Case No. 17/05234/EIAMAJ Item No. 01
Location: Flaxby Golf Club, York Road, Flaxby, Knaresborough, North Yorkshire HG5 0RR Proposal: Outline planning application for comprehensive development of the site to provide a new settlement comprising: Buildings/floor space for up to 2,750 residential units (Use Class C3) inclusive of up to 12,077 sqm of floor space for a retirement village (Use Class C3 and/or C2); . Up to 2,000 sq.m of retail floor space (Use Class A1); Up to 1,700 sq.m of floorspace for financial and professional services, restaurants and cafes, drinking establishments, and hot food takeaways (Use Classes A2/A3/A4/A5); Up to 5,200 sq.m of floorspace for non-residential institutions, including education (2 no. primary schools), nursery/crèche, health facilities (Use Class D1); . Up to 8,500 sq.m of leisure facilities and community building(s) (Use Class D2); Up to 6,000 sq.m / 120 bedrooms hotel (Use Class C1); Up to 2,500 sq.m for offices (Use Class B1); Open space / landscaping/outdoor sport/recreation facilities); . Car Park and railway halt at former Goldsborough Station; Infrastructure (including roads and utilities); and Site preparation and associated works. Applicant: Flaxby Park Ltd & Messers R, M, J And N Alton
SUMMARY
The proposal sits outside of a defined settlement within the settlement hierarchy and therefore comprises open countryside where there is stricter control over development, the scheme is thus contrary to the provisions of GS2 and GS3. Furthermore, it sits outside of the broad location for growth at Green Hammerton/Cattal within which a new settlement will be allocated, contrary to policies GS2 and DM4 The proposed development will impact on the landscape character and setting of a number of designated heritage assets, principally The Temple of Victory (Grade II* listed building), Allerton Castle (Grade I) and Allerton Park (Grade II Registered Park and Garden) and associated heritage assets together with the wider landscape. It is considered that the harm to the significance of the heritage assets is ‘less than substantial’ (NPPF para 196). In line with the NPPF (para 193 and 194), in
17/05234/EIAMAJ 1 considering the impact of the proposed development on the significance of the heritage assets, great weight should be given to their conservation. As such, it is considered that the public benefits of the proposed development would need to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harmful impacts identified (NPPF para. 196). In assessing public benefits regard has been taken of the statutory duty under Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the approved Local Plan. Given that there is a policy objection in principle to the development, there are no public benefits that would outweigh the harm to the impact of the development on both heritage assets and wider landscape character. Similarly there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant the significant loss of agricultural land. Furthermore it has not been demonstrated that the development would not have a harmful impact upon the adjacent classified road network. In the absence of justification for the proposed development, refusal of the application is proposed.
RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE
17/05234/EIAMAJ 2 17/05234/EIAMAJ 3 17/05234/EIAMAJ 4 1.0 PRELIMINARY MATTERS
1.1 Access to the case file on Public Access can be found here:- view file
1.2 This application is to be presented to the Planning Committee as the scheme represent a major planning application of District wide importance of greater than 50 dwellings and thus falls outside the delegated work system
2.0 MAIN ISSUES
2.1 The main issues are:
• The sustainability of the development having regard to the adopted Local Plan Policy and associated social, environmental and economic issues. These are assessed against the land use principle of the development with particular focus upon heritage, landscape and highway issues.
3.0 ASSESSMENT
3.1 Site description
3.2 The application site extends to some 173.97 hectares (429.9 acres) in size and comprises the former Flaxby golf course and agricultural land to the north of York Road. It is located at the intersection of the A1(M) and A59, 6 miles east of Harrogate and 3 miles east of Knaresborough. The Leeds-Harrogate-York railway line runs south of the site beyond the A59 and adjoins the Site at the former Goldsborough station.
3.3 The golf course (112.71 hectares / 278.51 acres) closed in 2014 and has been vacant and unused since then. The 27-hole golf course and associated driving range represents a part developed site; it is a man-made and engineered environment laid out to provide a golfing facility and associated infrastructure.
3.4 The land falls gently from west to east and north to south. It is a prominent physical feature of the site that a ‘bowl’ is formed in the landscape including the golf course and agricultural land north of York Road, which then rises to a ridge at the north of the site. A number of woodlands are located within the Site, notably Flaxby Covert adjacent to the southern boundary, and Mill Hill and Tate’s Plantation at the north of the Site.
3.5 The main existing access to the site is at its western boundary from York Road. The former Goldsborough station is also accessed from York Road.
3.6 A roundabout on the A59 has been constructed at the southern boundary of the site in association with an implemented planning permission for the golf course which permits the construction of a new country house hotel, car park and highway works at the Site. An arm to this roundabout leads to the Site
17/05234/EIAMAJ 5 boundary and was intended under the consented planning permission (see site history) to create a new access road through Flaxby Covert to the site of the hotel at the centre of the golf course.
3.7 The site is located 6 miles east of Harrogate and 3 miles east of Knaresborough, both of which are defined as ‘Main Settlements’ in the Draft Local Plan, recognising that they provide the greatest range of jobs, shops, services and community facilities in the District. St James Retail Park is located 2.5 miles west of the site along the A59 providing a range of retail and employment services and facilities. An existing bus stop at Flaxby village provides services every two hours between 07:58 and 17:58 to Harrogate (approximately 40 minutes travel time and Knaresborough (approximately 24 minutes driving time).
3.8 The A1(M) is located to the east of the site. Junction 47 at the south-east corner of the Site provides direct access to the A1(M). The A59 runs adjacent to the southern boundary of the Site and an existing roundabout provides direct connection.
3.9 Whilst currently undeveloped land, the Adopted Local Plan identifies a Strategic Employment site to the south, on the opposite side of the A59. A planning application for a business park has been approved at outline stage under planning reference 16/05647/EIAMAJ on 15 September 2017 with a subsequent reserved matters application for phase 1 of the development approved under 18/04571/REMMAJ.
3.10 The existing village of Flaxby is located beyond the Site to the west. Flaxby is a small village of approximately 40 dwellings. Flaxby provides some existing employment opportunities at the Morrison’s depot and Chippindale food factory.
3.11 Coneythorpe is located to the North West and contains a public house. Coneythorpe is covered by a Conservation Area status. The village of Goldsborough is located approximately 1 mile to the south west of the site.
3.12 The Temple of Victory (a Grade II Listed Building) and Allerton Castle (a Grade I Listed Building) are located to the east of the site on the opposite side and beyond the A1(M). The Castle grounds comprise 22 Listed buildings and structures in total varying from Grade II and Grade II* in designation. The adopted Harrogate District Local Plan designates a ‘Park or Garden of Historic Interest’ and ‘Site of Importance for Nature Conservation’ associated with these heritage assets. The adopted Local Plan also designates a Conservation Area at Coneythorpe 0.9 miles to the north-west of the Site, this includes a Grade II listed Cottage Farm.
4.0 PROPOSAL
17/05234/EIAMAJ 6 4.1 The applicant seeks outline consent for the development of a new settlement , comprising the following forms of development:
Buildings/floor space for up to 2,750 residential units (Use Class C3) inclusive of 12,077 sqm of floorspace for a retirement village (Use Class C3 or C2);
Entrance lodges (Use Class C3) (4 units);
Up to 2,000 sq.m of retail floor space (Use Class A1) in the village centre (convenience store and small shops);
Up to 1,700 sq.m of floorspace for financial and professional services, restaurants and cafes, drinking establishments, and hot food takeaways in the village centre (Use Classes A2/A3/A4/A5);
Up to 5,200 sq.m of floorspace for non-residential institutions, including education (2 no. primary schools), nursey/crèche, health facilities (Use Class D1);
Up to 8,500 sq.m of leisure facilities for indoor sport and recreational use, community building(s) (Use Class D2);
Up to 6,000 sq.m / 120 bedrooms hotel in the village centre (Use Class C1);
Up to 2,500 sq.m for offices (Use Class B1);
Open space / landscaping (including outdoor sport/recreation facilities);
Car Parking (approximately 350 spaces) and a rail halt at Goldsborough Station;
Infrastructure (including roads and utilities); and
Site preparation and associated works.
4.2 Based upon the formal description of development and floor spaces above, further details regarding the nature of the Proposed Development are below:
Up to 2,750 residential units across a range of types, tenures and sizes inclusive of a retirement village (Use Class C3 with an element of C2);
17/05234/EIAMAJ 7 A new, centrally located village centre to serve day-to-day activities on site, including public fountain square, provision for shops, hotel (with ancillary facilities such as coffee shop, public house, community restaurant, spa and gymnasium), place of worship, healthcare (GP and pharmacy), community hall, leisure facilities and offices
Two new 420-place (2 form entry) primary schools located within the Site so that they are within walking distance of homes;
The opportunity to re-open the former Goldsborough railway station (which forms part of the Site) alongside a new park and ride facility (circa 350 parking spaces) – also known as a ‘Parkway Station’);
Sports Village’ including outdoor playing pitches (adult and junior) for football, rugby and cricket, tennis courts and community sports building;
The potential to provide energy to the Site from the nearby Allerton Waste Recovery Park;
79 hectares (46% of the Site area) of managed green infrastructure, open space, glades, viewing areas, recreation areas, central linear park, and children’s play areas;
Retention of existing woodlands (other than to allow site access) within the Site and substantial new structural woodland planting, including a major new area of woodland planting to consolidate Mill Hill and Tate’s Plantation at the north-east corner of the Site;
Retention of existing water features and creation of new ponds;
A network of new footpaths and cycle ways within the site, including a ‘Ridgeway Walk’ and ‘Heritage Trail’; and
A network of new streets, pedestrian and cycle routes, site preparation, landscaping and infrastructure works.
4.3 Design amendments that have been forthcoming following the initial submission of the application and have been indicated upon a revised masterplan :
17/05234/EIAMAJ 8 The principal access from the existing roundabout has been amended taking an alternative route through Flaxby Covert.
New tree planting to mitigate for the tree loss within Flaxby Covert is shown on its west side adjacent to the most southerly pond.
The subdivision of the former driving range with an avenue of trees on axis with the castle has been omitted.
The wholesale re-modelling and re-planting of the perimeter mounding is no longer proposed. The current scheme shows the outer slopes and their planting retained with only the inner slopes re-modelled and re-planted.
Additional tree planting has been introduced on the west side of the central linear park, opposite the central square.
Additional intermediate trees in all of the tree lined avenues are now shown.
The hedgerow trees flanking the old York Road have been revised towards the western end of its route across the site.
The design of the parkway rail station has been developed and introduced into the masterplan. The design of the central square has been amended to provide views of Allerton Castle.
The design of the bridleway/cycle/foot bridge over the a59 has been developed to deliver longer approach ramps to the footbridge.
Rather than devote an entire cell to higher density housing, possibly containing a considerable amount of 3-storey buildings, the amended design propose areas of higher density on both sides of the central linear park.
The retirement village is now located where the higher density cell was shown in the submitted design (marked rv on parameter plan 1). Two cross streets have been re-aligned (those closest to the old York Road on both sides of the central linear park) as a result.
