South Cave Parish Council

Planning Meeting 26th June 2012

 

The Meeting of South Cave Parish Council Planning Committee took place in the WI Hall, Church Street, South Cave at 7.00pm.

 

Present:            Cllrs Barnett, L. Turner, M. Turner, Kingdom, Phillips & Munby

Clerk - Mrs L Fielding

Members of Public – 62

Ward Cllrs – Cllr Galbriath, Cllr Smith, Cllr Hudson

                                               

1859    Apologies for absence

Cllr M. Turner proposed apologies be accepted from Cllrs, Kelly, Lenton, Jamieson & Hardy, Seconded Cllr Phillips, All in favour.

 

1860   Declarations of Interest

Cllrs L. Turner & M. Turner both declared a personal interest in minute ref: 1861 (i) & (ii) Having family members potentially affected by the planning applications.  Cllr Kingdom declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in minute ref: 1861 (i) & (ii) being a member of SCAR (South Cave Active Residents) and owning a property in close proximity to the proposed development.  

 

Cllr Kingdom took seat in the public area as a member of the public having declared a personal & prejudicial interest in both applications.

 

The Meeting was closed at 7:03p.m for Cllr Galbraith to address the Parish Council & Public with information relating to ERYC planning procedures.

 

7:15p.m member of the public were invited to ask questions and put forward comments relating to the applications.

 

7:35p.m Rob Kingdom member of SCAR (South Cave Active Residents) provided a report to the Parish Council recommending refusal of the application.  See appendix (i)

 

The Meeting was re opened at 8:05 for the Parish Council to make their decision

Cllr Kingdom Left the room prior to the meeting re-opening

1861    Current Plans to consider

(i)12/02455/STPLF - Land South And East Of Old Priory Station Road South Cave East Riding Of Yorkshire

Hybrid application consisting of (a) Full Application for the creation of a new vehicular and pedestrian access onto Market Place, (b) Demolition of number 70 Market Place, (c) Demolition of buildings to the rear of 68 and 70 Market Place, (d) Full Application for an extension to number 68 Market Place, (e) Full Application for the erection of 5 no dwellings and 5 no. detached garages on land to the rear of 68 and 70 Market Place, (f) Outline Application for the development of 55 homes on land including Local Plan allocation H1dj to the north of Middle Garth Drive (all matters reserved)

For Messrs Watts, Usher and Lindley

Application Type: Strategic – Full Planning Permission

Cllr Phillips proposed the Parish Council recommend refusal of the application for the following reasons:

 

a.                  The existing combined sewage and drainage system does not currently cope. The proposed development will aggravate the current situation.

 

b.                  Local infrastructure currently struggles to cope with existing levels of usage (Parking, Schools and Transport etc.) The proposed development will make the situation impossible.

 

c.                   A study of policy issues indicates South Cave, as a rural village is not a suitable place for this development.

 

d.                  This development is not a sustainable development.

 

The Parish Council requests that in the event of the East Riding of Yorkshire Council approving the application be mindful of the following:

 

a.                  A more detailed study of the flooding problem and sewage system in the village is carried out problems rectified before any development takes place.

 

b.                  Carparking is a constant problem in the village the development and should therefore provide off street parking for use by the village.

 

c.                   There should be an access point from The Stray to enable pedestrians to walk to Market Place.

 

d.                  There should be landscaping measures compatible with the streetscene to enhance the entrance to the development.

 

e.                   The existing hedge located on the eastern boundary of the proposed development should be retained and enhanced with additional trees, to shield the development from Little Wold Lane.

 

f.                   There should be restricted hours of construction and access.

 

g.                  A stone wall compatible with the existing building and wall, between the street and number 68 should be installed, to protect the streetscene and the conservation area.

 

h.                  Further consideration is given to ensuring the height of the new dwellings is such that they respect the needs of existing neighbouring properties.

 

i.                    A further more detailed archaeological assessment of the site is requested. 

 

j.                    In place of the proposed wooden fence on the Northern Side of the proposed access road, a wall should be provided.

 

k.                  The footpath running from Little Wold Lane to the new development should be restricted to pedestrian use only.

 

l.                    The current Bollard at the junction on the A1034 and the proposed new development, to be reviewed.

 

m.                Street Lighting to comply with current Highway Standards.

 

The Parish Council request the East Riding of Yorkshire Council confirm the date the planning application will be brought to Committee.

Seconded, Cllr Munby, All in favour.

 

(ii)12/02456/PCC - Land South And East Of Old Priory Station Road South Cave East Riding Of Yorkshire

Demolition of number 70 Market Place and buildings to the rear of 68 and 70 Market Place

For Messrs Watts, Usher and Lindley

Application Type: Conservation Area Consent

Cllr M. Turner proposed the Parish Council recommend refusal of the application for the following reason:

a.                   There are no details provided for a replacement of the building in the event that the development does not go ahead. 

