Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies noted (see above).

The minutes of the meeting held on the 12 February 2025 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

All Members are invited to declare at this point any interests, including the nature of those interests, or lobbying in respect of any items appearing on this agenda.

Councillor Mike Jordan declared a non-registrable interest in Item 5 on the agenda, stating that he would leave the room for the entirety of this item.

Councillor Mark Crane declared a non-registrable interest in Item 6 on the agenda, stating that he would speak as Division Member, before leaving the room for the debate and vote.

All Members declared that they had been lobbied on Items 5, 6 and 7 on the agenda.

Planning Applications

The Committee considered reports of the Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services relating to applications for planning and outline planning permission. During the meeting, Officers referred to additional information and representations which had been received.

In considering the report 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.

Report of the Assistant Director - Planning – Community Development Services

The Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application for the erection of two single storey detached buildings for clothing sorting and storage (part retrospective) at Riverside A, Low Street, Brotherton. The application had been brought to Committee due to the significant levels of public interest.

An update to the report had been circulated and published which summarised a statement received from the applicant and a letter received from a neighbouring objector.

Elizabeth Maw presented the report highlighting the update note; proposal; context to the application; site outline, location and description; consultation responses; planning guidance; Officer assessment and conclusion; and the recommendation.

Members asked questions to the Officer which related to the following.

·        Considering one building had been built, whether complaints regarding traffic had been received prior to this application being submitted. Officers highlighted that highways raised no objections and informed Members that one complaint was received in September 2022.

·        The majority of deliveries took place between 8:00am and 5:00pm five days per week, but there were no restrictions on delivery times.

·        The reason for refusal related to flooding was queried, considering the Environment Agency raised no objections.

·        The location of the objector’s property was provided.

Stacie Fisher spoke as an objector to the application.

Sally Parkinson spoke as the applicant.

Members raised the following key points during the debate.

·        The charity was praised for the fantastic work that they carried out and there was a sympathetic view taken on the application during the debate.

·        It was highlighted that the site was situated in an inappropriate location.

·        Members queried whether a temporary consent with conditions could be considered in order to give the Applicant a reasonable time to relocate, and Nick Turpin advised that the application should be assessed as presented. Officers advised that it would have been difficult to separate the application from two buildings to one, and a delivery hours condition could mean the deliveries became more concentrated in a particular timeframe.

Councillor Jordan proposed and Councillor Cattanach seconded that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report and below.

The decision:

That Members REFUSE planning permission for the reasons in the report.

1)     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 conflicted with saved policies ENV1 and ENV2 of the Selby Local Plan.

2)     The proposed development was located within Flood Zone 3, which required the sequential test to be met to establish if the proposed development could be accommodated in a lesser flood zone. The sequential test submitted with the application was unacceptable due to its limited scope and search area, and thus the proposal was contrary to Selby Core Strategy Policy SP15 and Chapter 14 of the NPPF in relation to flood risk.

Voting record:

A vote was taken, and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Report of the Assistant Director – Planning – Community Development Services.

The Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application for the change of use from Agricultural to Sports Field F2 (outdoor sports facility) at Land Off Friars Meadow, Selby. The application had been brought to Committee as it was considered that the planning application raises significant planning issues such that it was in the public interest for the application to be considered by committee. The application had also been referred to committee by the Division Member, Councillor Shaw-Wright.

A short update note was published and circulated prior to the meeting.

Linda Drake presented the report highlighting the update note; location and site description; context to the application; proposal; and Officer recommendation.

Members asked questions to the Officer which related to the following.

·        There were 13 parking spaces, but active travel was being recommended by the applicant. There was also a bus that was within walking distance but this stopped at roughly 18:00.

·        There were 24 participants per session and it would only be used for training, not competitions.

·        The Committee could condition that no competitions take place on the site, but this would be difficult to enforce.

Richard Lee spoke as an objector to the application.

Councillor Melanie Davis spoke as the North Yorkshire Council Division Member for the application.

Dr Ian Martin spoke as the applicant.

Members raised the following key points during the debate.

·        Concerns regarding the use of floodlighting were raised.

·        Concerns regarding access to the site were discussed and Members suggested that highways investigate this.

·        Members highlighted the need for a facility such as this in the Selby area.

·        The lack of objection from statutory consultees was highlighted and Members were surprised that Highways had not provided further comments.

·        Members requested information on other facilities in the area, with the aim of avoiding duplication of work.

·        Members considered whether conditions were required and discussed deferring the item so that Officers could formulate a set of conditions. This was on the basis that Members were minded to approve the application.

