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 ...
1.2.7 The Illustrative Masterplan (as received on the 17 th April 2012) shows a street hierarchy for the development, based on the development providing the first part of a link road between Low Street and Moor Lane, the use of primary streets which form permeable vehicles routes within the site, a series of secondary streets which serve smaller development parcels and a number of private drives which serve up to 5 dwellings. 1.2.8 The Master Plan also shows strategic landscaping for the site including proposed woodland planting, areas of wet/damp meadow grassland within the proposed attenuation facility, informal wildlife corridors, football pitches, play areas (Neighbourhood Equipped Areas of Play (NEAPs), Local Equipped Areas of Play (LEAPs) and Local Areas of Play (LAP’s) and series of footpath linkages and a possible trim trail. 1.2.9 The Section 106 agreement for the site would secure highways, waste and recycling and education contributions and would secure affordable housing provision, a travel plan, a management plan for ditches and hedgerows, securing the provision of additional school land and securing the link road through the site. 1.3 Planning History 1.3.1 The site was allocated in the 2005 Selby District Local Plan following consideration of the site through the Local Plan process. The site is part of the allocated as a Phase 2 Housing Allocation reference SHB/1B and immediately adjoins the SHB/1A which is to the north and has already been developed by Persimmon and Redrow Homes. 1.3.2 On the 2 nd February 2012 a refusal was issued in relation to Application 2011/0893/EIA which is located to the south west of this site. This application was considered by the Planning Committee in January 2012 and was refused on the following basis: Reason for Refusal 1 The proposal by virtue of the number of units proposed, is contrary to the “Selby District Council Position Statement, Release of Selby District Local Plan Phase 2 Sites (September 2011)” and Policy H2A “Managing the Release of Housing Land” of Selby District Local Plan (2005)and therefore would undermine the Council’s strategy for the controlled release of housing land. Reason for Refusal 2 The submitted Master Plan and Landscape Master Plan which accompany the application by virtue that they do not include a link to the land off Carousel Walk/Fairfield Link would prejudice the comprehensive development of SHB/1B Allocation and would therefore fail to ensure the efficient and effective development of 24
the wider allocation contrary to Paragraph 69 of Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing. Reason for Refusal 3 The application scheme fails to provide a deliverable and certain mechanism for the provision of improved primary school accommodation the need of which arises from the development. As such the scheme is considered to be contrary to Policy SHB/1B Criterion 5 of the Selby District Local Plan, Criterion 3 of ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan, Policy CS6 of the Selby District Local Plan and the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Developer Contributions. 1.3.3 An appeal has now being lodged to the Planning Inspectorate in relation to this Refusal and the Appeal has been called in by the Secretary of State. The Appeal is expected to be heard in November/December 2012. 1.3.4 An outline application (reference 2012/0400/EIA) (accompanied by an Environmental Statement) for the construction of 498 dwellings to include access on Phase 2 land on land between Moor Lane and Low Street (to the south west) is pending consideration. 1.3.5 An outline application (reference 2012/0468/EIA) (accompanied by an Environmental Statement) for the erection of a residential development of 120 no. dwellings and associated parking and public open space (to the west) is pending consideration. 1.4 Consultations 1.4.1 Sherburn in Elmet Parish Council: Comments raised in relation to application 2011/0893/EIA are relevant to the application and objections still stand. The Parish Council has sought views of residents by holding a further public meeting and taking into account the points raised the Parish objects to these applications. Policy Objections • The dwellings in the three applications represent the entire allocation referred to in the Submission Core Strategy. If these planning applications (2012/0399/EIA, 2012/0499/EIA and 2012/0468/EIA) are granted no further development would be allowed in Sherburn before 2027. • The decision of the District Council to partially release this site on the 13 th September 2011 has already effectively reduced the scope of residents to properly debate the preferred location for development in Sherburn in the period to 2027. • The outcome of these applications, if approved by the Council, could have two outcomes – Firstly, it could completely preclude any further input into the SADPD since it would be a forgone conclusion and secondly and possibly even more likely, it could 25
- Page 1 and 2: Meeting: PLANNING COMMITTEE Date: W
- Page 3 and 4: Minutes Planning Committee Venue: C
