommend the following:
Mitigation at the existing mini roundabout of A661/ Bridgefoot/ High Street;
A speed camera along the A661 Spofforth Hill, within the LCC boundary;
Offsite highway works for footway provision/widening, lighting and a signalised crossing on Harrogate Road;
Contributions for bus service improvements, bus stop improvements, and NMU route improvements (including Harland Way), LCC will need to be party to the S106 agreement. In this instance, the financial contribution toward off-site highway works (outlined further in this report) will be collected by North Yorkshire Council and forwarded to Leeds City Council to enable them to undertake the works within their jurisdiction.
MOD Airfield Safeguarding: No objection to the proposed development, as it would have no detrimental impact on the operation, or the capability of a Defence site, or asset.
NYC Highways: No objections to the proposed development subject to the parameters agreed in the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Response Report.
Principal Ecologist: The Council's Principal Ecologist advised that the site lies within Natural England's SSSI Impact Risk Zone for the Kirk Deighton SSSI and SAC, which supports one of the largest known breeding populations of great crested newt in the UK. Accordingly, it was recommended that a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) be undertaken to assess the potential effects of the development on the SAC. The applicant subsequently submitted an Information to Inform a Habitats Regulations Assessment and Shadow Appropriate Assessment, which concludes that the proposed development, both alone and in combination with other plans or projects, would not adversely affect the integrity of the Kirk Deighton SAC. The Principal Ecologist otherwise raised no objection in principle to the development, subject to consideration of ongoing ecological survey work and the protection and enhancement of identified priority habitats.
Principal Archaeologist: No objection. Recommend a scheme of archaeological mitigation in response to disturbing groundworks. Should include archaeological stripping, map and record to be undertaken.
Private Housing Standards: No comments provided.
Wetherby Civic Society: Object to the proposal. Application already refused by HBC and dismissed at appeal in 2020. Development would diminish the landscape buffer separating Wetherby and Spofforth. Visual and spatial character of Wetherby would be altered. Would impact services/facilities outside NYC area. Local shortage of school spaces in Wetherby and Spofforth. Nearest Doctors Surgeries in Wetherby are at capacity. Childcare, dental and other facilities located 1.5miles away. Highway at capacity with no railway transport increasing reliance on cars. Housing requirements of Wetherby are being met. Application is premature as the NY Local Plan has not yet undergone public examination.
Wetherby Town Council: Object to the proposal. Located in Green Belt. Application is premature to outcome of site allocations. No consideration of comments from dismissed appeal. Lack of consultation with residents. Wetherby’s services and infrastructure would not cope. Increased traffic congestion. More public transport required. Concerns financial contributions would all go to NYC and not be used in Wetherby area.
Yorkshire Water: Yorkshire Water object to the proposal due to the foul water proposals stating that the local public sewer network serving Wetherby does not have adequate capacity and therefore object on the grounds of flood risk, pollution and public health. However, if planning permission is granted they have recommended conditions regarding a protection strip, tree planting locations, no piped discharge of surface water, and submission of a foul water sewerage scheme.
Local Representations
7.1. A summary of the comments is provided below, however, please see website for full comments.
Objections
Highways
Increased traffic reducing parking, insufficient public transport, no safe walking route into Wetherby.
Amenity
Would extend low-density sprawl, visually alter Wetherby, increased pollution, quality of life affected and overshadowing and loss of privacy to neighbouring residents.
Infrastructure
Unacceptable impact upon Wetherby’s services (school places, medical practices etc), would not boost employment, lacking infrastructure, could impact groundwater and drainage.
Policy
Not plan-led development, conflict with Local Policy, would cause heritage harm, loss of BMV land, previously refused, should prioritise brownfield sites, could impact the Kirk Deighton SAC, conflict with Wetherby Neighbourhood Plan, would contribute to coalescence of settlements, would set a precedent for development outside development limits.
Ecology/Biodiversity
Lack of suitable assessments, harm to wildlife and habitats, flood risk, environmental and ecological harm.
Neutral
Query over what consultations have taken place with Wetherby Ward Councillors.
8.0 Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
8.2. The Proposed Development meets the threshold under Section 10(b) as it is over 5 ha in size and is for over 150 dwellings and the Council as Local Planning Authority has screened the development and found it is not EIA development and therefore no Environmental Statement is required. A copy of the screening report is available to view on the public website:
8.3. Considering the nature, scale and location of the proposed development and nature of the receiving environment, whilst there may be some impact on the surrounding area as a result of this development, it would not be of a scale and nature likely to result in a significant environmental impact within the context of the EIA Regulations.
8.4. The Proposed Development is not therefore EIA Development.
9.0 Main Issues
9.1. The key considerations in the assessment of this application are:
- Principle of Development
- Landscape Character
- Agricultural Land
- Amenity Value of Public Rights of Way
- Local Distinctiveness
- Impact upon Heritage Assets
- Highway Impact
- Ecology
- Amenity
- Flood Risk and Drainage
- Air Quality and Contamination
- S106 Agreement
- Other Matters
- Planning Balance
10.0 ASSESSMENT
Principle of Development
10.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The adopted Local Plan is the starting point for determination of any planning application.
10.2 The Local Plan is the Harrogate District Local Plan 2014-2035 (adopted December 2020). Local Plan Policies GS1 and GS2 set out a growth strategy for new homes and jobs to 2035. Local Plan Policies GS2 and GS3 set out the growth strategy for the District and considerations where proposed development is located outside defined development limits.
10.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2024) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. Its underlying theme is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
10.4 Since the National Planning Policy Framework was updated, the annual housing requirement for the former Harrogate District Local Plan (which is now considered to be out of date in regard to housing due to being over 5 years old) area is 1046 homes as derived from the Standard Method. Including the relevant 5% buffer, the 5-year supply requirement for this area is 5492 dwellings. Based on the most recent data (for the 2024/2025 monitoring period), there is a deliverable supply of 3111 homes over a five-year period. This translates to 2.2 years of housing when measured against the five-year supply requirement. Therefore, paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF is engaged for applications involving the provision of housing.
10.5 Paragraph 11(d) states that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless:
i. The application of policies in the Framework that protect areas of assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed; or
ii. Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.
10.6 Footnote 7 lists those areas or assets of particular importance that would provide a strong reason for refusal. The proposed site is not subject to these.
10.7 The proposal is not set within the development limits of a settlement identified in the Harrogate Local Plan but abuts the settlement of Wetherby, which is located within the administrative area of Leeds City Council.
10.8 Policy GS3 advises that outside development limits, proposals for new development will only be supported where expressly permitted by other policies of this plan or a neighbourhood plan, or national planning policy. In the absence of a five-year supply of housing, proposals for new housing development on sites outside the development limits of a settlement, will be considered in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in national planning policy. Such proposals should be consistent with the role of the settlement in the settlement hierarchy set out in Policy GS2, not result in a disproportionate level of development compared to the existing settlement and meets the criteria listed in the policy.
10.9 Whilst it is agreed that the housing land supply situation does mean that Local Plan Housing Delivery Policies are considered to be out of date, both Policy GS2 and the second part of Policy GS3 are considered to be consistent with national policy within the NPPF in terms of sustainability and also the criteria to be considered in determining applications for housing outside defined development limits, particularly in relation to higher tier settlements.
10.10 The criteria within Policy GS3 are as follows:
A The site is well related to the existing built form of the settlement
B Development would not result in coalescence with a neighbouring settlement
C There would be no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside, or heritage assets
D The proposal is of a scale and nature that is in keeping with the core shape and form of the settlement and will not significantly harm its character, appearance or setting.
10.11 The site is well related to the existing built form of the settlement. While it would provide a new gateway to the settlement of Wetherby, it is directly adjacent to existing residential development with good access in and out of the settlement. While the site would expand Wetherby in a westerly direction toward Spofforth it would not result in the coalescence with a neighbouring settlement. The proposal would have some impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside. However, as detailed further in this report, the impact would not be adverse as any harm would be short-term subject to landscaping. Additionally, while there are heritage assets in the locality, including but not limited to the Wetherby Lodge and Gateway, there is no inter-visibility between them and the application site. The size of the proposal is also considered to be of an appropriate size and scale to not significantly disrupt the form of the settlement. The proposal is therefore considered to meet the requirements of Policy GS3. Overall, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle.