The Parish Council request the East Riding of Yorkshire Council confirm the date the planning application will be brought to Committee.

Seconded, Cllr Munby, All in favour.

 

 

.

 

Signed…………………………          Chairman   

 

Dated…………………………..            

Appendix (i) SCAR report 

 

      

Dear Sirs

 

Hybrid;  Full Application  for demolition of 70 Market place, extension of 68 Market Place and 5 new dwellings  and Outline Application for 55 Dwellings on land H1dj North of Middlegarth, South and East of Old Priory Station Road. ref 12/02455/STPLF.

 

Conservation Area Consent for demolition of Nr  70 Market Place and buildings to teh rear of 68 and 70 Market Place and landSouth and East of Old Priory Station Road ref 12/02456/PCC

 

We wish to respond to the above applications and our response is in several parts and relates to both applications as the context allows.

 

Firstly we deal with the planning policy issues in relation to the application itself including; those East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) documents are Development Plan Documents (DPD), have the  support of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and can be given full weight; those documents that can be classed as material considerations and the appropriate weight that can be afforded them;  and those documents relied on by Cabinet, in particular on the 9 December 2009, in determining release of greenfield sites and the ability of the Planning Committee to determine this application based on a policy  approved by Cabinet which erroneously released SCAV 16  (the subject of the outline planning application) on 9 December 2009.

Secondly we look at the application itself and lastly should ERYC be minded to approve the application, despite the issues we raise here, we refer to matters that may go some small way towards mitigating detrimental effects the development on those neighbours most affected

 

The Policy issues

 

  1. There are a number of policy issues which have a material consideration on consideration of this application.
  2. The South Cave Parish Council and South Cave Active Residents engaged Cobbetts (Leeds), a nationally recognised leading planning authority in 2010  regarding the manner in which ERYC released SCAV16 in the Cabinet decision (minute  3789 and associated report) on the 9 December 2009, which comprised part of this application.
  3. While the judicial period had already expired before village became aware of this move, Cobbetts confirmed our fundamental issues with this decision were correct, and we attempt to précis the arguments here. The same arguments can also be used  in assessing the policy background against which this application must be judged. As they are interlinked we provide our comments together in order to avoid repetition.
  4. In summary;
    1. The Development Plan Documents only consist of the saved elements of the Beverley Borough Council Local Plan and the Joint Structure plan, which has precedence and in which DS4 and H7 have the most relevance. Both policies preclude development on this scale, supporting limited development if this meets local needs and contributes to sustaining the role of the settlement with preference given to previously-developed sites, infill plots and conversions. Development that would result in unacceptable long distance commuting will be resisted. There are no other documents issued which are capable of being afforded the status of “Development Plan Document” and given the same weight in the consideration of this application. Other management documents such as the Interim Policy Guidance 2003 and Position Statement adopted in April 2009 can only be afford some weight as material considerations, but no weight where they cut across the Development Plan Documents policies.
    2. Whilst further changes to the planning system have taken place with the introduction of the National Planning Framework 2012, which are dealt with separately, it does not negate the failures of advice to Members in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment - 9 December 2009 report, the failure to consult, and the failure to consider of local policy matters when considering deliverability in the SHLAA preparation and therefore no weight as material considerations can be afforded to either the decision to release SCAV16 or the results of the SHLAA (and in any of the re-itterations of the report all of which contain these material issues), which retains the site in the Housing allocation.
    3. In considering the application before it the Planning committee must reject it on policy grounds as it is contrary to JSP Policies DS4 and H7.
  5. The Beverley Borough Local Plan 1996 (the “Local Plan”) allocated the Site under Policy H1 as a residential housing site H1dj (the Site).  The Local Plan was intended to cover the period up to 2006 but due to the failure of the Council to adopt more up to date policy documents, many of the Local Plan policies, including that which allocated the Site, have been “saved” by the Secretary of State.  In his letter saving those policies, the Secretary of State makes it clear that the saved policies would not necessarily be supported if they were presented as new policies and that, in interpreting the policies, material considerations, in particular relating to the emergence of new policy and evidence, will be afforded considerable weight.
  6. In October 2003, the Council issued the Interim Policy Guidance (“IPC”) as a response to the then new planning policy guidance in PPG3 (now revoked)
  7. The approach outlined in the IPC is the approach adopted by the Council in considering the release of this land to meet any shortfall in the 5 year housing land supply.  Following this, the JSP identified a hierarchy of centres to which residential development should be directed, with most development being directed to the higher order centres, with limited development being allowed in existing villages.  Saved Policy DS4 states that limited development will be allowed in Smaller Settlements (which are not defined in the JSP) if it meets local needs and contributes to sustaining the role of the settlement.  In addition, housing development in existing settlements should conform to the requirements of Saved Policy H7 of the JSP which states that housing development should meet an identified local need, particularly for affordable housing but also to support existing village services.  Development should be limited in scale, with preference given to previously developed sites infill plots and conversions.  Policy H7 goes on to provide that development that would result in unacceptable long distance commuting will be resisted. South Cave has very high multiple car ownership with an average commute of 23 km per trip. It also has poor bus services. This means any development will induce long distance commuting by default.
  8. An Issues and Options Document was produced and, following that, in October 2006, a Preferred Options Document identified South Cave as a Market Village (Priority 3) in the Central Sub-Area of the district.  The Market Villages (which were to function as smaller settlements) were divided into 3 priorities.  Priority 3 settlements were identified as having the potential to act as a service centre, but there were concerns about their designation as such, because of, in the case of South Cave, its close proximity to the Sub-Regional Urban Area (to which most residential development should be directed) and to North Cave.  The Preferred Options document also considered the meaning of “limited scale” for the purposes of Policy DS4 of the JSP and it determined that “limited scale” meant 5 or less dwellings.  If development was to exceed that figure, clear justification for the development would be required
  9. The need for housing land is currently addressed in the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and the Humber (the “RSS”) and also in the JSP.  The Government has signalled its intention to revoke the RSS and has set out the powers to revoke the RSS by order in the Localism Bill 2011, although it currently remains part of the development plan.  As such, it still carries considerable weight.

