The foillowing is the updated objection letter issued by Haxby Town Council to City of York Council.
OBJECTION TO APPLICATION 23/00160/OUTM
OUTLINE APPLICATION WITH ALL MATTERS RESERVED EXCEPT FOR ACCESS FOR CIRCA 800 DWELLINGS, PROVISION OF OPEN SPACE INCLUDING CEMETERY EXPANSION, PRIMARY SCHOOL, SPORTS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, FLOOD STORAGE MEASURES, LANDSCAPING AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE (REVISED DESCRIPTION).
I write on behalf of Haxby Town Council.
Outline application with all matters reserved except for access for up to 640 dwellings, provision of open space, informal sport provision and allotments, flood storage measures, landscaping and associated infrastructure (revised description)
We understand a number of revisions have been made to the above referenced planning application. On reviewing the amendments, we are disappointed at how the scheme still fails to comply with policy SS11 and ST9 of the Local Plan and so we are writing to set out the reasons why Haxby Town Council still object to the application.
Description of Development
It is understood that the description of the application has been amended to read “Outline application with all matters reserved except for access for up to 640 dwellings, provision of open space, informal sport provision and allotments, flood storage measures, landscaping and associated infrastructure.” This description still does not comply with the requirements of policy SS11, which makes plain the nature of development for which the site is allocated and can therefore be supported by the Council.
Exception to Green Belt Policy
As addressed in our previous objections, at this moment in time the site is not allocated in an adopted Local Plan and so the site falls within the general extent of Green Belt in accordance with saved policies YH9(C) and Y1(C1 and C2) within the Regional Spatial Strategy. The applicant is therefore relying upon demonstrating ‘very special circumstances’ with reference to paragraph 153 of the NPPF (December 2024) because the site is within Green Belt and the draft allocation cannot be given full weight until the adoption of the local plan. As the site is located within Green Belt then footnote 7 to paragraph 11 of the NPPF makes clear that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply. This approach has been confirmed in several Appeal decisions and permissions regarding development of draft allocations that are currently designated Green Belt. There is no material reason why a different approach can or should be taken in respect to the application for development of land to the north of Haxby.
If very special circumstances are to be demonstrated then the application scheme needs to be compliant with the policies within the draft Local Plan given that allocation within a draft plan is likely to form part of the case in attempting to justify very special circumstances. However, the limited weight that can be offered to a draft local plan allocation means that the proposal has to wholly comply with planning policies with a view to demonstrating that any potential for harm is outweighed by other considerations as set out under paragraph 153 of the NPPF.
Number of Dwellings
To this end, the description of development makes clear how the proposal does not accord with the policy SS11 in the draft Local Plan. The description of development has been amended to refer to up to 640 dwellings. However, the draft Local Plan allocation requires the site to deliver approximately 735 dwellings. Clearly, 640 is not approximately 735 given there is nearly 100 difference and 13% difference. Given that City of York Council cannot demonstrate a five year land supply with reference to paragraph 78 of the NPPF, and the latest standard methodology for calculating housing land supply exacerbates the shortfall then it is simply unacceptable that the proposal will deliver more than 10% fewer houses than are allocated. Not least because such a shortfall is contrary to one of the threads that runs through the NPPF in respect to making efficient use of land.
Necessary Supporting Development
The updated description of development also fails to mention a number of requirements of development, as set out under policy SS11. Namely, there is no mention of cemeteries, formal pitch provision, shops and mention of a school has been removed. Policy SS11 is explicit that the site is to be master planned and delivered in accordance with a number of key principles, which explicitly includes a school.
School Provision
The Planning Statement suggests that the reduction in the number of school places means that a primary school is not required, but the presentation of the information is misleading with a view to demonstrating a school is not required. Schools are limited by admission numbers due to DoE limits on class sizes. As such, the physical capacity of a school is immaterial. Paragraph 3.2.10 states that there will be a shortfall of 30 places based on admissions in 2027/28, which quite clearly demonstrates how there is a need for a new 1FE school.
Also, there needs to be access to the school off Usher Lane.