Landscape Character
10.12 Local Plan Policy NE4 requires proposals to protect, enhance or restore the landscape character of Harrogate district. In particular, development should maintain the aesthetic and biodiversity qualities of landscape features such as trees, woodland, hedgerows, ecological networks and topographical features; be informed by and sympathetic to the distinctive landscape character areas identified in the Harrogate District Landscape Character Assessment; protect and/or enhance local distinctiveness, ambiance, visual amenity and skyline sensitivity; and resist development which would harm the character of the local or wider landscape or the setting of a settlement.
10.13 The site falls within the Plompton and South Knaresborough Arable Land Landscape Character Area. The applicant’s Landscape and Visual Appraisal records its key characteristics as an undulating, predominantly arable landscape with large fields, fragmented hedgerows in places, small woodland blocks on higher ground and infrequent hedgerow trees. It also records that the Landscape Character Assessment identifies the gently rolling landform and open nature of the landscape, combined with uniform land use in large fields, as making the landscape sensitive to change from inappropriate development.
10.14 The applicant’s appraisal assesses the site and its immediate context as being of medium landscape value and medium sensitivity to the type and scale of development proposed. It notes that the site is not covered by any national, regional or local landscape designation, but contains features of value including hedgerows, a mature field tree, boundary vegetation and the wooded Harland Way corridor. The assessment also recognises that the existing landscape is influenced by the settlement edge of Wetherby to the east and by traffic on the A661 Harrogate Road to the south.
10.15 In terms of landscape features, the applicant’s appraisal identifies a major adverse effect arising from the change in land use from agricultural land to residential development. It also anticipates only limited loss of hedgerow to form the access, with existing hedgerows, the mature field tree and tree belts generally retained and supplemented by new woodland, hedgerow, tree and species-rich grassland planting. On that basis, the applicant considers that effects on hedgerows would initially be moderate/minor adverse but would become beneficial as new landscape planting establishes.
10.16 In terms of landscape character, the applicant’s appraisal concludes that the proposal would have no noteworthy effects at national or county landscape character scale. For the Plompton and South Knaresborough Arable Land Landscape Character Area, it concludes that the change would affect only a small part of the wider character area, would not be widely perceptible because of existing vegetation and built form, and would give rise to a moderate/minor adverse effect on that character area. For the site and its immediate surroundings, it identifies a major/moderate adverse effect at construction and a residual moderate adverse effect once the proposed landscape framework has established and matured.
10.17 The applicant’s visual appraisal identifies the main visual effects as being localised and experienced principally by users of nearby rights of way and leisure routes, road users on Harrogate Road and residents at the existing western edge of Wetherby. The submitted appraisal identifies major effects for users of Bridleway 15.68/10/1 and residents at the settlement edge at completion, reducing to major/moderate by year 15 as hedgerow and tree planting matures. For road users on the A661 and users of nearby western rights of way, effects are identified as ranging from moderate to major/moderate at completion, reducing over time as western and southern boundary planting matures.
10.18 The Landscape and Urban Design Officer acknowledges positive elements of the outline submission, including a central green corridor, identified play spaces and a proposed gateway treatment to Harrogate Road. However, it also identifies the site as a prominent gateway into Wetherby in a sensitive edge-of-settlement location and advises that further design development is required to secure a stronger landscape-led response.
10.19 The Landscape and Urban Design Officer seek a more feathered transition to countryside on the western edge, with lower-density treatment, varied building lines, generous spacing and a more fragmented settlement edge. They also seek a strengthened active travel spine treated consistently as a tree-lined boulevard, street tree integration across the development, clearer hierarchy and function for open space, better integration of SuDS within the green infrastructure network, retention and enhancement of hedgerows and a landscape parameters plan to guide detailed reserved matters submissions.
10.20 Those comments are material to the assessment under Policy NE4 because they relate directly to whether the proposal respects the distribution and form of settlement in its landscape setting, protects local distinctiveness and maintains the aesthetic and biodiversity qualities of existing landscape features. The concerns do not amount to an objection in principle to residential development of the site, but they do identify matters that will need to be secured and refined through reserved matters, a landscape parameters plan, design code, landscaping conditions and long-term management arrangements.
10.21 Having regard to Policy NE4, the proposal would inevitably cause harm to the character and appearance of the site itself through the permanent loss of open agricultural land and the introduction of built development. There would also be localised visual harm, particularly from nearby public rights of way, Harrogate Road and the existing settlement edge. This harm gives rise to tension with Policy NE4, especially insofar as criterion E resists development that would harm the character of the local landscape or the setting of a settlement.
10.22 However, the harm must be assessed in context. The site adjoins the existing built edge of Wetherby, is not subject to a specific landscape designation, is influenced by existing urban development and the A661, and the wider landscape effects are identified by the applicant as limited and localised. The proposal also retains the principal existing landscape features, provides substantial new planting and green infrastructure, and offers the opportunity to define a new settlement edge through a strengthened landscape framework.
10.23 Overall, it is concluded that the proposal would result in moderate adverse landscape and visual harm, with the greatest effects being localised and reducing over time as planting establishes. Subject to conditions and reserved matters controls securing a landscape parameters plan, structural planting, street trees, detailed edge treatment, SuDS integration, protection and enhancement of hedgerows and long-term landscape management, the proposal would respond to several objectives of Policy NE4. It is expected that all the above will be secured through the reserved matter of landscaping, with long term management secured through the s106. Nevertheless, because residual harm to landscape character would remain, this matter weighs against the proposal in the planning balance.
Agricultural Land
10.24 The site comprises Grade 2 agricultural land, within the definition of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land. Negative environmental effects arise from the loss of Grade 2 agricultural land.
10.25 Local Plan Policy NE8 states that the best and most versatile agricultural land (grades 1, 2 and 3a) will be protected from development not associated with agriculture, or forestry, except where it can be demonstrated to be necessary.
10.26 The policy further advises that sites of over five hectares, which may affect BMV agricultural land should produce an agricultural land classification survey to determine the quality, quantity and accurate location of agricultural land in grades 1, 2 and 3a. Planning permission for development affecting such land will only be granted exceptionally if there is an overriding need. The proposal would result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. The development would therefore result in minor harm to the local agricultural economy and wider food self-sufficiency. The applicant provided a report which concluded that some of the land is grade 2 and 3a. In particular, 0.4 hectares (3% of the application site) is Grade 2 land, while 3.6 hectares (27% of the application site) is Grade 3a. The Grade 2 land is to the north-west corner by the Harland Way, while the Grade 3a land has a buffer to the northern boundary running parallel with the Harland Way, with a smaller pocked of 3a land to the south-west of the site.
10.27 Natural England is a statutory consultee on applications relating to the loss of agricultural land over 20 hectares. Notwithstanding the application site being above the threshold in policy NE8, Natural England has been consulted on the application and has not raised any objection to the loss of the agricultural land.
10.28 Although, as the site is only 13.17 hectares, development of this land for housing would not be considered significant development of agricultural land. This would still conflict with paragraph 187b of the NPPF which seeks to protect best and most versatile land. However, while the loss of BMV land weighs against the proposal, it attracts moderate rather than substantial weight because only part of the site comprises BMV land. Policy NE8 states that BMV land will be protected from development not associated with agriculture or forestry except for where it can be demonstrated to be necessary. In this instance, it is considered that despite the loss of BMV land, it is considered that this loss is necessary for the sustainable provision of residential development. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with Local Plan Policy NE8 due to the scale of the development and the minimal loss of Grade 2 and 3a agricultural land.
Public Rights of Way
10.29 Public Rights of Way are protected by Local Plan Policy HP5. Whilst there is a balance to be made between the impact on the character of the public right of way and the provision of housing development in line with the NPPF requirements, the amenity value of the right of way to the east of the site has been acknowledged to clearly change through the construction of housing on the current open agricultural land. The change however is limited to impacted viewpoints from the Harland Way.
10.30 It is already apparent when walking the route that the user is approaching a settlement edge, even more so with the Bellway development recently constructed on the Leeds side of the boundary. The tree and hedge line between the site and the public right of way will be enhanced with additional planting, which over time will soften the appearance of the development from the route and as such, any adverse visual impact can be mitigated.
10.31 The concept masterplan indicates that the site will be developed in such a way that a buffer will be maintained between development and the Harland Way. The route of the Harland Way also enters a wooded cutting as it passes the northern boundary of the site, minimising inter-visibility and reducing the effect of development on the character of the route.
10.32 Development will be visible from the Public Right of Way in the vicinity of Ingbarrow Farm to the west, however, over time the built form will be softened by the structural landscaping to the western extent of the site. The impact on the public right of way can be reasonably mitigated through appropriate landscaping.
