Agenda with Maps and Applications (21Mb) - pdf - Selby District ...
Agenda with Maps and Applications (21Mb) - pdf - Selby District ... Agenda with Maps and Applications (21Mb) - pdf - Selby District ...
2.8.15 As stipulated above the proposals do not conflict with the development plan and it has not been demonstrated that the adverse impacts of the proposals outweigh the benefits. The proposals therefore accord with Paragraph 14 of the NPPF. 2.8.16 Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Due to the release of the Phase 2 sites the Council consider that it can demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Policy Officers have confirmed that the Council has a 5.57 year supply of housing sites as at 1 March 2012. 2.8.17 As stated above the decision taken on 13 September 2011 Council pre-dates the NPPF. The resolution is not policy as it is not subject to consultation and there is no sustainability appraisal as such this decision does not accord with policy H2A and is not consistent with the Selby District Local Plan and very limited can be attached to this. 2.8.18 Other material considerations are the Draft Core Strategy Policies, however these can only be afforded limited weight as they are subject to extant objections. 2.8.19 Following the initial Core Strategy Examination in Public further justification and evidence was sought for the housing numbers put forward, which stipulates a minimum of 700 units could be provided in Sherburn-in Elmet, given that this is based on up to date evidence it is considered that moderate weight should be attached to this. Whilst the figure is the subject of extant objections, it is considered that the effect of the objections will (if anything) cause the figure to go up. This is not, however, the position of the Council and will be determined at the forthcoming EiP. 2.8.20 In terms of the Site Allocations DPD this will need to be re-written to reflect the new evidence base and as it is at a early stage of production very limited weight can be afforded to this. This further reduces the weight to be attached to the resolution of 13th September 2011, which purports to rely on a version of the Allocations DPD which is now out of date. 2.8.21 In terms of sustainability Sherburn in Elmet is identified in the Local Plan as a Market Town, being one of the largest centres of population and employment and physically and environmentally the best able to accommodate significant growth. The Local Plan states that the town is close to the A1 and enjoys good accessibility, particularly following the opening of its bypass with major investment in infrastructure having already taken place. As such the Local Plan identifies Sherburn in 196
Elmet as being one of the most sustainable locations identified in the District. 2.8.22 In light of all of the above it is concluded that the principle of housing proposed for this site (also taking into account the other applications for development of this Phase 2 site) and the quantum of development proposed are acceptable as they are in accordance with the housing numbers released as part of Policy H2A. Very limited weight can be attached to the Council decision of 13 September 2011 in terms of releasing limited numbers on this site as the SADPD on which this decision was based is now out of date. The resolution is not a material consideration to which greater weight can attach than the adopted Local Plan. In addition significant weight should be attached to the compliance of the proposals with the NPPF. It is therefore concluded that the application for residential development on this Phase 2 site is acceptable in principle and the previous reasons for refusal have been overcome, in the light of the latest policies. 2.9 Highways, Access and Transportation Relationship to Existing Highway and Access 2.9.1 Policy ENV1 (2) states that in considering proposals for development the Council will take account of “the relationship of the proposal to the highway network, the proposed means of access, the need for road / junction improvements in the vicinity of the site, and the arrangements to be made for car parking”. In addition, Policy T1 seeks to ensure that development proposals are well related to the existing highways network and that schemes are only permitted where existing roads have adequate capacity and can safely serve the development, unless appropriate off-site highway improvements are undertaken by the developer. 2.9.2 Policy T2 outlines that development proposals which would result in the creation of a new access or the intensification of the use of an existing access will be permitted provided: 1) There would be no detriment to highway safety; and 2) The access can be created in a location and to a standard acceptable to the highway authority. The Policy also states that “proposals which would result in the creation of a new access onto a primary road or district distributor road will not be permitted unless there is no feasible access onto a secondary road and the highway authority is satisfied that the proposal would not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety”. 2.9.3 At the site specific level, Policy SHB/1B states the proposals must make provision for: 197
- Page 145 and 146: 2.16.3 The Geoenvironmental Apprais
- Page 147 and 148: stage and a condition can be utilis
- Page 149 and 150: 2.19.9 In commenting on the applica
- Page 151 and 152: (b) directly related to the develop
- Page 153 and 154: Primary Care Trust 2.22.10 In terms
- Page 155 and 156: floorspace should secure at least 1
- Page 157 and 158: allocated for housing purposes. It