The geometry of the central square has been changed marginally to achieve the intended view from it to the roofscape of Allerton Castle
17/05234/EIAMAJ 9 Footpath and bridleway related changes have been incorporated including a diversion to the Knaresborough round public footpath to avoid the hazardous Hunters level crossing over the railway to the south.
5.0 APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING INFORMATION
5.1 The application is supported with an Environmental Statement ( ES) covering the following topics:
Introduction and Purpose
Context – inclusive of the proposals, the development site, phasing and alternatives.
Planning Policy Context
Socio Economic
Transport & Accessibility
Landscape & Visual Impact
Ecology
Arboriculture
Cultural Heritage & Archaeology
Air Quality
Noise and Vibration
Flood Risk, Drainage and Water Resources
Ground Conditions
Cumulative Effects and Conclusions
These chapters are supported with technical appendices containing additional reports.
17/05234/EIAMAJ 10 5.2 In addition to the ES the following supporting documents have been submitted:
Design and Access Statement
Planning Statement
Masterplan
Parameter Plans a) Development zones b) Access and Movement c) Land use d) Building heights e) Green Space f) Heritage g) Sections
Phasing Plan
Strategic Landscape Proposals
Transport Assessment
Travel Plan
Economic Statement
Statement of Community Involvement
Utilities Assessment
Written Scheme of Investigation Archaeological Trial Trenching
Arboricultutal report
Housing Capacity Study
Agricultural Land Classification Report
17/05234/EIAMAJ 11 6.0 RELEVANT HISTORY
Applications directly relating to the current application
17/01746/SCREEN Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Opinion for new settlement at Flaxby.
The proposal for a new settlement has been assessed against advice in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and the National Planning Practice Guidance issued in March 2014. On the basis of that assessment it is considered that the proposal would represent development requiring Environmental Impact Assessment . Screening Opinion Issued 29.06.2017
17/01748/SCOPE Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping opinion for new settlement at Flaxby.
The Scoping Opinion sets out what information the Council considers should be included in the Environmental Statement (ES) for the proposed new settlement. The Scoping Opinion was Issued on 29.06.2017
Applications relating to the site:
90/01021/OUT: Development of golf course and country house hotel, incorporating leisure and conference facilities.
93/00488/REM: Reserved matters application: Laying out of golf course and associated landscape proposals
95/01614/REM: Reserved matters application for proposed hotel and golf clubhouse, greenkeepers store and ancillary car parking, landscaping and servicing arrangements
04/04181/REM: Reserved Matters Application for the erection of golf driving range buildings with associated lighting, creation of 40 no. parking spaces and installation of new package treatment plant.
17/05234/EIAMAJ 12
09/01788/FUMAJ Erection of hotel and golf club house with access road, car park and installation of reed bed system with alterations to the A59 Public Highway (Revised Scheme)
7.0 NATIONAL & LOCAL POLICY
7.1 National Planning Policy
7.2 The National Planning Policy Framework as amended June 2019 (NPPF) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. Planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPF is a material consideration in planning decisions
7.3 At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
8.0 HARROGATE DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN
LPGS1 Local Plan Policy GS1: Providing New Homes and Jobs
LPGS2 Local Plan Policy GS2: Growth Strategy to 2035
LPGS3 Local Plan Policy GS3: Development Limits
LPDM1 Local Plan Policy DM1: Housing Allocations
LPDM2 Local Plan Policy DM2: Employment Allocations
LPDM3 Local Plan Policy DM3: Mixed Use Allocations
LPDM4 Local Plan Policy DM4: Green Hammerton/Cattal Broad Location for Growth
LPHP2 Local Plan Policy HP2: Heritage Assets
LPHP3 Local Plan Policy HP3: Local Distinctiveness
LPHP3 Local Plan Policy HP3: Local Distinctiveness
LPHP4 Local Plan Policy HP4: Protecting Amenity
LPHP5 Local Plan Policy HP5: Public Rights of Way
17/05234/EIAMAJ 13
LPHP6 Local Plan Policy HP6: Protection of Existing Sport, Open Space and Recreation Facilities
LPHP7 Local Plan Policy HP7: New Sports, Open Space and Recreational Development
LPHP9 Local Plan Policy HP9: Provision of New Community Facilities
LPHS1 Local Plan Policy HS1: Housing Mix and Density
LPHS2 Local Plan Policy HS2: Affordable Housing
LPHS3 Local Plan Policy HS3: Self and Custom Build Housing
LPHS4 Local Plan Policy HS4: Older People's Specialist Housing
LPHS5 Local Plan Policy HS5: Space Standards
LPCC1 Local Plan Policy CC1: Flood Risk and Sustainable Drainage
LPCC3 Local Plan Policy CC3: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy
LPCC4 Local Plan Policy CC4: Sustainable Design
LPNE3 Local Plan Policy NE3: Protecting the Natural Environment
LPNE4 Local Plan Policy NE4: Landscape Character
LPNE6 Local Plan Policy NE6: Local Green Space
LPNE7 Local Plan Policy NE7: Trees and Woodland
LPEC3 Local Plan Policy EC3: New Employment Development in the Countryside
LPEC4 Local Plan Policy EC4: Farm Diversification
LPEC7 Local Plan Policy EC7: Sustainable Rural Tourism
LPTI1 Local Plan Policy TI1: Sustainable Transport
LPTI2 Local Plan Policy TI2: Protection of Transport Sites and Routes
LPTI3 Local Plan Policy TI3: Parking Provision
17/05234/EIAMAJ 14 8.1 Supplementary Planning Documents
Coneythorpe Conservation Area Character Appraisal
Goldsborough Conservation Area Character Appraisal
Historic Parks and Gardens in Harrogate District
Supplementary Planning Document: Heritage Management
Policy on Developer Contributions to Education Facilities
Supplementary Planning Document: Green Infrastructure
Supplementary Planning Document: Provision for Open Space in Connection with New Housing Development
Supplementary Planning Document, Provision for Village Halls in Connection with New Housing Development
Supplementary Design Guidance, Landscape Design Guide
8.2 Other material policy considerations:
National Planning Practise Guidance
National Design Guide
9.0 THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
9.1 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a process by which information about the environmental effects of a project is collected, evaluated and taken into account in its design, the decision as to whether it should be granted consent, and how it is subsequently to be built, operated and dismantled should consent be forthcoming. The developer presents the information on the project and its environmental effects in an Environmental Statement (ES).
9.2 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, (EIA Regulations) which was in force at the time of submission, list developments for which EIA is mandatory (Schedule 1 developments) and those for which the need for EIA is judged by the local planning authority (Schedule 2 developments). The decision for Schedule 2 developments is made on a case-by-case basis depending on the significance of potential environmental effects.
17/05234/EIAMAJ 15
9.3 In accordance with the EIA Regulations a formal screening and scoping opinion was sought from the Council in order to ensure that the ES contained all relevant information to evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed development. The Council responded to both requests in June 2017.
9.4 In this instance and following guidance contained within the Regulations the applicants recognised that an EIA was required for the development and the scheme was progressed on that basis with the preparation of an ES.
9.5 The Application is supported by an Environmental Statement (ES)
10.0 THE PROPOSAL
10.1 Principle of Development
10.2 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The adopted Local Plan is the starting point for determination of any planning application.
10.3 The NPPF is a material consideration which at paragraph 11 requires local planning authorities:
(c) to approve development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or
(d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:
i) the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or
(ii) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.
10.4 Paragraph 12 advises that where a planning application conflicts with an up-to- date development plan (including any neighbourhood plans that form part of the development plan), permission should not usually be granted. Local planning authorities may take decisions that depart from an up-to-date development plan, but only if material considerations in a particular case indicate that the plan should not be followed.
17/05234/EIAMAJ 16
10.5 The Harrogate District Local Plan 2014-2035 was adopted by Harrogate Borough Council on 4 March 2020. All the policies in the Local Plan can therefore be given full weight.
10.6 Policy GS1 sets out the scale of new employment and housing development that is being planned for over the life of the plan (a minimum of 13, 377 new homes, including affordable housing and a minimum of 40 ha of new employment land).
10.7 The Local Plan Policy GS2 sets out that the need for new homes and jobs will be met as far as possible by focussing growth within:
1. The district's main settlements
2. Settlements on the key public transport corridors and
3. A new settlement within the green Hammerton/Cattal area
10.8 The policy goes on to state that: A broad location for growth is identified in the Green Hammerton/Cattal area, as shown on the key diagram. Within this area a site for a new settlement will be allocated through the adoption of a separate Development Plan Document (DPD). The DPD will be brought forward in accordance with the development principles outlined in policy DM4.
10.9 Policy GS2 also states that Development limits for places in the settlement hierarchy are identified under the provisions of policy GS3. Places not identified in the settlement hierarchy are considered to be part of the wider countryside where development will only be appropriate if permitted by other policies of the Local Plan, a neighbourhood plan or national policy
10.10 Policy DM4 confirms that through a New Settlement DPD ‘the boundary, nature and form of a new settlement within this broad location will be established’
10.11 The proposal sits outside of a defined settlement within the settlement hierarchy and therefore comprises open countryside where there is stricter control over development, contrary to the provisions of GS2 and GS3. Furthermore, it sits outside of the broad location for growth at Green Hammerton/Cattal within which a new settlement will be allocated. The scheme would therefore be contrary to policies GS2 and DM4.
11.0 Sustainability
11.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019 makes clear that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The NPPF seeks to ensure that proposals for
17/05234/EIAMAJ 17 sustainable development should be approved without delay. The NPPF advises that there 3 dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles.
11.2 These roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent. Economic growth can secure higher social and environmental standards, and well-designed buildings and places can improve the lives of people and communities. Therefore, to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions. In accordance with the NPPF, the council will seek opportunities to achieve each of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development and net gains across all three. Significant adverse impacts on any of these dimensions should be avoided and, wherever possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued. Where adverse impacts are unavoidable, measures to mitigate the impact are required to be considered.
12.0 SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
12.1 Housing Land Supply
12.2 In regard to 5 year land supply the Council has a healthy land supply position, currently 6.71 years when compared against the housing requirement, with an appropriate buffer. Accordingly, the policies which are most important for determining the application are not considered to be out-of-date. Full weight can be afforded to the housing policies in the Local Plan.
12.3 Loss of Recreational facility
12.4 Local Plan Policy HP6 deals specifically with the protection of existing sport, open space and recreational facilities.
12.5 The golf course has been vacant for a number of years and is not in a condition currently that would allow play. Golf courses have historically struggled in recent years as a consequence of oversupply, with insufficient demand. The course is slowly being assimilated into the landscape.
12.6 Sport England have been consulted regarding the proposal and do not object to the loss of the facility.
12.7 In conjunction with the loss of the golf course, Policy HP7 seeks to ensure that New housing and mixed use developments will be required to provide new sports, open space and recreational facilities to cater for the needs arising from the development in line with the provision standards set out in the Provision for
17/05234/EIAMAJ 18 Open Space in Connection with New Housing Development Supplementary Planning Document.