10.33 Policy HP5 seeks to ensure that proposals affecting existing public rights of way will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated that the routes and the recreational and amenity value of the rights of way will be protected, and opportunities for enhance through the addition of new links to the existing network. The proposal would connect to the Harland Way to the north corner of the site.
10.34 The NYC PROW Officer states that the bridleway is planned to be in a grassed corridor which is welcomed. Additionally, despite request from Leeds City Council to tarmac sections of the Harland Way, the Harrogate and Dales Bridleway Group consider this to be inappropriate as this can have detrimental implications to horses underfoot using the bridleway. Overall, it is considered that the proposal would help to protect the amenity value of the PROW in accordance with policy HP5 and the NPPF.
Design
10.35 Local Plan Policy HP3 seeks to ensure that development incorporates high quality building, urban and landscape design that protects enhances or reinforces those characteristics, qualities and features that contribute to the local distinctiveness of the district’s rural and urban environments. The submission includes parameters plans for land use, access and movement, building heights, density, and blue and green infrastructure. While specific design details of the proposal are indicative, these parameter plans help to ensure that the development is in accordance with this policy.
10.36 The site is well related to existing built form to the south and east, in an area which is characterised by a diversity of 20th and 21st century planned development. The proposed scheme would be viewed in relation to the development to the south and would have the potential (subject to detailed design and layout considerations at reserved matters stage) to integrate successfully with the character and appearance of this existing development.
10.37 Local Plan Policy HS1 seeks to ensure new housing development delivers a range of house types and sizes that reflect and respond to the identified housing needs and demands of the district’s households which should have reference to the latest HEDNA. Additionally, as the proposal is for greater than 10 units, 25% of the market units should be built to be accessible and adaptable homes. Further, new housing development will be expected to achieve a minimum net density of 30 dwellings per hectare.
10.38 At a net density of 35 dwellings per hectare the development is in accordance with the Local Plan Policy HS1, which seeks a minimum net density of 30 dwellings per hectare across housing sites. This density is comparable to that on the adjacent Bellway Homes site to the south and east, which ranges from 20 dwellings per hectare on the western boundary to 34 dwellings per hectare on the eastern boundary adjacent Glebefield Drive. Consequently, it is concluded that the development of this site at the number proposed would not be out of character with adjacent housing.
10.39 A proposed housing mix has been provided for this scheme. However, these mixes are indicative at this stage and will be considered at the reserved matters stage with appropriate conditions proposed to secure this. The mixes should be informed by the latest HEDNA.
10.40 Local Plan Policy HS2 requires 40% affordable housing on all qualifying greenfield developments subject to viability and the demonstration of the need for affordable housing. The proposed development is a qualifying greenfield site as it consists of greater than 10 dwellings. The proposal in outline has all matters reserved however the indicative plans indicate that 84 of 210 dwellings would be affordable homes which equates to exactly 40% and as such is policy compliant. 40% of the dwellings proposed at reserved matters stage will be affordable and will be secured in the S106 Agreement.
10.41 Policy HS2 also states that in order to support the ageing population, the Council expects affordable homes to be accessible and adaptable by meeting requirement M4(2) of the Building Regulations. Additionally, the Council is supportive of wheelchair accessible and adaptable homes that meet M4(3). It is expected that 10% of affordable dwellings should be built as wheelchair accessible homes. The numbers of M4(2) and M4(3) homes are to be considered at reserved matters stage and will be secured by condition.
10.42 Local Plan Policy CC4 requires all developments to be designed to reduce both the extent and the impacts of climate change including by reducing carbon emissions, and the Council expects new developments to incorporate passive design measures. The submission includes a sustainability and energy statement which outlines the measures undertaken for the proposal. It is considered that the proposal will be compliant with Policies HP3, HS1, HS2 and CC4 subject to planning conditions and S106 Agreement.
Impact on Heritage Assets
10.43 Policy HP2 of the Harrogate District Local Plan seeks to protect heritage assets, both designated and non-designated, by ensuring that development proposals preserve or, where appropriate, enhance those elements which contribute to their significance. Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 require special regard to be paid to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their settings and preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.
10.44 The NPPF requires decision-makers to identify and assess the significance of heritage assets, including the contribution made by their settings, and to consider the impacts of development proposals upon that significance. Paragraph 210 requires decision-makers to take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities, and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
10.45 Paragraph 212 of the NPPF states that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets irrespective of the level of harm identified. Paragraph 213 further states that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. Paragraph 215 applies where a proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset and requires that harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Paragraph 216 requires the effect of development upon non-designated heritage assets to be taken into account through a balanced judgement having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the asset.
10.46 A Heritage Assessment has been submitted in support of the application. The assessment identifies seven listed buildings within the wider study area together with Wetherby Conservation Area. The nearest designated heritage assets to the application site are the Grade II listed milestone located on the southern boundary of the site adjacent to Harrogate Road and the Grade II listed Wetherby Lodge gateway and wall, which forms the entrance to the Stockeld Park estate opposite the south-eastern corner of the site. The Heritage Assessment concludes that only these assets are sufficiently proximate to warrant detailed consideration.
10.47 The wider historic environment has nevertheless been considered. This includes the Grade I listed Stockeld Park House located at a significantly greater distance from the site, Wetherby Conservation Area, and the historic farmsteads at Ingbarrow Farm and Kingbarrow Farm. The significance of these assets and any contribution made by their settings has been considered as part of the assessment of the proposal's heritage impacts.
10.48 The submitted Heritage Assessment concludes that the significance of the listed milestone derives principally from its historic and continuing relationship with Harrogate Road, whilst the significance of Wetherby Lodge derives from its architectural interest and its relationship with the entrance and approach to Stockeld Park. The assessment further concludes that the application site does not make an important contribution to the significance of either asset and that there are no significant views through or across the site that contribute to their historic significance.
10.49 The proposed development would not physically affect any designated or non-designated heritage asset. In terms of setting, the introduction of residential development would alter the appearance of agricultural land on the western edge of Wetherby. However, having regard to the separation distances involved, intervening landscape features, existing development, the influence of the A661 corridor and the way in which the assets are experienced, it is considered that the proposal would preserve the significance of both the listed milestone and Wetherby Lodge.
10.50 The settings in which designated and non-designated heritage assets are experienced include both immediate and wider landscape views. Whilst the proposal would alter part of that wider landscape context, it is not considered that it would affect those elements of setting which contribute to the significance of the identified heritage assets. The historic, evidential, aesthetic and communal values of those assets would therefore remain preserved.
10.51 There is no meaningful inter-visibility between the application site and Wetherby Conservation Area, which is focused on the historic town centre and lies approximately 800 metres from the site. Similarly, the proposal would not adversely affect the significance or setting of the historic farmsteads at Ingbarrow Farm and Kingbarrow Farm. The proposal would therefore preserve the character and appearance of Wetherby Conservation Area and would not adversely affect the significance of those non-designated heritage assets.
10.52 The Council's Archaeology Officer notes that the site has the potential to contain archaeological remains associated with known prehistoric and Romano-British activity identified within the site and surrounding area. The submitted Heritage Assessment similarly concludes that the site has a high potential to contain archaeological remains of later prehistoric and Romano-British date, together with a possible historic parish boundary feature, the significance of which cannot be fully understood until further investigation has been undertaken. A condition requiring archaeological investigation, recording and mitigation through a Written Scheme of Investigation is therefore recommended. Subject to such a condition, the proposal would provide an appropriate mechanism for the investigation, recording and management of any archaeological remains that may be encountered.
10.53 Having afforded great weight to the conservation of designated heritage assets, in accordance with paragraph 212 of the NPPF, it is concluded that the proposal would preserve the significance of the identified designated and non-designated heritage assets, including the Grade II listed milestone, Wetherby Lodge gateway and wall, Wetherby Conservation Area and the historic farmsteads at Ingbarrow Farm and Kingbarrow Farm. No harm to the significance of those assets, including through changes to their setting, has been identified and accordingly there is no conflict with paragraph 213 of the NPPF. Consequently, paragraph 215 is not engaged as the proposal would not result in less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset. Similarly, no harm has been identified to any non-designated heritage asset and therefore the balanced judgement required by paragraph 216 does not alter the conclusion reached. Having regard to paragraph 210 of the NPPF, the proposal would preserve the significance of the identified heritage assets whilst delivering new housing and associated infrastructure in a sustainable location. Subject to archaeological investigation and mitigation secured by condition, the proposal is considered acceptable in heritage terms and accords with Policy HP2 of the Harrogate District Local Plan and paragraphs 210, 212, 213, 215 and 216 of the NPPF.