10.  Table 6.3 of the JSP also identifies that in the Central Sub-Area, there is a need to review existing allocations (which would include the allocation of the site in the Local Plan) in order to ensure that they meet the requirements of the JSP development strategy.

  1. The Council is now in the course of preparing its plans under the Local Development Framework introduced in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.  As part of the evidence base for the preparation of the Core Strategy and Allocations Development Plan Document, SHLAAs were prepared in 2009 and 2010 Prior to the decision to release the application site SCAV16.  In both cases and again in 2011 completion of the SHLAA resulted in the release of further greenfield sites to maintain the housing land supply.
  2. Planning policy requires the Council to maintain a 5 year housing land supply, that is, land which is deliverable within the next five years.  “Deliverable” means available, suitable and achievable.
  3. In 2007, the Government published guidance on the preparation of SHLAAs.  At paragraph 11, the guidance states that those consulted during the preparation process should include key stakeholders, including local communities
  4. With regard to suitability, sites allocated in existing plans will generally be considered to be suitable although it may be necessary to assess them where circumstances have changed. 
  5. There is therefore a two stage process.  The identification of sites to be assessed initially is undertaken on a “policy off” basis, and when those sites have been identified, their deliverability should be considered in the light of existing policy and other material considerations. The Cabinet report of December 2009 and consistently those before and after, contain a material error in advice to Councillors in making their decision to release Scav 16. in that under “Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments: Practice guidance” at para 3.3 of the report it materially misrepresents the guidance as being “policy off for all elements”. This misrepresentation is repeated in the covering Cabinet report at “Methodology” para 2.2.
  6. The SHLAAs undertaken by the Council in 2009 and 2010 (and again in 2011) combined the process of identifying available housing land and addressing whether the 5 year housing land supply requirement could still be met
  7. The Council therefore reviewed those sites identified as deliverable in the SHLAA (including the Site) by reference to the criteria in the IPC.  This review process is the one described by the Council in its Position Statement on Housing Development in Rural Areas dated 28 April 2009.  The Position Statement was approved for development management purposes pending further progress with the Core Strategy to deal with residential development outside major settlements
  8. It refers as a starting point to the list of market villages in the Preferred Options version of the Smaller Settlements DPD.  The Position Statement states that in terms of the requirements of JSP Policy H7, “small scale” should be no more than 5 dwellings but it goes on to state that, in terms of the requirement in Policy H7 for a development to meet an identified local need, it will be assumed that there is an identified local need and that applicants will not therefore be asked to demonstrate this.  However the number of houses proposed should be commensurate with the settlement’s status. The assertion cuts across JSP DS4 which specifically states that at para 5.26 It is important to note that these villages are not regarded as being of strategic importance. The assumption of “local need” in this context  can only be taken as an authority wide need which conflicts with “local” as used in policy DS4 and H7. This assertion therefore should be set aside in considering this application and only the local needs as described by the residents taken into account. 

19.  In its letter to the Parish Council dated 22 February 2011, the Council confirmed that, for the purposes of the SHLAA, there was a Core and Wider Working Group.  The core group functioned as a technical body that considered deliverability and developability across the district as a whole with the wider working group consulted at key stages.  This wider group included house builders as well as technical specialists from the Environment Agency and Highways Agency.  No Parish Councils were involved in either the core group or the wider working group.  It is reasonable for the core group to be limited to technical experts competent to deal with issues such as physical development but, given the guidance on the need to involve local communities, in assessing the deliverability of sites more generally, the Council was in error in not including key stakeholders including the community as part of the wider group. It calls into question the conclusions reached as heavily influenced by pre-determined interested parties and accordingly minimises the weight that can be afforded to it.