- Page 159 and 160: 2.26.3 The key issues in the determ
- Page 161 and 162: dwellings close to the watercourse
- Page 163 and 164: (3) highway construction details in
- Page 165 and 166: (ii) An independent Stage 2 Safety
- Page 167 and 168: Reason: To safeguard to the rights
- Page 169 and 170: Reason: In the interests of ecology
- Page 171 and 172: 171
- Page 173 and 174: efficiency and cumulative impact th
- Page 175 and 176: • Construction would be phased fr
- Page 177 and 178: The Parish Council are not sure wha
- Page 179 and 180: stronger emphasis on the delivery o
- Page 181 and 182: The Council has no evidence of any
- Page 183 and 184: The proposed development will only
- Page 185 and 186: countryside. The authority will nee
- Page 187 and 188: 1.4.20 Ramblers' Association No res
- Page 189 and 190: - Carousel Walk being opened up int
- Page 191 and 192: - Time frame for development up to
- Page 193 and 194: 2.7 Key Issues • Village Design S
- Page 195: 2.8.10 Policy H2A was clear that th
- Page 199 and 200: an assessment of the cumulative imp
- Page 201 and 202: • Adequate facilities are provide
- Page 203 and 204: 2.9.31 As such the scheme is consid
- Page 205 and 206: • A linear belt of green space re
- Page 207 and 208: The proposals are therefore conside
- Page 209 and 210: watercourses. Furthermore flow atte
- Page 211 and 212: granted subject to conditions to pr
- Page 213 and 214: is in “outline” form details of
- Page 215 and 216: protected during the construction s
- Page 217 and 218: In light of the above, Officers wou
- Page 219 and 220: 2.22.13 The scheme does not include
- Page 221 and 222: Objectors have raised concerns rela
- Page 223 and 224: would provide financial contributio
- Page 225 and 226: 225
- Page 227 and 228: Report Reference Number: 2012/0401/
- Page 229 and 230: land adjacent to units 11-14 on the
- Page 231 and 232: 2.5.1 Please see note at start of a
- Page 233 and 234: 2.8.2 Policy EMP9 of the local plan
- Page 235 and 236: contamination or other environmenta
- Page 237 and 238: 5.1 Planning Application file refer
- Page 239 and 240: 239
- Page 241 and 242: Having reviewed the revised scheme
- Page 243 and 244: 1.4 Consultations 1.4.1 Yorkshire W
- Page 245 and 246: Policy H6: Policy ENV1: Policy ENV2
2.8.15 As stipulated above the proposals do not conflict <strong>with</strong> the development<br />
plan <strong>and</strong> it has not been demonstrated that the adverse impacts of the<br />
proposals outweigh the benefits. The proposals therefore accord <strong>with</strong><br />
Paragraph 14 of the NPPF.<br />
2.8.16 Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that housing applications should be<br />
considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable<br />
development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be<br />
considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot<br />
demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Due to the<br />
release of the Phase 2 sites the Council consider that it can<br />
demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Policy<br />
Officers have confirmed that the Council has a 5.57 year supply of<br />
housing sites as at 1 March 2012.<br />
2.8.17 As stated above the decision taken on 13 September 2011 Council<br />
pre-dates the NPPF. The resolution is not policy as it is not subject to<br />
consultation <strong>and</strong> there is no sustainability appraisal as such this<br />
decision does not accord <strong>with</strong> policy H2A <strong>and</strong> is not consistent <strong>with</strong> the<br />
<strong>Selby</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan <strong>and</strong> very limited can be attached to this.<br />
2.8.18 Other material considerations are the Draft Core Strategy Policies,<br />
however these can only be afforded limited weight as they are subject<br />
to extant objections.<br />
2.8.19 Following the initial Core Strategy Examination in Public further<br />
justification <strong>and</strong> evidence was sought for the housing numbers put<br />
forward, which stipulates a minimum of 700 units could be provided in<br />
Sherburn-in Elmet, given that this is based on up to date evidence it is<br />
considered that moderate weight should be attached to this. Whilst the<br />
figure is the subject of extant objections, it is considered that the effect<br />
of the objections will (if anything) cause the figure to go up. This is not,<br />
however, the position of the Council <strong>and</strong> will be determined at the<br />
forthcoming EiP.<br />
2.8.20 In terms of the Site Allocations DPD this will need to be re-written to<br />
reflect the new evidence base <strong>and</strong> as it is at a early stage of production<br />
very limited weight can be afforded to this. This further reduces the<br />
weight to be attached to the resolution of 13th September 2011, which<br />
purports to rely on a version of the Allocations DPD which is now out of<br />
date.<br />
2.8.21 In terms of sustainability Sherburn in Elmet is identified in the Local<br />
Plan as a Market Town, being one of the largest centres of population<br />
<strong>and</strong> employment <strong>and</strong> physically <strong>and</strong> environmentally the best able to<br />
accommodate significant growth. The Local Plan states that the town<br />
is close to the A1 <strong>and</strong> enjoys good accessibility, particularly following<br />
the opening of its bypass <strong>with</strong> major investment in infrastructure having<br />
already taken place. As such the Local Plan identifies Sherburn in<br />
196