Amenity
10.54 Local Plan Policy HP4 which states amenity considerations will include impacts of development on overlooking and loss of privacy, overbearing and loss of light, and vibration, fumes, odour, noise and other disturbance. New residential development should also incorporate well-designed and located private amenity space, which is of an adequate size for the likely occupancy of the dwellings. It is a core principle in the NPPF that the planning system should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Paragraph 135f of the NPPF also states that planning decision should ensure that developments create spaces with a ‘high standard of amenity for existing and future users’.
10.55 Detailed amenity considerations will be assessed at the reserved matters stage, including separation distances between existing and proposed dwellings and the prevention of harmful overlooking, overshadowing and overbearing effects. However, based upon the indicative plans and supporting assessments, it is considered that the site is capable of avoiding adverse impacts subject to appropriate planning conditions.
10.56 Interested party comments have raised concern over noise and disturbance especially during construction. The Council’s Environmental Health officers have assessed the submitted documentation, in particular the Noise Screening Report dated 12th May 2025. They have stated that they can accept the assessment contained within that report which indicates that the development site is likely to be acceptable from a noise perspective. However, conditions are recommended regarding the submission of a detailed noise impact assessment and the approval of a noise impact mitigation scheme. Other conditions will include delivery and construction hours. Noise and disturbance arising from construction, including delivery and construction hours, can be adequately controlled by condition. Subject to the imposition of the above referenced conditions, the application is considered to be acceptable in regard to impact upon amenity in accordance with Local Plan Policy HP4 and NPPF.
Highway Impact
10.57 Local Plan Policy TI1 seeks to ensure development minimises travel and aims to provide sustainable alternatives, whilst Local Plan Policy TI3 sets out the requirements in terms of parking provision.
10.58 Paragraph 115 of the NPPF advises that development proposals should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe taking into account all reasonable future scenarios.
10.59 Whilst the definition of a ‘severe’ impact is not defined within the NPPF, the Local Highway Authority would normally consider the impact upon local traffic flow and junction capacity. In this instance, the Highway Authorities at both NYC and Leeds City Council have assessed the submitted transport assessment for the effect on their respective highways areas.
10.60 North Yorkshire Council are the lead Highway Authority for this application and Highways Officers engaged in detailed scoping discussions with the applicant and their transport consultant, to ensure that the transport assessment is acceptable and adopts an agreed methodology in terms of trip rates, traffic generation and traffic distribution.
10.61 Vehicle Trip Rate modelling indicated 114 two-way trips in the AM peak hour and 111 two-way trips in the PM peak hour based upon 210 dwellings. North Yorkshire Highway Authority does not consider the traffic generation as a result of this development to represent a ‘severe’ impact on the North Yorkshire highway network in the context of the NPPF.
10.62 With regard to the effect on the highway network within Leeds City Council’s area their Highways team have been consulted. Their initial consultation response dated 25th July 2025 stated that the following are required for the development to be acceptable:
· Mitigation at the existing mini roundabout of A661/Bridgefoot/High Street,
· A speed camera along the A661 Spofforth Hill (within LCC boundary),
· Off-site highway works for footway provision/widening, lighting and a signalised crossing on Harrogate Road,
· Contributions for bus service improvements, safety camera, and NMU (non-motorised users) route improvements (including Harland Way), and,
· Planning conditions relating to off-site highway works, construction management plan, and highway condition surveys.
10.63 The applicant’s agent provided a response to Leeds City Council (dated 24th September 2025), which addresses the matters raised by LCC Highways. The developer disputes the need for the speed camera along the A661 Spofforth Hill due to the proposed relocation of the speed limit, the design of the carriageway past the site being to standard carriageway dimensions, no recorded collisions on this section of highway, and the speeds observed in the independent traffic surveys being within the 30mph limit. The developer has discussed with both North Yorkshire Council and Leeds City Council to the parameters of a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit to be submitted and approved at reserved matters stage.
10.64 Leeds City Council were further consulted with a response dated 18th March 2026 reconfirming their objection from 25th July 2025 albeit with the removal of mitigation at the existing mini roundabout of A661/Bridgefoot/High Street. In line with recommendations made for the proposal, upgrades are required to these bus stops, along with enhancements to the cycle route on Harland Way to improve sustainable transport modes and offset impact of development upon the highway network. This includes financial contributions to support the off-site highways. The applicant is supportive of necessary improvements to mitigate impacts upon the highway network. The off-site works are to be covered through S106 Agreement as explained below, though the works to upgrade the Harland Way in the officer’s opinion are considered to be unnecessary due to its current condition where any upgrades would have a detrimental visual and amenity impact upon the area including to horse riders using the bridleway, as the resurfacing would be detrimental underfoot.
10.65 The S106 Agreement would ensure that the developer pays for the off-site works for North Yorkshire Council to undertake the off-site highway works. The contributions would be put toward improvements to extend the 30mph speed limit on the A661 to the east of the site access as well as bus stop improvements. In terms of highway access to the site, North Yorkshire Highway Officers are satisfied with the junction arrangements and the provision of a right turn lane on the A661. As some of the off-site highway works are within Leeds City Council’s jurisdiction, they will be undertaking some of the works including the bus stop improvements. Due to the complexity of the works being undertaken by a neighbouring Authority, North Yorkshire Council would collect the financial contribution on their behalf and will forward these monies to enable Leeds City Council to undertake the works.
10.66 Although representations have been received from local residents, which do not agree with the approach and advice from NYC Highway Authority and that of Leeds City Council transport development services, the technical assessments show a safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved. Through the provision of a travel plan and financial contributions for off-site highway works, the effects of the development on highway capacity within Wetherby can be mitigated, in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF.
10.67 The capacity of the highway network in North Yorkshire and the Leeds City Council area has been considered in detail as part of the Transport Assessment process. The NYC Highway Authority has confirmed that traffic impact within North Yorkshire resulting from the proposed development cannot be deemed severe in the context of the paragraph 115 of the NPPF and supports the application.
10.68 The proposed development would result in off-site highway improvements including the bus stop improvements, speed camera and extending the 30mph speed limit area. Doing so is in full accordance with criteria A, C, D and E of Local Plan Policy TI1. As for TI3 regarding parking provision, these matters will be dealt with fully at reserved matters stage but the development is capable of securing suitable on-site parking provision. The development overall is therefore considered to be acceptable in accordance with Policies TI1 and TI3 and chapter 9 of the NPPF.
Ecology
10.69 Local Plan Policy NE3 seeks to protect and enhance biodiversity whilst Policy NE7 seeks the protection of the natural landscape and trees and woodland. Paragraph 187 of the NPPF states that the ‘intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside’ should be recognised, including trees and woodland and minimising impacts on biodiversity. Paragraph 193 of the NPPF states that opportunities to improve biodiversity in and around development should be integrated as part of their design.
10.70 Planning Permissions in England are deemed to be granted subject to the general Biodiversity Gain Condition as set out by Schedule 7A of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021. This is a mandatory pre-commencement condition and requires approval of the Biodiversity Gain Plan.
10.71 The proposal includes the submission of an Ecological Impact Assessment, BNG Strategy and completed biodiversity metric which provides baseline data which concludes that the proposal would lead to in excess of 10% biodiversity net gain.
10.72 The site is approximately 800m south-west of Kirk Deighton Special Area of Conservation/Site of Special Scientific Interest, designated for its internationally important population of Great Crested Newts. Due to the distance between the site and the designated habitat, the lack of ponds within 500m and the barriers formed by surfaced tracks; and the sub-optimal on-site habitat the Ecological Impact Assessment report concludes there would be no direct impact upon the SAC/SSSI. This conclusion is supported by Natural England and the Council’s Ecologist, and consequently no further work or mitigation for Great Crested Newts is required.
10.72 The site is approximately 800m south-west of Kirk Deighton Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which is designated for its internationally important population of Great Crested Newts. The submitted Ecological Impact Assessment concludes that, due to the separation distance between the site and the SAC/SSSI, the absence of suitable ponds within the immediate vicinity of the development site, the presence of physical barriers to dispersal and the generally sub-optimal habitat conditions within the application site, the proposal would not result in direct impacts upon the SAC or SSSI. However, recognising the proximity of the designated site, the Council's Principal Ecologist recommended that a Habitats Regulations Assessment be undertaken before the application was determined. In response, the applicant submitted an Information to Inform a Habitats Regulations Assessment and Shadow Appropriate Assessment, which considered potential effects of the proposal both alone and in combination with other plans and projects. The assessment concludes that the proposal would not result in an adverse effect on the integrity of the Kirk Deighton SAC and this conclusion has subsequently been accepted by Natural England.
