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 ...
developed, however the agents confirm that due to this only being a small area of land they can design the scheme to ensure that the built form does not fall within this zone and this can be utilised as garden/ amenity space and this could be secured by condition. 2.14.8 The NPPF states that Flood Risk Assessments are required on sites comprising one hectare or above to establish vulnerability to flooding from other sources as well as river and sea flooding and the potential to increase flood risk elsewhere through the addition of hard surfaces and the effect of the new development on surface water run-off. 2.14.9 As part of the application, alongside Section 9 of the Environmental Statement, the applicants have provided a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) in line with the NPPF which considers the sources of flooding, impact from climate change, flood mitigation, sustainable drainage, existing surface water run off, proposed surface water drainage and foul drainage. The report also considers the cumulative effects and sets out appropriate mitigation measures. 2.14.10 In commenting on the application the Environment Agency have raised no objections subject to the measures in the Flood Risk Assessment being implemented and secured by condition. 2.14.11 Having taken into account the impact on flooding as set out above it is considered that the proposals demonstrate that the development would be appropriately flood resilient and resistant, residual flood risk can be safely managed and demonstrates that flood risk elsewhere should not be increased by the proposals. The proposals are therefore considered acceptable in terms of flood risk in accordance with Policy SH/1B of the Selby District Local Plan, Policy ENV1 of the RSS and the requirements of the NPPF. Drainage 2.14.12 Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan outlines that in considering proposals the District Council will take account of: 3) The capacity of local services and infrastructure to serve the proposal, or the arrangements to be made for upgrading, or providing services and infrastructure; 2.14.13 At the site specific level, SHB/1B states that proposals must make provision for: 4) A surface water drainage scheme. 5) Reinforcement of the water supply main from South Milford pumping station. 2.14.14 In terms of drainage the “Approved Development Brief” for the wider site from 2003, notes that surface water should drain to the on-site 208
watercourses. Furthermore flow attenuation should be utilised, including balancing areas, which should form an integral part of the existing site water features, where this is compatible with their existing drainage function and that where SUDS is not feasible, filtered surface water run off should be discharged directly to watercourses. The Development Brief also notes that foul water should be pumped to the Yorkshire Water pumping station on Moor Lane and that although this would result in an increase in the volume of treated effluent discharge from the works “the impact of this has been assessed and the receiving watercourse has capacity to accommodate these increased flows”, The Brief also states that the “detailed design should seek to enhance the landscape and ecological value of the water features.”. 2.14.15 Yorkshire Water has commented to confirm there is a water supply and have raised no objections in relation to waste water subject to conditions. The Internal Drainage Board have commented and have raised no objections in terms of surface water run off subject to conditions. 2.14.16 In the context of these comments it is considered that the scheme is acceptable in terms of drainage and the capacity of local services and infrastructure to serve the proposal, with in respect of Policy ENV1 (3), and SHB/1B (4), (5) and (10) and is acceptable in terms of RSS Policy ENV1 and the NPPF subject to the use of a range of conditions on any consent. 2.15 Biodiversity / Ecology 2.15.1 In respect to impacts of development proposals on protected species and ecology planning policy and guidance is provided by the NPPF and Circular 06/2005 “Biodiversity and Geological Conservation- Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System”. The presence of protected species is a material planning consideration. 2.15.2 Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan outlines that in considering proposals the District Council will take account of: The potential loss, or adverse effect upon, significant buildings, related spaces, trees, wildlife habitats, archaeological or other features important to the character of the area. 2.15.3 At the site specific level, then in terms of biodiversity and ecology, Policy SHB/1B states the proposals for the site should provide: 1) A comprehensive surface water drainage scheme incorporating features to create wildlife habitats. 2.15.4 In terms of biodiversity/ecology the “Approved Development Brief” for the wider site notes that “survey work undertaken in ES should inform the development to encourage and enhance species retained or 209
- 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 and 196: 2.8.10 Policy H2A was clear that th
- Page 197 and 198: Elmet as being one of the most sust
- 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: The proposals are therefore conside
- 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
- Page 247 and 248: ungalow to the south. To the east o
- Page 249 and 250: that shall first be submitted to an
- Page 251 and 252: 251
- Page 253 and 254: Report Reference Number: 2011/1049/
- Page 255 and 256: 1.4.6 Yorkshire Wildlife Trust - No
- Page 257 and 258: 2.6.1 Policies Y1, YH5, H1, H2 and
developed, however the agents confirm that due to this only being a<br />
small area of l<strong>and</strong> they can design the scheme to ensure that the built<br />
form does not fall <strong>with</strong>in this zone <strong>and</strong> this can be utilised as garden/<br />
amenity space <strong>and</strong> this could be secured by condition.<br />
2.14.8 The NPPF states that Flood Risk Assessments are required on sites<br />
comprising one hectare or above to establish vulnerability to flooding<br />
from other sources as well as river <strong>and</strong> sea flooding <strong>and</strong> the potential<br />
to increase flood risk elsewhere through the addition of hard surfaces<br />
<strong>and</strong> the effect of the new development on surface water run-off.<br />
2.14.9 As part of the application, alongside Section 9 of the Environmental<br />
Statement, the applicants have provided a Flood Risk Assessment<br />
(FRA) in line <strong>with</strong> the NPPF which considers the sources of flooding,<br />
impact from climate change, flood mitigation, sustainable drainage,<br />
existing surface water run off, proposed surface water drainage <strong>and</strong><br />
foul drainage. The report also considers the cumulative effects <strong>and</strong><br />
sets out appropriate mitigation measures.<br />
2.14.10 In commenting on the application the Environment Agency have<br />
raised no objections subject to the measures in the Flood Risk<br />
Assessment being implemented <strong>and</strong> secured by condition.<br />
2.14.11 Having taken into account the impact on flooding as set out above it is<br />
considered that the proposals demonstrate that the development would<br />
be appropriately flood resilient <strong>and</strong> resistant, residual flood risk can be<br />
safely managed <strong>and</strong> demonstrates that flood risk elsewhere should not<br />
be increased by the proposals. The proposals are therefore<br />
considered acceptable in terms of flood risk in accordance <strong>with</strong> Policy<br />
SH/1B of the <strong>Selby</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Policy ENV1 of the RSS <strong>and</strong> the<br />
requirements of the NPPF.<br />
Drainage<br />
2.14.12 Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan outlines that in considering proposals<br />
the <strong>District</strong> Council will take account of:<br />
3) The capacity of local services <strong>and</strong> infrastructure to serve the<br />
proposal, or the arrangements to be made for upgrading, or<br />
providing services <strong>and</strong> infrastructure;<br />
2.14.13 At the site specific level, SHB/1B states that proposals must make<br />
provision for:<br />
4) A surface water drainage scheme.<br />
5) Reinforcement of the water supply main from South Milford<br />
pumping station.<br />
2.14.14 In terms of drainage the “Approved Development Brief” for the wider<br />
site from 2003, notes that surface water should drain to the on-site<br />
208