North Yorkshire Council
Community Development Services
Selby and Ainsty Area Planning Committee
12
March 2025
2023/0091/FUL - Erection of 2 No single storey detached buildings for clothing sorting and storage (part retrospective)
AT Riverside A, Low Street, Brotherton, Knottingley, West Yorkshire, WF11 9HQ
ON BEHALF OF THE CLOTHING BANK
Report of the Assistant Director - Planning – Community Development Services
|
1.0 Purpose of the Report 1.1 To determine a planning application for the erection of two single storey detached buildings to be used for clothing sorting and storage at Riverside A, Low Street, Brotherton. 1.2 The application is brought to Planning Committee because the Head of Planning considers this application to raise significant public interest such that it is in the public interest for the application to be considered by Planning Committee. |
2.0 SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be REFUSED for the reasons stated below in Section 12.
2.2 The proposal is for the erection of two single storey detached timber buildings to be used for the storage and sorting of clothing for a charity known as The Clothing Bank. The charity collects clothing by donations. Clothes are then sorted and packed into bundles for individuals and families in need of clothing. The timber buildings will be used for sorting and storing clothing ready for distribution and collection. The buildings would generate movements to and from the property, including from clothing drop offs, visitors and their volunteers.
2.3 The application is for two buildings, one of which is already on site and being used for its proposed purpose and one of which is yet to be erected.
2.4 The reason for bringing the application to Planning Committee is due to the significant public interest in the application. The Local Planning Authority have received 136 letters of support and 8 letters of objection.
2.5 The assessment of the application has deemed the principle of the development, highway impact, design, and minerals safeguarding aspects to be acceptable. The proposal also has community benefit. However, it is considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact upon neighbouring residential properties and is not complaint with flood risk policies. Therefore, the application is recommended for refusal.
3.0 Preliminary Matters
3.1. Access to the case file on Public Access can be found here: 2023/0091/FUL | Erection of 2 No single storey detached buildings for clothing sorting and storage (part retrospective) | Riverside A Low Street Brotherton Knottingley West Yorkshire WF11 9HQ
3.2 There is no relevant planning history.
4.0 Site and Surroundings
4.1 The application site is a garden behind two terraced houses known as Riverside A and B.
4.2 There is a pedestrian access to the land via an alleyway off Low Street, which passes underneath the terraced houses. This alleyway serves Riverside A and B only. There are residential properties and gardens alongside the north, south and west boundaries. A school is to the east. The land is enclosed by walls. There is no off street parking so volunteers and visitors park on Low Street, which is unrestricted for street parking outside of the application site. The site is within a residential area.
4.3 The site is within the development limits of Brotherton. The site is within flood zone 3.
5.0 Description of Proposal
5.1 This application seeks permission for the erection of two single storey detached timber buildings to be used for clothing sorting and storage. The dimensions are 3.75m x 10.4m and the height is 2.85m. One building has already been erected. Therefore, the application is part retrospective.
5.2 The buildings would be used in association with a charity known as The Clothing Bank. It is a charity established in Brotherton by the applicants. The charity collects unwanted clothing and donates it those in need. The re-use of clothing also reduces clothing waste. They rely on the community and a network of volunteers to collect and donate clothing, which is then brought to Brotherton for sorting and re-distribution. The two buildings would provide a clean sorting and storage area for the clothing. Further information can be found on their website at Home - The Clothing Bank.