10.73 Although there is a requirement in Local Plan Policy NE1 regarding air quality Assessment on the SAC, this is some 800m away from the application site. An Air Quality Assessment was submitted (dated 21 May 2025) which concludes that impacts from the development would have a negligible impact upon sensitive receptors including upon residential and ecological receptors. This has been assessed by the Council’s Environmental Health Team and it is considered that this impact is acceptable.
10.74 Natural England have been consulted on the application and, in its response dated 28 January 2026, confirmed that the advice contained within its previous response dated 5 December 2019 applies equally to the current proposal. Natural England confirmed that whilst the potential increase in traffic in proximity to Kirk Deighton SAC should be treated as a likely significant effect and therefore considered through the Habitats Regulations Assessment process, the detailed air quality modelling provides sufficient information to conclude that the proposal would not result in an adverse effect on the integrity of Kirk Deighton SAC. Natural England was broadly satisfied with the assessment undertaken and raised no concerns regarding the conclusions reached.
10.75 The Harland Way to the north-east, within Leeds City Council Area, is a local nature site designated for its vegetation. No specific mitigation is proposed for this area, as whilst more people would use the publicly accessible cycle route, the biodiversity interest of the wooded area is not considered to be harmed by development and can be controlled through biodiversity and landscaping conditions.
10.76 Within the site itself, the land is predominantly arable farmland, parts of which will be enhanced by their conversion to wildflower meadow, whilst trees and hedgerows will be retained and enhanced with native species as part of the overall landscape mitigation for the development.
10.77 In terms of protected species, the site has potential as foraging/commuting habitat for bats, whilst four trees have bat roost potential. Due to the sub-optimal time of year in which the original survey was carried out, further bat activity surveying will be required to determine detailed mitigation proposals. There is no evidence of badgers on site, but disused setts have been identified within the woodland associated with the Harland Way though these were considered to be unsustainable due to internal collapse. The site has been confirmed to fall outside of the area of increased probability of badger activity. While the arable habitat and hedgeworks on-site offer some limited foraging habitat for badgers, given the limited historical records and lack of field evidence of badger on-site. Notwithstanding, it is considered a precautionary approach should be exercised prior and during the construction phase of the development.
10.78 There are no significant biodiversity matters that would preclude development of the site in principle. Prior to submission of any reserved matters application a further bat activity survey could be required along with a biodiversity management and enhancement plan that details how the detailed site layout has provided for habitat and species protection and enhancement. Prior to construction, a detailed construction stage biodiversity management plan would be required.
10.79 Subject to appropriate conditions, the development of this site is expected to result in a biodiversity net gain of no less than 10% as detailed in the applicant’s BNG Strategy document. This is mandatory and subject to the deemed BNG condition. However, the BNG monitoring fee will be covered in the S106 Agreement.
10.80 Conditions will be required to protect existing trees and hedgerows during construction. Conditions will also be required to secure an Arboricultural Impact Assessment with any reserved matters application to ensure the presence of trees is adequately considered.
10.81 The Council’s Ecologist has reviewed the information submitted and raises no concerns to the proposal, subject to Natural England having no concerns with regard to the SAC. Natural England has been consulted and stated that they have no objections and are satisfied with the assessment methodology and concurs with the conclusions reached.
10.82 A Construction Ecological Management Plan is also required as a condition of any approval in order to secure the required ecological protections and mitigation measures set out in the submitted Ecological Impact Appraisal. This should include details of how protected species will be safeguarded during construction and how the SINC will be protected.
10.83 It is also recommended that a condition is attached to any approval with regards to any proposed external lighting scheme due to the potential impact on protected species. Overall, the proposal would be in full compliance with Local Plan Policies NE3 and NE7 as well as paragraph 187 of the NPPF subject to the imposition of the aforementioned planning conditions.
Flood Risk and Drainage
10.84 The Environment Agency Flood Maps identify the site as being within Flood Zone 1. As defined in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) this zone is defined as having a ‘low’ risk of flooding for fluvial sources. As for surface water, there is a small pocket of land at risk to surface water flooding but this area is entirely outside (albeit adjacent to) the red line boundary of the site.
10.85 Policy CC1 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure development in areas of flood risk is avoided wherever possible, through the application of the sequential test and exception test.
10.86 NPPF paragraph 170 states that inappropriate development should be avoided by directing development away from areas at higher risk of flooding. Paragraph 173 outlines the sequential approach to individual applications in areas to be at risk now in future from flooding. Paragraph 174 seeks to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding through requiring the sequential test for new development. It sets out that development should not be permitted if there are ‘reasonably available sites’, appropriate for the proposed development, in areas with a lower risk of flooding.
10.87 Paragraph 175 further states that a 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 would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding from any source. In this instance, the applicant has provided a site-specific flood risk assessment which concludes that the risk of flooding to the development from all identified sources is negligible from both fluvial and surface water flooding.
10.88 Paragraph 181 states that local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere including where appropriate with applications supported by a site-specific flood risk assessment. Development should only be located in areas at risk of flooding where it can be demonstrated that most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient, incorporates sustainable drainage systems, and any residual risk can be safely managed.
10.89 Paragraph 182 also details that applications which could affect drainage on or around the site should incorporate sustainable drainage systems to control flow rates and reduce volumes of runoff proportionate to the nature and scale of the proposal. The sustainable drainage systems for major development should take account of advice from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), have appropriate proposed minimum operational standards, and have maintenance arrangements in lace for the lifetime of the development.
10.90 The site falls within Flood Zone 1 for fluvial and surface water flooding, as defined by the Environment Agency, indicating that the land is not at elevated risk of flooding to the extent where any sequential test or site-specific flood resistance, or resilience measures would be required. The Local Plan states that development will only be permitted where it has an acceptably low risk of being affected by flooding when assessed through sequential testing against the most up-to-date Environment Agency flood risk maps and the Harrogate District Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) maps. The mapping and the Harrogate SFRA indicate that the proposal is acceptable in regard to flooding risk.
10.91 The sustainable drainage hierarchy requires consideration of infiltration and watercourse drainage, with discharge to sewer accepted only if the other sustainable measures are not feasible.
10.92 In this instance the drainage strategy expects that the site would not be suitable for infiltration due to inappropriate below ground conditions, whilst there is no suitable watercourse in proximity to the site that could accommodate the expected flow from the site.
10.93 To this extent, the strategy recommends discharge to the surface water sewer under Harland Way via on site attenuation in underground tanks and above ground detention basins.
10.94 Yorkshire Water have previously accepted this strategy (subject to evidence that infiltration will not be possible and sufficient attenuation to restrict discharge to no more than 5 litres per second). Notwithstanding, Yorkshire Water have objected to the foul water proposals stating that the local public sewer network serving Wetherby does not have adequate capacity available to accommodate the anticipated foul water discharge from this proposal. An objection is therefore raised on the grounds that flood risk, pollution and public health may all be negatively impacted as a result of the development.
10.95 The issue of capacity of the network has been tested at planning appeal, recently under reference APP/U2750/W/25/3371863 for residential development on Land East of Rainbow Lane, Malton. The Inspector provided clarity on the responsibilities of the relevant Water Authority and a developer’s statutory right to connect into the public sewer. He states ‘It is clear that there is no legal bar to imposing a restrictive condition where there is a capacity issue in the network. The principal test is whether such a condition is necessary to make the development acceptable’.
10.96 In regard to legislation, Section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991 places a statutory duty on the Water Authority as a statutory undertaker to ‘provide, improve and extend their system of public sewers and to cleanse and maintain those sewers to ensure the area is and continues to be effectually drained. Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991 provides a statutory right for owners and occupiers of premises to connect to public sewers.
10.97 Yorkshire Water in relation to this application on the consultation response dated 11th August 2025 states ‘regarding the foul water proposals, the public sewer network serving Wetherby does not have adequate capacity available to accommodate the anticipated foul water discharge from this proposal. Yorkshire Water note that the site is not allocated within the adopted Harrogate Local Plan. Yorkshire Water wishes to object to the development on the grounds that flood risk, pollution and public health may all be negatively impacted as a result of the development’.
10.98 They have however, advised that should the LPA wish to grant permission then they would request conditions on any consent relating to submission and agreement of schemes for disposal of foul water drainage and their implementation, as well as conditions pertaining to foul water connections.
10.99 The Applicant? has been asked to consider the position of Yorkshire Water and they have confirmed that the discharge of surface water would be to an existing dedicated surface water sewer adjacent to the site and therefore would not enter the Yorkshire Water assets, or network.