- Page 5 and 6: 13.1 Application: 2012/0028/COU Loc
- Page 7 and 8: • TAG2 have suggested alternative
- Page 9 and 10: 13.3 Application: 2012/0342/FUL Loc
- Page 11 and 12: Public Speaker - Stephen Fell, Appl
- Page 13 and 14: explained that the proposal was the
- Page 15 and 16: Items for Planning Committee 12 Sep
- Page 17 and 18: Policy Matters Detailed below is th
- Page 21 and 22: Public Session Report Reference Num
- Page 23: 1.1.5 The site does not contain any
- Page 27 and 28: Further comments were received from
- Page 29 and 30: expected to accommodate in the orde
- Page 31 and 32: sufficient sites available within S
- Page 33 and 34: The Council has a 5.57 year supply
- Page 35 and 36: scheme of this size therefore has t
- Page 37 and 38: the site and other panned hedgerows
- Page 39 and 40: een carried out. Although it would
- Page 41 and 42: character of surrounding dwellings
- Page 43 and 44: • It would appear that the develo
- Page 45 and 46: problems for local residents who, f
- Page 47 and 48: 2. The Report allow a further 8 yea
- Page 49 and 50: Taking these in turn. vi) Provision
- Page 51 and 52: 2.8.11 The Regional Spatial Strateg
- Page 53 and 54: compliance of the proposals with th
- Page 55 and 56: • Vehicular site access arrangeme
- Page 57 and 58: vehicles; and consider the needs of
- Page 59 and 60: 2.9.33 NYCC Highways have confirmed
- Page 61 and 62: 2.10.5 At a regional level the RSS
- Page 63 and 64: 2.11.5 The report concludes that th
- Page 65 and 66: 10) An appropriate flood risk asses
- Page 67 and 68: ii. and a site-specific flood risk
- Page 69 and 70: carried out in accordance with the
- Page 71 and 72: earlier in this Report seeking use
- Page 73 and 74: 2.17.8 In conclusion, it is conside
1.2.7 The Illustrative Masterplan (as received on the 17 th April 2012) shows a<br />
street hierarchy for the development, based on the development<br />
providing the first part of a link road between Low Street <strong>and</strong> Moor<br />
Lane, the use of primary streets which form permeable vehicles routes<br />
<strong>with</strong>in the site, a series of secondary streets which serve smaller<br />
development parcels <strong>and</strong> a number of private drives which serve up to<br />
5 dwellings.<br />
1.2.8 The Master Plan also shows strategic l<strong>and</strong>scaping for the site including<br />
proposed woodl<strong>and</strong> planting, areas of wet/damp meadow grassl<strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>with</strong>in the proposed attenuation facility, informal wildlife corridors,<br />
football pitches, play areas (Neighbourhood Equipped Areas of Play<br />
(NEAPs), Local Equipped Areas of Play (LEAPs) <strong>and</strong> Local Areas of<br />
Play (LAP’s) <strong>and</strong> series of footpath linkages <strong>and</strong> a possible trim trail.<br />
1.2.9 The Section 106 agreement for the site would secure highways, waste<br />
<strong>and</strong> recycling <strong>and</strong> education contributions <strong>and</strong> would secure affordable<br />
housing provision, a travel plan, a management plan for ditches <strong>and</strong><br />
hedgerows, securing the provision of additional school l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
securing the link road through the site.<br />
1.3 Planning History<br />
1.3.1 The site was allocated in the 2005 <strong>Selby</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan following<br />
consideration of the site through the Local Plan process. The site is<br />
part of the allocated as a Phase 2 Housing Allocation reference<br />
SHB/1B <strong>and</strong> immediately adjoins the SHB/1A which is to the north <strong>and</strong><br />
has already been developed by Persimmon <strong>and</strong> Redrow Homes.<br />
1.3.2 On the 2 nd February 2012 a refusal was issued in relation to Application<br />
2011/0893/EIA which is located to the south west of this site. This<br />
application was considered by the Planning Committee in January<br />
2012 <strong>and</strong> was refused on the following basis:<br />
Reason for Refusal 1<br />
The proposal by virtue of the number of units proposed, is contrary<br />
to the “<strong>Selby</strong> <strong>District</strong> Council Position Statement, Release of <strong>Selby</strong><br />
<strong>District</strong> Local Plan Phase 2 Sites (September 2011)” <strong>and</strong> Policy<br />
H2A “Managing the Release of Housing L<strong>and</strong>” of <strong>Selby</strong> <strong>District</strong><br />
Local Plan (2005)<strong>and</strong> therefore would undermine the Council’s<br />
strategy for the controlled release of housing l<strong>and</strong>.<br />
Reason for Refusal 2<br />
The submitted Master Plan <strong>and</strong> L<strong>and</strong>scape Master Plan which<br />
accompany the application by virtue that they do not include a link<br />
to the l<strong>and</strong> off Carousel Walk/Fairfield Link would prejudice the<br />
comprehensive development of SHB/1B Allocation <strong>and</strong> would<br />
therefore fail to ensure the efficient <strong>and</strong> effective development of<br />
24