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 ...
introduced onto the site, in the interests of Biodiversity. Where possible, schemes should include low maintenance solutions”. 2.15.5 At a regional policy level then Policy ENV8 supports schemes which safeguard and enhance biodiversity heritage. 2.15.6 The submitted Environmental Statement includes an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and a Full Desk Study and an Ecological Assessment by BE Brooks Ecological Ltd has been submitted. The key ecological issues considered are the potential effects of the proposed development upon any statutory or non-statutory nature conservation sites, areas of valuable semi-natural habitat and protected or otherwise notable species within its sphere of influence, the need to mitigate potential short, medium and long term impacts and sets out how best to maximise potentially positive effects. The report concludes that subject to mitigation which includes suitable landscaping, a construction environmental management plan and suitable drainage the potential impacts from the development would be slight or neutral. 2.15.7 In commenting on the application then the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust (YWT) and Natural England has made a series of comments on the scheme which are outlined earlier in this Report seeking use of conditions / S106 mechanisms on a range of aspects. In addition comments have been made by objectors in terms of the impacts on ecology / biodiversity. 2.15.8 The requested conditions / S106 matters noted by the YWT are considered to be appropriate and to meet the test within Circular 11/95 with the exception of the request for direct funding of a Part Time Reserve Officer and the provision of members to the YWT for new residents of the development, as these are considered to not be required as a direct result of the development or to be reasonably related to the development itself. 2.15.9 In conclusion, it is considered that the securing of the creation of new habitats, habitat protection and management of the habitats can be secured via conditions / S106 mechanisms, as such the scheme is considered to be acceptable in terms of Local Plan Policies ENV1 (5), SHB1/1B (4), RSS Policy ENV8 and the NPPF. 2.16 Land Contamination 2.16.1 Policy ENV2 of the Local Plan outlines that “proposals for development which would give rise to, or would be affected by, unacceptable levels of noise, nuisance, contamination or other environmental pollution including groundwater pollution will not be permitted unless satisfactory remedial or preventative measures are incorporated as an integral element in the scheme. Such measures should be carried out before the use of the site commences” and that “where there is a suspicion that the site might be contaminated, planning permission may be 210
granted subject to conditions to prevent the commencement of development until a site investigation and assessment has been carried out and development has incorporated all measures shown in the assessment to be necessary”. 2.16.2 The Environmental Impact Assessment includes assessments of the ground conditions and waste and in addition a Tier 1 Desk Study Report has been submitted. These reports have been reviewed on behalf of the Council by Wilbourn Associates whose advice is set out earlier in this Report. In the context of this advice it is considered that the scheme of as set out in the submitted Environmental Statement and Tier 1 Design Study Report is acceptable subject to conditions and informatives on any consent. 2.16.3 As such the scheme is considered that the scheme is acceptable in terms of Policy ENV2 of the Local Plan in terms of contamination matters. 2.17 Cultural Heritage 2.17.1 Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan states outlines that in considering proposals the District Council will take account of: 2) 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. 2.17.2 In addition Local Plan Policy ENV28(A) outlines that “Where development proposals affect sites of known or possible archaeological interest, the District Council will require an archaeological assessment/evaluation to be submitted as part of the planning application”. The policy then outlines under ENV28(B) and (C) that preservation in situ is appropriate and investigations maybe require prior to or during a development. 2.17.3 At the site specific level, then in terms of cultural heritage, Policy SHB/1B states the proposals for the site should include: 8) An appropriate archaeological evaluation of the site prior to the submission of a planning application; 2.17.4 In terms of archaeology / cultural heritage then the “Approved Development Brief” for the wider site notes that “The development area is known to contain widely distributed but significant archaeological remains. 2.17.5 Within the RSS Policy ENV9 outlines that the region will safeguard and enhance heritage assets and at the national level then the NPPF provides national policy in respect of the conservation of historic heritage. The NPPF states that a heritage asset is defined as a 211
- 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 and 208: The proposals are therefore conside
- Page 209: watercourses. Furthermore flow atte
- 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
- Page 259 and 260: 2.7.9 Consequently, subject to the
granted subject to conditions to prevent the commencement of<br />
development until a site investigation <strong>and</strong> assessment has been<br />
carried out <strong>and</strong> development has incorporated all measures shown in<br />
the assessment to be necessary”.<br />
2.16.2 The Environmental Impact Assessment includes assessments of the<br />
ground conditions <strong>and</strong> waste <strong>and</strong> in addition a Tier 1 Desk Study<br />
Report has been submitted. These reports have been reviewed on<br />
behalf of the Council by Wilbourn Associates whose advice is set out<br />
earlier in this Report. In the context of this advice it is considered that<br />
the scheme of as set out in the submitted Environmental Statement<br />
<strong>and</strong> Tier 1 Design Study Report is acceptable subject to conditions <strong>and</strong><br />
informatives on any consent.<br />
2.16.3 As such the scheme is considered that the scheme is acceptable in<br />
terms of Policy ENV2 of the Local Plan in terms of contamination<br />
matters.<br />
2.17 Cultural Heritage<br />
2.17.1 Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan states outlines that in considering<br />
proposals the <strong>District</strong> Council will take account of:<br />
2) The potential loss, or adverse effect upon, significant buildings,<br />
related spaces, trees, wildlife habitats, archaeological or other<br />
features important to the character of the area.<br />
2.17.2 In addition Local Plan Policy ENV28(A) outlines that “Where<br />
development proposals affect sites of known or possible archaeological<br />
interest, the <strong>District</strong> Council will require an archaeological<br />
assessment/evaluation to be submitted as part of the planning<br />
application”. The policy then outlines under ENV28(B) <strong>and</strong> (C) that<br />
preservation in situ is appropriate <strong>and</strong> investigations maybe require<br />
prior to or during a development.<br />
2.17.3 At the site specific level, then in terms of cultural heritage, Policy<br />
SHB/1B states the proposals for the site should include:<br />
8) An appropriate archaeological evaluation of the site prior to the<br />
submission of a planning application;<br />
2.17.4 In terms of archaeology / cultural heritage then the “Approved<br />
Development Brief” for the wider site notes that “The development area<br />
is known to contain widely distributed but significant archaeological<br />
remains.<br />
2.17.5 Within the RSS Policy ENV9 outlines that the region will safeguard <strong>and</strong><br />
enhance heritage assets <strong>and</strong> at the national level then the NPPF<br />
provides national policy in respect of the conservation of historic<br />
heritage. The NPPF states that a heritage asset is defined as a<br />
211