10.100 Whereas in relation to foul water, it is Yorkshire Water’s duty to connect the foul drainage to the network for treatment. It is their statutory responsibility to provide additional capacity if required. In this context it is proposed that a condition approach be used akin to that on the recent Appeal decision at North of Hull Road Hemingbrough (ref Appeal Ref: APP/U2750/W/25/3366264), where a similar issue arose. The circumstances of that proposal regarding capacity are similar to this development so the imposition of this condition is a consistent approach, and is necessary, reasonable, and relevant to the development being permitted.
10.101 In this context, a condition is proposed to cover drainage connections and agreement of a scheme, so the scheme is considered to accord with Local Plan Policy CC1 and paragraphs 181 and 182 of the NPPF.
10.102 Taking all of the above into consideration, it is considered that there are viable approaches for the appropriate drainage of the site taking into account the site constraints and the requirements of Yorkshire Water and the LLFA. The LLFA have stated that Appendix H of the submitted Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment v1.3 is a letter from Yorkshire Water which states their acceptance of a condition to cover surface water drainage and are therefore happy to condition the application with further information to come forward to discharge at a later time, as the proposal is acceptable in principle. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in regard to flood risk and drainage subject to conditions in accordance with Local Plan Policy CC1 and paragraphs 170, 175, 181 and 182 of the NPPF.
Air Quality and Contamination
10.103 Policy NE1 seeks to protect the air quality of an area and state that air quality assessments and/or dust assessments should be submitted to ensure that development would not adversely impact air quality. This includes impacting on the air quality of a special area of conservation (SAC) special protection area (SPA) or site of special scientific interest (SSSI).
10.104 Policy NE9 seeks to ensure that land proposed for redevelopment of re-use of land known or suspected to be contaminated which could pose a significant new risk of land contamination will be considered having regard to a preliminary land contamination risk assessment, the compatibility of the intended use with the condition of the land, and, the environmental sensitivity of the site.
10.105 The site is not in an area noted for poor air quality, nor are there any Air Quality Management Areas within Wetherby. Consequently, there is no requirement for an Air Quality Assessment of the scheme. Notwithstanding this, the applicant submitted an Air Quality Assessment which summarises that the overall operational air quality effects of the proposed development as considered to be not significant. The Council’s Environmental Health team suggest further assessment is required which can be conditioned to be undertaken prior to development commencing.
10.106 The application is accompanied by a Phase I Geo-Environmental Assessment, which has been considered by the Council’s Environmental Protection Team. Given the former use of the land as arable farmland, there is potential for contaminants to be present associated with historic agricultural practices. There is also the potential for contamination associated with the former railway use to the north and gas migration from a backfilled quarry approximately 250m to the south. On this basis, a condition shall be attached requiring a Phase II Contamination Assessment which will require discharging prior to commencement of development.
10.107 For the aforementioned reasons, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in accordance with Local Plan Policies NE1, and NE9 with regard to impact upon air quality and contamination subject to the imposition of the aforementioned conditions
Education Provision
10.108 Financial contributions are required for the provision of school expansion places. This includes £996,975.00 for primary schools, £712,994.10 for secondary school, £159,516.00 for SEND provision, and £199,395.00 for Early Years provision. The contributions will be paid in instalments, on a per dwelling basis, to be paid every 6 months based on the number of dwellings completed in the previous six months. The amount of financial contribution is based on the number of dwellings proposed.
10.109 The financial contributions will be secured through a s106 legal agreement. NYC Education is satisfied that the demand for additional educational facilities generated by the proposed development can be addressed via the above arrangements and, on that basis, has no objection to the proposed development.
Other Matters
10.110 Other comments were raised in the local representations which are not considered to be material considerations in the determination of the application. These include a request that the boundary is moved between North and West Yorkshire so that Wetherby services get income from future council tax. Concerns have been raised that if approved there would be amendments to further increase housing numbers at the site. The proposal is for up to 210 dwellings, so this sets an upper limit for dwellings permitted at the site as part of this application.
10.111 Concerns have also been raised toward the development resulting in the loss of neighbouring property values and disruption during construction. The loss of property value is not a material consideration. Any disruption through the construction period has been addressed earlier in this report.
10.112 It is noted the matter of provision of open space for the development. The applicant will be required through the S106 Agreement to provide open space typologies in accordance with the requirements of the Provision of Open Space and Village Halls Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This includes provision for children. The details of any play area will be assessed at reserved matters stage.
10.113 As for off-site open space, the Commuted Sums consultation response outlines the amounts of off-site contributions required and the site they would contribute to. This is outlined in further details below and is in accordance with the aforementioned SPD and this will be secured in the s106.
10.114 Local Plan Policy TI4 expects developers to make reasonable on-site provision and / or off-site contributions towards infrastructure and services in order to cater for the needs generated by the development. The following table sets out the contributions required, which will be secured by a S106 Agreement.
|
Table 1 |
||
|
Category/Type |
Contribution |
Amount & Trigger |
|
Education – SEND contribution |
£159,516.00
To be used by NYC for the provision of SEND provision at the new Selby Special School for children and young people with complex special educational needs in the areas of communication and interaction needs, including autism and speech language and communication needs; and/or cognition and learning needs (moderate/severe learning difficulties); or another school with SEND provision serving the locality of the development. |
To be paid over a 10 year period based on phased development of the site with payments to commence upon commencement of development. Triggers to be agreed as part of Section 106 Agreement.
All payments are to be index linked and subject to 10 years spend period |
|
Education – Early Years Contribution |
£199,395.00
To be used by NYC towards provision of a new early years facility to serve the development and/or education facilities at other existing facilities within the locality serving the development |
To be paid over a 10 year period based on phased development of the site with payments to commence upon commencement of development. Triggers to be agreed as part of Section 106 Agreement.
All payments are to be index linked and subject to 10 years spend period |
|
Education – Primary School Contribution |
£996,975.00
To be used by NYC towards provision of a new primary school to serve the development and/or education facilities at other primary schools within the locality serving the development |
To be paid over a 10 year period based on phased development of the site with payments to commence upon commencement of development. Triggers to be agreed as part of Section 106 Agreement. All payments are to be index linked and subject to 10 years spend period. |
|
Education – Secondary School |
£712,994.10
To be used by NYC towards provision of a new secondary school to serve the development and/or education facilities at other secondary schools within the locality serving the development
|
To be paid over a 10 year period based on phased development of the site with payments to commence upon commencement of development. Triggers to be agreed as part of Section 106 Agreement. All payments are to be index linked and subject to 10 years spend period. |
|
Off-Site Open Space Provision and management Plan (including village halls) |
Allotments £11917.50
Amenity Greenspace £52623.64
Outdoor Sports Facilities £55,364.30
Provision for Children and Young People £ 112,212.10
Village Halls £241,001.68
Total £473,119.22 |
Prior to commencement of development. Triggers to be agreed as part of the S106 agreement. |
|
Travel Plan |
£5,000 Monitoring Fee |
Prior to commencement |
|
S106 Monitoring Fee |
£571 monitoring fee |
Each reserved matters application will require a monitoring fee. |
|
Off-Site Highway Works |
£64,000 for bus stop improvements and enlargement of 30mph zone
|
To be agreed |
|
Affordable Housing |
A scheme to be submitted detailing 40% affordable dwellings on-site with 10% of affordable to M4(3) standard. The tenure split will consist of 70% affordable rent and 30% shared ownership. |
In accordance with the AH SPD |
10.115 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.
11.0 PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
11.1 Paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework engages the tilted balance. As relevant policies of the development plan are out of date in respect of housing delivery, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies. Planning permission should therefore be granted unless any NPPF policies protecting areas or assets of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole.
11.2 The application site lies outside defined development limits but directly adjoins the built-up area of Wetherby and is considered to represent a sustainable location for residential development. Whilst the proposal does not accord with the spatial distribution of development envisaged by the development plan, the Council is only able to demonstrate a 2.2-year housing land supply. In that context, and having regard to Policies GS2 and GS3 and the presumption in favour of sustainable development, the principle of residential development on the site is considered acceptable.
11.3 The technical assessments submitted in support of the application, together with the consultation responses received, demonstrate that the site can be developed without unacceptable impacts upon residential amenity, highway safety, biodiversity, heritage assets, flood risk, drainage, contamination or air quality, subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement. The proposal would preserve the significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets and would not give rise to any adverse effect on the integrity of Kirk Deighton SAC.
