Housing development refused in order to protect SSSI

In November 2018, a planning application was submitted to the City of York for the development of 516 residential units, a local centre, sports pavilion, along with ecological protection and enhancement zones and vehicular access arrangements. The application also requested the demolition of existing buildings and structures.

When the application was rejected, the applicants submitted an appeal which the Secretary of State recovered so that they would deal with it. The planning inspector recommended that the appeal was dismissed.

The reason being, the proposed development site was next to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), the Askham Bog. Such sites are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Bog is part of the ancient fenlands of Yorkshire, located on the site of an ancient lake created by glaciers 15,000 years ago. Whilst the developer had proposed an ecological protection zone between the proposed housing and the SSSI, opposition to the development was high, attracting criticism from the public, MPs, Yorkshire wildlife and civic trusts and even Sir David Attenborough.

As a result, the planning inspector had recommended that the application was refused due to the fact that the benefits of the proposal did not outweigh the potential loss or deterioration of the habitat.

Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick agreed that there were concerns with the proposal, including:

• landscape harm due to the proposed ecological protection and enhancement zone;
• concern that attenuation ponds proposed as part of a sustainable urban drainage scheme could harm the bog by reducing the amount of nutrients reaching its water supply;
• the fact the scheme was considered inappropriate green belt development.

However, some positive aspects were also noted, including:

• for various reasons, the proposed development would have little impact on groundwater flow;
• the development would contribute to York's housing levels, addressing it's housing crisis;
• a possible biodiversity net gain of 80%;
• a provision of affordable housing and open space.

When it comes to planning decisions though, a real balance must be considered. If the potential harm of a development ultimately outweighs the potential benefits, then that is a problem in planning terms. And in this case, given the importance and sensitivity of the site, it was concluded that the potential harm did outweigh the benefits and that there was no justification for harming the green belt.

The appeal was therefore dismissed.