6.0 Planning Policy and Guidance
6.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that all planning authorities must determine each application under the Planning Acts in accordance with Development Plan so far as material to the application unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Adopted Development Plan
6.2 The Adopted Development Plan for this site is:
- Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan (adopted 22nd October 2013)
6.3 Those policies in the Selby District Local Plan (adopted on 8 February 2005) which were saved by the direction of the Secretary of State and which have not been superseded by the Core Strategy
- Minerals and Waste Joint Plan (adopted 16 February 2022)
Emerging Development Plan – Material Consideration
6.4 The Emerging Development Plan for this site is:
- Selby District Council Local Plan publication version 2022 (Reg 19)
6.5 On 17 September 2019, Selby District Council agreed to prepare a new Local Plan. Consultation on issues and options took place early in 2020 and further consultation took place on preferred options and additional sites in 2021. The Pre-submission Publication Local Plan (under Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2012, as amended), including supporting documents, associated evidence base and background papers, was subject to formal consultation that ended on 28th October 2022. A further round of consultation on a revised Regulation 19 Publication Local Plan was undertaken in March 2024.
6.6 On 17th January 2025, a report was taken to the Selby and Ainsty Area Committee and Development Plans Committee recommending that work on the emerging Selby District Council Local Plan is ceased. This recommendation was taken to North Yorkshire Council's Executive on 4 February and then North Yorkshire Council's Full Council on 26 February and it was decided that work on this plan will now cease.
6.7 Having regard to the above, no weight is to be applied to the Selby District Council Local Plan publication version 2024 (Reg 19), but some weight may be able to given to the evidence base.
- The North Yorkshire Local Plan - no weight can be applied in respect of this document at the current time as it is at an early stage of preparation.
Guidance - Material Considerations
6.8 Relevant guidance for this application is:
- National Planning Policy Framework December 2024, as updated in February 2025 (NPPF)
- National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)
7.0 Consultation Responses
7.1 The following consultation responses have been received and have been summarised below.
7.2 Environment Agency: The amended flood risk is acceptable. No objections, subject to a condition for finished floor levels.
7.3 Parish Council: No response received.
7.4 Highways: No objections.
7.5 Yorkshire Water: No response received.
7.6 Internal Drainage Board: The application is outside the boards area. Therefore, no objections.
Local Representations
7.7 The application has been advertised by site notice. 136 letters of support and 8 letters of objection have been received.
7.8 There are a small number of letters of support from local residents but the majority are from supporters of the charity and do not live locally. The letters of objection are from two neighbouring properties and their visitors/friends/family.
7.9 Letters of support refer to the positive benefits of the charity, which is providing clothing to those in need, including to people in the local community. Supporters consider that the buildings will provide much needed all weather space and efficiency will improve. Some supporters have advised that they see no parking issues or any harm as a result of the siting and size of the containers.
7.10 The reasons for objection are because of parking on Low Street, clothing bags being dropped off on the pavement and the additional movements to and from the property. Should the application be granted, objectors have asked that conditions are included which include signage, controls over visitor times and limitations on the number of drop offs.
8.0 Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
9.0 Main Issues
9.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this application are:
- Principle of the development
- Effect upon residential amenity
- Highway impact
- Flood risk
- Design and impact upon the character of the area
- Minerals and safeguarding
- Biodiversity net gain
10.0 ASSESSMENT
Principle of the Development
10.1 Policy SP1 of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan ('The Core Strategy') seeks a positive approach to the consideration of development proposals that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development established in Paragraph 11 of the NPPF and secures development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area.
10.2 Policy SP2 of The Core Strategy seeks to guide development in this regard by adopting a hierarchical spatial development strategy, which directs most development to towns and more sustainable villages. Part A(a) of Policy SP2 states that Brotherton is a Designated Service Village and has linked facilities with the village of Byram. Within Designated Service Villages, Policy SP2 states that there is scope small-scale employment growth to support rural sustainability.
10.3 Chapter 8 of the NPPF is also relevant. This chapter states that decisions should be positive towards community facilities that enable and support healthy lives, especially where this would address identified local health and well-being needs.
10.4 The buildings are linked to the operations of a charity. Whilst they would not be used for employment purposes, the activities are similar to a B8 use, being for the purposes of storage and distribution. The purpose of the buildings is to assist with distributing clothing to those in need. Therefore, the proposal is not deemed to conflict with the spatial development strategy of the District or Policy SP2 and it would support the aims of the NPPF, which includes providing facilities to support the wellbeing of individuals.
