North Yorkshire Council
Community Development Services
Selby and Ainsty Area Planning Committee
08 October 2025
ZG2024/0494/FUL - Change of use and extension of agricultural building to form offices
AT Primrose Hill Farm, Common Lane, Burn, North Yorkshire YO8 8ND
ON BEHALF OF Staynor Farms
Report of the Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services
|
1.0 Purpose of the Report 1.1 To determine a planning application for the extension of an agricultural building and change of use to form offices, at Primrose Hill Farm, Common Lane, Burn, North Yorkshire YO8 8ND. 1.2 The application is brought to Planning Committee at the request of the Head of Development Management as it raises significant planning issues. |
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be REFUSED for the reasons listed below.
2.2 Two dwellings associated with the farm, and a range of agricultural buildings, are located adjacent the application site to the rear and either side. Further to the rear of the application site and sharing the same access, is a range of agricultural buildings associated with Staynor Farms.
2.3 The proposal is to convert 2no. agricultural buildings into a purpose-made office for a financial business to relocate from their current premises in Selby town centre, which would require a ground floor extension to link the two buildings, and an extension at first floor level. Vehicular access into the site, and the parking arrangements would remain as existing, with the exception of an additional disabled parking space adjacent the building.
2.4 The intended occupant of the proposed office is NFU Mutual – the National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Limited – who currently occupy offices at 9 Finkle Street Selby. NFU Mutual Insurance Society operate as a mutual insurer, offering insurance to the general public, and are a separate business entity from NFU – the National Farmers Union – who are a union representing the interests of farm workers. One letter from a representative of NFU Mutual dated 30th May 2025, confirms that NFU Mutual are the named tenant but that the NFU also operates from the same office.
2.5 The reason for bringing the application to planning committee is at the request of the Head of Development Management as it raises significant planning issues.
2.6 The NPPF and local policy is supportive of the growth of business in rural areas, providing development be appropriate in scale and type to its location, and the proposed re-use or adaptation will generally take place within the fabric of the building and will not require extensive alteration, re-building and/or extension.
2.7 The scale of the proposed extensions are considered to be extensive and beyond the mere reuse of an existing building, in an unsustainable location. The main intended occupant NFU Mutual, as the named tenant, does not specifically operate as an agricultural business, and no justification has been provided to demonstrate why it is necessary for the company to relocate to this site specifically, rather than a town-centre or business park location. Therefore, the application is not acceptable in principle. The scale of the extensions is considered to be excessive and would have an adverse impact on the character of the host buildings, and due to being located within Flood Zone 3 and not purely a change of use of the existing buildings, the proposal should be sequentially tested to demonstrate that there are no other reasonably available sites at a lower flood risk that could accommodate the proposal. Comments raised by interested parties, and additional letters of support from NFU Mutual have been taken into account, however, no matters are raised that outweigh the conflict with the Development Plan.
3.0 Preliminary Matters
3.1. Access to the case file on Public Access can be found here: https://public.selby.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage
3.2 There is no relevant planning history. Informal preapplication advice was sought from officers, who confirmed that the proposal goes beyond the conversion of buildings with proportionate extensions, therefore would not be in accordance with policy position.
3.3 Officers note that while the submitted Planning Statement and additional letters of support refer to NFU Mutual as being the intended occupant of the proposal, NFU Mutual are not the applicants of this planning application and the development could be used by another business falling within Use Class E which covers the former Use Classes A1 (shops), A2 (financial and professional), A3 (restaurants and cafes) as well as parts of D1 (non-residential institutions) and D2 (assembly and leisure).
3.4 For clarity, officers also note that the proposal description and supporting statements as-submitted refer to an agricultural building, whereas the plans show two buildings – one larger and one smaller, positioned close together, and the proposal is partly to provide an extension to link the two buildings into one. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt this report refers to the agricultural buildings, or buildings, subject of this proposal.
4.0 Site and Surroundings
4.1 The site is accessed off, and highly visible from Common Lane. The buildings subject of this application are sited towards the front of the wider Primrose Farm unit with farmhouses to the rear and larger, modern agricultural buildings to the rear and side including a large, fibre cement and metal building positioned forward of the application site to the side. Lawned areas separate the buildings from the road and provide a landscaped entrance to the site, with some trees located along the boundary with the road. The red line boundary denoting the application site includes the buildings subject of the application, the access, and parking area.