12.8 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires planning policies relating to sports, open space and recreation to be based on robust and up-to- date assessments of local needs and the opportunities for delivering new provision. In response, the council has produced an Outdoor Sports Strategy (2013), which has informed the approach set out in this policy. The strategy identifies that existing sport, open space and recreational facilities will be sufficient to meet the majority of the district’s recreational needs over the life of the plan, although new provision will be required to meet the needs arising from new housing development and to address a number of specific requirements that have been identified.
12.9 The scheme provides a large raft of differing areas and types of open space as referred to within the masterplan. It is recognised that open spaces can often contribute positively to the amenity and local distinctiveness of settlements by providing an important and attractive break in the built-up area, or by providing views beyond the immediate street scene to, for example, more distant streets or into the countryside. The masterplan is considered well provided in this respect.
13.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
13.1 Character and Appearance
13.2 The site is located within a countryside location on land forming a previous golf club and land currently within agricultural use. Large areas of woodland and landscaping associated with the former use of the golf club is located within the site.
13.3 The site is bound by the A1(M) to the east, the A59 to the south and the village of Flaxby to the west. The new settlement has been designed with a central focus and various housing phases radiating outwards of differencing density and character. These character areas are designed so as to be linked by a loop road and green infrastructure. Buffer zones have been created between the New Settlement and the village of Flaxby, so as to separate the village from the settlement. However given the presence of the new settlement, it is inevitable that the character of the village will be consumed by the setting of such a klarge development.
13.4 It is acknowledged that the layout and character areas as envisaged within the masterplan, as an illustrative approach towards design of the settlement highlights a logical approach to development, however the scheme as it falls outside the scope for the preferred location in the now adopted Local Plan , will result in an unacceptable urban expansion within a countywide location.
17/05234/EIAMAJ 19
13.5 The impact on the wider countryside further compounded through the expansion of Knaresborough to the west of the site along the A59 only some 1 mile from the site (Local plan allocation K25/pending application 18/04456/EIAMAJ) and the approved Manse Lane residential extension.
13.6 Policy HS1 requires development to meet range of house types and sizes and this is reflected within the submitted Parameters Plan. New housing development will be expected to achieve a minimum net density of 30 dwellings per hectare. Development within the defined town and city centres of Harrogate, Knaresborough and Ripon, and in urban locations with a good standard of accessibility to public transport will be expected to achieve higher densities. As a new town, the parameters Plan show a range of differing densities and development areas within the cellular modelling, such an approach is welcomed so as to achieve the appearance of a more organic form of development.
13.7 Policy HS2 requires affordable housing to be provided at 40 % on all qualifying green field sites. The Housing Department have no objection subject to this requirement being met. Details will ultimately be subject to the Reserved Matters submission, but details will be required to be achieved for each phase of development through S106 Agreement. Such an approach will also be required for Accessible and Adaptable and Self Build Homes also required as a Policy requirement.
13.8 Local Plan Policy HP3 seeks to incorporate high quality building, urban and landscape design that protects, enhances or reinforces those characteristics, qualities and features that contribute to local distinctiveness. As the site is located on a former golf course and arable land, the site represents an almost blank canvass, however design characteristics have been drawn from market towns in the locality to help inform and influence the design and layout.
13.9 The scheme is submitted in outline form and as such final design and appearance is reserved for later consideration, however Parameter Plans have been submitted sitting alongside the masterplan, showing how the town could be developed.
13.10 Policy CC4 requires all new development to be designed to reduce both the extent and the impacts of climate change promoting zero carbon development and encourage all developments to meet the highest technically feasible and financially viable environmental standards during construction and occupation.
13.11 The Policy requires all new development of 10 or more dwellings to submit an energy statement to demonstrate how the energy hierarchy identified in the Policy has been applied to make the fullest contribution to reducing greenhouses gas emission in support of the Harrogate Borough Councils : Carbon Reduction Strategy ( 2018) and the Climate Change Act 2018. It is
17/05234/EIAMAJ 20
acknowledged that both documents were produced after the submission of the application and it is not clear from the submission how energy efficiency will be obtained. The applicants have however identified a potential energy renewable source from the Waste Transfer Station to the north of the site. If such energy could be harnessed this would undoubtedly be of benefit to the scheme.
13.12 New non-domestic developments, excluding conversions and extensions of less than 500 sq m, will be required to achieve a minimum standard of BREEAM(24) 'Excellent' (or any future national equivalent)
13.13 It is considered that the requirements of Policy CC4 are capable of being met as part of a mixed use development on the site and such planning permission be forthcoming could be controlled via condition.
13.14 Impact on Heritage Assets
13.15 Local Plan Policy HP2 seeks to ensure that proposals for development that would affect heritage assets (designated and non-designated) will be determined in accordance with national planning policy. The policy seeks to ensure that inter alia proposals affecting a heritage asset, or its setting, protect or enhance those features which contribute to its special architectural or historic interest. Ensure that proposals affecting a conservation area protect and, where appropriate, enhance those elements that have been identified as making a positive contribution to the character and special architectural or historic interest of the area and its setting; Ensure that any development that would affect a registered park and garden should not harm those elements which contribute to its layout, design, character, appearance or setting (including any key views from or towards the landscape), or prejudice its future restoration.
13.16 Harm to elements which contribute to the significance of a designated heritage asset or archaeological site of national importance will be permitted only where this is clearly justified and outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. Substantial harm or total loss to the significance of such assets will be permitted only in exceptional circumstances. Proposals which would remove, harm or undermine the significance of a non-designated heritage asset will be permitted only where the benefits are considered sufficient to outweigh the harm.
13.17 The council’s main objective is to protect and enhance the features of the historic environment that contribute to the character and quality of the district. It is recognised that the historic environment brings wide social, economic and environmental benefits to the district.
13.18 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) identifies the conservation and enhancement of designated and non-designated heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance as a material consideration in the
17/05234/EIAMAJ 21 determination of planning applications. New development should sustain and enhance the significance of heritage assets and can support these aims by creating or supporting viable uses that are consistent with an asset’s conservation. There is a presumption in favour of the conservation and enhancement of heritage assets, and any harm will need to be clearly justified. The more significant the asset, the greater the level of justification that will be required.
13.19 Impact on Conservation Area
13.20 Local authorities have a duty to designate ‘areas of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’ as conservation areas under Section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.The nearest conservation areas are located at Goldsborough a village to the south west of the site and Coneythorpe. The new settlement would not impact upon the setting of the Conservation Areas by reason of its separation.
13.21 Impact on the Listed Building
13.22 The council has a statutory duty to secure the preservation of buildings listed under Section 1 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as being of special architectural or historic interest. Buildings and structures within the curtilage of listed buildings are also protected under the Act. Substantial harm to or total loss of significance of grade I or grade II* listed buildings, including their setting will not be permitted, unless it can be shown that the public benefits outweigh the harm or loss.
13.23 In determining applications, the NPPF stipulates that ‘great weight’ should be given to a designated asset’s conservation and that ‘substantial harm to or loss of a grade II Listed Building, Park or Garden should be exceptional’ whilst ‘substantial harm to or loss of assets of highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, Grade I and II* listed buildings and Grade I and II* Parks and Gardens, and world heritage sites, should be wholly exceptional’
13.24 Developments where substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a heritage asset should be assessed against specific tests and should deliver substantial public benefits which outweigh any loss or harm (NPPF para: 195). Less than substantial harm to a designated asset would require public benefits including the securement of an optimum viable use (NPPF para: 196). Impacts to the significance of non-designated assets will require a balanced judgement based on the level of significance and the scale of harm (NPPF para: 197).
13.25 The site contains a single designated heritage asset, a Grade II listed Milestone situated on the southern side of Old York Road. The site is however
17/05234/EIAMAJ 22 in close proximity to a number of designated heritage assets within Allerton Park to the east, across the A1M carriageway; the comprise Allerton Castel (Grade I), the Temple of Victory (Grade II*), Allerton Park Registered Park and Garden (Grade II) and a variety of buildings and structures, including the West Lodge and gate piers (Grade II) and further garden features and a chapel to the east of Allerton Castle.
13.26 The significance of the milestone lies in its historic and aesthetic value. It lies in its original position on the old York Road, which contributes to its significance. The asset, following the development proposals will remain in its original location and will remain associated with the Old York Road, which is to be used as a bridleway. There will be no impact upon its significance as a consequence of the development.
13.27 The application seeks to demonstrate regard for the significance of the designated heritage assets and the impact of the proposals on the assets. In response to concerns consistently raised regarding the heritage impacts of the proposed development, a collaborative assessment was undertaken by the landscape consultant and heritage consultant, the findings of which have informed and instigated change to the masterplan. The proposal seeks to minimise conflict between the heritage assets’ significance and conservation. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the proposed new settlement would result in an urbanising effect on the site and the extensive tree planting and mounding proposed to provide screening and mitigation of such an effect constitutes a fundamental change to the character of the landscape and the setting of the assets causing harm to their significance.
13.28 The Council’s Heritage Management Guidance SPD states: “In the determination of applications for development of sites which are in sensitive locations, the Council will rigorously assess scale, density, massing, height, materials, landscape, layout and access, and in addition detailed issues of style and construction will be carefully considered. Only development of the highest quality will be accepted in these locations” (para. 7.4 p.57). Paragraph 7.5 defines ‘special locations’ including: “sites within the curtilage of or affecting the setting of a Listed Building; within or affecting the setting of a Conservation Area”.
13.29 It is considered that the proposed new settlement will be harmful to the setting and significance of Allerton Castle, the Temple of Victory and the Allerton Park Estate, by virtue of the scale of the development, its inter-visibility with these heritage assets and the resultant impact on the wide, open rural agricultural character of the landscape, which is characterised by an absence of significant built form. The Design and Access Statement and the indicative masterplan have evolved and seek to demonstrate due regard to the inter visibility with Allerton Castle, Allerton Park Estate and the Temple of Victory, and mitigation
17/05234/EIAMAJ 23 of harm to the significance and setting of the same. The proposal demonstrates an aspiration to: define a design code to secure high quality design and material palette; an appropriate layout to foster community cohesion; and landscaping, including tree planting, which seeks to assimilate the development into the landscape- as such, in principle it is considered that harm could be mitigated, in part. However, the scale of development, including large masses of built form, will be perceived in the landscape, as will the increased level of activity generated by a settlement of the size and scale proposed. Furthermore, the extensive tree planting and the mounding constitute a change to landscape character- historic maps evidence open (moor) land rather than woodland. For these reasons, the designated heritage assets will be viewed in an altered landscape, to the detriment of their setting and the harm resulting from the fundamental loss of rural context cannot be fully mitigated.
13.30 The rural countryside landscape positively contributes to the setting of the heritage assets and is viewed as an ‘extension’ of the defined parkland. Development, of the scale proposed, will change the rural character of the site, as existing, and will represent a large urban settlement adjacent to the park and listed buildings. This will be harmful to the setting of the heritage assets and how they are viewed in the changing landscape. The suburbanising effect of the presence of built development in closer proximity to the Temple than at present would have a detrimental effect upon the experience of the Temple as a designed landmark feature, its significance as such, and its setting, and upon its contribution to the Registered Historic Parkland.
