Agenda item

Land to the East of Middlewood Close, Rufforth, York [22/01844/FULM] [17.42]

Erection of 21no. dwellings and associated works (resubmission) [Rural West York Ward]

Minutes:

Members considered a major full application from Mulgrave Developments Ltd for the Erection of 21no. dwellings and associated works (resubmission) at land to the East of Middlewood Close, Rufforth, York. The Head of Planning and Development Services gave a presentation on the application. The Development Projects Senior Officer gave an update on the application noting that additional consultation comments have been received from the Councils Planning Policy Team. He outlined the comments and noted that there were no outstanding Regulation 19 objections. He also advised Members that at paragraph 5.113 of the report it was is stated that the very special circumstances relating to the case were laid out within paragraph 5.106 of the report. This was incorrect and the very special circumstances were summarised at paragraph 5.108 of the report.

 

Public Speakers

Daniel Russell spoke in objection to the application. He explained that nothing had changed since the application had been previously presented to Members. He explained that residents on Middlewood Close had their drains pumped out once a month. He noted that the site was in green belt . He noted that he lived to the south east of the site and had a riding area next the site. He explained that there was a principle of the existing amenity of the land and he explained the impact the application would have on his amenity.

 

Darren Seamark spoke in objection to the application. He explained that he lived directly adjacent to the site and that there were existing infrastructure, access and drainage problems. He added that traffic from the pig farm would have to drive through the development to the pig farm. He added that the development was next to a school and the road was busy during school drop off and pick up times. He also explained that the development would have an impact on wildlife. He was asked and explained the route to the pig farm

 

Ian Martin spoke in objection to the application. He explained that he had spoken to all residents on Middlewood Close. The noted that the application was on Green Bely and had not demonstrated very special circumstances. He noted that the draft Local Plan had not been approved. He listed his concerns regarding infrastructure, flooding, ingress of sewerage, the road surface on Middlewood Close, and parking, especially at school drop off and pick up times. He noted his concern regarding the safety of children. In response to Member questions he explained that:

·        He would still object to he application if the site was taken out of Green Belt.

·        Regarding there being no representation regarding the site being allocated for housing in the Local Plan, he had not received notification of the Local Plan examination process.

·        Concerning parking becoming worse, the development had no pavements on it and it would create additional danger for people accessing Middlewood Close as pedestrians.

 

Catherine Martin spoke in objection to the application. She explained that the site was in the Green Belt and there were no very special circumstances. She added that building on the Green Belt was encroaching on the countryside. She added that the sewage system was not suitable and noted that Yorkshire Water had been called out in June and October to unblock sewage. She noted that Middlewood Close gardens collected standing water and that Rufforth was a linear village. She suggested that there should be an incentive for landowners to plant trees.

 

Mark Reynolds spoke in objection to the application. He explained that he moved to Rufforth because it was on Green Belt. He explained that residents attended a Parish Council meeting to object to the development and there was substantial objection from residents. He noted that the boundary was extended because of the drainage on the development and it did not demonstrate very special circumstances. He added that if approved, there was a potential for more developments in the Green Belt. He was asked and explained that Rufforth was a linear village.

 

Mark Lane spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant. He noted that the applicant was appealing the decision to refuse the application at Planning Committee B in August. He noted that the points raised at that meeting were addressed in the officer report. He stated that there were very special circumstances and noted the material considerations in considering the application. He noted that site H38 was a longstanding housing allocation in the Local Plan and he added that there were no outstanding objections to the policy allocation to site H38. He further noted that there were no amendments to the Local Plan inspectors allocation and that the development would add to housing supply.

 

In response to Member questions, Mark Lane and colleague Andrew Gibson explained that:

·        The drainage on the site was through a separate system. Yorkshire Water and the drainage board had been consulted and had no objections.

·        There had been no objections to the housing allocation of the site at the Local Plan hearings.

·        The Neighbourhood Plan had not allocated the site for housing as this was the responsibility of the Council and Local Plan.

·        Regarding there being no pavements, there was a shared surface which was an acceptable adoptable surface.

·        The majority of storm drainage was away from the site so as not to increase flood risk on the site.

·        Yorkshire water had told the applicant where to discharge foul drainage.

·        Parking on the site was above policy compliant.

·        Regarding the difference between this application and the previous one, Phase 4 of the Local Plan hearings had been completed and as such, more weight should be given to the Local Plan.

·        The pig unit was an isolation unit in ownership of the same landowner. There was no issues with odours from the pig unit and horse unit.

·        The consultation undertaken with neighbouring residents was explained.

·        Other forms of mitigation for the hedge with the horse unit could be examined.

 

In response to Member questions, officers clarified that:

·        The Committee needed to consider the application before it.

·        The Parish Council produced the Neighbourhood Plan.

·        Highways officers had undertaken a site visit and found that there wasn’t any additional parking from the school run. They demonstrated where the safest routes for walking were and added that it was a low speed development.

·        The Parish Council had not raised objections to the application.

·        It couldn’t be guaranteed that the Local Plan would be adopted and should it be adopted there was every indication that would site would be allocated as a housing site. It was explained that more weight should be given to the Local Plan than the meeting at which the application was previously determined as the Phase 4 Local Plan hearing had been completed. This added to the weight of very special circumstances and the five year land supply.

 

·        Consideration to the sustainable transport element of the S106 was a matter of the scale of the development.

 

[The meeting adjourned from 18.43 to 18.51]

 

Following debate, the Head of Planning and Development Services clarified the application and weight given to very special circumstances. Clarification was also given to conditions 8, 9 and 10. Cllr Ayre moved the officer recommendation to approve the application. This was seconded by Cllr Pavlovic. Following a unanimous vote in favour, it was:

 

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to referral of the application to the Secretary of State under the requirements of The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2021, and should the application not be called in by the Secretary of State then:

 

                     i.        Approve the application subject to the planning obligations and conditions set out below; and

 

                    ii.        The Head of Planning and Development Services to be given delegated authority to finalise the terns and details of the Section 106 obligations and conditions.

 

Reason:

 

                     i.        The committee report outlines that the proposed development, subject to conditions, would be compliant with the NPPF and relevant technical polices within the adopted Neighbourhood Plan and the 2018 Draft Local Plan with regard to the impact on the highway network, residential amenity, archaeology, biodiversity, flood risk and drainage. In addition to this there are considered to be suitable mechanisms to ensure that the infrastructure required to support the development can be secured.

 

                    ii.        At present the site is considered to remain within the general extent of the Green Belt. However, the site is allocated for housing development in the 2018 DLP.  It has been determined, as part of the formulation of the DLP 2018, that the site, due to its performance against Green Belt purposes specific to York, the spatial strategy for sustainable growth and taking into account NPPF policy on setting Green Belt boundaries can be within the Rufforth settlement and not in the Green Belt.  It is considered that there are very special circumstances as set out in paragraphs 5.93 to 5.107 above that cumulatively clearly outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and the limited adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt and any other harms as identified above, even when giving substantial weight to the Green Belt harms. Further, there is no case for refusing the scheme on prematurity grounds.

 

 

Supporting documents:

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page