4.2 The wider surroundings are predominantly open countryside with sporadic pockets of development of mainly agricultural and some industrial uses. The nearest settlements are Burn, approximately 2.5KM to the west, and Barlow, approximately 2KM to the east. The nearest residential properties are within the Primrose Hill Farm envelope, adjacent to the application site – Primrose Hill Farm house itself, and The Old Farmhouse. Both dwellings are included within the blue lined boundary denoting the applicant’s ownership outside of the application site. There are no other dwellings located within a distance considered to be impacted by the proposal.
5.0 Description of Proposal
5.1. This application seeks permission for the change of use and extension of two agricultural buildings to form an office. Extensions are proposed to be a ground floor extension to link the two buildings, which would extend along the side of the buildings as well as between them, and a first-floor extension above the majority of the existing single storey building.
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)
- 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
6.3. The Emerging Development Plan for this site was the Selby Local Plan revised publication 2024 (Reg 19). Following reports to committees and finally to North Yorkshire Council’s Full Council on 26 February, work on the ELP has ceased.
6.4. Having regard to the above, there is no emerging local plan to consider, but some weight may be given to the evidence base. The site was a draft housing allocation under the former emerging Local Plan, reference OSGB-C.
6.5. The North Yorkshire Local Plan is the emerging development plan for this site however no weight can be applied in respect of this document at the current time as it is at an early stage of preparation. As the emerging Local Plan progresses through the various stages, it can attract increasing weight in decision making. At the point of adoption, it is a statutory document to which Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 can apply.
Guidance - Material Considerations
6.6 Relevant guidance for this application is:
- National Planning Policy Framework, December 2024
- National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
7.0 Consultation Responses
7.1 The following consultation responses have been received and have been summarised below.
7.2 Burn Parish Council – No comments received.
7.3 NYC Highways – No objection subject to conditions.
7.4 Yorkshire Water – No comments received.
7.5 Internal Drainage Board – No comments received.
7.6 Environment Agency – No comments received.
7.7 Environmental Health – No objection subject to conditions.
7.8 Land Contamination – No objection subject to conditions.
7.9 Ecology – No objection subject to the mitigation measures set out within the ecological report being followed. Notes that the proposal is not subject to mandatory BNG.
Local Representations
7.10 The application was advertised by displaying a site notice adjacent to the site entrance off Common Lane on 09.09.2024. The advertisement of the application is compliant with the publicity requirements for planning applications.
7.11 A comment in support of the proposal was received from MP Kier Mathers, who supports the expansion of a local business. The comment outlines that the existing premises in Selby are too small and that lack of space risks the business being able to remain in the Selby area.
7.12 Further comments in support, and to give additional information as requested by officers, were received from NFU Mutual, to summarise:
- Due to crime, antisocial behaviour, rats and noise, people do not want to work in the town centre.
- NFU Mutual require a larger office space due to expansion of the branch.
- The existing premises are unsuitable for those with mobility needs, with no viable solutions to address accessibility.
8.0 Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
8.1. The proposal for conversion and extension of agricultural buildings to office use, does not fall within Schedule 1 or 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017 (as amended). No Environment Statement is required.
9.0 Main Issues
9.1. The key considerations in the assessment of this application are:
- Principle of development
- Design and impact on the character of the area
- Highway safety
- Ecology and BNG
- Ground contamination
- Flood risk and drainage
- Residential amenity
- Minerals and waste
10.0 ASSESSMENT
Principle of Development
10.1 Policy SP1 of the Core Strategy outlines that "when considering development proposals, the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework" and sets out how this will be undertaken. Policy SP1 is therefore consistent with aims of the NPPF. Policy SP2 sets out the Spatial Strategy for the District. The application site is located outside defined development limits, therefore, is within open countryside. Part A(c) of Policy SP2 states that “Development in the countryside (outside Development Limits) will be limited to the replacement or extension of existing buildings, the re-use of buildings preferably for employment purposes, and well-designed new buildings of an appropriate scale, which would contribute towards and improve the local economy and where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, in accordance with Policy SP13. Policy SP13 C supports sustainable development in rural areas which brings sustainable economic growth through local employment opportunities or expansion of businesses. The policy also supports farm diversification schemes. It goes on to state at SP13 D that, in all cases, development should be sustainable and be appropriate in scale and type to its location, not harm the character of the area, and seek a good standard of amenity.
