Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director – Planning – Community Development Services.

Considered:-

The Assistant Director Planning, Community Development Services sought determination of a full planning application for the development of 66 dwellings with associated landscaping and highways and demolition and off-site highways works at land at Garden Lane, Sherburn in Elmet.  The proposal was that all the dwellings would be provided as affordable units either as affordable rent, shared ownership or rent to buy for those with local connections.

The Principal Planning Officer advised Members that there was an officer update note on the application, and highlighted that additional comments had been received by the Council which raised concerns relating to highways impacts and infrastructure constraints, both of which had been addressed in the officers report within the agenda pack.

The officer update note also clarified the three types of affordable housing provision within the development along with the letting criteria which occupiers would have to meet in order to be eligible to seek one of the properties.

A site visit had been attended by Members on the 11 March 2024, with the application going to Committee on the 13 March 2024.  The application had been deferred at that time to allow officers to consider the changed position on the payment of contributions by the applicants relating to education and healthcare, and for further discussions to take place with North Yorkshire Highways to seek clarity.

Alex Tant-Brown spoke on behalf of Sherburn in Elmet Town Council, objecting to the application.

Paul Butler spoke on behalf of the applicant, in support of the application.

During consideration of the above application, the Committee discussed the following issues:-

• Members queried if advice had been sought on the application from the Councils Planning Policy team.
• Whether any of the affordable housing was available for social renting.
• The percentage of safeguarded land which would be released for the development was queried.
• On what grounds the land had been deemed safeguarded.
• During the site visit comments had been addressed to the Highways team regarding the telegraph poles on the roadside and the possibility of widening the road, Members queried how officers proposed to deal with the two issues.
• Whether there were properties on either side of the road at that point.                              

A Member raised serious concerns regarding the application and explained that Sherburn in Elmet had experienced a significant level of growth over recent years with the Local Plan stating that the level of services within the town had failed to keep pace with the population and housing growth.  It was further highlighted that:-

·       The application was on part of safeguarded land which would only utilise a small part of the land, this could potentially compromise future development on the site.

·       The site had been considered as part of the emerging Local Plan allocation but was discounted, therefore it was contrary to both the adopted Local Plan and the emerging Local Plan.

·       Safeguarded land should not be developed other than through a Local Plan.

·       There had been similar applications for the site that had been submitted and refused on appeal, for a smaller number of houses.

·       Affordable Housing should be integrated throughout a housing site, and 50% to 70% of Affordable Housing on a housing site should be social rented housing.

·       In terms of highways, the previous application that went to appeal had originally been for 66 houses that was then reduced to 27 houses, as the Councils Highways Team had objected on the grounds that Garden Lane was inadequate for that level of houses.  The current application was for 66 houses and no objections had been raised by Highways.

·       It was a primary access for the school children who attend Sherburn High School, therefore there were highway safety concerns.

Finally, the Member stated that in his view the application should be refused for the same reasons given by the Planning Inspectorate at the appeal hearing held in February 2021.

Councillor Packham proposed and Councillor Warneken seconded that, contrary to the officer recommendation, the application be refused.

The decision:

That the application be REFUSED due to the following material considerations and the noted reasons:

·       The release of part of this Safeguarded Land site conflicted with Selby District Local Plan (2005) Policy SL1 (Safeguarded Land), Core Strategy (2013) Policy SP1 and SP2 and the approach of the NPPF. No material considerations had been provided of sufficient weight to outweigh the harm in terms of the spatial strategy for the location of development within the District or to support the release of the site at this time.  As such, the scheme was considered to be contrary to Selby District Local Plan (2005) Policy SL1 (Safeguarded Land); Core Strategy (2013) Policy SP1 and SP2 and thus contrary to the Development Plan.

·       The development of this site would have a negative impact on the infrastructure capacity of Sherburn in Elmet and the scheme was contrary to Policy ENV1(3) and Policy CS6 of the Selby District Local Plan (2005) despite the developers acceptance of the requested contributions.  The growth of the settlement should be defined through the review of the development plan and this site was not proposed to be an allocation in the Selby Local Plan – Revised Publication 2024. 

·       The proposed development would increase traffic flows on Garden Lane including at the junction with Church Hill and Tomlinson Way.  Any increase in traffic on Garden Lane was unacceptable and would result in conflict with other users including pedestrians.  The scheme was therefore contrary to Policy ENV1 (2) , Policy T1 and Policy T2 of the Selby Local Plan (2005).

Voting record:

A vote was taken, and the motion was carried with 6votes for, and 1 against.

Councillor Paraskos moved to the public gallery at this point in the meeting.