Agenda with Maps and Applications (21Mb) - pdf - Selby District ...

8. Nature conservation and protected species
9. Contamination
2.8 Principle of the Development
2.8.1 Policies YH1 and H1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy set the overriding sub area
policy to which development of this nature should be directed and define the
provision and distribution of housing with the aim to manage and step up the supply
and delivery of housing.
2.8.2 Policy H2A of the Selby District Local Plan states that ’to ensure that the annual
house building requirement is achieved in a sustainable manner, applications for
residential development up to the end of 2006 will only be acceptable on previously
developed sites and premises within defined development limits, subject to the
criteria in policies H6 and H7. It should be recognised that although Policy H2A
refers to 2006 it was intended to restrict new housing on non-allocated sites to
previously-developed land for the life of the plan, it is therefore the case that the
proposal to develop this garden plot which does not constitute previously developed
land conflicts with this policy and, thus, also policy H6.
2.8.3 Local Plan policy H6 identifies Riccall as a village which, in terms of sustainability, is
capable of accommodating additional housing development and indicates that,
subject to it according with policy H2A and meeting seven listed criteria, which are
assessed in full detail later in this report, residential development within its defined
development limits will be permitted.
2.8.4 The Local Plan predates the change of national planning policy, annex 2 of which
provides a definition of what constitutes previously developed land and states
“previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent
structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed
surface infrastructure.” The definition goes on to state that it excludes land in built
up areas such as private residential gardens. The NPPF therefore indicates that
planning authorities should consider the case for setting out policies to resist
inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development
would cause harm to the local area.
2.8.5 As described above this site was formerly garden serving no. 43 Main Street and
therefore does not constitute previously developed land in terms of the definition in
Annex 2 of the NPPF. However, the NPPF is clear that such proposals would be
unacceptable where they cause harm to the local area. As such in assessing the
harm to the local area, despite the site being Greenfield, given that the site forms a
plot situated within the village development limits and is proposed for a small scale
development of one dwelling, it is considered that the proposal would not cause
harm to the local area and is therefore acceptable in principle when balancing the
requirements of the NPPF.
2.8.6 Having taken all of the above into account it is therefore concluded that despite the
proposals not being in accordance with Policy H2A, limited weight should be
attached to the non compliance with Policy H2A and significant weight should be
attached to the site being identified as a designated service village capable of
accommodating additional small scale development and the proposals not causing
harm to the local area in accordance with the NPPF.
335