10.2 Policy EMP8 of the Local Plan supports proposals for the conversion of rural buildings for commercial uses, provided:
1) The building is structurally sound and capable of re-use without substantial re-building;
2) The proposed re-use or adaptation will generally take place within the fabric of the building and will not require extensive alteration, re-building and/or extension;
3) Conversion would not damage the fabric and character of a building of architectural or historical interest, or a traditional building which makes a positive contribution to the character of the countryside;
4) The form, bulk and general design of the building is in keeping with its surroundings;
5) The conversion of the building and ancillary works, such as the creation of incidental outside areas, and the provision of satisfactory access and parking arrangements, would not have a significant effect on the character and appearance of the area, or encroach into open countryside; and
6) The proposal would not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety or which would have a significant adverse effect on local amenity.
10.3 The proposal relates to the extension and conversion of part brick/part clad agricultural buildings within an existing operational farmyard. The submitted structural survey indicate the main building (referred to as barns 1, 2 and 3) is structurally sound and capable of reuse. The smaller of the two buildings, referred to as the shed within the structural survey, is confirmed to require rebuilding to a high-level section of wall. Therefore, the proposal would not meet the criteria of Policies SP2 and SP13 which support the reuse and extension of existing buildings, as the proposal is confirmed to require some rebuilding. Additionally, the scale of the extensions proposed are not considered to meet the criteria of EMP8(2) which states the re-use will not require extensive alteration or extension. The original buildings cover approximately 115sqm of floor area, and the proposal would involve two ground floor extensions and a first floor extension amounting to approximately 310sqm of floor area, which would constitute approximately 170% increase in floor area. Due to the scale of the extensions in relation to the existing building, the proposal cannot be said to be of an appropriate scale, in further conflict with Policies SP2 and SP13 which support well-designed new buildings of an appropriate scale.
10.4 Policies SP2 and SP13 also support sustainable growth. The application site is situated outside the development limits of Burn and Barlow and therefore located in open countryside. Burn and Barlow are both identified as secondary service villages in the settlement hierarchy, which are settlements considered to be less sustainable. In appraising the area, the nearest bus stop is found on the A1041 which is a national speed limit road with no footway, which is accessed from the site via Common Lane, an unlit country lane also at national speed limit without a footway. It is not considered that this would be safe or reasonable especially in the dark or inclement weather.
10.5 The site also has no access to any facilities or local amenities. The application site is therefore considered to be located in an unsustainable location, which is contrary to Local Plan Policies SP2 and SP13 and Section 2 of the NPPF.
10.6 The intensity and nature of vehicular movements associated with the change of use are not considered to create conditions prejudicial to highway safety and are considered minor in the context of the existing activities at this site, as assessed further in the report.
10.7 Rural employment schemes and farm diversification schemes are also supported under paragraph 88 of the NPPF which aims to supports rural economy, however it is not considered this applies to the proposal
10.8 It is therefore considered that the proposal is not acceptable due to its unsustainable location and the scale of alteration, extension and rebuilding that would be required, in conflict with Policies EMP8 of the Selby District Local Plan and SP2 and SP13 of the Selby District Core Strategy.
Design and impact on the character of the area
10.9 Saved policy ENV1 (1) of the Selby District Local Plan requires development to take account of the effect upon the character of the area, with ENV1 (4) requiring the standard of layout, design and materials to respect the site and its surroundings. Policy SP18 is relevant to the consideration of the impact on the open character and visual amenity of the landscape and the local area. Policy SP19 of the Core Strategy requires that new development should achieve high quality design and have regard to the local character, identity and context of its surroundings. These policies are in line with Chapter 12 of the NPPF, which seeks to create high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve.
10.10 The proposal relates to two existing agricultural buildings located within open countryside, positioned to towards the front of an existing operational farmyard. Two farmhouses are located immediately to the rear and side of the buildings. Forward (north) and to the side of the buildings, closer to the highway and dominating views of the site are two much larger, modern agricultural buildings. Further south the farmyard extends to include a range of modern agricultural buildings and smaller structures.