Furthermore, the developer has not assessed the potential impact on secondary school provision.
Location Plan and the Red Line Boundary
In reviewing the amendments to the open space provision, we note that a parcel of land to the north east of the site included within the blue line on the location plan now appears to be part of the development site and so should be included within the red line. This is on the basis that the site is now shown to form part of the open space provision, which is to include construction of footpaths around its perimeter. If footpaths are to be laid and the use of the land is to change from agriculture to recreation then planning permission is required, and so the red line to the application needs to be amended to incorporate the parcel of land. In 2013-2015, substantial consultation took place with the town council.
Additionally, the area has been included in the Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) provision and calculation for Bio-diversity net gain (BNG). The value of mitigation differs between offsite and onsite provision, and so the BNG calculation needs to be reviewed to ensure the contribution has been scored correctly. If the area is within the red line then it should deliver a higher BNG score than if the land is outside of the red line. However, if the area is within the red line then the BNG requirement will increase because the overall site area will have increased.
The red line really needs to be looked at again in relation to whether the parcel to the north east is included to facilitate the change of use and development of footpaths which do not otherwise benefit from permitted development rights. If the parcel is brought into the red line to address the development of the land in association with the wider allocation then the application documents will need to be updated accordingly. If the parcel is excluded then the application still needs to be updated to remove reference to the land contributing to meeting open space requirements, excluding the area as SANG mitigation and to recalculate the BNG credits awarded, as the site will not make the same contribution as currently suggested.
Open Space Provision
The description of development now includes reference to “provision of open space, informal sport provision and allotments”. This raises a number of concerns given the lack of reference to formal sports provision and cemeteries.
Policy SS11 requires the applicant to submit a recreation strategy to ensure sufficient open space is provided to “reflect the needs of the Haxby and Wiggington ward” with reference to formal pitch provisions, informal amenity greenspace, play provision, cemeteries and allotments. To this end, a recreation strategy has now been submitted in support of the application, which makes clear under Table 6.2 the level of requirement and then the amount of open space included within the latest masterplan.
Whilst overall the development appears to provide open space in excess of the total requirement, it is clear that the proposal falls short of sports provision, amenity open space and cemeteries in favour of natural open space / green infrastructure. As the primary function of natural open space will be to offset BNG with only opportunities for walking then natural open space has limited purpose, and certainly does not offer open space provision to satisfy more formal types of open space, such as playgrounds and sports facilities.
Also, as previously mentioned in our objection from July 2024 areas planted to deliver BNG are required to remain free from development, which means that the natural open space will not be accessible for residents to enjoy. As such, the quantity appears to be with a view to satisfying the BNG requirement rather than as a genuine offer to provide more open space than policy otherwise requires.
Given the needs of the new residents and how a shortage of provision on site will create pressures offsite then the proposal needs to be amended to more closely reflect the requirements arising as a result of development. Without providing open space to satisfy actual identified need in relation to formal sports and amenity then the proposal is contrary to policy SS11. It is simply not acceptable to focus on the global total and suggest an oversupply is satisfactory when the proposal fails to deliver the specific identified needs of the development.
Furthermore, the current open space provision for dog walking is wholly inadequate and options to mitigate impacts of increased dog-related visitor pressure on Strensall Common SAC/SSSI will need to be explored. These could include - increased public open space, increasing the accessibility to current walking routes (through signage and clear access points) and ensuring dog walking routes are clearly marked and facilitated (e.g. dog waste bins). Such information would need to be detailed within an improved Open Space Strategy, in-line with policy GI2a of the draft Local Plan.
Cemetery Extension
With specific reference to cemeteries, the planning statement explains that the idea of a cemetery has been removed from the proposal due to challenges with groundwater. However, the explanation is generic and a general description of environmental and legislative requirements. As such, it ignores how there is an existing cemetery adjacent to the site which operates without any of the challenges described.
It is also noted that the recreation strategy suggests the current cemetery has sufficient capacity for a further 15 years. This is however based upon the existing population and does not take account demand resulting from development during the Local Plan period, which includes the proposed development. It also ignores how the capacity relies upon the length of lease and how the existing cemetery is unable to offer sufficient space to accommodate the first 99 year lease offered on each burial plot.