  1. Policy approach of the Council
    1. The Site was allocated in the Local Plan in 1996.
    2. However, through the JSP and RSS, there emerged a strategy which placed much greater emphasis on the need to focus development in larger settlements and in particular, to direct most of the new development to Hull.
    3. With the introduction of the new legislation relating to the preparation of Local Development Frameworks, it must have become apparent to the Council that they were likely to have problems in controlling development until the new plans were adopted as  those policies dealing with housing land need and supply were becoming increasingly out of date.
    4. The Council’s initial response was the preparation of the Smaller Settlements DPD which progressed to Preferred Option stage before being abandoned
    5. To some degree, the document followed the approach taken in the earlier Humberside Structure Plan and the Local Plan in that it substituted for “selected settlement”, a new term “market village”, but there were some significant differences in approach. In particular, the market villages were divided into different priorities
    6. The identification of South Cave as a Priority 3 Market Village clearly demonstrated that, at that stage, the Council considered that the status of South Cave required further review and scrutiny given its location so close to the urban area and to North Cave.  There was a clear concern that it might not be necessary to identify both North Cave and South Cave as market villages capable of accepting limited development, coupled with the fact that their nearness to the urban area would encourage commuting and also attract development which should be directed towards the urban area.
    7. The Position Statement adopted in April 2009, somewhat surprisingly, did not recognise the concerns raised in the Preferred Options Smaller Settlements DPD and made no distinction between the market villages without reference to their priority.  This had a knock on effect on the SHLAA in December 2009 in that all market villages were considered suitable to provide residential sites for release to meet the 5 year housing land supply.  Equally importantly, neither the SHLAA nor the Position Statement recognised the requirements in the JSP policy DS4 that housing development should be on a “limited scale” which, in all the relevant policy documents appears to have been considered to be 5 dwellings or less.  The Position Statement made it clear that in terms of demonstrating local need, the absence of a 5 year housing land supply was such that local need would be assumed, but no assumption is made in the Position Statement that any development would be in keeping with the character of the individual settlement involved.  This is a separate and distinct issue from the question of local need.
    8. The difficulty arises in that, even with the adoption of interim policy, it is usual for local planning authorities to undertake some level of consultation.  The reason for this is that the greater the element of consultation, the greater the weight which is likely to be given to the policy once adopted.
    9. There was little or no consultation in the preparation of the Position Statement.  Paragraph 1.1 of the report to the Cabinet dated 28 April 2009 refers to the fact that at a “Health Check” meeting with various interested parties.
    10. No reference is made to any further consultation which was undertaken by the Council before seeking the authority of the Cabinet to approve the interim policy for development management purposes.  This lack of consultation is further compounded by the approach taken by the Council to the SHLAA.
    11. The government guidance on the preparation of SHLAAs recommends that sites should be initially identified for assessment on a “policy off” basis.  However, once the sites which are to be the subject of the assessment have been identified, the individual site should be reviewed on a “policy on” basis taking into account other material considerations. This is essential to ensure that the sites which are identified are deliverable within the meaning of the guidance. Policies DS4 and H7 of the JSP are material considerations in this regard which limit development in smaller settlements to small scale, supporting limited development if this meets local needs and contributes to sustaining the role of the settlement with preference given to previously-developed sites, infill plots and conversions. Development that would result in unacceptable long distance commuting will be resisted. The parts of the Position Statement which do not cut across the DPD states that in terms of the requirements of JSP Policy H7, “small scale” should be no more than 5 dwellings. Therefore the SHLAA which maintained the site in the housing allocations did not properly take account of policy in assessing deliverability both in terms of size and housing need.
    12. The guidance refers specifically to the need to involve key stakeholders and the local community in the SHLAA process.  The Council does not appear to have done this.
    13. The guidance indicates that the Council’s approach on wider issues should have been more inclusive.  There could, for example, have been some form of consultation more widely on the sites identified as being deliverable, or indeed on the sites identified for release.  Had such consultation been undertaken, the process would have more closely adhered to the guidance.  As a result, instead of moving away from development in smaller settlements, the Council in its approach in the Position Statement and to the managed release of the housing sites under the SHLAA has effectively perpetuated the distribution of development which existed prior to the introduction of the JSP
  2. Issues with the Application when the saved policies of the Development Plan Documents are applied.
    1. The principle of allowing 60 new dwellings in this rural village location below the level of DS3 Local Service Centre is a strategic allocation which conflicts with RSS12 policies P1, H2 and H3 (which although powers to grant an order for the revocation of RSS was included in the Localism Bill 2011 and signalled to be revoked, have yet to be so, and remains part of the DPD and the JSP policy DS4, particularly para 5.26  and H7  The application is in conflict with policy of the DPD and should be refused.
    2. The Preferred Options document considered the meaning of “limited scale” for the purposes of Policy DS4 of the JSP and it determined that “limited scale” meant 5 or less dwellings.
    3. Subsequent documents produced for development management purposes, including the Interim Policy guidance 2003 and the Position Statement 2009 do not have the support of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.  Furthermore, interim policy was approved with virtually no consultation. This significantly affects the weight afforded to the documents as matreial consideration. Furthermore the documents cut across the saved DPD polices especially in terms of ignoring the quanta element, local housing needs,  and fit with character in particular the Position statement which stated that “in terms of demonstrating local need, the absence of a 5 year housing land supply was such that local need would be assumed”, and no assumption is made in the Position Statement that any development would be in keeping with the character of the individual settlement involved.  This is a separate and distinct issue from the question of local need.  The position statement is at odds with the JSP policy DS4 justification which clearly states that the smaller villages are not regarded as being of strategic importance in terms of accommodating growth which means a blanket acceptance of “local need” is not justified when applied to the smaller settlements. The Polices purported in these documents which are contrary to the DPD must be ignored in considering this application