10.11 The buildings to be converted are located close to one another so that a ground floor linking extension is proposed which would bring both buildings under the same roof. A long section which is currently flat roofed and single storey, is proposed to be extended at first floor level, to bring it in-line with the existing taller section.
10.12 The element of corrugated sheeting to the highest part of the roof is proposed to be retained as existing, with the new roof to be covered in clay pantiles, new elevations to be constructed in brick to match existing and the installation of timber window frames. Overall, the design details and palette of materials are considered to be acceptable and in-keeping with the traditional appearance of agricultural buildings. It would be reasonable to include a condition for precise material details to be agreed prior to installation, were the recommendation be to grant permission.
10.13 However, as set out above, the proposed extensions would constitute an increase of approximately 170% in floor area of the host buildings. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be an overdevelopment of the host buildings and would have an adverse impact on the character of the buildings due to the scale of extensions.
10.14 Taking all of the above into consideration, the design and materials of the proposed extensions are acceptable in terms of visual amenity, however the scale of the proposed extension is considered excessive and to have an adverse impact on the character of the host buildings. Therefore, the proposal is in conflict with saved Local Plan policy ENV1 and Core Strategy Policies SP18 and SP19 and guidance contained within the NPPF.
Highway safety
10.15 Policy T1 of the Selby District Local Plan advises that development proposals will only be permitted where existing roads have adequate capacity and can safely serve the development. Policy T2 states that development proposals which would result in the creation of a new access or the intensification of the use of an existing access will be permitted provided:
1) There would be no detriment to highway safety; and
2) The access can be created in a location and to a standard acceptable to the
highway authority.
10.16 Paragraph 115 of the NPPF states that in assessing planning applications for development it should be ensured that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. 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.
10.17 The proposal involves the extension and reuse of agricultural buildings as office space. The use of the building as offices is not considered to result in an intensification of use of the access significantly above the existing, and remaining agricultural uses that share the access and are carried out adjacent to the application site. The access is off an adopted highway and not considered to cause safety issues for other road users or users of adjacent sites.
10.18 The proposal includes 5no. standard parking spaces sited adjacent to existing spaces used in connection with the adjacent farm buildings, and 1no. disabled parking space would be sited adjacent to the building and connected to the entrance door by a level walkway.
10.19 The Council’s highway officer had no objection to the proposal and recommended conditions relating the construction of on-site parking and turning areas.
10.20 On this basis, subject to conditions, the proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety and therefore complies with saved Policies T1 and T2 of the Local Plan and relevant guidance contained within the NPPF.
Ecology and BNG
10.21 Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy seeks to promote effective stewardship of the district wildlife by safeguarding national and locally protected nature conservation sites, protected species and net gains in biodiversity.
10.22 An ecological report titled Primrose Hill Farm, Burn: Bat scoping survey and NLMS for bat protection by Dryad Ecology, dated July 2023, was submitted with the application. It finds that there is no confirmed evidence of bats within the buildings, and that the use of bat bricks would be an enhancement. One swallow nest was found and it recommends a replacement nesting opportunity be provided.
10.23 The Councils Ecologist raised no objections to the proposal providing the development be carried out in accordance with mitigation measures set out in the report, including working methods during construction and the installation of bat bricks and nesting opportunities for swallows. Were the recommendation be to grant permission, a condition would be recommended to secure the installation of three bat bricks and at least one nesting opportunity for swallows.
10.24 Regarding biodiversity, the proposal is exempt from providing Biodiversity Net
Gain in accordance with The Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Exemptions) Regulations 2024, which states that the de minimis exemption applies to development with a negligible impact on habitats, specifically those that do not impact a priority habitat, and have a minimal effect on other habitats: less than 25 square meters (m²) of non-priority area habitat and less than 5 meters (m) of non-priority linear habitat such as hedgerows. There is currently a small grassed area surrounding parts of the building, proposed to be retained, and the Council’s Ecologist confirmed the proposal is de minimis.
10.25 Overall, the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on protected
species subject to mitigation, and the proposal is not subject to mandatory BNG but would retain the existing minor areas of soft landscaping. Therefore, the proposal complies with Policies ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan, SP15 and SP18 of the Selby District Core Strategy and guidance contained within Chapter 15 of the NPPF.