13.31 There is concern regarding the scale and built form of the extra care facility- notwithstanding the operational requirements, rather than applying the ‘standard large block’ model, the bulk and massing of the facility should be broken up to avoid competing with Allerton Park as the principle building in the landscape
13.32 Impact on the Registered Park and Garden
13.33 Parks and gardens of national historic importance are designated as registered parks and gardens and included in a register maintained by Historic England. New development should not detract from the enjoyment, layout, design, character, appearance or setting of that landscape. Nor should development harm key views from or towards these landscapes or, where appropriate, prejudice their future restoration. Substantial harm to or total loss of significance of grade I or grade II* registered parks and gardens, including their setting will not be permitted unless it can be shown that the public benefits outweigh the harm or loss.
13.34 Allerton Park is a nationally important Grade II Registered Historic Park and Garden [RPG] set within a strongly undulating landform and predominately rural
17/05234/EIAMAJ 24
and undeveloped agricultural landscape. Within its’ boldly undulating landform and parkland trees, there are carefully located a complex of listed buildings that contribute greatly to the significance and character of the Park, including two that have been sited on the most elevated landforms in order to be both widely visible within and from the surrounding landscape and also to afford magnificent panoramic views out across the surrounding landscape. These are the Grade I listed Allerton Castle and the Temple of Victory (grade II*).The rural countryside landscape positively contributes to the setting of this heritage asset and is viewed as an ‘extension’ of the defined parkland. The suburbanising effect of the presence of built development in close proximity to Registered Historic Parkland and associated Listed Buildings, without the justification for the need for the new town, would ultimately have a detrimental impact upon its setting.
13.35 The proposal for a footbridge over the A59 raises concerns over the impact of such a structure on key views to and from the designated heritage assets in the vicinity- specifically Allerton Park, the Temple of Victory, the Registered Historic Park and Garden and on the rural character of the landscape. The design of the footbridge and its’ ‘landings’ would need to be carefully designed in terms of safety, surveillance, lighting etc.
13.36 Amenity - impact on existing and proposed residents
13.37 Local Plan Policy HP4 seeks to ensure that development proposals should be designed to ensure that they will not result in significant adverse impact upon amenity.
13.38 Amenity considerations will include the impacts of development on:
A. Overlooking and loss of privacy;
B. Overbearing and loss of light; and
C. Vibration, fumes, odour noise and other disturbance.
The individual and cumulative impacts of development proposals on amenity will be considered.
13.39 New residential development should incorporate well-designed and located private and/or communal outdoor amenity space which is of an adequate size for the likely occupancy of the proposed dwellings.
13.40 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clear that a core principle of planning should be to always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Protecting the amenity and wellbeing of communities, and ensuring residents and businesses are not
17/05234/EIAMAJ 25 adversely affected by development will be a key success of managing growth within the district.
13.41 Noise
13.42 The contents of the non-technical summary and the technical chapter K of the EIA address noise and vibration. The data that has been submitted and assessed is from Richard Calvert of Wardell Armstrong. The chapters cover the likely significant effects of demolition, construction and operational phases upon existing and proposed sensitive receptors. In summary the contents and results of a noise survey demonstrate that any adverse effects from noise can be mitigated
13.43 The assessment shows that noise and vibration from the construction and demolition phases could potentially give rise to moderate adverse effects and therefore mitigation is required during this work. The Chief Environmental Health officer (CEHO) agrees that a construction environmental management plan will be needed with specific mitigation identified with respect to noise and vibration but that the details of this will not be known until the construction methods are established and timescales of the different phases factored in. The working hours in the report should be formalised in any such management plan. The CEHO seeks to condition the requirement of such a management plan to be agreed, prior to work commencing on any phase on site. Such a plan would have to be reviewed with respect to the development of each phase of works as each area is different with respect to the operations that will be undertaken and the distance to the closest receptors. Over the course of the development consideration should also be given to those residents who may be occupying properties on the development site itself as the forecast for the construction phase is over a number of years.
13.44 The assessment also shows that in terms of the proposed residential and other sensitive properties to be built, mitigation will be required given the noise levels that parts of the site are exposed to. Richard Calvert from WSP has stated that this would need to be assessed on a plot by plot basis at a later stage. Careful consideration of the layout and orientation should be given priority to see if this can be designed out but mitigation will be required for both internal and external noise levels at specific locations. More details with respect to adequate ventilation would need to be agreed at a later stage but we would require that an alternative means of ventilation is provided where closed windows are relied upon to maintain internal noise levels. This should take into account the ability to achieve thermal comfort and be over and above the ventilation provided by trickle vents, whereby the occupy can control the conditions within the habitable rooms. The need to provide noise mitigation for eth settlement is a concern given the location adjacent to the A1(M) .
17/05234/EIAMAJ 26 13.45 As an update to the original advice given by Harrogate Borough Council with respect to noise criteria, following the revisions of BS4142:2014 it is now a requirement to stipulate a rating level not to exceed the background noise level rather than minus 5 which concurs with the design criteria for the commercial element proposed on site. More detail with respect to the proposed industrial and commercial development will be required and require more information and assessment once known.
13.46 Predictions of road traffic noise arising from the development show that this will have a negligible effect on existing receptors.
13.47 As a whole the contents of the chapters are acceptable to the CEHO. In order to ensure that noise is considered adequately any permission granted should contain a condition which requires a full assessment of noise for each phase of the development.
13.48 Other
13.49 As the commercial uses on site are likely to entail the use of ventilation equipment, such as the school kitchen and hotel, a condition would also need to be attached to ensure that the details of such are approved;
13.50 As a totally new development in the countryside there are no properties affected by either overbearing or overlooking impact. The village of Flaxby sited sufficient distance away to ensure individual residents are not impacted upon occupation
13.51 Landscape
13.52 The natural environment policies of the Local Plan seek to safeguard the natural environment and manage natural resources. Policies to protect air and water quality, landscape character, trees and woodland, and the best and most versatile agricultural land are included. There are also policies to enhance biodiversity and give particular protection to sites designated or their value to nature conservation, as well as to protect green infrastructure and enhance its benefits. The chapter includes a policy setting out criteria to manage the safe development of land that may be suspected of being unstable or contaminated.
13.53 Local Plan NE4 seeks to ensure that proposals will protect, enhance or restore the landscape character of Harrogate district and linked with Policy HP3 seeks inter alia to protect or enhance local distinctiveness and resisting development which would harm or be detrimental to the character of the local and wider landscape or the setting of the settlement. As discussed in the heritage section the site borders a number of heritage assets that contribute to local distinctiveness and the village of Flaxby itself is in close proximity to the site.
17/05234/EIAMAJ 27 13.54 The application is supported with a LVIA that considers the site and its surroundings, encompassing an area within a 5km radius of the outermost edge of the development, but generally concentrated around 2km. The site is located to the east of Flaxby village extending to the western boundary of the A1(M). The site is broadly rectangular in shape covering an area of 174 hectares with land use consisting primarily a former golf course and driving range, woodland blocks and arable land. The former golf course has been subject to earth modelling and landscaping in recent years with a range of grassland types and new woodland plantations. To the north and west higher land is under arable cultivation. The general landform falls from 72m AOD at Mill Hill plantation in the north to 35m AOD in the south forming a gentle valley profile within the site trending north to south. The A59 borders the site to the south with the former York Road, which now terminates at the A1(M) motorway corridor, bisecting the site east to west. The site is located on the boundary of two Landscape Character Areas i.e.; to the north and west (LCA) 69: East Knaresborough Arable Farmland, and to the southeast LCA 68: Hunsingore and Hopperton Farmland.
13.55 LCA 69: this is a moderate to large-scale area with undulating and sloping landform consisting mainly of arable land. Tree cover is moderate and patchy partially enclosing the landscape in places and maintaining extensive views elsewhere. Sensitivities and Pressures include; ‘this diverse landscape has been heavily influenced by modern agriculture but there are remnants of history to be found. Neglect of these features will result in further landscape change and possible loss of interest’
13.56 LCA 68: this is also a moderate to large-scale landscape consisting of large fields and several large woodland blocks creating a partially enclosed feel, ‘it provides the setting for Allerton Park to the north and Ribston Park to the south- west’. The LCA description goes on to say; This is a pleasant and attractive area but the presence of the A1(M) and the constant traffic noise is detrimental and the corridor is likely to be subject to future development pressure’. Sensitivities and pressures include; ‘The landscape of this area provides the setting to the south of Allerton Park Registered Historic Park and Garden. This setting is already impacted upon as a result of the A1(M) the 168 and the A59. In addition the new golf course development in the North West quadrant of the A1(M)/A59 junction has resulted in significant changes to the landscape setting of the park and garden. The capacity of the landscape to accept further change without detriment to its character and the setting of Allerton Park is limited’.
13.57 Heritage assets as noted in LCA68 to the east of the A1(M) motorway include Allerton Park, a Grade II Registered Park and Garden, Mansion (Allerton Castle) a Grade I listed building and The Temple of Victory, a Grade II * star listed building. Allerton Park is a designed eighteen century landscaped park with trees and woodland copses set within permanent pasture. It should be
17/05234/EIAMAJ 28 noted that there is likely to be a degree of overlap of characteristics and pressures along boundaries of adjoining character areas with Allerton Park RPG likely to have an influence on both LCA’s 68 and 69. Immediately to the north of Allerton Park RPG is the Allerton Park Waste Recovery Site.
13.58 A bridleway is routed through the northern part of the site and the Knaresborough Round public right of way routed along part of the site’s south- west boundary
13.59 This site was submitted for inclusion in the new local plan i.e.; FX3- New /expanded settlements to the north of the A59 Flaxby. This site has not been taken forward as an Allocation by the Authority. As part of the site assessment process, the site was reviewed in landscape terms and considered to be of:
• Medium sensitivity to change i.e.; the open recreational and wooded landscape would be changed to that of urban/ woodland affecting landscape character and views, and of
• Medium/low site capacity, i.e.; the landscape has some capacity to accept development on this site provided that significant woodland screening and green infrastructure initiatives are put in place.
13.60 There are four parcels of TPO’d woodland within the site including Flaxby Covert, a remnant area of Flaxby Wood to the north and two areas of mixed deciduous planting surrounding a pond to the south of York Road.
13.61 Cleary further development has taken place within the surrounding area since the publication of HBC Landscape Character Assessment (2004) including the Allerton Waste Recovery Park and Incinerator to the North West and the Flaxby Green Park Employment Park currently planned to the south of the A59, and at the time of drafting the LCA, the golf course was under construction.
13.62 Two landscape Reports have been submitted in support of the application as follows:
• Environmental Statement: Flaxby new Settlement (Chapter F) Landscape and Visual Impact Nov 2017(LVIA) and;
• Proposed New Settlement at Flaxby, North Yorkshire Landscape and Visual Appraisal July 2018 (LVA)
13.63 The HBC landscape Officer disagrees with the LVIA that the current value of the site is medium to low, the site is considered to be of medium value; whilst it
17/05234/EIAMAJ 29 has no formal designation it does form part of a rural landscape. The landscape condition is fair and components generally well maintained. It is however acknowledged that the site has limited levels of tranquillity.