Effect Upon Residential Amenity
10.5 Policy ENV1 (part 1) of the Local Plan advises proposals should take account of the effect upon the amenity of adjoining occupiers. Policy ENV2 A) of the Local Plan states that proposals for development which would give rise to, or would be affected by, unacceptable levels of noise, nuisance are not permitted unless there are preventative measures in place.
10.6 The two buildings are modest sized structures, measuring 3m to the eaves. The buildings are proposed to be sited to the south and southwest of the site, which is alongside neighbouring properties. Given their height, no adverse dominance or overshadowing impacts are identified. There have been no objections from the neighbours in relation to the siting and scale of the buildings.
10.7 The application has generated objections from occupiers of two properties directly to the north (1 & 2 Lilac Cottages). Reasons for objecting include disturbance from the additional movements to and from the property.
10.8 The charity is already operating from the site. Currently, one building is on the site and in use.
10.9 The Clothing Bank has two sites in Brotherton. One is at Riverside A which is where one of the co-founders of the charity lives. The second site is an unmanned storage site, at the Jolly Sailor Yard, located a short distance from the application site on the west side of Low Street. The Jolly Sailor Yard is a site which was granted consent in 2022 to site 60 shipping containers for storage use. The charity rents seven of the shipping containers and also has a charity bin on this land.
10.10 The Clothing Bank relies on donations of clothing from members of the public. Items that are in good condition are sorted into sizes and bundled together as clothing packages for people in need. Unsuitable items are stored at The Jolly Sailor Yard and sent for weighing in.
10.11 The Clothing Bank Facebook page states that they helped 9000 people last year, which is assisted by the existing sorting building on site. Should planning permission be granted, a second building would be brought onto site to double the clean storage area floorspace and it will assist in helping an estimated further 5000 persons.
10.12 According to their website, The Clothing Bank has over 120 drop off points managed by volunteers. Most drop off points are located within the Yorkshire region but now go as far as Nottingham, Liverpool and Newcastle. All of the collected clothes are brought to Brotherton. The Clothing Bank drop off policy for volunteers is to contact The Clothing Bank to book an hourly slot to drop at Brotherton, which can either be to Jolly Sailor Yard or Riverside A. They allow for drop off’s between 8am and 5pm on four days a week and 9am to 4pm on Saturdays. Their drop off policy also states that if the collected bags are too large and it is lunchtime, they can be left in the passageway at Riverside A. There are two volunteers at Brotherton who manage the deliveries, sorting and distribution, which includes one of the occupiers of Riverside A.
10.13 Other members of the public are encouraged to drop off at the clothing bin at Jolly Sailor Yard. However, the charity also accepts clothing donations being brought to Riverside A directly on an appointment only basis as some donators wish to see the end use for their donated clothing. Overall, The Clothing Bank states that clothing drop offs to Riverside A equates to a maximum of 9 visiting vehicles per day across 5 days but it is likely to be less in reality as not every slot is always booked.
10.14 As clothing is dropped off at both Riverside A and Jolly Sailor Yard, the applicants make shuttle trips between the shipping container site and the storage buildings at Riverside A to bring clothing back and forth to be sorted. The applicants advise that these shuttle trips are on average 1 or 2 per day.
10.15 The third stage of the process is distribution. Once clothing is sorted at Riverside A, it is distributed for collection, which involves periodic visits to their local postal shop. The charity also advises that they have about 3 visitors per week to choose a clothing bundle or from organisations. The charity does not have specific times for visitors. Some visits are said to be ‘out of hours’ from organisations such as schools and the police who urgently need clothing bundles.
10.16 Based on the above, the total number of movements in a day for the charity at Riverside A is approximately 14, predominantly during daytime hours and weekdays.
