We understand a number of revisions have been made and further information submitted in respect of planning application 23/00160/OUTM, and so comments are being sought again.
The revisions include a change to the description of the development for what appears to be a third time in order to change again the number of dwellings and type of proposed residential development, and to vary the nature of associated open space and community facilities. Consequently, it is understood the description of development now reads “Outline application with all matters reserved except for access for up to 700 dwellings (Class C3 with a potential element of C2 for older persons accommodation), self build plots, provision of open space including informal sports pitches and allotments, flood storage measures, Gypsy and Traveller pitch provision, early years nursery (Class E), landscaping and associated infrastructure (revised description).”
Having reviewed the latest version of the application, Haxby Town Council is still concerned that the application does not comply with planning policy, will not deliver sustainable development to meet the needs of future residents and will have adverse impacts on the existing community and environment. The Town Council therefore wishes to maintain its objection to the application.
Status of the Statutory Development Plan
The City of York Local Plan was adopted on 27 February 2025 and so the policies within the Plan are to be given full material weight with reference to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as explained in paragraph 2 and 48 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024).
Consequently, planning law requires that applications are determined in accordance with the statutory development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. With this in mind, we are perplexed as to why City of York Council is continuing to consider an application that is, quite blatantly, not compliant with the Local Plan. Especially as the applicant has failed to explain what material considerations offer justification for the application to be determined as an exception to the Local Plan.
Number of Dwellings
Policy SS11 sets out how the site is to deliver “approximately 735 dwellings.” The applicant is now proposing 700 dwellings, which is 5% less than the expected number of new homes. 5% less can hardly be considered to be ‘approximately’ the same as 735 dwellings given the percentage difference. Having trawled through the application documents, we can find no explanation as to why the proposed number of dwellings is so far from satisfying the policy requirement.
It is important that City of York Council achieves the policy requirements of allocated sites given that the Government’s Standard Method has increased the Council’s annual housing need requirement. If allocations do not deliver on policy requirements then City of York Council will soon find that the presumption in favour of sustainable development will be triggered with reference to paragraph 11 of the NPPF. If land is to be used efficiently and the pressure for Green Belt land alleviated the it is critical to maintain the identified supply of dwellings across all allocated sites.
Since submission of the application, the number of proposed dwellings has been amended where it has been suggested that the site might accommodate between 640 and 800 dwellings. As such, the site clearly has the capacity to deliver the expected allocated number of dwellings given a layout has previously been proposed for more than 12% more than at present. It is therefore unclear why the proposal continues to fail to comply with the number of dwellings identified under policy SS11 when the applicant has previously suggested that the site can deliver policy requirements.
It does, however, appear that the housing mix includes a proportion of 4 bedroom properties that exceeds the Council’s policy requirement. If the number of 4 bedroom properties were to be reduced then it should allow for the density of development to increase and therefore secure an increase in the overall number of dwellings.
Indicative Masterplan
We note that the Indicative Masterplan now suggests a “LAP” is to be located to the north east side and south east corners of Haxby Cemetery. To place children’s play grounds that generate a certain character of noise in such close proximity to where funerals are conducted and those wishing to pay respects to the deceased in quiet contemplation is, in short, insensitive. The lack of respect is galling. We kindly ask that the proposal is updated to remove the conflict in land uses by moving the children’s play areas further away from the existing cemetery.
Cemetery
Policy SS11 sets out how development must include the creation of new open space to the south of the site which reflects the needs of the Haxby and Wigginton Ward that may include cemeteries. Reference to cemeteries within the adopted planning policy is on the basis that City of York Council and the Planning Inspectorate recognised that an extension to the existing cemetery is necessary to meet the future needs of the community, and we have made clear in previous comments that the extension needs to measure approximately 2.47 hectares.
We understand the Environment Agency has sought further information as to whether there is a chance for groundwater to be affected by burials. The applicant has, however, made no effort to establish whether groundwater conditions would prevent burials or if burials are possible on land that is adjacent to an existing burial and. As far as we are aware, no survey work has been undertaken to establish groundwater conditions with specific reference to extending the existing cemetery.
The latest drainage strategy includes a percolation test that involved trail pit testing to the north west of the existing cemetery, but the survey did not include land to the north east or east, or along any stretch of the site boundary. The survey also does not mention policy requirement development providing for a cemetery or whether groundwater conditions are suitable for burials, as the matter has simply not been addressed within the drainage strategy.
However, the drainage strategy does explain how ground water was found to be at a depth of 2.5m. With reference to Environment Agency requirements in respect of protecting groundwater from human burials, it is understood it is necessary to maintain a minimum of 1m clearance between the base of a grave and the top of the water table. As graves are usually dug to a depth of 1.35m, then it appears possible to satisfy the Environment Agency’s minimum of 1m given there should be 1.15m between the groundwater depth and the bottom of the coffin. This is based on existing ground conditions. Consequently, a cemetery extension appears to be possible on a practical basis and so it is unclear why the application fails to address identified development requirements for the local community that are explicitly listed in the statutory development plan.
Our previous comments have, however, made clear that if the ground conditions prove challenging then there is no reason why the extension cannot be to accommodate the internment of ashes in structures above ground, along with a Memorial Garden. This approach would still provide additional capacity and would therefore address future community need.
Given the information supporting the application suggests the principle of a cemetery is feasible then we implore City of York Council to ensure the application scheme is policy complaint. The applicant has offered no evidence or justification to date as to why an extension to the existing cemetery is not possible, and so no material considerations indicate that the application scheme can be an exception to the adopted Local Plan policy SS11. On this basis, an extension measuring 2.47ha should be secured for burials or else the internment of ashes within a memorial garden.
Community Services and Facilities
The description of development still does not refer to “shops, services and facilities” which are requirements listed under policy SS11. This is a point we have raised in previous comments, and we now understand the Council’s Planning Policy Team have raised the same concern. If the development is truly to satisfy the needs of the community for services and facilities then the applicant needs to provide an audit of existing community facilities; the current capacity of existing community facilities; and identify any shortfall. If a shortfall is identified then provision must be delivered on-site in order to avoid unacceptable impacts arising.
One of the fundamental aims of the planning system is to create well-designed and attractive places that meet the needs of communities. At this moment in time, the application scheme fails to address the needs of the community that will potentially arise as a result of development. This is simply unacceptable within the context of the aims of creating sustainable development and is contrary to policy SS11.
Due consideration must be given to the development being served by buses and with an according through route.
In Conclusion
Since first submission, the proposal has been chipped away at but what is more concerning is how the proposal continues to ignore policy requirements. The latest version now appears to no longer provide a primary school, there are no details of built sports facilities, and areas of open space are smaller than policy require. The application is also missing supporting information in relation to whether existing community facilities and services need to be bolstered to accommodate the new community and an assessment to demonstrate why an extension to Haxby cemetery has been ignored. Consequently, the proposal is likely to give rise to adverse impacts because the needs of the community will not be met.
Having reviewed the submitted application, it is clear that it will not secure the nature or amount of development required by policy SS11 of the statutory development plan. Furthermore, no justification has been provided as to why the allocated site cannot deliver development in accordance with the statutory development plan. For this reason, the local planning authority is directed by paragraphs 11 and 48 of the NPPF to refuse permission without delay.
Published: 13/05/2025 Published by: Haxby Town Council
Return to News Page.