13.64 The landscape officer agrees with the finding of the LVIA that overall the site is of medium sensitivity, with the surrounding landscape of medium sensitivity. The report does however assess the landscape sensitivity of Allerton Park Registered Park and Garden as of medium to high sensitivity. This level of sensitivity is not agreed, this is a designated landscape of high value and is highly susceptible to change. The Landscape Officer considered therefore that this is of high sensitivity.
13.65 In terms of magnitude of change the report states that this would be medium/high adverse. This is not agreed with the landscape officer, who considers the magnitude of landscape change to be high due to the scale of development with the construction of 2750 residential units within a 174 hectare site and affecting two LCA’s. The report concludes that the overall level of effect as a result of the development would be moderate and the effect not significant. Again there is disagreement, the landscape officer noting that with a moderate sensitivity and high magnitude of change there would be a major adverse level of effect on landscape character on final completion of the development and therefore significant in landscape terms. This predicted effect is however prior to the establishment and maturity of any mitigation planting.
13.66 It is likely that this level of effect on landscape character would, over time, reduce to moderate adverse with 45% of the site i.e.; 79 hectares retained for green infrastructure. The phased development commencing in the west would likely result in a gradual transition from an arable and former golf course landscape to that of an urban settlement.
13.67 It is acknowledged that mitigation measures are proposed to seek to address the harm to the landscape and it is acknowledged that there is much greenspace and infrastructure incorporated into the landscape masterplan. These mitigation measures are welcomed but are considered to be insufficient to fully mitigate the harm resulting from the fundamental loss of rural context in close proximity to locally distinctive landscapes and the proximity of nearby villages.
Highways
13.68 The Local Plan identifies that transport and infrastructure policies aim to help ensure there is adequate infrastructure to support development proposed in the plan. Policy sets out the requirement for developers to provide new infrastructure (such as schools, health and community facilities, and open space) on-site or contribute to improvements off-site. Strategic priorities for
17/05234/EIAMAJ 30 investment in transport infrastructure are set out, along with criteria for protecting routes that could accommodate new transport infrastructure.
13.69 Policy T1 seeks inter alia to improve road and rail connections both within the district and to the wider area, in particular the improvement of the Leeds- Harrogate-York railway: Seek reductions in traffic congestion in Harrogate, Knaresborough and Ripon; Promote improvements to public transport, including the provision of better parking at rail stations and park and ride facilities, the creation of walking and cycling routes, provision of electric vehicle charging points for both cars and bikes, the Harrogate car-share scheme and measures to reduce air pollution; Ensure development proposals seek to minimise the need to travel and achieve more sustainable travel behaviour by requiring all developments which will generate significant amounts of traffic to be supported by a transport statement or transport assessment and a travel plan; Locate, as far as possible, the majority of future development so that it is accessible to a station on the Leeds-Harrogate-York railway or within the key bus service corridor
13.70 The development is located immediately north west of Junction 47 of the A1(M), which forms part of the Strategic Road Network and provides connections from the Harrogate district to key regional and national towns and cities, such as Leeds, Wetherby, the North East, the East Midlands and London.
13.71 The NPPF identifies that the planning system should....actively manage patterns of growth in support of sustainable transport to make fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.
13.72 Paragraph 111 of the NPPF states that:
13.73 All developments that will generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a travel plan, and the application should be supported by a transport statement or transport assessment so that the likely impacts of the proposal can be assessed.
13.74 In assessing sites that may be allocated in development plans, or specific applications for development, it should be ensured that:
a) Appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be or have been taken up, given the type of development and its location;
b) Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users; and
17/05234/EIAMAJ 31
c) Any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.
13.75 Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe
13.76 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) was launched by the DCLG on 6 March 2014. It brings together many areas of English planning guidance into a new stream-lined format, which is linked to the NPPF and forms a key material consideration in the decision making process.
13.77 PPG provides advice on when Transport Assessments and Transport Statements are required and what they should contain :
13.78 “Transport Assessments are thorough assessments of the transport implications of development, and Transport Statements are a ‘lighter-touch’ evaluation to be used where this would be more proportionate to the potential impact of the development (i.e. in the case of developments with anticipated limited transport impacts).”
13.79 Furthermore, it states that: “Transport Assessments and Statements can be used to establish whether the residual transport impacts of a proposed development are likely to be “severe”, which may be a reason for refusal, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. “And
“The Transport Assessment or Transport Statement may propose mitigation measures where these are necessary to avoid unacceptable or “severe” impacts.”
13.80 The application is supported with both a Transport Assessment (TA) and Transport Plan (TP)
13.81 The scheme identifies within the masterplan access to be taken from the existing roundabout situated on the A59 ad currently serving the Ilke Homes factory site ( and future Flaxby Green park) with a part constructed spur that was to serve the extant hotel development . A second access is to be located at the York Road junction with the A59 at Flaxby itself through the provision of a second roundabout. York Road itself linking into the site to the north of the Flaxby village.
17/05234/EIAMAJ 32 13.82 North Yorkshire County Council as the Local Highway Authority (LHA) has commissioned its transport consultants, WSP, to undertake a detailed technical review of the submitted Transport Assessment (TA) and Framework Travel Plan (FTP). The review document raises a number of queries for both the TA and FTP which the LHA seeks further detail, these details include :
13.83 Additional trip generation created by the proposed sports pitches. How internal speed limits ca be achieved
Additional details on the cycle links
S106 Agreement required for the proposed bus service and shuttle bus on the internal loop road
How funding is to be secured for the school bus service
Street hierarchy
Justification on the internal trip retention to aid justification on overall trip generation including shopping/leisure trips.
Cumulative impact of committed sites
Additional justification as to why significant junctions have been omitted from the TA.
In addition the FTP should seek clarity upon targets and conducted by Framework Travel Plan Co-ordinator rather than occupiers with monitoring carried out annually rather than 2 yearly. Information should be provided on what courses of action are proposed will be required and how measures will be implemented/reviewed, should targets not be achieved; The FTP discusses the need for a grade-separated pedestrian crossing of the A59 between the proposed development and the Flaxby Green Park employment site. This would be a major cost and could be outside the scope of being delivered as part of a Travel Plan so it is likely that in order to ensure that it is delivered, provision of the crossing would be made subject of a planning condition.
13.84 In addition the LHA require further information regarding the cycle link to Knaresborough, which will need to be provided entirely off carriage way.
17/05234/EIAMAJ 33 Demonstration of vehicular trips on the A59 including the impact on journey time reliability, the trigger and extent of any duelling and proposals to contribute towards the necessary measures: The proposed upgrading of the priority junction of the A59 and York Road to a roundabout will need to be duelling compliant. Sensitivity test should be carried out on the trip distribution of commuting trips and impact upon J47 and an assessment of the cumulative impacts of the development and committed sites ,
13.85 The scale of development and transport generated by the scheme will impact upon the nearby Junction 47 with the A1 (M). Highways England have been consulted regarding the development. A notice of non-determination has been placed on this application for consecutive 6 month periods until the 11th February 2021, or until all outstanding matters were addressed. Due to remaining work still to be carried out in regard to the traffic and transport implications of this site. Highways England advise that should the outstanding issues be satisfied by this date, the notice of non-determination will be removed by Highways England.
13.86 Outstanding information relating to these transport issues remain to be resolved.
13.87 PUBLIC TRANSPORT
13.88 There are some dedicated school bus services which pass through the village. In addition, the 1A service, operated by Transdev, passes through Flaxby village on its journey between Roecliffe/Boroughbridge and Harrogate via Knaresborough. Monday to Friday there are services every two hours in each direction (1 per hour in the peak periods from Harrogate), with the last services at around 6pm. On Saturdays, service frequency is the same but doesn’t begin until around 9am (from Harrogate) or 10am (towards Harrogate). There is no service on Sunday or bank holidays.
13.89 The site is not currently served directly by the rail network. Knaresborough station is located approximately 5.0km west of the development, and provides regular connections to local and regional destinations, including two services per hour to Leeds and Harrogate, plus an hourly service to York (with additional services at peak times). Cattal station is located approximately 5.0km east of the development, and is typically served by hourly services between York, Harrogate and Leeds.
13.90 On this basis, it is considered that mitigation is required to ensure that the development accords with relevant local and national policy. It is noted the LHA require S106 provision of the shuttle and bus service to serve the site.
13.91 Rail Halt
17/05234/EIAMAJ 34
13.92 In the initial consultation response Network Rail raised concerns in relation to the proposed new station, about the impact of an additional stop, rail timetabling and the funding of the scheme. It was also indicated that the additional half hourly service would be achieved through signalling changes rather than the re-introduction of a second track.
13.93 The current Leeds-Harrogate-York railway line is constrained by two key touch points with the busy East Coast Main Line at Leeds and York as well as the single line sections between Knaresborough and York. Reliable journey times are critical to the successful operation of the line and proposing a station on the single line section between Knaresborough and Cattal will add additional occupation time of the single line with dwell time at the station as well as an acceleration and deceleration running time penalty to call there. A station call would therefore significantly impact the operation of services between Leeds and York via Harrogate which need to present at the key touch points on the route at specific times. Network Rail is currently working with a third party on an infrastructure capacity scheme with local stakeholders which is intended to facilitate a second hourly service between Harrogate and York; further work would be required to assess the impact of the proposed Flaxby station on this aspiration. This is acknowledged in the Flaxby Rail Station Strategic Outline Business Case as a risk and constraint on the scheme along with the current Third-Party Infrastructure scheme that is currently proposed.
13.94 It is Network Rails opinion based on the proposed station design and having regard to the anticipated infrastructure scheme approach to achieving the half hourly service, a station at Flaxby would not be compatible with the infrastructure capacity scheme being funded by third parties. Network Rail therefore considered that it would not be possible to facilitate a station in its current design at Flaxby to serve the proposed new settlement.
13.95 In relation to Hunters Level Crossing the applicant has confirmed that they are comfortable with facilitating and funding closure of the level crossing as part of the development. Our preferred option would be to secure the removal of the level crossing by diverting the footpath. The alternative of an underpass or overbridge to replace the crossing could also be considered. Network Rail would like confirmation of the approach to be taken for the removal of the level crossing, for these details to be confirmed on a plan and to understand how the closure of the level crossing will be secured as part of any planning approval. However in principle Network Rail are satisfied that the applicant would be able to achieve the removal of the Hunter’s level crossing and support the crossing closure.
13.96 CYCLE ACCESS
13.97 A cycling distance of 8.0km is typically considered to be acceptable for a range of journey purposes, including commuting.
17/05234/EIAMAJ 35 13.98 The catchment includes Knaresborough, where a range of services can be accessed including employment, retail and leisure uses, plus local villages of Goldsborough, Coneythorpe and Green Hammerton. In addition, Cattal and Knaresborough railway stations are both approximately 5km cycling distance from the new settlement. Cycling is therefore potentially an alternative to car-based travel for certain journey types.
