Sherburn: More than 50 homes approved for Yorkshire village despite concerns over GP surgery

Plans for 52 new homes in a North Yorkshire village have been approved despite warnings that the local GP surgery cannot cope with additional patients and concerns about pressure on infrastructure.

North Yorkshire Council’s Thirsk and Malton area planning committee granted outline permission for the development in Sherburn, near Malton, following a debate in which its chair admitted councillors were in an “unenviable position” because of Government housing targets.

The scheme, proposed by Cromsdale Estates and William Edward Cundall, involves building up to 52 homes on approximately 3.2 hectares of land adjacent to The Pastures, south of the A64.

Of the homes, 35 per cent would be affordable, equivalent to 18 properties if the maximum number is built.

However, the development has faced significant local opposition, with residents raising concerns about the capacity of healthcare services, schools, shops and public transport.

The Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board (ICB) warned that Sherburn and Rillington Practice, less than half a mile from the site, does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional population.

It estimated the development would generate around 125 residents and requested a developer contribution of £61,368 towards improving healthcare facilities.

The ICB said it would not object provided the contribution was secured.

Sherburn Parish Council also raised concerns about pressure on the village school, medical services and shops, as well as the lack of facilities for children and teenagers.

Of 53 representations received by the council, 40 objected to the scheme and 13 supported it. A petition opposing the development was also submitted.

Speaking at the committee meeting, objector Daley Wharton argued that the council’s housing land supply shortage should not automatically result in developments being approved.

He said: “The fact that the council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, triggering the so-called ‘tilted balance’, should not mean that the protection of villages and the countryside becomes meaningless, or that every housing proposal is ultimately approved.

“Objectors believe the harm caused to both existing and future residents of Sherburn by this development would far outweigh the benefits of approving it.”

However, land agent Richard Mowat, speaking in support of the application, said the development would provide much-needed family homes, including affordable housing.

He highlighted the shortage of available housing land in the former Ryedale district, where the council can demonstrate just 1.39 years of supply.

He said: “Sherburn is identified in the local plan as a local service centre and a focus for growth, with a range of local amenities, services and good transport connections to larger settlements.”

Planning officers acknowledged that the site lies outside the village’s existing development boundary but concluded that the benefits of providing additional housing outweighed the identified harm.

The council’s education authority concluded that no additional school funding was required, while highways officers raised no objection subject to conditions.

Committee chair Caroline Goodrick said the council’s failure to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply made it increasingly difficult to refuse housing applications.

She said: “We are in an unenviable position in North Yorkshire because we don’t have a five-year housing land supply.

“I know it feels very unfair, but that is where we are. Many villages are facing developments much larger than this, and we don’t have a choice because we have a housing target imposed on us by the Government, but simply don’t have the land supply to meet it.

“It is a significant imposition. We’re expected to deliver more than 4,150 homes a year, and we’re not yet getting anywhere near that figure.

“That makes it really difficult for the committee to refuse applications like this. It’s a very tricky position.”

Coun Goodrick praised planning officers for addressing the concerns raised during the application process.

She added: “I’m really reluctant to do this, but I am going to propose that we grant permission.”

The approval is for outline planning permission, with the access arrangements agreed but further details of the development still to be determined.

Permission is subject to planning conditions and a legal agreement securing developer contributions.