10.17 It was suggested to the applicants that they keep a weekly diary of comings and goings from Riverside A. This has been done by the applicants over a two week period. The results are that the movements inevitably varied day to day but it averaged 7.5 trips per day over 5 days. Two days were closed. The highest number of movements in one day was 14. This is in addition to the normal movements associated with a family living in a property.
10.18 Neighbour objection letters are from 1 & 2 Lilac Cottages, which is a pair of semi-detached houses immediately to the north. The objectors have not submitted their own record of movements to counteract the applicant’s submission. However, they describe the comings and goings as ‘constant’. Other issues experienced by the objectors is the noise from bins when loading and unloading, clothing bags being left outside their property, disturbance from visits at unsociable hours and people knocking on their door due to no clear directional signage.
10.19 Objectors have suggested that if the proposal is recommended for approval, conditions to control the movements to and from the property should be imposed. The suggested conditions by objectors are a restriction on operating times, limiting the number of drop offs and signage. Officers have given consideration to the use of conditions to allow the application to be granted. However, it is considered that the applicants would be unable to adhere to the conditions and they would be difficult to enforce. It is confirmed by paragraph 57 of the NPPF that if conditions are not enforceable, they should not be imposed.
10.20 If the site was an employment unit or shop, it would have regular opening and closing times. However, with this being a residential property, there would usually be someone present out of hours. It is therefore difficult for the applicants to enforce strict opening and closing times and prevent people knocking at their door or turn away persons, given the work they do. The applicants also acknowledge that they do allow for visits out of hours where a person or organisation is in desperate need of a clothing bundle, which is advised to be a limited number of visits per week. Furthermore, some donators drop off their clothing bundles at Riverside A, even if there is nobody at the site. It would therefore be outside the control of The Clothing Bank to comply with a condition that prevents all visitors outside of hours and by appointment only. The applicants verbally confirmed that they could not accept a signage condition as it is unlikely to be agreed to by all of their family members.
10.21 Based on the submitted information and the details contained in the objection letters, it is considered that proposed buildings would create movements to and from the property that is regular and distinctly greater than the movements associated with a residential property, which would create noise and disturbance. Further, the existing movements are based on one building on site. A second building will allow for further growth of the charity and likely to create more comings and goings than present. It is considered that the scheme would have an adverse impact on residential amenity and does not comply with Policies ENV1(1) and ENV2 A) of the Selby District Local Plan.
Highway Impact
10.22 Policies in relation to parking and management and safety of the highway are Core Strategy Policies SP15 and SP19, Local Plan Policies ENV1, T1, T2 and Chapter 9 of the NPPF. These policies require consideration for highway and pedestrian safety and accessibility. Paragraph 116 of the NPPF states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
10.23 Due to drop offs for clothes and shuttle trips between the two sites, the two buildings will generate traffic movements in addition to that associated with the residential property. The site has no off street parking so visitors are reliant on street parking on Low Street. There would be regular visitors through the day staying for short periods of time. Whilst the proposal would generate increased traffic and increase on street parking, vehicles could park safely on Low Street for the short time they are at the site.
10.24 Objections have expressed pedestrian and highway safety concerns when persons drop off their bags onto the pavement, which blocks the pavement. However, this is an issue which is carried out by members of the public on land outside of the application site.
10.25 The North Yorkshire Highways Team have raised no objections on the basis that the drop offs are for short periods of time and on street parking is available. Although should planning consent be granted, the Highways Team have recommended for a sign to be installed, to encourage donators to not leave clothing bags on the pavement.
10.25 A neighbour has advised that visitors of The Clothing Bank are parking across their driveways. This is a matter that cannot be controlled by the Local Planning Authority and falls outside the scope of the material planning considerations of this application.
10.26 Therefore, the scheme is not expected to create an unacceptable pedestrian or highway safety issues and is compliant with Chapter 9 of the NPPF and highway safety policy contained in Core Strategy Policies SP15 and SP19 and Local Plan Policies ENV1, T1 and T2.