 

  1. Issues with the Councils approach which negate or call into question the authorities position in releasing SCAV16 for housing.
    1. The arguments are similar to the above but not quite the same so for clarity they are re-stated here
    2. The Position Statement is approved for use for development management purposes but it is not a development plan document.  Accordingly, it does not have the support of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.  Furthermore, as interim policy approved with virtually no consultation. This significantly affects the weight afforded to the Position Statement.
    3. The decision made by the Council to identify all phases of market village as settlements for small scale development is also questionable in that it is contrary to adopted policies in the JSP, particularly in the light of the Council’s own work which recognised that further review of those market villages was needed before final conclusions were reached.  In the JSP, it is clearly stated that the JSP development strategy represents a significant change from the approach of the Humberside Structure Plan and is based on increasingly focussing development on the main urban area in and around Hull and significantly reducing the dispersal effect of the selected settlement approach. 
    4. The saved policies of the JSP are part of the development plan and must therefore be given significant weight.  Policies which cut across it should therefore not be supported and can be afforded no weight.
    5. The Preferred Options document considered the meaning of “limited scale” for the purposes of Policy DS4 of the JSP and it determined that “limited scale” meant 5 or less dwellings.
    6. The Cabinet report of December 2009 and consistently those before and after, contain a material error in advice to Councillors in making their decision to release Scav 16. in that under “Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments: Practice guidance” at para 3.3 of the report it materially misrepresents the guidance as being “policy off for all elements”. This misrepresentation is repeated in the covering Cabinet report at “Methodology” para 2.2. this alone makes the decision to release SCAV16 unsafe.
    7. The Position Statement cuts across JSP DS4 which specifically states that at para 5.26 smaller villages are not regarded as being of strategic importance. The assumption of “local need” by the Position Statement to be satisfied due to a lack of 5 year supply in this context  can only be taken as an authority wide need which conflicts with “local” as used in policy DS4 and H7. This assertion therefore should be set aside in considering this application and only the local needs as described by the residents taken into account.
    8. The Council was in error in not including key stakeholders including the community as part of the wider group in formulating the SHLAA. It calls into question the conclusions reached as heavily influenced by pre-determined interested parties and accordingly minimises the weight that can be afforded to it.
    9. The SHLAA deviates from issued guidance in two material instances,

                                                              i.      Passporting all previous allocations from time expired local plans without carrying out an assessment, and;

                                                            ii.      Not applying relevant extant local policies to individual sites to determine deliverability in particular DS4 and H7 of the JSP

  1. National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF)
    1. The NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions. It makes a number of general statements among which are the following are pertinent to the Application;

                                                              i.      Para 7 supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; …… with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs; South Cave does not require 60 more commuting houses, whilst some affordable homes may well be required this cannot be provided at the cost of unacceptable numbers of market housing

                                                            ii.      use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy. The development will generate 100 cars with an average of 23 km commuting trips plus school, shopping and leisure trips in cars. There is no alternative as the bus service is rated as poor in terms of frequency of service and destination.

                                                          iii.      para. 10. decisions need to take local circumstances into account, so that they respond to the different opportunites for achieving sustainable development in different areas. The local circumstances are, an increase in commuting traffic, additional pressures on the infrastructure such as drainage, additional pressures on oversubscribed doctors, schools, dentists, and a range of more sustainable locations in which to build if a 5 year supply is not currently met.

                                                          iv.      Para 12. The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. The Beverley plan which allocated the site is not up to date having expired in 1996 and is superseded by the saved polices of the JSP which are current and should take precedence.

                                                            v.      For decision-taking this means: Unless material considerations indicate otherwise approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, In this case again the Beverley local plan is out of date but the JSP is not and should be accorded full weight. The application site is not sustainable in the context of NPPF or the JSP and is directly contrary to DS4 and H7 and should be refused.

