Caddick Outline Planning Permission for 85 houses south of Mains Lane.

The new deadline for submission is 29 August 2026. Please feel free to use as many of these points that you wish or re-edit into your own style.

General Point

The proposal represents development outside the defined settlement boundary and conflicts with the adopted Development Plan. While the benefits of housing delivery are acknowledged, they do not clearly outweigh the policy conflict and the cumulative impacts identified. The scheme relies on a complex and interdependent mitigation framework, the full delivery and long-term maintenance of which has not been demonstrated. When combined with unresolved concerns regarding infrastructure capacity, highway resilience, and cumulative growth, the Local Planning Authority should not be satisfied that the development represents sustainable development. Refusal is therefore recommended

Specific Issues

1. Fundamental Conflict with the existing Development Plan

• The site is outside defined development limits and not allocated for housing
• Therefore, the proposal is contrary to the adopted spatial strategy
• It is a speculative application to solve a county wide issue not present in Bishop Monkton
• Approval requires clear and compelling material considerations to outweigh this conflict — which has not been demonstrated

 2. Benefits Do Not Clearly Outweigh Harm (Planning Balance Failure)

• While housing and affordable housing provision are acknowledged, the combined impacts and risks outweigh the benefits
• The proposal fails the key test whether material considerations “clearly outweigh” policy conflict

 3. Over-Reliance on Unproven Mitigation

• The scheme depends on a complex, interdependent mitigation package
• This includes:
  • – Landscape buffers
  • – Drainage systems
  • – Biodiversity measures
  • – Heritage protection
  • – Highway design
• The core question is: Can all mitigation be delivered and maintained “in full, without material compromise”? The modelling for this is based on modelling for the already approved developments and not on solid existing data.

Conclusion: This has not been demonstrated

4. Cumulative Impact Not Adequately Addressed

• Development must be assessed in combination with existing and committed growth 23 new houses at church farm, 9 extra at church farm, 58 at Avant site and now 85 more. A total of 175 houses added to the existing 395, a 44% increase
• Combined effects include pressure on:
  • – Highways
  • – Drainage
  • – Utilities
  • – Schools and healthcare
• The proposal cannot be judged in isolation. Two major developments have already been approved for the village adding to the inevitable strain on all infrastructure. Bishop Monkton does not need another 85 houses.

 5. Highway Network Resilience Risk

• The village has a fragile rural road network
• 3 of 4 access routes are reduced to single track at critical points
• Risk is not just congestion, but Safety and Network failure during disruption (accidents, flooding, works)

Key point:

• Even if acceptable “in isolation”, the cumulative effect threatens resilience

 6. Foul Drainage Capacity Uncertain

• No confirmed capacity position at time of writing
• The village foul water drainage cannot cope now, before the Church Farm and Avant homes developments are built. This additional 85 houses will make it worse.
• Heavy reliance on future input from Yorkshire Water
  • – Infrastructure must be in place before development, not after occupation

 Key risk:

• Development could proceed without adequate infrastructure and make life intolerable for villagers

7. Site Constraints

• Large parts of the site are required for:
  • – Drainage
  • – Landscaping
  • – Ecology
  • – Heritage buffers
• This reduces the true developable area

Concern:

• Pressure to maintain 85 dwellings may lead to:
  • – Compromised mitigation
  • – Design dilution at Reserved Matters stage
  • – Increased density

 8. Harm to Village Edge and Landscape Character

• Site forms a sensitive transition between settlement and countryside
• Risk of:
  • – Urban encroachment
  • – Loss of rural character
• The transition is a defining feature of Bishop Monkton
• The development will produce an urban look to a rural village

9. Harm to Heritage Setting (The Old Vicarage)

• Development affects the setting of a non-designated heritage asset
• Key issue:
  • Loss of its rural landscape context
• Requires careful integration of layout, height, and landscaping

 Risk:

• Harm if mitigation is diluted at later stages

10. Biodiversity & Landscape Delivery Not Secured

• Biodiversity Net Gain depends on:
  • – Full delivery of landscape framework
• If layout changes:
  • – Ecological outcomes may fail

Key point:

• Mitigation is not optional — it is fundamental to acceptability