Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Allowed12 February 20263371863

Highfield Meadows, Land East of Rainbow Lane, Peasey Hills Malton, YO17 7AF

Authority
North Yorkshire Council
Appeal type
major · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Inquiry
Development
residential · Major dwellings
Inspector
Rose D

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area having particular regard to its designation as a 'Visually Important Undeveloped Area' between the settlements of Malton and Old Malton.
  • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of Old Malton Conservation Area.
  • Whether it has been demonstrated that flood risk downstream from the site, resulting from additional surface water volumes entering a river locked system, can be adequately mitigated.
  • Whether, and by what means, it is necessary to secure an emergency access to the site from Westgate Lane; and whether a financial contribution towards upgrading the Cherry Avenue bus stop is justified.
  • As the policies which are most important for determining the application are agreed to be out-of-date, would the adverse effects of granting planning permission significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

What decided it

The severe shortfall in the Council's 5-year housing land supply (0.8 years) engaged the tilted balance, and the very substantial weight attributable to market and affordable housing delivery was not significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the limited landscape, heritage and other harms identified.

The adverse impacts (limited harm to the VIUA and rural character, and conflict with the settlement boundary Policy SP1) did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the substantial benefits (housing and affordable housing delivery, economic benefits, design quality, biodiversity net gain and flood risk betterment), so the presumption in favour of sustainable development applied and the appeal was allowed.

Framework references: 11, 115, 181, 182

Plan policies cited: Policy SP1, Policy SP2, Policy SP3, Policy SP4, Policy SP11, Policy SP12, Policy SP16, Policy SP17, Policy SP19, Policy SP20, Policy SP22, Policy SD16, Policy TM6, Policy E7

The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.