                                                          vi.      Para 15 All plans should be based upon and reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development, with clear policies that will guide how the presumption should be applied locally. The only clear policy with effect is the saved polices of the JSP which indicates a presumption in favour in the core city peripheral areas and towns. It clearly excludes development in DS3 villages such as South Cave.

    1. Core planning principles which indicate refusal;

                                                              i.      take account of the different roles and character of different areas, …. recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it;  South Cave’s role is now a commuter village in a rural setting and is not suitable for further development which continues to swamp the character of the village. In this particular application it adversely affects the conservation area ( see later comments)

                                                            ii.      support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk This development adds to the carbon footprint considerably and will discharge into a drainage system  through a flood zone 3 which increases the risk of flooding which is unacceptable (see comments on flooding later).

                                                          iii.      contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution.  Again pollution from 100 commuting cars is contrary to this policy, strain on a drainage system which is in the words of the infrastructure report, up to capacity are contraindications of approving this application

                                                          iv.      encourage multiple benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas, recognising that some open land can perform many functions (such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk mitigation, carbon storage, or food production); The open land part of this application has an important role in bringing greenspace and wildlife down to the conservation area, the heart of the village, and creates a pastoral setting with greenspace and horses grazing to teh conservation area, a key characteristic in the appraisal,  and even to the more modern developments either side.

                                                            v.      conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations; The application is destroying a heritage asset in Nr 70 Market place and removing a large portion of green bank, reducing further swages more for vision splays which are detrimental to the conservation area and should be rejected (see conservation issues later)

                                                           vi.      actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable; South Cave’s location next to the main trunk road is very suitable for private motor car commuting, however it is unsuitable for walking and cycling to Brough the nearest service centre and certainly anywhere else. Public transport is as already stated at the TRICS scale of accessibility as poor at 1 service per hour (good being 6-11 service per hour) and is not conducive to encouraging employees to use the bus instead of car and is unsustainable and cannot, with the densities that exist in the village, be made to be sustainable. The local bus company East Yorkshire stated at the recent annual meeting of the Parish, that they can only make sustainable trips to the City Centre as out of town developments, for example Melton do not generate enough trips to make them sustainable. Although there is a school bus to the local secondary school at Hunsley all out of school activities require parents to use the car. All comparison shopping and even supermarket shopping, leisure activities and work all require the use of a car. The application path to Little Wold Lane is for these purposes irrelevant. The Inspector, in considering an appeal at Water Lane South Cave (Appeal ref nr APP/E2001/A/02/1097297) found that South Cave was not a sustainable location for a large development due to the over-reliance on the private motor vehicle.

    1. Para 18. The Government is committed to securing ….. a low carbon future. and  Para 30. states that encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion. In preparing Local Plans (and therefore decisions),  authorities should support a pattern of development which, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport. This development adds considerable to long distance commuting by private car , does not have access to a sustainable mode of transport with TRICS rated poor bus services, declining subsidies and with a housing density which will not allow bus services
    2. There are a number of paragraphs regarding sustainable travel which are;

                                                              i.      Para 32. All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether:   the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and  improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

                                                            ii.      Para 34. Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised.

                                                          iii.      Para 35. Plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people. Therefore, developments should be located and designed where practical to

1.      give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high quality public transport facilities;

2.      create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians

3.      incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles; and

4.      consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport.

5.      Para 36. A key tool to facilitate this will be a Travel Plan. All developments which generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a Travel Plan.

    1. The applicant has provided a Transport statement and travel plan both of which both underestimate the impact and are inadequate of their appreciation as to the inadequacies of the local public transport and of the need to use the car for all activities outside of the village.  A few examples follow (using transport direct); it takes 1 hr 38mins by 2 buses and train to get to County Hall Beverley for just past 9am and leaving at 5pm it takes 1 train and 1 bus 1 hour 49 mins. For Hull city centre it's slightly better at 1 hour 8 min but you need to leave early if you work from 9am as the bus arrives 9.05 at the station without walking distance so you leave at 7.23am, a total of 1hr 37 mins. This is compared with a car journey of 21 mins (not including the inevitable delays) If you work outside of the city centre it's another bus and a start at 7.15. if you work in Sutton Fields a major employment zone in Hull say Malmo Road this takes 1 hr 21mins and two buses  compares with a car journey of 32 mins.  Travelling to Melton which is zoned for employment, (however most available jobs are likely to be mainly incompatible with being able to afford to live in South Cave), to get there by 9am only takes 54 mins with 1 bus and two walks over ten minutes compared by 12 mins in a car. Leaving at 5pm means a wait of 47 mins and a journey time of 36 mins. To attend an event at South Hunsley School (the nearest secondary school) at 5pm takes 32 mins on one bus if the meeting/event takes one hour then there is a 19min wait prior to a 36 min journey back total 55 mins compared to 14 mins in a car.
    2. para 38. For larger scale residential developments in particular, planning policies should promote a mix of uses in order to provide opportunities to undertake day-to-day activities including work on site. Where practical, particularly within large-scale developments, key facilities such as primary schools and local shops should be located within walking distance of most properties. from the mid development it will take a fit healthy adult 14 mins to walk to and from the School at an average pace and nearer 28 mins at slow pace with a child. To access the only food shop at Pinfold and allow 30mins to shop, the first available bus arrives nearby the shop no earlier than 11.02am (to catch a bus after 9am opening without 1:30 wait) however one would be obliged then to wait a further 2 hours before a return  journey of 19 mins. The walk is over 30mins a slow pace for a mother and toddler. there is n mix use proosed for work on site and shops are outside the walking perameters. The application fails this test.

