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.

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.

The Head of Development Management explained that the application had been considered by Members during the Planning Committee on the 20 November 2024 when Members resolved to refuse the application on a number of grounds.  The decision notice had not been issued prior to the 12 December 2024 when the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published, therefore as the revised NPPF was a material consideration, the application had been brought back to Committee for re-consideration. 

Councillor Packham expressed his disappointment that the decision notice had not been issued promptly following the committee decision in November but accepted that the reason that the application had come back to Committee was valid and that Members needed to look at the application again in the context of the revised NPPF.  The Member stated that it should not become a practice of the authority to delay issuing planning decisions in the hope that there may be a change in policy.  The Head of Development Management assured Members that the point had been understood and noted.

The Principal Planning Officer advised Members that there had been material changes to the policy context following the publication of the revised NPPF in December 2024, alongside the change in the Council’s position in terms of a lack of a five-year housing land supply, and the change in the position of the emerging Local Plan progression; and that the application should now be considered in accordance with Paragraph 11D of the NPPF.  Paragraph 11D of the policy set out the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and advised that where the development plan was out of date then permission should be granted unless there were any adverse effects of doing so which significantly and demonstrably outweighed 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 effect use of land, securing well designed places and providing affordable homes, either individually or in combination. 

Members noted that there was an officer update note on the application, and it was highlighted that since publication of the agenda pack three additional comments had been received by the Council.  The comments related to highways safety and capacity, healthcare practice capacity, and traffic and noise pollution, all of which had been raised previously and had been addressed in the officer’s report within the agenda pack.

In addition, in relation to the affordable housing provision and the mechanisms for its delivery, Members heard that the applicants had approached officers to seek an element of flexibility within the wording of the S106 agreement in terms of how the units would be delivered.  Such flexibility in the S106 would allow for the provision of “social rent” units as part of the rental mix, which would be no lower than 37 units, and would also allow for the scheme to have an element of flexibility to respond to the demand and expected changes in the Homes England funding regime.  Any such changes to the mix would be made in discussion with Housing Officers to define delivery of the products needed by the customers.  The Officer drew Members attention to the officer update note which contained full details of the proposed affordable housing provision.

The Officer reminded Members that at the meeting on the 20 November 2024, one of the reasons for refusal had been that the application was for only part of the safeguarded allocation in the Local Plan, however there were possible access options available to any landowners or developers for the remaining elements of the site.  The site to the North could potentially be accessed from the adjacent existing development, and the site to the South could potentially be accessed through the application scheme itself or from the bottom end of Garden Lane.  It was the view of Officers that this scheme, in its own right, did not preclude the use of the remainder of the safeguarded land.

Alex Tant-Brown spoke as a resident in objection to the application.

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 how the change in the revised NPPF impacted on the reasons for refusal given in the previous decision the Committee had made in November 2024.
• The amount of safeguarded land which would be released for the development was queried, as within the report it was described as a large part of the site; Members did not agree that 37% of the site could be called a large part.
• In terms of the level of development in Sherburn in Elmet and the figures for affordable housing, the report suggested that since 2011, 52% of affordable dwellings had been or were due to be delivered, Members therefore felt that a high number of affordable housing had already been delivered in Sherburn in Elmet.
• Whether Officers were aware, when sites had been assessed for allocation at the time of the preparation of the Selby Local Plan, why this site had been rejected in the emerging Local Plan.

• In terms of highways and traffic flow on Garden Lane, the previous application that went to appeal had originally been for 67 dwellings which was then reduced to 27 dwellings. That application included with it a proposal for highway improvements for the 27 dwellings.  It was queried what the difference was between the proposals put forward for highway improvements for that scheme and the scheme before Members today.
• Sherburn in Elmet Town Council had provided the Council with highways traffic data that they had collected in September 2024 which indicated discrepancies with the transport assessment data submitted by the applicant in August 2024.  Officers had indicated that the Town Council figures were much higher than the applicant’s figures, but they hadn’t identified the reason for the difference between the two.  Members asked for clarification.

One Member was of the opinion that planning permission should be granted, as there was a need for affordable housing in this area, for the workforce for Sherburn Industrial Estate, and for the expansion taking place locally.  The Member understood there were changes within the revised NPPF, however with the increase in housing figures in the revised NPPF, to refuse, in his opinion, would purely delay the decision, and there would be a move to planning by appeal.

Another Member still had considerable concerns regarding the application with regards highway access to the site and the impact on the safeguarded land and went on to highlight some of the answers provided by the Officers to the questions posed earlier in the meeting, as follows:

·       In terms of the safeguarded land, it had been queried if the Officer was aware of the reasons why the proposal to allocate parts of the safeguarded land had been discounted.  The answer was that the Council rejected the allocation of this precise site, at that stage in terms of the Development Plan that was being prepared, as it was felt that development of the site would result in piecemeal development of the safeguarded land to the west of Sherburn and may compromise the development of the remainder of the safeguarded land in future Local Plans.

·       With regard to highway access, previously there had been a similar application for the site for 67 dwellings which was then reduced to 27 dwellings. That application included with it a proposal for highway improvements for the 27 dwellings.  When queried what the difference was between the proposals put forward for highway improvements for that scheme and the scheme before Members, the Officer could not explain the difference, however if the previous road improvements were inadequate for 67 dwellings, then they would be for 27 dwellings.

Finally, the Member stated that the reasons for refusal put forward at the meeting in November 2024 were still valid and that the decision taken then should be upheld.

At the request of the Chair, discussion took place with Officers to ensure, in light of the revised NPPF, that the reasons for refusal in November 2024 remained valid.  It was clarified that the reason at bullet point 1 contained references to the 2023 NPPF which may require cross referencing with the revised NPPF document, and the reason at bullet point 2 contained a reference to the 2024 revised publication of the Selby Local Plan therefore a minded to refuse decision and delegated would allow Officers to update the references to the NPPF and the emerging Selby Local Plan, with the decision then delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair.

Councillor Lunn proposed that the application be approved, the proposal did not receive a seconder, therefore the proposal fell.

Councillor Packham proposed and Councillor Warneken seconded that, contrary to the officer recommendation, the application should be minded to refuse for the reasons set out below, subject to Officers updating the references to the NPPF and the emerging Selby Local Plan, with the decision then delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair.

The decision:

That Members were MINDED TO REFUSE planning permission for the reasons below subject to updating the references to the NPPF and emerging Local Plan: and determination of the application be delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair.

• 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 developer’s 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 4 votes for, and 1 against.