North Yorkshire Council
Selby and Ainsty Area Planning Committee
Minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday, 20 November 2024 commencing at 2.00 pm.
Councillor John Cattanach in the Chair plus Councillors Bob Packham, Karl Arthur, Cliff Lunn, Arnold Warneken, Stephanie Duckett (as substitute for steve Shaw-Wright); and Andy Paraskos (as substitute for Mike Jordan).
Officers present: Glenn Sharp - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Environment, Nick Turpin – Development Service Manager, Martin Evans – Principal Planning Officer, Diane Holgate – Principal Planning Officer, Yvonne Naylor – Principal Planning Officer, Victoria Day – Senior Transport and Development Engineer (observing), James Welsh - Transport and Development Engineer, Julie Turner – Senior Engineer (observing), Gerry Walsh – Principal Planning Officer; and Dawn Drury – Democratic Services Officer
Apologies: Mike Jordan and Steve Shaw-Wright.
|
Copies of all documents considered are in the Minute Book
|
|
36 |
Apologies for Absence
Apologies noted (see above).
|
|
37 |
Minutes for the Meeting held on 9 October 2024
The minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 9 October 2024 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.
|
|
38 |
Declarations of Interests
Councillor Andy Paraskos declared a non-pecuniary interest in item number 7 of the agenda as he was the Division Member for Spofforth with Lower Wharfedale & Tockwith. He confirmed that he would not take part in the meeting during consideration of the item, however he would be speaking on the application as a public speaker, and then he would leave the room for the delibarations and the vote on the item.
Councillor Bob Packham declared a non-pecuniary interest in item number 6 of the agenda as in his position as the Division Member for Sherburn in Elmet he had been heavily lobbied on the application. He confirmed that he had not expressed an opinion on the outcome of the application, and was keeping an open mind, and that he would speak and vote on the item.
Councillor Cliff Lunn declared a non-pecuniary interest in item number 5 of the agenda as in his position as the Division Member for Thorpe Willoughby & Hambleton he had taken part in discussions on the application. Therefore he confirmed that he would be leaving the meeting during consideration of the item.
The Chair confirmed that an officer update note had been circulated and added to the North Yorkshire Council website. Planning Applications
The Committee considered reports of the Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services relating to applications for planning permission. During the meeting, officers referred to additional information and representations which had been received.
Except where an alternative condition was contained in the report or an amendment made by the Committee, the conditions as set out in the report and the appropriate time limit conditions were to be attached in accordance with the relevant provisions of Section 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
In considering the reports of the Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services, regard had been paid to the policies of the relevant development plan, the National Planning Policy Framework and all other material planning considerations. Where the Committee refused planning permission the reasons for that decision are as shown in the report or as set out below.
Where the Committee granted planning permission in accordance with the recommendation in a report this was because the proposal was in accordance with the development plan, the National Planning Policy Framework or other material considerations as set out in the report unless otherwise specified below.
|
|
39 |
ZG2023/0732/OUTM - Broadacres, Mill Lane, Carlton
Considered:-
The Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services sought to resolve the position the Council would take at an upcoming appeal against non-determination of an application for outline planning for development for up to 200 residential dwellings with access to, but not within, the site (all other matters reserved) at land east of Broadacres, Mill Lane, Carlton, North Yorkshire.
The Principal Planning Officer highlighted that there was an officer update on the application since the agenda had been published in relation to an amendment to the officer recommendation contained within the original report.
Members were advised that the application proposed 10% affordable housing, while the appeal documentation included the appellants viability appraisal that considered 13% affordable housing was viable. As a result of this, and since the original recommendation had been drafted, Align Property Partners had been instructed by the Council to review the viability appraisal, and they had concluded that the scheme generated a surplus sufficient to increase the affordable housing percentage. Their report had outlined a surplus of between £3.88m and £4.87m, depending on the profit level adopted, to be utilised for affordable housing. Therefore, Align recommended, in relation to the amount of affordable housing, that a revised assessment take place to determine the additional affordable housing that could be delivered using the identified surplus. It further recommended that given the fluid nature of market conditions, a detailed viability assessment should be conducted at the full application/reserved matters stage to account for any shifts in costs or revenues.
In view of this new information the officer’s recommendation to planning committee had changed to conclude that planning permission would have been refused because the 10% affordable housing proposed was below that which could viably be delivered by the proposal, contrary to Policy SP9 of the Core Strategy and Policy Carl-G of the Selby Local Plan Revised Publication 2024; but that if between the planning committee decision and appeal hearing the appellant increased the affordable housing percentage in line with the recommendations of officers and secured this via legal agreement, the planning authority would not contest this matter at appeal. In this event, officers would seek to secure the s106 matters and conditions detailed in the report, with an additional s106 requirement that subsequent reserved matters applications included a viability appraisal for agreement by the planning authority to determine the final affordable housing percentage.