Flood Risk
10.27 The application site is within flood zone 3, which is defined as being highly vulnerable to flooding. In accordance with the NPPF, the proposed buildings are defined as inappropriate development in a flood zone and should be steered to an area that is less vulnerable to flooding. A sequential and exceptions test is used to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding. Policy SP15 (A)(d) of the Core Strategy sets out similar flooding policy requirements. If the sequential test and exceptions test (where relevant) are passed, the NPPF confirms that applications should be supported by a site-specific flood-risk assessment. Development should only be allowed in areas at risk of flooding where, in the light of this assessment (and the sequential and exception tests, as applicable) it can be demonstrated that the requirements of paragraph 181 of the NPPF are met.
10.28 NPPF para 174 states 'The aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding'.
10.29 Planning practice guidance provides further information on how to apply the sequential test. The guidance states that the area to apply the test will be defined by local circumstances relating to the catchment area for the type of development proposed and it should look for sites which are reasonably available. Other considerations include the status of the development plan, size/capacity and flood risk.
10.30 The clothing charity was founded by the applicants including one who lives at Riverside A. The applicants have a clothing bin and seven shipping containers at Jolly Sailor Yard for clothing storage and the day to day running of the charity is operated by volunteers who live in Brotherton. Therefore, there is logistical benefits to any new buildings staying within Brotherton. However, the charity has donation points across Yorkshire and other regions and they provide for needs irrespective of geographical boundaries, which demonstrates a catchment area for the people they help beyond the limits of Brotherton and surrounding areas.
10.31 The submitted sequential test had a search area restricted to Brotherton and the neighbouring village of Byram. No available properties were identified.
10.32 It may be that there are sites further beyond the two villages which could still be within suitable reach for their volunteers and their network of local organisations.
The Jolly Sailor Yard could be a potential alternative site as well and it is at lesser risk of flooding (flood zone 2). Whilst the suitability of the two buildings on The Jolly Sailor Yard would need to be formally tested by a planning application and it would be subject to the agreement of the owner to allow the development to go ahead, it is considered that this could be explored as a potential alternative site.
10.33 In the absence of further information to demonstrate why a clothing sorting and storage building could not be on a site further from Brotherton or Byram, the sequential test is not considered to be passed.
10.34 The proposal is for a less vulnerable use in flood zone 3 and exempt from an exceptions test.
10.35 Following the application of the sequential and exceptions test, the NPPF states that a development should still meet the requirements for a site-specific flood risk assessment and demonstrate that the proposal meets the criteria set out in paragraph 181 of the NPPF. These criteria relate to finding an area at the lowest risk of flooding, resilience, residual risk, drainage and evacuation. Given that the sequential test is not passed, there is no requirement to go onto consider whether the flood risk assessment is suitable. However, for completeness, an assessment is set out below.
10.36 The whole of the site is within flood zone 3 so the buildings could not be relocated to an area on the site that is less vulnerable to flooding. The FRA states that the land is 10.8mAOD and the floor level of the existing clothing building is approximately 0.37m above the garden area. The building rests on small concrete posts, and there is a clear void below the floor of the building. It is proposed to construct a similar building along the southern boundary of the site. The buildings would have a lifespan of 10-20 years.
10.37 The FRA has identified that a floor level of 11.2AOD would be sufficient to protect the buildings from flooding. The EA raise no objections, subject to a condition for floor levels. The buildings have a void underneath, which will prevent flood risk being increased elsewhere. The FRA has also addressed safety. One matter which is not addressed is flood resilience. The floor level will prevent the effects of flooding but flood resilience measures are still recommended. The adoption of flood resilience measures should be an informative on the decision notice.
10.38 In conclusion, the sequential test does not demonstrate that there are no other available sites at lesser risk of flooding. Whilst the exceptions test is not relevant and the revised FRA addresses the risks of flooding, the scheme would not be compliant with the NPPF and Core Strategy Policy SP15 in respect of the sequential test.