 

The Application

 

  1. Proposals detrimental to the nature of the conservation area.
    1. Policy E26 states that; Applications for consent to demolish a building or structure within a Conservation Area will only be approved if: a) it is demonstrated by supporting evidence including a structural report that the building is incapable of practical economic repair, or b) redevelopment would preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.
    2. The applicant has proffered no structural reasons as required for the demolition of No 70 Market Place and is indeed proposing to refurbish and extend Nr 68 which is adjoined as a pair. The demolition is only proposed to form an estate road, no structural report is forthcoming and in any case a like for like replacement would be a far more appropriate response in this prominent position to maintain the character of the streetscene. Far from enhancing or preserving the character of the area, the removal of not only the building but the prominent grass bank which forms an entrance to the conservation area positively harms the area. It should be noted that the 1:1250 location map erroneously gives the impression of an existing driveway in front of Nr 70 which is clearly not the case. The proposal fails this test and should be dismissed
    3. Policy 2.70 states; Usually, historic buildings are best preserved where the original use is continued. However, it is recognised that there may no longer be a need for the original use, that the building is no longer suitable for it or that it is no longer appropriate in this location. Thus old buildings have to be given new uses if they are to survive. This may entail physical changes to the building which can affect its character. This will involve a judgement of balancing gain and loss, and each case will have to be considered on its own merits. Even though a proposed change of use is acceptable, if any proposal to alter a building fails to preserve and enhance its character or adversely affects the surrounding area by virtue of, for example, unsatisfactory additional building works, traffic generation, inadequate car parking, noise, smell or other adverse environment effect they are unlikely to receive a favourable response.
    4. The demolition of Nr 70, creating significant gap as an access road fails to preserve and enhance the area’s character and along with the substantial reduction in the green bank to the front, which acts as a gateway to the village adversely affects the surrounding conservation area by virtue of the creation of an access road for development outwith the Conservation area and unsatisfactory traffic generation created by at least 100 cars.
    5. While the applicant proposes to reduce the vision spay land to 600mm above road height there is no indication as to the treatment of the remaining higher bank or works to preserve the existing old wall to the Old Priory which may be in danger of being undermined. The details are not complete. and again the proposals adversely affect the conservation area. The proposal fails this test and should be dismissed
  2. Flooding and drainage
    1. We note on item 13 on the application form, that the applicant believes that the development will not cause flooding elsewhere. We would strongly disagree in that all drainage flows through the the West end of the village through a flood zone 3 and regularly surcharges and floods. Further development will exacerbate this regardless of the use of soakaways, (which are used on The Stray and which continually overflow in wet weather),
    2. The infrastructure study carried out for the LDF at section 2.3  para ii) clearly states that surface water infrastructure is up to capacity and costs could be up to £1m to rectify, the report states that  At this stage, the surface water drainage risk that presents a potential constraint to new development in these settlements is not fully understood nor is the potential capital investment required to adequately alleviate constraints. Only detailed hydraulic studies verified against real world flow and rainfall data can help to provide a reasonably accurate picture of the capacity of surface water drainage systems & the specific upgrades which may be required”
    3. The Drainage run down Market Place in inadequate for purpose of taking a further 60 dwellings which is only 4/6 inch drain??
  3. Sustainability
    1. The travel plan is inadequate not fit for purpose. see also comments  above The car is still the only reasonable method of getting to Elloughton Brough to access services. The bus service is inadequate and rated as poor. There are some buses but only at peak and Sunday buses no longer run. The former A63 road to Elloughton Brough could not be described as a good pedestrian cycle link.  There is limited employment opportunities and Melton Park will not provide the types of employment required to be able to live in South Cave and will require a car to access the area. South Cave is a  long distance commuter village. There is no possibility of the bus service being upgraded by subsidies, which are being cut. The densities required are in the order of 40 p ha which clearly cannot be achieved and then would only be run to the city centre as the trip generation will not allow other destinations to be sustainable
    2. The travel to the County centre, Beverley is by bus/train and either combination is outside a reasonable travel time. The Peturia express runs occasionally during around peak hours however the main peak period to get workers to the regional centre is missed out thus necessitating nearly an hour’s bus ride.
    3. The site will generate nearer 100 car journeys a peak flow rates as families go to work and drop children off down Church street which is already at capacity and a source of constant complaints to the Parish with regards Parking and access.
    4. The NPPF is still clear around sustainable development and reduction in the carbon footprint, including cutting private car commuting. The average journey is 23km (46km per day each way each commuter) the production of an estate  generating this number of trips adds to the unsustainability of South Cave as a long distance commuter village and is contrary to the NPPF.
    5. The inspector, at the appeal for Water lane ref APP/E2001/A/02/1097297  in upholding of the decision to refuse planning permission, entirely based the grounds on the case put forward by the residents of the village that South Cave was an unsustainable location. Whilst PPG3 has been withdrawn NPPF still keeps the issues of sustainable development at the forefront of policy.
    6. GP's are at capacity and again the infrastructure study at states at section 4.2 (pge51) NHSERY is aware of potential issues with GP capacity in South Cave and Brough. and shows a requirement currently for between 4.3 and 4.6 full time GP's (the report, mistakenly not accounting for branches, doesn't state existing Nr of FTE GPs) Pressures of new housing in Brough will exacerbate the situation in South Cave. The study in section 6.2 (page 77) indicates an existing small deficit in provision of indoor courts in South Cave which by 2026 will require investment of £496,743.
    7.  Ongoing work on the LDF core strategy which having gone through a number of consultations is gaining weight and while we have fundamental issues with allocations it appears to understand that dormitory villages are not to be encouraged and is contrary to government policy objectives. We are unclear therefore in what way allowing further development in South Cave, which serves no purpose other than a dormitory village, furthers this policy objective
    8. South Cave cross roads Market place/church Street/Beverley Road is 4.86km from the centre of Brough, a Local Service Centre (as per draft Town centre plans). The road is wide and fast and is not somewhere that you would commute to on foot or cycle.
    9. As this development is clearly unsustainable it should be refused.