Members noted that the date scheduled for the planning application appeal to be heard by the Planning Inspectorate was 22 January 2025.
Mark Johnson spoke on behalf of the applicant, in support of the application.
During consideration of the above application, the Committee discussed the following issues:-
· Members queried which area of adjacent housing had been used to assess the density of the site on the indicative layout. · It was queried if, in the emerging Local Plan, the figure for affordable housing was given as 10%, and if so, was this figure negotiable. · Were the planning authority to challenge the application before the Planning Inspectorate on the percentage of affordable housing would this mean that the planning authority would not put forward a submission for conditions on the application, and would it preclude the planning officers and the applicant holding discussions on affordable housing prior to the appeal hearing.
The decision:-
That planning permission be REFUSED.
Reason:-
The Committee agreed with the reasons for refusal put forward by the Principal Planning Officer as detailed above, and in the officer update note.
Voting record:-
A vote was taken, and the motion was carried unanimously.
As per his earlier declaration, Councillor Lunn left the meeting at this point.
|
|
40 |
2022/0665/OUTM - Manor Farm, Chapel Street, Hambleton, Selby
Considered:-
The Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services sought to resolve the position the Council would take at an upcoming appeal against non-determination of an application outline permission with all matters reserved except for means of access to, but not within, the site for the development of up to 156 dwellings and associated landscaping and infrastructure works at land at Manor Farm, Chapel Street, Hambleton, Selby.
The Principal Planning Officer highlighted that there was an officer update on the application since the agenda had been published in relation to an amendment to the officer recommendation contained within the original report.
Members were advised that the application proposed 10% affordable housing, while the appeal documentation included the appellants viability appraisal that considered that more affordable housing was viable. As a result of this, and since the original recommendation had been drafted, Align Property Partners had been instructed to review the viability appraisal, and they had concluded that the scheme generated a surplus sufficient to increase the affordable housing percentage. Their report outlined a surplus of between £2.72m and £3.52m, depending on the profit level adopted, to be utilised for affordable housing. Therefore, Align recommended, in relation to the amount of affordable housing that a revised assessment take place to determine the additional affordable housing that could be delivered using the identified surplus. It further recommended that given the fluid nature of market conditions, a detailed viability assessment should be conducted at the full application/reserved matters stage to account for any shifts in costs or revenues.
In view of this new information the officer’s recommendation to planning committee had changed to conclude that planning permission would have been refused because the 10% affordable housing proposed was below that which could viably be delivered by the proposal, contrary to Policy SP9 of the Core Strategy and Policy HAMB-A of the Selby Local Plan Revised Publication 2024; but that if between the planning committee decision and appeal hearing the appellant increased the affordable housing percentage in line with the recommendations of officers and secured this via legal agreement, the planning authority would not contest this matter at appeal. In this event, officers would seek to secure the s106 matters and conditions detailed in the report, with an additional s106 requirement that subsequent reserved matters applications included a viability appraisal for agreement by the planning authority to determine the final affordable housing percentage.
Members noted that the date scheduled for the planning application appeal to be heard by the Planning Inspectorate was 27 November 2024.
Maria Ferris spoke on behalf of Hambleton Parish Council, objecting to the application.
Mark Johnson spoke on behalf of the applicant, in support of the application.
During consideration of the above application, the Committee discussed the following issues:-
The decision:-
That planning permission be REFUSED.
Reason:-
The Committee agreed with the reasons for refusal put forward by the Principal Planning Officer as detailed above, and in the officer update note.
Voting record:-
A vote was taken, and the motion was carried unanimously.
Councillor Lunn returned to the meeting.
|
|
41 |
2022/1236/FULM - Land west of Garden Lane, Sherburn in Elmet
The Assistant Director Planning, Community Development Services sought determination of a full planning application for the development of 66 dwellings with associated landscaping and highways and demolition and off-site highways works at land at Garden Lane, Sherburn in Elmet. The proposal was that all the dwellings would be provided as affordable units either as affordable rent, shared ownership or rent to buy for those with local connections.
The Principal Planning Officer advised Members that there was an officer update note on the application, and highlighted that additional comments had been received by the Council which raised concerns relating to highways impacts and infrastructure constraints, both of which had been addressed in the officers report within the agenda pack.
The officer update note also clarified the three types of affordable housing provision within the development along with the letting criteria which occupiers would have to meet in order to be eligible to seek one of the properties.