Design and Impact Upon the Character of the Area
10.39 The NPPF, particularly paragraph 135 states that amongst other criteria, developments should add to the overall quality of an area, be visually attractive, sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting whilst not preventing or discouraging innovation or change.
10.40 Local Policy ENV1 (parts 1 and 4) and Policies SP4, SP18 and SP19 of the Core Strategy seek to ensure developments safeguard and, where possible, enhance the historic and natural environment including the landscape character. Developments should have a layout and a high quality design that has regard to the local character, identity and context of its surroundings including historic townscapes, settlement patterns and the open countryside.
10.41 The proposed outbuildings can only be seen from neighbouring gardens and the school grounds to the east. The proposed buildings are small scale buildings on garden land and constructed from timber. The external appearance and scale of the two buildings would be similar to a domestic outbuilding. As such the buildings are considered to be appropriate in their design and would not look out of place.
10.42 Therefore, the proposed design is compliant with paragraph 135 of the NPPF and the design policies set out in Local Plan Policy ENV1 and Policies SP4, SP18 and SP19 of The Core Strategy.
Minerals and Safeguarding
10.43 The scheme is for two buildings within the garden of a residential property. Paragraph 8.55 of the MWJP lists developments that do not require consideration under relevant safeguarding policies in the Plan. This includes householder developments in the curtilage of a property. Whilst the proposal is not strictly a householder development, it is within the curtilage of a property and is considered to be exempt from safeguarding policies on this basis. Furthermore, the site would not be suitable for minerals extraction being a residential garden in a built up area.
10.44 The site is within a coal mining reporting area (low risk). A coal mining assessment would not be required.
Biodiversity Net Gain
10.45 The application was submitted prior to 12 February 2024 and is therefore not subject to statutory biodiversity net gain.
11.0 PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
11.1 Based on the information submitted and taking into account the objections received, it is considered that the proposed buildings would create regular comings and goings that is distinctly greater than the movements of a residential property. The comings and goings and other associated impacts would be to the detriment of the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers. The issues include the general noise and disturbance from cars and visitors arriving and leaving the site on a constant basis, noise made by bins when moving clothing and out of hours visits. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to ENV1 and ENV2 of the Selby Local Plan.
11.2 The proposed development is located within Flood Zone 3, which requires the sequential test to be met to establish if the proposed development can be accommodated in a lesser flood zone. The sequential test submitted with the application is unacceptable due to its limited scope and search area, and thus the proposal is contrary to Selby Core Strategy Policy SP15 and the NPPF in relation to flood risk.
11.3 The material planning considerations of the principle of the development, highway impacts, design and minerals and safeguarding are all considered acceptable and given neutral weight.
11.4 This is an application which will support people in need and it complies with the NPPF aims of supporting the wellbeing of people and healthy lives. However, these benefits would be to the detriment of residential amenity and a second building on the site is likely to worsen the current issues. The community benefits are not considered to outweigh the residential amenity impacts. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Selby Local Plan Policies ENV(1) and ENV2 A). Further, the scheme does not satisfy flood risk policies of Policy SP15 of the Core Strategy and the NPPF. As such, the proposal is recommended for refusal.
12.0 RECOMMENDATION
12.1 That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:
01 The proposed buildings would create regular movements to and from the property, which would result in unacceptable noise and nuisance. Conditions to mitigate these amenity issues could not be imposed as they would not meet paragraph 57 of the NPPF. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with saved policies ENV1 and ENV2 of the Selby Local Plan.
02 The proposed development is located within Flood Zone 3, which requires the sequential test to be met to establish if the proposed development can be accommodated in a lesser flood zone. The sequential test submitted with the application is unacceptable due to its limited scope and search area, and thus the proposal is contrary to Selby Core Strategy Policy SP15 and Chapter 14 of the NPPF in relation to flood risk.
Target Determination Date: 26th February 2024
Case Officer: Elizabeth Maw
Appendix A – Proposed Layout Plan (22-1186/(AL) 01)