11.4 The proposal would result in the permanent loss of agricultural land, including areas of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land. This gives rise to conflict with the objectives of Local Plan Policy NE8 and paragraph 187(b) of the NPPF, both of which seek to safeguard higher quality agricultural land. Whilst only part of the site comprises Grade 2 and Grade 3a land, and the identified extent of BMV land is relatively limited, the loss of this land nevertheless weighs against the proposal in the planning balance and attracts moderate weight.
11.5 The proposal would also result in the loss of open agricultural countryside and would materially alter the character and appearance of the site and its immediate surroundings. Although substantial structural planting, green infrastructure, landscape management and reserved matters controls are proposed, it has been concluded that moderate adverse landscape and visual effects would remain. The proposal therefore conflicts, in part, with the objectives of Local Plan Policy NE4 and this harm weighs against the proposal in the planning balance.
11.6 The proposal would deliver up to 210 dwellings in an area where there is a significant shortfall in housing land supply, including 84 affordable homes secured through the Section 106 Agreement. Significant weight is attached to the delivery of market and affordable housing. Additional benefits include economic benefits arising from construction activity and future expenditure by residents, biodiversity net gain in excess of the statutory minimum requirement, improvements to green infrastructure, education contributions exceeding £2 million, off-site highway improvements and affordable housing provision secured in perpetuity. These benefits attract substantial weight in favour of the proposal.
11.7 Against these benefits must be weighed the moderate adverse landscape effects arising from the extension of built development into the countryside, the permanent loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land. These adverse impacts together attract moderate weight against the proposal. No heritage harm has been identified and no adverse effects on the integrity of Kirk Deighton SAC have been identified. Accordingly, those matters are neutral in the planning balance.
11.8 When assessed against the Framework as a whole, and having regard to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, it is not considered that the identified adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the substantial social, economic and environmental benefits arising from the development. Furthermore, no policies within the NPPF that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusing the application. The tilted balance therefore falls firmly in favour of the proposal. Subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and the imposition of appropriate planning conditions, outline planning permission should be granted.
12.0 RECOMMENDATION
12.1 That outline planning permission be granted, subject to conditions listed below and the prior completion of a S106 agreement with terms as detailed in Table 1.
Recommended conditions:
1. No development shall take place without the prior written approval of the
Local Planning Authority of all details of the following reserved matters -
(a) access;
(b) appearance
(c) landscaping
(d) layout; and
(e) scale.
Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To safeguard the rights of control by the Local Planning Authority in respect of the reserved matters.
2. Application for the approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority not later than three years from the date of this permission The development hereby permitted shall be begun on or before the expiration of two years from the final approval of reserved matters or in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
Reason: To ensure compliance with Sections 91-94 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
3. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
Drawing No. 1716.PP.A Rev B "Parameter Plan A Land Use"
Drawing No. 1716.PP.B Rev B "Parameter Plan B Access and Movement"
Drawing No. 1716.PP.C Rev C "Parameter Plan C Buildings Heights"
Drawing No. 1716.PP.D Rev B "Parameter Plan D Density"
Drawing No. 1716.PP.E Rev B "Parameter Plan E Blue and Green Infrastructure"
Drawing No. ITM10335-GA-026 Rev F "Proposed Site Access Junction on Harrogate Road - Priority Ghost Island"
Drawing No. P24-2926_EN_06 "Landscape Character Area Plan"
Reason: In order to ensure compliance with the approved drawings.
4. If the development is to be implemented in a phased manner, details submitted with the Reserved Matters shall include a phasing plan. Once approved ,the development shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved phasing plan.
Reason: To enable flexibility of implementation of the works.
5. Bat Activity and Bat Roost Potential of Tree Surveys shall be carried out at the appropriate time of year by a qualified ecologist. The survey results shall be submitted with the reserved matters application as part of an Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Plan that:
i) Demonstrates how the detailed layout and design of the development has been informed by the results of the surveys and the findings of the FPCR Ecological Appraisal dated March 2017 and submitted with this outline application;
ii) Demonstrates mitigation and enhancement proposals for both species and habitats.
Thereafter no demolition or site clearance, or commencement of development shall take place until the Local Planning Authority has approved in writing the Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Plan, and development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To safeguard retained habitats and protected and priority species and to prevent the spread of invasive species during the course of works and to provide enhanced opportunities for protected and priority species utilise the site following its redevelopment.
6. No demolition or site clearance shall take place until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall provide for appropriate precautions to be taken during the construction phase relating to bats, nesting birds, badgers and reptiles and thereafter development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved CEMP.
Reason: To safeguard retained habitats and protected and priority species and to prevent the spread of invasive species during the course of works and to provide enhanced opportunities for protected and priority species utilise the site following its redevelopment.
7 No noise generating groundwork, demolition of construction machinery, vehicle, plant, tools or process, including any groundwork, demolition or construction related deliveries or dispatches to and from the site shall be carried out except between the hours of 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday, 08:00 to 13:00 hours Saturday and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.
Reason: To protect the amenity of the locality, especially for people living and/or working nearby.
8. No groundworks, demolition or construction activities related to the approval shall commence until a scheme specifying the provision to be made to control groundwork, demolition and construction dust emanating from the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme shall be implemented in full during the groundworks, demolition and construction phase.
Reason: To protect the amenity of the locality, especially for people living and/or working nearby.
9. Except for investigative works, no excavation or other groundworks or the depositing of material on site in connection with the construction of any road or any structure or apparatus which will lie beneath the road must take place on any phase of the road construction works, until full detailed engineering drawings of all aspects of roads and sewers for that phase, including any structures which affect or form part of the highway network, and a programme for delivery of such works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The development must only be carried out in compliance with the approved engineering drawings.
Reason: To ensure an appropriate highway constructed to an adoptable standard in the interests of highway safety and the amenity and convenience of all highway users.
10. No part of the development to which this permission relates must be brought into use until the carriageway and any footway or footpath from which it gains access is constructed to binder course macadam level or block paved (as approved) and kerbed and connected to the existing highway network with any street lighting installed and in operation.
The completion of all road works, including any phasing, must be in accordance with a programme submitted to and approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is brought into use.
Reason: To ensure safe and appropriate access and egress to the premises, in the interests of highway safety and the convenience of all prospective highway users.
11. There must be no access or egress by any vehicles between the highway and the application site until splays are provided giving clear visibility of 142.6 metres east and 143.5 metres west measured along both channel lines of the major road from a point measured 2.4 metres down the centre line of the access road. In measuring splays, the eye height must be 1.05 metres and the object height must be 0.6 metres. Once created, these visibility splays must be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained for their intended purpose at all times.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
12. The following scheme of off-site highway mitigation measures must be completed prior to occupation of the first dwelling:
· A new priority controlled site access junction incorporating a ghost-island right turn facility;
· Revised ‘Gateway’ feature at repositioned speed limit change location;
· Active travel infrastructure;
· Observation platform for Police use to monitor vehicle speeds in North Yorkshire’s jurisdiction;
· Improved bus stopped on A661 Spofforth Hill;
· New Puffin crossing over A661 Spofforth Hill;
· Associated traffic signs and road markings.
For each scheme of off-site highway mitigation, except for investigative works, no excavation or other groundworks or the depositing of material on site in connection with the construction of any scheme of off-site highway mitigation or any structure or apparatus which will lie beneath that scheme must take place, until full detailed engineering drawings of all aspects of that scheme including any structures which affect or form part of the scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
An independent Stage 2 Road Safety Audit commissioned in accordance with NYC protocol carried out in accordance with GG119 - Road Safety Audits or any superseding regulations must be included in the detailed S278 submission and the design proposals must be amended in accordance with the agreed Road Safety Audit actions recorded n the Safety Audit Decision Log prior to the commencement of works on site.
A programme for the delivery of that scheme and its interaction with delivery of the other identified schemes must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to construction works commencing on site.
Each item of the off-site highway works must be completed in accordance with the approved engineering details and the programme.
Reason: To ensure that the design is appropriate in the interests of the safety and convenience of highway users.
13. The development must be carried out and operated in accordance with the approved Travel Plan or as varied by written agreement with the LPA. Those parts of the approved Travel Plan that are identified therein as being capable of implementation after occupation must be implemented in accordance with the timetable contained therein and must continue to be implemented as long as any part of the development is occupied.
Reason: To establish measures to encourage sustainable non-car modes of transport.
14. No development for any phase of the development must commence until a Construction Management Plan for that phase shas been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Construction of the permitted development must be undertaken in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan.