Through the Local Plan process, Haxby Town Council has made clear that there is a need for an extension to the existing cemetery, which is why policy SS11 refers to an extension to the cemetery, as CYC agrees that an extension to the cemetery is required. If the need for a cemetery had not been explored or could not be justified then it would not be listed in the policy within the draft Local Plan. This is because the local plan process requires policies and proposals to be fully justified and evidenced.
Throughout the current application process, Haxby Town Council has expressed how an extension is required measuring 2.47ha for burials. The recreation strategy ignores the need that has been identified and provides no clear justification as to why a cemetery cannot be provided, just as the planning statement does not address the site specific conditions or reasons why a cemetery can or cannot be created. We have previously explained how ground condition surveys are required to determine the suitability of the site or a cemetery as the site specific conditions need to be assessed.
Whilst the applicant has previously approached the Cemetery Committee to seek information concerning ground conditions for the existing cemetery, no question has been asked as to how else an extension might be presented besides a burial ground. The Town Council therefore implores City of York Council to insist an extension to the cemetery is included again as part of the proposal where the nature of burials / interment is to be agreed with the Town Council. Not only will there be a technical solution to accommodate burials, if there does prove to be an issue; but there is a need for more cemetery space, including for the interment of ashes, which would not give rise to ground water pollution as any structure would be above ground. Given that policy SS11 refers to a cemetery and the policy is that of CYC then delivery must be insisted upon in light of the identified pressures for further space where the development will create additional need in the future.
We kindly ask that our previous objection from July 2024 is reviewed, as it explains how the applicant needs to undertake survey work to establish groundwater levels and ground conditions with a view to determining where burials might be accommodated as an extension to the existing cemetery. If the ground conditions prove challenging then there is no reason why the extension cannot be to accommodate the internment of ashes in structures above ground, along with a Memorial Garden. At this moment in time, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that a cemetery is not feasible and so the application is contrary to policy SS11.
Retail
What is missing from the description of development is reference to “shops, services and facilities”, which are also listed as requirements of the development within policy SS11. The policy makes clear that such provision should be made, subject to viability. However, a viability appraisal does not accompany the application to demonstrate why such community facilities are not included within the development proposal. As such, the application is contrary to policy SS11 due to the missing information and lack of justification regarding compliance with the draft Local Plan policy.
In Conclusion
The developer has not meaningfully consulted with Haxby Town Council at any stage.
The travel plan needs to be fundamentally re-visited with a full consultation. The roads in the proposed development need to be wide enough for full size buses.
Given that the applicant must demonstrate exceptional circumstances due to the land currently being within the Green Belt, then it is unacceptable for development to come forward that is not compliant with the draft Local Plan allocation and does not conform with other draft Local Plan policies.
Having read the various application documents, the applicant offers absolutely no compelling reasons why the development should be granted planning permission as an exception to national planning policy and contrary to draft Local Plan policy. Especially, as the technical matters are still not satisfied; the applicant has not demonstrated that adverse impacts can be overcome; or that the benefits of development outweigh the potential for harm, including to the Green Belt. Consequently, the proposal fails the tests set out under paragraph 11 of the NPPF. Given the failures of the application in both terms of principle and detailed considerations, then the Council should be minded to refuse the application.
As such, the application scheme simply does not accord with the draft Local Plan and must not be granted planning permission until the application proposal is in conformity with the proposed Local Plan allocation.
The Town Council is therefore extremely concerned that the application fails to comply with the policies within the draft Local Plan, and in particular policies ST9 and SS11. Furthermore, the supporting documents do not satisfactorily address the material considerations. The applicant has therefore failed to demonstrate very special circumstances and so the Council must refuse planning permission due the level of strategic significance the Government attaches to Green Belt policy.
These comments are submitted subject to City of York Council’s anticipated adoption of the local plan, in which case our concerns are materially important.
Published: 12/02/2025 Published by: Haxby Town Council
Return to News Page.