A site visit had been attended by Members on the 11 March 2024, with the application going to Committee on the 13 March 2024. The application had been deferred at that time to allow officers to consider the changed position on the payment of contributions by the applicants relating to education and healthcare, and for further discussions to take place with North Yorkshire Highways to seek clarity.
Alex Tant-Brown spoke on behalf of Sherburn in Elmet Town Council, objecting to the application.
Paul Butler spoke on behalf of the applicant, in support of the application.
During consideration of the above application, the Committee discussed the following issues:-
A Member raised serious concerns regarding the application and explained that Sherburn in Elmet had experienced a significant level of growth over recent years with the Local Plan stating that the level of services within the town had failed to keep pace with the population and housing growth. It was further highlighted that:-
· The application was on part of safeguarded land which would only utilise a small part of the land, this could potentially compromise future development on the site. · The site had been considered as part of the emerging Local Plan allocation but was discounted, therefore it was contrary to both the adopted Local Plan and the emerging Local Plan. · Safeguarded land should not be developed other than through a Local Plan. · There had been similar applications for the site that had been submitted and refused on appeal, for a smaller number of houses. · Affordable Housing should be integrated throughout a housing site, and 50% to 70% of Affordable Housing on a housing site should be social rented housing. · In terms of highways, the previous application that went to appeal had originally been for 66 houses that was then reduced to 27 houses, as the Councils Highways Team had objected on the grounds that Garden Lane was inadequate for that level of houses. The current application was for 66 houses and no objections had been raised by Highways. · It was a primary access for the school children who attend Sherburn High School, therefore there were highway safety concerns.
Finally, the Member stated that in his view the application should be refused for the same reasons given by the Planning Inspectorate at the appeal hearing held in February 2021.
Councillor Packham proposed and Councillor Warneken seconded that, contrary to the officer recommendation, the application be refused.
The decision:
That the application be REFUSED due to the following material considerations and the noted reasons:
· The release of part of this Safeguarded Land site conflicted with Selby District Local Plan (2005) Policy SL1 (Safeguarded Land), Core Strategy (2013) Policy SP1 and SP2 and the approach of the NPPF. No material considerations had been provided of sufficient weight to outweigh the harm in terms of the spatial strategy for the location of development within the District or to support the release of the site at this time. As such, the scheme was considered to be contrary to Selby District Local Plan (2005) Policy SL1 (Safeguarded Land); Core Strategy (2013) Policy SP1 and SP2 and thus contrary to the Development Plan.
· The development of this site would have a negative impact on the infrastructure capacity of Sherburn in Elmet and the scheme was contrary to Policy ENV1(3) and Policy CS6 of the Selby District Local Plan (2005) despite the developers acceptance of the requested contributions. The growth of the settlement should be defined through the review of the development plan and this site was not proposed to be an allocation in the Selby Local Plan – Revised Publication 2024.
· The proposed development would increase traffic flows on Garden Lane including at the junction with Church Hill and Tomlinson Way. Any increase in traffic on Garden Lane was unacceptable and would result in conflict with other users including pedestrians. The scheme was therefore contrary to Policy ENV1 (2) , Policy T1 and Policy T2 of the Selby Local Plan (2005).
Voting record:
A vote was taken, and the motion was carried with 6 votes for, and 1 against.
Councillor Paraskos moved to the public gallery at this point in the meeting.
|
|
42 |
ZC24/01119/FUL - Low Lane Farm, High Street, Spofforth, North Yorkshire
Considered:-
The Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application for the development of 4no. dwellings following the demolition of existing buildings on land at Low Lane Farm, High Street, Spofforth, North Yorkshire.
The Principal Planning Officer presented the application and advised Members that one additional representation had been received by the Council in relation to the loss of the barn on plot one which would cause substantial harm to the conservation area, the plans did not reflect the existing Streetscene and would be harmful to the character of the area, that the existing stone should be reused, and it would have a harmful impact on views from the church which was classed as an important view in the conservation area appraisal.
David Moor spoke, objecting to the application.
The Division Councillor, Andy Paraskos, spoke objecting to the application, and then left the room for the remainder of the meeting.
Stephen Harris spoke on behalf of the applicant, in support of the application.
During consideration of the above application, the Committee discussed the following issues:-
The decision:-
That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions listed at section 12 of the Committee report.
Voting record:-
A vote was taken, and the motion was carried unanimously.
|
|
43 |
Any other items
There were no other items of business.
|
|
44 |
Date of Next Meeting
Wednesday 11 December 2024 at 2.00 pm.
|
The meeting concluded at 4.12 pm.