13.99 The applicants identify that to provide additional measures to improve cycling facilities, the following measures are to be provided.
i) Facilities to assist cycle movements between Goldsborough village and the community facilities at Flaxby New Settlement will be incorporated in to future highway improvements at the York Road / A59 junction.
ii) Working with NYCC and Harrogate Borough Council to implement a segregated cycle link along the northern verge of the A59, between the site and existing facilities in Knaresborough. The verge is of sufficient width to accommodate a 3m wide shared footway/cycleway, within the adopted highway without third party land.
13.100 As identified above both the LHA and Highways England require additional information, which has not yet been forthcoming.
13.101 Trees
13.102 Policy NE7 ( Trees and Woodland) of the Local Plan seeks to ensure that Development should protect and enhance existing trees that have wildlife, landscape, historic, amenity, productive or cultural value or contribute to the character and/or setting of a settlement, unless there are clear and demonstrable reasons why removal would aid delivery of a better development. Proposals that would result in the loss of, or damage to ancient or veteran trees or trees that are subject to a tree preservation order (TPO) will not be permitted unless: A. There is an overriding need for the development that outweighs the loss or harm; and
B. Development is location specific and there is no preferable alternative location
17/05234/EIAMAJ 36 13.103 The mature woodland elements are subject to a Tree Preservation Order, TPO 32/2009 (W1, W2, W3 & W4), whilst all other trees on site, positioned outside these woodland blocks, are not protected by a Tree Preservation Order
13.104 Many of the trees planted as part of a comprehensive planting scheme in 2004 for the golf course will require removing due to their placement on manmade mounds. The impact would be highly localised and as such result in minor adverse effects.
13.105 To compensate impacts on Flaxby Covert, a single large new woodland block will be planted up the northern most arable field (c.5.67ha), connecting Tate’s Plantation and Mill Hill. This will create a single continuous woodland some 12.4ha in extent and a substantial increase on the area and amount of woodland lost. Given the time taken for woodland to establish, the new woodland planting will be carried out as the first phase of development. Species selected would be in keeping with existing priority woodland, with Flaxby Covert providing the best model
13.106 In addition to the above, a mix of formal/ornamental and more naturalistic landscaping will take place throughout the wider site, within the POS and green infrastructure. With the naturalistic landscaping, the aim will be to create linear corridors of native woodland planting, wildlife rich grassland and wetland habitats.
13.107 The Councils Arboricultural Officer has been consulted. Some of the works, in particular those relating to Flaxby Covert and to a lesser extent G6, are seen as being contrary to Local Plan Policy NE7.
13.108 The site contains a number of woodland elements and smaller group elements throughout the site. It has not been acknowledged or any study undertaken as to what the impacts and implications of significant ground level changes throughout the site would have on those woodlands/groups going forwards. The redirection of natural water flow, wet area loss and general ground condition changes throughout the site will more than likely affect some of these elements going forwards. In essence some of the more significant landscape assets could be affected over the longer term.
13.109 It is acknowledged that there is a proposal for increased numbers of trees to be planted as part of the development, i.e. individual trees and creation of new woodland areas, however there is very little, if anything, relating to the re-use of existing trees on site within the proposed development. Not only would that ensure a sustainable use of local assets it would also help to reduce any carbon footprint regarding the procurement and delivery of new trees to site.
17/05234/EIAMAJ 37 13.110 The proposed woodland/tree increase for the site is acknowledged and welcomed (email from David Houldershaw dated the 9 November 2018 suggests; Increase in trees, individuals & in small groups, from 283 to (619+687) = 1306 (+ 360%) and Increase in larger groups and woodland from 382,601 m2 to 490,804 m2 (+28.2%)). However, for a scheme of this size such increases and inclusion of green infrastructure should be seen as compulsory and a necessary requirement and should not necessarily be viewed as mitigation for the loss of other assets on site. Maintaining and preserving what already exists on site, whether that is a mature or an establishing feature, should be seen as the priority
13.111 Ecology
13.112 The revised NPPF (2019) seeks to ensure that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by various measures , which include : Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan);
Recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services � including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland;
Minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures
13.113 The NPPF seeks to protect and biodiversity and promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitat, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species; and identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity.
13.114 When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the principles identified in the NPPF which include the refusal of applications where there is significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development that cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts) adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for. Development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons58 and a suitable compensation strategy exists. The NPPF seeks to encourage opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around
17/05234/EIAMAJ 38
developments, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity.
13.115 The Ecology Chapter of the Environmental Statement (Brooks Ecological) represents a thorough assessment of the site, surveyed over several seasons. It accurately assesses the baseline conditions and the main receptors. The key critical finding that Flaxby Covert represents Plantation Woodland on an Ancient Woodland Site (PAWS) is not based on records of land-use history but is based on the existence of plant species within the woodland which are considered to be good indictors of ancient woodland and are also of intrinsic nature conservation value as a plant association The assessment appears well-founded on ecological grounds. PAWS communities are assessed as irreplaceable, so that the implications are that Flaxby Covert might now be covered by paragraph 175 of the NPPF :- “when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles: … c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons58 and a suitable compensation strategy exists”.
13.116 The Environmental Statement recognises that areas of PAWS woodland will be cleared to facilitate the new road and that the woodland ground layer and forest soils removed in these areas will be significant at a county level, negative and irreversible. The ES states that “in total, approximately 16.7ha of the site is currently occupied by Woodland, with 10.1ha of this being PAWS (Flaxby Covert). Construction of the new access road and roundabout is expected to result in the loss of c.1.23ha of PAWS, or a net loss of 7.4% woodland across the Site (12.2% of Flaxby covert)”. However the ES points out that “an extant and part implemented planning permission exists for the construction of an access road and car park within Flaxby Covert, as part of the previous Flaxby Hotel scheme. Should planning permission not be granted for the application proposals, this extant hotel permission could come forward as a realistic alternative form of development. If implemented in full, this consent would see the removal of 1.41ha of PAWS, or a net loss of 8.4% across the Site (14% of Flaxby covert)”. The present scheme may therefore not end up with as much loss of ancient woodland as the currently permitted scheme. This is particularly the case if the layout of the access route through the wood follows revision M (submitted 10.04.2018) rather than revision J of the ‘illustrative masterplan’ (submitted 28.11.2017) for the site and the associated felling scheme. Brooks Ecological (personal correspondence 23.08.18) have confirmed that construction of the new entrance road and link road is now expected to result in a loss of c.0.24ha of PAWS, or a net loss of 2.37% of Flaxby covert (1.4% woodland across the Site).
13.117 The reduction in fragmentation entailed under the current proposal (revision M), which proposes to divert the main access through the wood to the East (and which omits a second roundabout in the woodland) is equally important as the overall reduction in loss of woodland area. The new proposal (revision M) leaves the large majority of the remaining woodland block intact.
17/05234/EIAMAJ 39 This is a welcome improvement to the scheme, which, given the importance placed on ancient woodland in the NPPF, should be secured at outline stage by including access within the matters considered at this stage. In the light of the existing permission, which includes loss of a greater extent of woodland and access to a hotel through the centre of the Flaxby Covert, there is no objection to the loss of potentially ancient woodland which is here proposed, providing that the current access proposals (as illustrated in landscape masterplan revision M) are securely conditioned.
13.118 There is also provision within the current scheme for new woodland habitat creation – whilst this cannot compensate for the loss of ancient woodland it can help in the long-term restoration of woodland cover to the natural area (and to the immediate locality) which has witnessed severe loss and fragmentation in recent decades. The scheme could be improved by the provision of better (wider) connectivity between the existing plantation woodlands, the proposed new woodlands and Flaxby Covert. Consideration should also be given to whether there may be any opportunity to try to provide connectivity across (or under) the A9 to the woodland to the south. There is provision within the scheme for the translocation of elements of the ground flora which may be lost from Flaxby Covert. It should be noted that a similar scheme was undertaken in relation to the previous hotel development. Care should be taken that previously translocated elements of ancient woodland ground flora are mitigated for within the new scheme, if the former receptor sites are now proposed to be lost.
13.119 Small pockets of neutral grassland were noted within the surveys, although given their small scale, these are assessed as being of no greater than site level importance. These are not then considered further within the Environmental Statement. However, given the scale of loss of less improved grasslands within the Magnesian Limestone Natural Area, consideration should be given to the recreation of circumneutral low fertility grassland within the landscaping scheme, to help provide stepping stones of this type of habitat for wild flowers and invertebrates within the Natural Area.
13.120 Standing open water is clearly an important habitat on this site particularly in relation to great crested newts, water fowl and otter. Much of this can be retained on site within the current masterplan. And given its relatively recent origin with the design of the golf course, a moderate loss of this habitat can be offset by alternative pond creation, providing that good linkage of wetland habitats is maintained through the landscaping scheme.
13.121 The potential for the scheme to adversely impact on amphibians, especially great crested newts, in the absence of strong mitigation, would be severe. The potential for amphibian mortality on roads in through entrapment in gully pots during the operational phase appears to be underestimated in the Environmental Statement but the proposed mitigation is generally robust and additional mitigation measures ought to be able to satisfactorily offset these
17/05234/EIAMAJ 40 additional impacts. Levels of disturbance and displacement of bats requires to be assessed at species level to ensure that habitat creation and enhancement is adequate to compensate for differential impacts, as a ‘neutral’ residual impacts are going to be challenging to achieve for some species. Similar considerations apply to birds as there are likely to be winners and losers among different species – perhaps especially woodland specialists, but adequate mitigation may be achievable across the whole site in the longer term.
13.122 Overall the scheme has been designed to minimise impacts on the most sensitive species and habitats, to retain connectivity and to compensate and mitigate adequately where possible. Unfortunately the true ecological value of the wider woodland at Flaxby has not been recognised over the previous half century or so Flaxby Covet has suffered progressive degradation and fragmentation through a series of transport, industrial and leisure related developments in recent decades. The impact of the current scheme has to be viewed in this context. Provided that the single, somewhat convoluted access route around the woodland is maintained, the scheme would be acceptable from an ecological standpoint. However, as this single route is central to the scheme’s ecological acceptability, it should be excluded from consideration as a reserved matter.
13.123 Should planning permission be granted for the scheme, the provision of an ecological section of a Construction Environmental Management Plan and of an overall Landscape and Ecological Management Plan would be required by condition prior to the commencement of works – but given the scale of the proposed development more detailed versions will also require to be approved prior to the commencement of each phase.
13.124 Local Plan Policies NE3 (Protecting the Natural Environment) has been adopted since the submission of the application and is now applicable to it. The Policy seeks to ensure that development proposals for major residential developments avoid any net loss of biodiversity and will support schemes which achieve a net gain. This is measured through a biodiversity matrix. As the Local Plan was adopted after submission of the application and no additional ecological information has since been received, insufficient information has been received to be able to demonstrate that there would be no net loss of biodiversity.
13.125 The justification to Policy NE3 states that this demonstration of no net loss of biodiversity should be achieved through the use of the DEFRA Biodiversity Metric.
13.126 This approach is supported in National Planning Guidance (paras. 23 and 25) which was adopted in July 2019. The applicant has not submitted a completed biodiversity metric calculation.