The Plan must include, but not be limited, to arrangements for the following in respect of each phase of the works:
1. Details of any temporary construction access to the site including measures for removal following completion of construction works;
2. Wheel and chassis underside washing facilities on site to ensure that mud and debris is not spread onto the adjacent public highway;
3. The parking of contractors' site operatives and visitor's vehicles;
4. Areas for storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development clear of the highways;
5. Measures to manage the delivery of materials and plant to the site including routing and timing of deliveries and loading and unloading areas;
6. Details of the routes to be used by HGV construction traffic and highway condition surveys on these routes;
7. Protection of carriageway and footway users at all times during demolition and construction;
8. Protection of contractors working adjacent to the highway;
9. Details of site working hours;
10. Erection and maintenance of hoardings including decorative displays, security fencing and scaffoldings on/over the footway & carriageway and facilities for public viewing where appropriate;
11. Means of diminishing dust emissions arising from construction activities on the site, including details of all dust suppression measures and the methods to monitor emissions of dust arising from the development;
12. Measures to control and monitor construction noise;
13. An undertaking that there must be no burning of materials on site at any time during construction;
14. Removal of materials from site including a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works;
15. Details of the measures to be taken for the protection of trees;
16. Details of external lighting equipment;
17. Details of ditches to be piped during the construction phases;
18. A detailed method statement and the programme for the building works; and
19. Contact details for the responsible person (site manager/office) who can be contacted in the event of any issue.
Reason: In the interests of public safety and amenity.
15. No demolition/development shall commence until a Written Scheme of Investigation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions, and:
1. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording
2. Community involvement and/or outreach proposals
3. The programme for post investigation assessment
4. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording
5. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation
6. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation
7. Nomination of a competent person or persons'/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.
No demolition/development shall take place other than in accordance with the approved Written Scheme of Investigation.
The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the approved Written Scheme of Investigation and the provision made for analysis, public and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured.
Reason: In order to protect and archive the archaeological significance of the site in accordance with Paragraph 212 and Footnote 76 of the NPPF.
16 Groundworks shall not commence until a land contamination Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation Report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property, and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours, and other offsite receptors.
17 Where site remediation is recommended in the Local Authority approved Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation Report, groundworks shall not commence until a Land Contamination Remediation Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Remediation Strategy shall include a timetable for the implementation and completion of the approved remediation measures.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property, and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours, and other offsite receptors.
18 Land contamination remediation of the site shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the Local Planning Authority Approved Remediation Strategy. If remediation is unable to proceed in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy or contamination not previously considered in either the Preliminary Risk Assessment or the Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation Report is identified or encountered on site, all groundworks in the affected area (save for site investigation works) shall cease immediately and the local planning authority shall be notified in writing within 2 working days. Works shall not recommence until proposed revisions to the Remediation Strategy have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Remediation of the site shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved revised Remediation Strategy.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property, and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours, and other offsite receptors.
19 Following completion of any measures identified in the approved Remediation Strategy or any approved revised Remediation Strategy a land contamination Verification Report shall be submitted to the local planning authority. No part of the site shall be brought into use until such time as the remediation measures have been completed for that part of the site in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy or the approved revised Remediation Strategy and a Verification Report in respect of those remediation measures has been approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where verification has been submitted and approved in stages for different areas of the whole site, a Final Verification Summary Report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property, and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours, and other offsite receptors.
20 No building or other obstruction including planted landscape features shall be located over or within 3 (three) metres either side of the centre line of the water main i.e. a protected strip width of 6 (six) metres, that enters the site. If the required stand-off distance is to be achieved via diversion or closure of the water main, the developer shall submit evidence to the Local Planning Authority that the diversion or closure has been agreed with the relevant statutory undertaker.
Reason: In order to allow sufficient access for maintenance and repair work at all times.
21 No new tree planting, shall be permitted over or within 5.0 (five) metres either side of the centre line of the sewer(s), which cross the site.
Reason: In order to protect the structural integrity of the pipe from tree root infestation.
22 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until the Local Planning Authority has approved a detailed design of the drainage scheme for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage.
The drainage scheme shall include details of:
a) A timetable for implementation
b) Adoption/maintenance, including drawings showing assets to be adopted and a maintenance plan covering requirements until the assets are vested.
Any such scheme shall be implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority before the development is brought into first use.
Reason: In the interests of satisfactory and sustainable drainage in pursuance of Policy CC1 of the Harrogate Local Plan.
23 No development including earthworks shall take place until a suitable temporary Construction Surface Water Management Plan has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Method statements and plans/drawings detailing surface water management proposals must include the following:
a. Temporary drainage systems, including any dewatering.
b. Measures for managing pollution / water quality and protecting controlled waters and watercourses, including any emergency control measures.
c. Measures for managing any on or offsite flood risk associated with construction (If applicable)
d. Required consents, e.g. Land Drainage Act, Environmental Permit (If required)
e. Construction management, maintenance and remediation schedule.
Reason: To ensure that surface water quality and quantity is managed through construction and prevent the impact of work off site.
24 The reserved matters application(s) shall accord with Policy HS1 and provide a range of market and affordable house types and sizes. The mix should have reference to the latest Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment. The approved development must be carried out in accordance with the approved details
Reason: To ensure a mixed and balanced community is created.
25 Prior to the commencement of foundations details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority to confirm that 25% of market dwellings and all affordable dwellings will meet accessible homes standards (M4(2)) with 10% of affordable dwellings also meeting M4(3) wheelchair accessible homes. No works to the foundations shall take place until the Local Planning Authority has agreed the details in writing and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In accordance with Local Plan Policies HS1 and HS2.
26 No operations shall commence on site in connection with the approved phase of development (including any demolition work, soil moving, temporary access construction and/or widening or any operations involving the use of motorised vehicles or construction machinery) until such a time as the AIA and AMS has been formally agreed by the local planning authority and any root protection area (RPA) works required by the approved tree protection scheme are in place.
Reason: In the interest of the health and visual amenity of trees to be retained.
27 Prior to the occupation of the first dwelling within the development hereby permitted, installation of an external lighting scheme shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority for approval, including the location, number and specification of the lighting. The lighting scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved and maintained and retained as such for the lifetime of the development.
Reason: In the interest of security and residential amenity.
28 The Biodiversity Gain Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the Biodiversity Net Gain Strategy Rev 1 (August 2025) prepared by FPCR.
Reason: To ensure the development delivers a biodiversity net gain on site in accordance with Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Local Plan Policies NE3 and NE7.
29 The development shall not commence until a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) prepared in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority and including:
(a) A non-technical summary;
(b) The roles and responsibilities of the people or organisation(s) delivering the HMMP;
(c) The planned habitat creation and enhancement works to create or improve habitat to achieve the biodiversity net gain in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan;
(d) The management measures to maintain habitat in accordance wit the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan for a period of 30 years from the completion of development; and
(e) The monitoring methodology and frequency in respect of the created or enhanced habitat to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the development delivers a biodiversity net gain on site in accordance with Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Local Plan Policies NE3 and NE7.
30 Notice in writing shall be given to the Council when the HMMP works have started.
Reason: To ensure the development delivers a biodiversity net gain on site in accordance with Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Local Plan Policies NE3 and NE7.
31 No groundworks in association with the development hereby permitted shall take place until:
(a) the habitat creation and enhancement works set out in the approved [HMMP] have been completed; and
(b) a completion report, evidencing the completed habitat enhancements, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the development delivers a biodiversity net gain on site in accordance with Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Local Plan Policies NE3 and NE7.
32 The created and/or enhanced habitat specified in the approved HMMP shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved HMMP.
Reason: To ensure the development delivers a biodiversity net gain on site in accordance with Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Local Plan Policies NE3 and NE7.
33 No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until confirmation has been provided to the Local Planning Authority that sufficient capacity exists within the public sewerage network and wastewater treatment works to accommodate the foul drainage flows from the development. The confirmation shall include details of any necessary off-site infrastructure improvements and a timetable for their completion. Occupation of dwellings shall only proceed in accordance with the approved phasing and infrastructure delivery plan.
Reason: To ensure the site can be properly drained without risk of flooding/pollution to the local aquatic environment, public health and public amenity in accordance with Local Plan Policy CC1.
34 Along with the submission of any reserved matters application, a Design Code shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The reserved matters applications shall thereafter be in accordance with the approved Design Code.
Reason: In order to ensure that the site is designed in an appropriate manner through subsequent applications.
Case Officer: Sam Binney
Email: sam.binney1@northyorks.gov.uk