Ground contamination
10.26 Policy ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan states that development that would be affected by unacceptable levels of contamination will be refused unless satisfactorily prevented or remediated. Policies SP18 and SP19 of the Core Strategy seek to prevent development from contributing to unacceptable levels of soil pollution. The policies are in line with guidance within Chapter 15 of the NPPF.
10.27 Where the development site could be affected by a former potentially contaminated land use or the proposed development introduces a vulnerable end use, the possibility of land contamination should always be considered.
10.28 The proposal for offices is a less vulnerable use in respect of impacts from ground contamination, and the Land Contamination Officer has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions relating further investigations, and the reporting of any unexpected contamination.
10.29 Subject to conditions, the proposal complies with Policies ENV2 of the SDLP, SP18 and SP19 of the Core Strategy and guidance contained within the NPPF.
Flood risk and drainage
10.30 The NPPF states that inappropriate development in areas of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at high risk (whether existing or future). A sequential and exceptions test is used to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding. Policy SP15 of the Selby District Core Strategy aligns with the national flooding policy requirements. If the sequential test is passed (where relevant), the NPPF confirms that applications should be supported by a site-specific flood-risk assessment. Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.
10.31 Paragraph 174 of the NPPF 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'. Paragraph 175 states ‘The sequential test should be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding, except in situations where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that no built development within the site boundary, including access or escape routes, land raising or other potentially vulnerable elements, would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding from any source, now and in the future (having regard to potential changes in flood risk).’
10.32 The application site lies within Flood Zone 3 as defined by the Environment Agency Flood Maps for Planning.
10.33 A Flood Risk Assessment was submitted with the proposal and Yorkshire Water, Internal Drainage Board and the Environment Agency were consulted. None had comments to make on the proposal. Were a sequential test submitted and the recommendation be to grant permission, then these statutory consultees would have been asked again for comment due to the high level of flood risk of the site.
10.34 As concluded in the preceding sections of this report, the proposal is not considered to constitute merely a conversion or change of use of an existing building, due to the level of extension proposed. As such, and in consideration of guidance provided within Paragraph 175 of the NPPF, a sequential test is required in this instance. However, this is not provided within the FRA so an assessment as to whether there are more suitable sites in terms of flood risk, cannot be made.
10.35 In respect of drainage, no comments were received from the above consultees. The proposed plans and documents note the location of surface and foul water drains that are proposed to drain surface water to soakaway and foul to package treatment plant due to there being no available connection to public sewer, both as existing within the site. A suitably worded condition would be appropriate to confirm these details.
10.36 Having regard to the above, the proposed development is not considered to be
acceptable in terms of flood risk due to insufficient information provided in order
to assess the proposal. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy SP15 of the Selby District Core Strategy and guidance contained within the NPPF.
Residential amenity
10.37 Saved Policy ENV1(1) of the SDLP requires proposals to take account of the amenity of adjoining occupiers.
10.38 The proposed office building is located approximately 10 metres from Primrose Farm, the farmhouse associated with the farmyard the subject building is part of, and 5 metres from The Old Farmhouse. The existing access drive which is currently shared between the dwellings and surrounding agricultural and farm buildings, separates both dwellings from the application site. 5no. car parking spaces currently exist in front of The Old Farmhouse which are used in connection with the existing farm buildings located to the west of the site.
10.39 Both construction traffic and users of the office would access the site and parking areas currently in use by agricultural vehicles. It is considered that, following construction, the pattern and intensity of use by up to 5 personal vehicles would likely cause no more disturbance than existing agricultural uses. The proposed parking spaces are located further from the dwellings than the spaces currently allocated to the nearby agricultural buildings. The curtilage of the nearest dwelling The Old Farmhouse is also enclosed by a 2-metre-high, close boarded fence, the proposal is unlikely to lead to a significant increase in light pollution as a result of traffic, than the current uses.
10.40 Once construction of the extension is complete, the proposed office is considered to pose less disturbance risk toward the nearby dwellings than its current agricultural use due to the nature of office work, carried out within the buildings at relatively sociable hours in comparison to agricultural work. Together with conditions that would be imposed relating hours of construction, the proposal is not considered to have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity due to its use.