17/05234/EIAMAJ 41 13.127 Much of the biodiversity policy against which the application was previously judged was associated with protected species (see Circular 06/2005) in relation to bats, great crested newts, badgers etc. While estimates of impact on habitat quality and extent of what would be lost against what would be proposed to be created in compensation was largely subjective. In the absence of an authoritive quantative tool for assessment this would not meet th requitremenst of Policy NE3.
13.128 Biodiversity policy is now much more focussed on quantitatively demonstrating that habitats must be retained to at least the extent to which they existed prior to development being applied for, or that they will be adequately compensated for, including with risk factors for ne habitat creation being taken into account The Defra Metric v.2. now provides a widely recognised quantitative tool against which net biodiversity gain or loss can be judged.
13.129 Should the applicant submit a competed Defra Metric spreadsheet, based on an assessment in accordance with the current Natural England methodology, Ecologist would require a management plan with mechanisms for funding and for implementation of habitat management to be secured for a minimum of 30 years through a condition - but also through a s106 agreement, which would pass the obligation for implementation on to any future owner/management company.
13.130 In the absence of a completed biodiversity audit based on the DEFRA Metric, the scheme is contrary to Local Plan Policy NE3
14.0 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
14.1 Local Plan Policy NE5 Green and Blue Infrastructure, identifies that development proposals should enhance existing green infrastructure and incorporate new green infrastructure features into the design of new development
14.2 The proposed development is within an area that Natural England considers could benefit from enhanced green infrastructure (GI) provision. As such, Natural England would encourage the incorporation of GI into this development. Multi-functional green infrastructure can perform a range of functions including
17/05234/EIAMAJ 42
improved flood risk management, provision of accessible green space, climate change adaptation and biodiversity enhancement.
14.3 The scheme includes large areas of new green infrastructure and makes use of existing ponding created as part of the former use as a golf course throughout the site , Such an approach is welcomed in ensuring wide range of social, economic and environmental needs can be met. It also has multi-functional benefits helping to enhance biodiversity through improved connectivity and linking habitats, contributing to water management through storing and slowly releasing surface water run-off, creating a sense of place, providing opportunities for active recreation, exercise and healthy living, mitigating climate change and creating places where people want to live and invest.
15.0 FLOOD RISK AND DRAINAGE
15.1 Policy CC1 of the Local Plan identifies that development will not be permitted where they would have an adverse effect on watercourses or increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.
15.2 As the site is greater than 1 hectare, a flood risk assessment has been carried out and is referenced within this Chapter of the ES. The Flood Risk Assessment report:
Describes the existing situation with respect to flood risk and drainage; and
Assesses future flood risk and drainage in accordance with the guidance set out in the NPPF, covering flood history, surface water flood risk, groundwater flood risk, surface water drainage, foul sewage disposal, climate change and residual risk and safety.
15.3 The National Planning Policy Framework explains in Section 14 and in the associated Technical Guidance how flood risk should be taken into consideration during the planning and development process. The NPPF categorises flood risk by flood zone and defines the types of development appropriate to each flood zone according to vulnerability. The flood zones are defined as:
Zone 1: Low Probability of flooding
Zone 2: Medium Probability of flooding
Zone 3a: High Probability of flooding
Zone 3b: The Functional Floodplain - probability as Zone 3a
17/05234/EIAMAJ 43 15.4 The nearest surface watercourse is an unnamed stream that runs north to south centrally to the southern section of the site. The stream was historically known as Moor Drain. Moor Drain was modified to suit the layout of the golf course and now takes a meandering course through a number of artificial pond. Each pond has some form of control at the outlet suggesting that attenuation (both online and offline) is being provided by the ponds during periods of heavy rainfall.
15.5 The stream reverts to being the Moor Drain at the southern end of the site before crossing the A59. The watercourse eventually becomes Double Dikes.
15.6 Environment Agency Flood Mapping shows the site is located predominantly within Flood Zone 1 where the chance of flooding each year is less than 0.1% (1 in 1000). There is small area of approximately 2 ha (1% of the total site area) in the central southern part of the site which currently lies within Flood Zone 2 and 3 and is associated with the downstream Moor Drain. This part of the site is not to be developed as indicated upon the Masterplan. The proposed development area is therefore entirely within flood zone 1.
15.7 The drainage bodies consulted regarding the development do not have any objection subject to the imposition of conditions. In the absence of any objection relating to flooding issues, it is considered that the proposal accords with Policy CC1.
16.0 ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
16.1 The application is supported with a Socio/Economic chapter within the ES, which identifies both the socio and economic impacts of the development. These can be summarised as:
16.2 Construction phase benefits and upon completion the operational phase of the development would be expected to generate long-term moderate beneficial effects on local employment, retail expenditure and fiscal benefits for HBC resulting from the creation of the following:
17/05234/EIAMAJ 44 645 direct jobs across a range of employment sectors. This equates to around 680 jobs once multipliers and displacement is taken into account;
£40.3 million in additional spending power each year associated with new residents, of which £16.1 million is anticipated to be spent in shops and services in Harrogate District;
Additional one-off expenditure of £13.75 million by new residents on first- occupation of new homes; and
Approximately £18.9 million in New Homes Bonus payments, £4.875 million each year in Council Tax payments (at 2017/18 rates) and increased business rates associated with the new retail and employment floor space provision
16.3 Furthermore through the proposed provision of on-site facilities including education, health and leisure opportunities Flaxby New Settlement is considered to have permanent negligible to minor beneficial effects on existing health, education and community facilities.
16.4 The economic benefits are noted but have not been tested by the LPA.
17.0 OTHER MATTERS
17.1 LAND Contamination
17.2 The non-technical summary and technical Chapter M on ground conditions contains information relating to investigations carried out on site during 2016 and 2017.
17.3 A phase 1 Geo Environmental Desk Study was compiled by Wardell and Armstrong, dated December 2016, reference SH11476, RPT-005A. This contained information about the site history and included a site walkover of part of the site with the conclusion that a Phase 2 was required, remedial measures likely and that an asbestos survey was required.
17.4 A Phase 2 preliminary site investigation was then undertaken, reference SH11476, report number RPT-006A. This report did not cover the farmland to the north of the site. In the area that had been investigated made ground had been found between 0.7 and 3.9m deep, and contamination of mercury and PAHs detected. Gas monitoring had also commenced. More investigation is clearly needed at a later date including the north area of the site. It appears that the some of the ground is not stable enough for development so the site will require more earthworks. The CEHO advises that more sampling will be needed once more is known about the levels and layout and we will need further gas sampling and risk assessment.
17/05234/EIAMAJ 45
17.5 Chapter M identifies that further investigation is required to refine the conceptual site model including further gas sampling and risk assessment. The CEHO is in agreement with the contents of the chapter M with respect to the issues of land contamination and as this is a matter in progress because further sampling and gas monitoring needs to be carried out to fully characterise the site then it is recommended would recommend that this is conditioned this by attaching condition CQ06.
17.6 SOILS AND AGRICULTURAL LAND
17.7 Policy NE8 of the adopted local plan seeks to protect agricultural land , identifying that The best and most versatile agricultural land (grades 1, 2 and 3a) will be protected from development not associated with agriculture or forestry except where it can be demonstrated to be necessary
17.8 Based upon the initial submission and having considered the proposals as a consultation under the Development Management Procedure Order (as amended), and in the context of Government's policy for the protection of the ‘best and most versatile’ (BMV) agricultural land as set out in paragraph 112 (of the then 2014 NPPF) of the National Planning Policy Framework, Natural England advises that an agricultural land classification and soil survey of the land should be undertaken.
17.9 Following initial consultation with Natural England, an objection was received due the lack of information regarding Agricultural Land Classification work. Since that initial objection an ALC Report has been submitted (dated 2 October 2018 with additional borehole Data dated 18 November 2018). Natural England consider that sufficient information has been provided across the 1988 MAFF Surveys of the site and the ALC Report in support of the proposal.
17.10 Based on the information provided with the planning application, the proposed development comprises approximately 48 ha of agricultural land, including at least 22 ha classified as ‘best and most versatile’ (Grades 1, 2 and 3a land in the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) system).
17.11 Government policy is set out in Paragraph 170 and 171 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that:
‘Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland.’
17/05234/EIAMAJ 46 17.12 Natural England welcomes the consideration given to soil resources on the golf course element of the proposal site. Natural England notes that the golf course was built on large areas of best and most versatile agricultural land and advises that in some cases agricultural value can be retained in golf course development. Natural England advises that the council considers including the requirement with any permission given for a full soil resources survey to be carried out, in line with the principles set out in the Defra Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites, in order to inform the development of the golf course and handling of soil resources present in the golf course.
17.13 It is recognised that a proportion of the agricultural land affected by the development will remain undeveloped. In order to retain the long term potential of this land and to safeguard soil resources as part of the overall sustainability of the whole development, it is important that the soil is able to retain as many of its many important functions and services (ecosystem services) as possible through careful soil management.
17.14 Consequently Natural England advise that if the development proceeds, the developer uses an appropriately experienced soil specialist to advise on, and supervise, soil handling, including identifying when soils are dry enough to be handled and how to make the best use of the different soils on site. It is recommended that the developers follow the advice contained within the Defra Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites (including accompanying Toolbox Talks).
17.15 Policy NE8 is however clear that Sites of over five hectares which may affect the best and most versatile agricultural land should produce an agricultural land classification survey to determine the quality, quantity and accurate location of agricultural land in grades 1, 2 and 3a. Planning permission for development affecting such land will only be granted exceptionally if there is an overriding need for the development. In the absence of the need for a new town in this location there is an overriding objection to the loss of the agricultural land.
17.16 SECTION 106 CONTRIBUTIONS
17.17 In addition to the requirements to contribute towards affordable housing provision , education and open space contributions and future maintenance , it is clear from the consultation responses received that addition requirements will also include contributions towards bus services to the site and should the ecology matter be resolved a future management plan.
18.0 PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
18.1 The principle of development is not supported by the policies of the recently adopted Local Plan, to which full weight is accorded. The proposal sits outside
17/05234/EIAMAJ 47 of a defined settlement within the settlement hierarchy and therefore comprises open countryside where there is stricter control over development, the scheme is thus contrary to the provisions of GS2 and GS3. Furthermore, it sits outside of the broad location for growth at Green Hammerton/Cattal within which a new settlement will be allocated, contrary to policies GS2 and DM4. There are no material considerations, which when weighed in the balance indicate that support should be given for the proposal.
18.2 In addition, the proposed development will impact on the landscape character and setting of a number of designated heritage assets, principally The Temple of Victory, grade II* listed building, Allerton Castle, grade I and Allerton Park, Grade II Registered Park and Garden and associated heritage assets together with the wider landscape.
18.3 It is considered that the harm to the significance of the heritage assets is ‘less than substantial’ (NPPF para 196). In line with the NPPF (para 193 and 194), in considering the impact of the proposed development on the significance of the heritage assets, great weight should be given to their conservation. As such, it is considered that the public benefits of the proposed development would need to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harmful impacts identified (NPPF para. 196). In assessing public benefits, the statutory duty under Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the approved Local Plan are taken into account.