Proposals to mitigate the Development

  1. Notwithstanding our arguments for refusal above which we strongly believe would require you to refuse the planning application never the  less without predudice to those argument put forward the following items which we believe require to be addressed.
  2. Archaeological Survey
    1. The archaeological survey provided is from 2001 and covers according to section 10,  85% of the much larger area then under consideration (4.58Ha) without specifying what part remained unsurveyed.  This could mean that the field in question at 2.83ha could potentially have 0.687ha unsurveyed or  approximately 24%. It is also noticed the survey was carried out for Barratt Homes York. We wonder what arrangements for the professional indemnities to be novated to the current applicant in order they may be relied on.
    2. The conclusion drawn states some form of substantial activity may  be located in the area not surveyed , the surviving archaeology is vulnerable to the proposed development and it is possible that some further work may be justified on this particular site. Bearing in mind the advances in technology over the intervening 11 years it would be prudent for the applicant to provide as a minimum  further geophysical surveys to ensure nothing of importance is missed.
    3. While not a matter affecting permission itself the requirement for a full survey using modern techniques should be conditioned
  3. Main Electricity cables have recently been relocated and buried in the embankment which is now proposed to form a vision splay and access and the applicant will nee to ensure appropriate re routing is carried out.
  4. permission should be conditioned that the amount of affordable housing is non negotiable and will not be renegotiated during reserved matters.
  5. The size of greenspace provision on the indicative plan should remain and will not be substituted by s106 or CIL payments when reserved matters are considered.
  6. planning permission should only be given for three years in order to encourage the developer to bring the site forward (it’s taken over thirty year to date) on the grounds that clearly no developer
  7. The applicant should provide suitable retaining walls to the Old Priory Station Road and 1.8m screening to the highest side to maintain privacy and quiet enjoyment of the properties
  8. The existing boundaries of the land should be provided with 1.8m close boarding to the highest side to maintain privacy and quiet enjoyment of the properties
  9. The boundary to Middlegarth drive should consist of bungalows so as to avoid oppressive overlooking and certainly not three storey properties
  10. The whole of the site should have a sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme to give no more run off than is currently discharged into the drains at Station Road. no other drain points should be acceptable. Soakaways should not be allowed due to the stray soakaways for road drainage surcharging on every downpour of rain indicating the ground conditions are not suitable for this option.
  11. Surface drainage from the development should not be allowed to fall towards Middlegarth drive.
  12. There is a meaningless path indicated on the small field to Little Wold Lane which does not help residents access the centre and perhaps strengthens the case in the applicants mind on the suitability for development of this field. This should be refused. The permission should be conditioned for a public right of way from the end cul de sac of the stray across to Station Road thus considerably easing access by foot for the majority of the Stray.