10.41 The extensions would raise the overall height of the building by approximately 30cm to 6.4 metres, with the existing flat roof element being raised by approximately 2.7 metres to meet the higher part. However, given its northern aspect in relation to both dwellings, and its narrow form with a large part of the building proposed to be a lower, lean-to roof, the extensions are not considered to result in unacceptable levels of overshadowing towards either dwelling. In terms of overlooking, there are no openings at first floor level which would look towards the nearest dwelling The Old Farmhouse. Rooflights at first floor level facing towards Primrose Hill Farm would face the open side and front aspects of the dwelling, not into its enclosed private amenity spaces, and the oblique angles would prevent direct views into any main living spaces. One first floor, gable end window would look onto an existing hardstanding area. The proposal is, therefore, not considered to have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity due to overshadowing or overlooking.
10.42 Given that the proposal is for the extension and reuse of an existing building which currently has an agricultural function, would utilise the existing access and parking areas currently in use by agricultural vehicles, and is not considered to result in activity which would produce excessive noise or other environmental pollutions, the proposal is not considered to have a detrimental impact on residential amenity by way of overlooking, overshadowing or impacts from noise or vehicular movements or the business office use of the site.
10.43 The Council’s Environmental Health Officer raised no objection to the proposal and recommended a condition be attached relating hours of construction of the extension.
10.44 No comments on the proposal were received from neighbours. It is also noted that both adjacent dwellings are included within the blue outline on the site location plan, as being under the same ownership as the application site, and are likely both associated with existing operations at the agricultural unit.
10.45 Therefore, the proposal is not considered to result in any unacceptable impacts on residential amenity subject to a condition relating construction hours, and complies with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
Minerals and Safeguarding
10.46 The application site is located within a surface minerals safeguarding area. The proposal relates to the reuse and extension of an existing building within an existing agricultural unit, it falls within the exemption criteria and no further consideration of this matter is required. The proposal complies with Policies S01, S02 and S06 of the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan.
11.0 PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
11.1 The proposal for the change of use and extension of the agricultural buildings, is not acceptable in principle due to the proposed unsustainable location and the scale of the extensions and rebuilding required, in conflict with Policies EMP8 of the Selby District Local Plan and SP2 and SP13 of the Selby District Core Strategy. The excessive scale of the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of the host buildings, in conflict with saved Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan, and Policies SP18 and SP19 of the Selby District Core Strategy. Additionally, the application site is within Flood Zone 3 and a sequential test has not been provided in order for officers to fully assess flood risk, in conflict with Policy SP15 of the Selby District Core Strategy. The proposal, therefore, conflicts with the Development Plan, which is given great weight.
11.2 The proposal would have acceptable impacts on highway safety, trees, ecology, drainage, land contamination and residential amenity. Conditions could be included to mitigate these impacts and agree precise details. Although, these are requirements of any well-designed scheme and are given limited weight.
11.3 The proposal, therefore, conflicts with the Development Plan and the NPPF and there are no very special circumstances or other benefits to the proposal that would outweigh this conflict. Accordingly, the recommendation is that planning permission be refused.
12.0 RECOMMENDATION
12.1 That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development is not acceptable in principle as the buildings require extensive alteration, re-building and extension, in an unsustainable location in conflict with Policies EMP8 of the Selby District Local Plan and SP2 and SP13 of the Selby District Core Strategy.
2. The proposed development, due to the excessive scale of the proposed extensions, would have an adverse impact on the character of the host buildings, in conflict with Policies ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan and SP18 and SP19 of the Selby District Core Strategy.
3. The proposed development is not considered to be acceptable in terms of flood risk due to lack of sequential test provided in order to assess the proposal. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy SP15 of the Selby District Core Strategy and section 14 of the NPPF.
Recommended Informative
1. The proposal would not improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area nor does it comply with the development plan and therefore does not comprise sustainable development. There were no amendments to the scheme, or conditions which could reasonably have been imposed, which could have made the development acceptable and it was therefore not possible to approve the application. The Local Planning Authority has therefore implemented the requirement in Paragraph 39 of the NPPF.
Case Officer: Ellis Mortimer
Appendix A: Proposed Site Plan
APPENDIX A – PROPOSED SITE PLAN
