Agenda item

Outline application for erection of 11no. dwellings including approval of means of access (resubmission) [Strensall] [Site Visit]

Members considered a Major Outline Application by Shirethorn Limited for the erection of 11no. dwellings including the approval of means of access (resubmission).

In their update to Members, Officers informed the Committee that a there was a typo in the report at Paragraph 4.63 in that “weight could not be attached to the planning history as a very special circumstance on this site in any case”. In response to a Member’s query as to whether the Foss Internal Drainage Board had raised concerns about the application, Officers explained that if the application had been recommended for approval then the Flood Risk Management Team would review the Drainage Board’s suggested conditions.

Representations were received from the Ward Member Councillor Doughty. He felt that the application did not show very special circumstances in the green belt. He warned Members that the application could be an example of a Trojan horse in that a previous application on the site had been for sixty homes. Finally, he noted that there were drainage problems on the site in that a nearby existing property had been flooded on Boxing Day.

Representations were received from Eamonn Keogh, the agent in support. He made reference to a 1995 Planning Inspector’s decision which accepted that the site was within the Green Belt, but said that it should not be located within it and should not be kept permanently open. At the time of that ruling however, they felt that the long term boundary of the green belt would be fixed without undue delay. In regards to the landscaping details, he stated that the hedgerow would be retained. He added there was scope to add attenuation measures such as soakaways and pipes to alleviate concerns expressed relating to flooding.

Further representations in objection were received from Andrew Bolton, a representative of Strensall with Towthorpe Parish Council. He referred to the application’s location in the Green Belt and felt that it demonstrated no exceptional circumstances for development. He pointed out that a previous application on the site had been refused by the Secretary of State. The proposed access to the site was badly congested and on-road parking made this worse safety wise. He stated that it would cause further congestion and that the proposed dwellings would only be homes for commuters. The local infrastructure in the village was at full capacity.

Resolved: That the application be refused.

Reason:    (i) Policy YH9 and Y1 of the Yorkshire and Humber Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy to 2026 defines the general extent of the Green Belt around York with an outer boundary about 6 miles from the city centre. The site is identified as Green Belt in the City of York Development Control Local Plan (Approved April 2005). It is considered that the proposed development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt as set out in section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework which is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. No 'very special circumstances' have been put forward by the applicant that would outweigh harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, including the impact on the openness of the Green Belt and conflict with the purposes of including land within Green Belt, and ecology. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to advice within the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular section 9 'Protecting Green Belt land', guidance within National Planning Practice Guidance (March 2014), in particular the section 'Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment', and Policy GB6 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan (Approved April 2005).

                (ii) Insufficient information has been submitted with the application for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the proposed access arrangements can satisfactorily accommodate the proposed development without detriment to the free flow of traffic, the safety of pedestrian, the visual amenity of the area and to an adequate standard to accommodate the proposed development and potential adjacent land allocation. Without additional information the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the development complies with the requirements of paragraph 17 and paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires safe and suitable access to sites and high quality design.

             (iii)  The development will result in the loss of Great Crested Newt (GCN) habitat and potential harm to individual newts. Circular 06/2005 'Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - Statutory Obligations and Their Impact within the Planning' says Local Planning Authorities must consider the likelihood of a European Protected Species licence being granted and therefore need to be satisfied that the 'three tests' of overriding public interest, no satisfactory alternative and maintenance of favourable conservation status are met. As submitted the application shows mitigation proposed through habitat enhancement however this is shown as within domestic gardens. Gardens are considered to be of lower value for GCN and outside of any management control and therefore not acceptable as compensatory habitat. In addition given the Green Belt status of the site there is no overriding public interest to grant planning permission for the development. It is considered that the development fails to comply with the requirements of circular 06/2005 and does not accord with the advice in Paragraphs 109 and 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to conserve and enhance biodiversity.