18.4 Given that the principle of development is not supported, there are no public benefits that would outweigh the harm to the impact of the development on both heritage assets and landscape character. The development is thus considered contrary to the provisions of Local Plan Policies HP2 and NE4. Similarly there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant the significant loss of agricultural land, contrary to the provisions of Local Plan Policy NE8.
18.5 Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the development would not have a harmful impact upon the adjacent classified
17/05234/EIAMAJ 48 road network contrary to Local Plan Policy TI1 and the biodiversity of the site contrary to Policy NE3
18.6 It is concluded that the application should be refused for the reasons set out below.
19.0 RECOMMENDATION
19.1 That the application be REFUSED
20.0 REASONS
20.1 The proposed development represent a major urban incursion into open countryside on a site that lies outside of a defined settlement within the settlement hierarchy of the District. Furthermore it lies outside of the broad location identified within the Local Plan within which a new settlement should be developed. The proposal is thus considered to be contrary to the provisions of Harrogate Local Plan 2014-2035 Policies GS2, GS3 and DM4.
20.2 The proposed development would harm the setting and significance of heritage assets , consisting of the Grade I listed Allerton Park and the Grade II* Temple of Victory, together with the character and setting of the Registered Historic Park and Garden due to: the scale and type of the proposed development; the size of the area to which the development will extend; the level of activity generated by development of the scale proposed; the degree of change to the landscape character; and perceived/potential coalescence (visual and physical) with neighbouring settlements. In the absence of sufficient mitigation measures resulting from the fundamental loss of rural context and the absence of public benefit accruing from the development, the scheme is considered contrary to the provisions of Local Plan Policy HP2 and the advice contained within the National Planning Framework.
20.3 The proposed development would represent a significant development in open countryside, which in the absence of any justification for the development would have a detrimental impact upon the character of the locality including the setting of the adjacent village of Flaxby, contrary to the provisions of Local Plan Policy HP3 and NE4.
20.4 Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the development proposal would accord with the provisions of local plan policy TI1 in terms of traffic generation on key junctions upon the classified road network to reduce traffic congestion and improve road connections in the district.
17/05234/EIAMAJ 49 20.5 In the absence of a DEFRA Biodiversity Metric Calculation, insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in no net loss in biodiversity . In the absence of such justification the scheme is contrary to the provisions of Local Plan Policy NE3 .
20.6 In the absence of any overriding need to justify the development, the proposal will result in the loss of significant agricultural land contrary to the provisions of Local Plan Policy NE8
In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee's decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Chief Planner has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee's decision.
APPENDICES
21.0 CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency - Dales Area Office - No objection subject to the imposition of conditions.
EHO Contaminated Land – No objection to ground contamination issues subject to the imposition of conditions to require further investigation to refine the conceptual site model, including further gas sampling and risk assessment. No objection to noise issues subject to the imposition of conditions to require mitigation. Lighting issues will need to be addressed and controlled through the imposition of a condition.
Natural England – No objection subject to conditions requiring the use of an appropriately experienced soil specialist to advise on, and supervise, soil handling and how to make the best use of the different soils on site.
17/05234/EIAMAJ 50
Highways England - Due to further work being required in order to fully assess the impact this application may have on the Strategic Road Network; and due to the expiration of the preceding notice of non-determination issued by Highways England on 11th August 2020, a further extension to the recommendation of non-determination has been placed on this application until 21th February 2021.
NYCC Highways And Transportation – Holding objection as require the submission of additional details to allow a formal response to be made.
Historic England – Objects to the application due to the serious harm to the significance of the heritage assets at Allerton Park. The development would result in a fundamental change to the character and setting of these assets and therefore contrary to NPPF.
Yorkshire Garden Trust - Object to the development due to the considerable impact on the character and overall setting of Allerton Park as a Registered Historic Park and Garden and the impact on its numerous Listed Buildings, most notably Allerton Castle and the Temple of Victory.
County Education Officer - Financial contribution required to upgrade/expand primary and secondary school provision in the local area. To be secured via a S106 agreement.
Housing Department – No objection subject to 40% onsite provision of affordable housing being secured at this stage. Any reserved matters layout must ensure affordable homes are well integrated and subject to consultation with Housing Officers.
NYCC Lead Local Flood Authority (SuDS) – No objection subject to the imposition of conditions.
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – The overall design and layout is considered acceptable. If permission given, a condition is recommended so that the principles of Crime Prevention through Environment Design (CPTED) are addressed at reserved matters stage.
17/05234/EIAMAJ 51 Yorkshire Water – The site is not currently served by public water and waste water infrastructure. Yorkshire Water has not included the site within its forecasting for investment to serve growth within Harrogate district as the site is not included as a housing allocation in the Local Plan. Mitigation conditions are required if permission is granted.
Swale And Ure Drainage Board – No objection subject to the imposition of conditions to cover percolation testing, and restrictions to discharge rates. Informative highlighting need for IDB consent for discharge to the watercourse.
Harrogate Bridleways Association and British Horse Society – Initial objection as additional routes only cycle ways and footpaths. They must be open to non-motorised use NMU. Upon receipt of revised information, no objection subject to conditions.
Footpath Officer - NYCC – Recommends the imposition of an informative to ensure the existing Public Rights of Way on site are kept in use until the diversion route it is legally diverted and open for use.
Ramblers Association – Objection to the proposed package of bridleways and footpath diversions not being convenient for users. Also object due to loss of view of Allerton Castle and Temple of Victory from two public rights of way.
Network Rail - Consider that it would not be possible to facilitate a station in its current design at Flaxby to serve the proposed new settlement. This is based on the proposed station design the requirement to achieving a half hourly service. A station at Flaxby would not be compatible with the current infrastructure capacity scheme being worked up by Network Rail and funded by third parties.
Removal of the Hunters level crossing is required. Details of the approach to be taken for the closure and how this will be funded and secured via the planning process is also necessary.
17/05234/EIAMAJ 52
A condition is required for a detailed drainage strategy in relation to the culvert beneath the railway at HAY13 miles 393yds.
DCS - Open Space – No comments received.
Sport England – No objection to the loss of the existing sports facility in terms of the 27 hole golf course and driving range.
Knaresborough Chamber of Trade and Commerce – No comments received.
Harrogate Civic Society – Consider Green Hammerton as the most appropriate location for a new settlement. If consent was given to the Flaxby site we urge the most sensitive mitigation means possible in terms of building heights, scale, substantial landscaping, sensitive materials and maintaining sensitive views.
Arboricultural Officer – Objects to the proposal based on the volume of loss, landscape and amenity impacts and increased views into and out of the site.
Economic Development Officer – No comments received.
22.0 Representations
79 Letters of objection have been received. The full details of the representations
can be viewed on the Council’s website via Public Access. A summary of the concerns raised is set out below:
The settlement is not needed nor compliant with the local plan
The site falls outside the broad area of search for a new settlement
The scheme is premature and not plan led
17/05234/EIAMAJ 53 Contrary to HBC Transport objectives, more details required in the TA
Not near a rail station and will create gridlock on A59
Will cause adverse impact on Jnc 47 of A1(M)
Total lack of infrastructure to sustain this proposal including road network and sewerage capacity
Will create urban sprawl, out of character with local area
No need for 2 new settlements, HBC has identified Green Hammerton as the preferred option
This site is totally dependent on the private car
Impact to trade for Knaresborough and Harrogate due to gridlock on A59
No schools or GP capacity in the local area
Huge damage to wildlife, ecology and woodland
Loss of a green site, loss of agricultural land
Housing should be spread more evenly around the District
Much of the site is landfill / contaminated
There are 44 homes in Flaxby, this scale of new settlement will destroy it
Dishforth Airfield would be a better option for a new settlement
17/05234/EIAMAJ 54
161 letters of support have been received. The full details of the representations can be viewed on the Council’s website via Public Access. A summary of the supporting reasons is set out below:
This site is in single ownership and is deliverable
Excellent access to the road system, benefitting from existing new roundabout
This location avoids damaging existing villages
Close to the former Goldsborough railway station / better train links than the east of the District
Good bus links to Knaresborough
The site is naturally screened
No archaeological interest on the site
The increase in population will help sustain facilities in Knaresborough
Adjacent to Business Park with easy access to jobs/will help support the business park
The scheme has planned infrastructure to cope with increase in population
There will be a separate access avoiding Flaxby village
It is a sustainable location
The incinerator has already damaged the setting of Allerton Castle
Opportunity to use energy from Allerton Park Waste Recycling Plant
Effective use of an abandoned site
Opportunity for cycle links to Knaresborough and Harrogate
Close to Leeds and Harrogate (main centres of employment)
Better option than Green Hammerton
The Local Plan process was rushed through, this site is geared towards local need, it is a sustainable proposal
17/05234/EIAMAJ 55 23.0 Views of parish council
Views of the Parish Council
Due to the scale and wide reaching impacts of the development, a number of local parish councils were consulted on the application. These were: Goldsborough and Flaxby PC, Knaresborough Town Council, Allerton and Mauleverer with Hopperton PC and Arkendale, Coneythorpe and Clareton PC. The full details of the parish councils’ responses can be viewed on the council’s website via public access. A summary is set out below:
Goldsborough and Flaxby grouped parish council:
Strongly objects to the development
•The parish council has objected to this location throughout the local plan process, those objections still stand for this application.
•This site is the least preferable housing option for the local plan’s new settlements and wholly unsuitable for any large scale development of the type proposed
•Support for this application is from Green Hammerton residents so should be discounted
•Significantly increased road congestion on the A59 which is already severely congested
•Significant detrimental impact on Flaxby and Coneythorpe
•Loss of important agricultural land
•Loss of existing wildlife including protected species
•Loss of existing footpaths and bridleways
•Limited existing infrastructure in Flaxby, the location is unsustainable
•Unacceptable impact on the historically important Allerton Castle
•Location adjacent to motorway and very busy a road will be unattractive and have safety concerns.
•Loss of golf course at Flaxby which could provide an important leisure asset
•Poor communication from applicants given the scale of scheme
17/05234/EIAMAJ 56 Knaresborough Town Council:
Objects to the application
•It would cause a serious detrimental impact on Knaresborough’s services and facilities, in particular health, recreation and education.
•The traffic generated from the scheme would seriously impact on the road network.
• Economic benefit from trade would be small as town centre car parks are already near to capacity.
Arkendale, Coneythorpe and Clareton parish council:
Objects to the application and principle of a new settlement in this location.
•National policy requires identification of new settlements to be made by plan-makers not speculative developers. Location of a new settlement at Flaxby is contrary to the local plan, this should be reason enough to reject the proposal
•Amendments submitted by the applicants do not alter the principal or nature of the development.
•Particularly concerned about views of the development form Coneythorpe, woodland belt required.
• A new rail halt is unlikely and not in the control of the applicants
•Local road network cannot cope with increase in traffic and will cause safety issues for residents
•Loss of rural character for the local villages
Case Officer: Andy Hough Expiry Date: 20 September 2020
17/05234/EIAMAJ 57