Councillor Packham proposed and Councillor Duckett seconded that the application be deferred so that Officers can return to the Committee with a set of draft conditions that related to

a)     Control of operation and traffic levels; and

b)     Control of floodlighting.

The decision:

That Members DEFER the decision for the reason below.

1)     So that Officers could discuss the issues raised with the applicant and could return to the Committee with a set of draft conditions that related to control of operation and traffic levels and control of floodlighting.

Voting record:

A vote was taken, and the motion was carried unanimously.

Report of the Assistant Director – Planning – Community Development Services.

The Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services sought determination of an outline application (all matters reserved except for access to, but not within the site) for the demolition of No. 37 Moat Way and the erection of up to 80 dwellings including self/custom build dwellings, at land off Evergreen Way, Brayton, Selby. The application had been brought to Committee as it raised significant planning issues such that it was in the public interest for the application to be considered by committee.

An update note was published and circulated prior to the meeting.

Linda Drake presented the report highlighting the update note; site location, access and outline; context of the site; proposal; and Officer recommendation. It was reported that ‘circa 80 dwellings’ is used in the report, but that this should read ‘up to 80 dwellings’.

Members asked questions to the Officer which related to the following.

·        Whether the applicant could do better than the minimum of 10% of total predicted energy requirements from renewable, low carbon or decentralised energy sources. Officers highlighted condition 28 of the report and reminded Members that the most that they could demand was 10% due to policy. Officers highlighted that EV charging points could be attached at the reserved matters stage.

·        It was clarified that the site was originally put forward as a preferred site in the former draft Selby Local Plan but was removed due to highway concerns over the access from Evergreen Way.

·        Members clarified a number of points including: that the proposal was contrary to local plan policy; the lack of housing supply within the local plan and the plan’s position due to this; and the history of the site in relation to the former Selby Local Plan given the previous highway issues. Members wanted clarification that highways did not object to this application and Officers confirmed the summary put forward by Members and confirmed following discussions between highways and the applicant, highways had not raised an objection to the proposal.

Paul McHugh spoke as an objector to the application.

Councillor Mark Crane spoke as the North Yorkshire Council Division Member for the application.

Jonathan Dunbavin spoke as the applicant.

Members raised the following key points during the debate.

·        That PV panels for every property should be investigated.

·        That there was a desperate need for housing.

·        That the site was not included in the former draft Selby Local Plan due to access concerns, but that these had now been addressed.

Councillor Packham proposed and Councillor Warneken seconded that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

The decision:

That Members APPROVE the application, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

Voting record:

A vote was taken, and the motion was carried unanimously.

Report of the Assistant Director – Planning – Community Development Services.

The Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application for the erection of a four-bedroom dwelling on land to the east of Strome House, Hemingbrough. The application had been brought to the Committee, as it had been referred to committee by the Division Member Councillor Karl Arthur, due to having had the proposal refused several times in the past, owing to the negative impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties. The Division Member stated “the applicant has now amended the plans, so that the negative impact on the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties is minimalised or eliminated.”

An update note was published and circulated prior to the meeting.

Jac Cruickshank presented the report highlighting the update note; site location and outline; context of the site; proposal; and Officer recommendation.

Members asked questions to the Officer which related to the following.

·        The reason for referral to the Committee was clarified.

·        Information on the approval of a previous scheme on this site was provided.

Alexandra Firth spoke as an objector to the application.

David Smith read a statement on behalf of Andrew MacDonald, the Applicant.

Members raised the following key points during the debate.

·        That the location of the proposal was incorrect due to proximity of the neighbouring properties and the impact on residential amenity.

·        Some Members confirmed that they had attended a site visit to this location in the past.

·        Members were surprised that a scheme had been approved here in the past.

Councillor Crane proposed and Councillor Jordan seconded that the application be refused for the reasons provided in the report.

The decision:

That Members REFUSE the application for the following reasons.

1)     The site consisted of a narrow gap, set between two detached two storey dwellings within the Garthends street scene. The proposed 1½  storey dwelling, together with the narrowness of the plot and roof design would result in a cramped form of development with the dwelling appearing shoehorned into the site. The development would be an incongruous addition to the street scene and negatively impact on the character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposed development failed to accord with Policies ENV1(1), and (4) of the Selby District Local Plan, and Policies SP18 and SP19 of the Core Strategy and Section 12 of the NPPF.

2)     The proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the occupiers of The Poplars due to the height and positioning of the northern gable. The proposal would result in overshadowing, loss of outlook, oppression and dominance  of the shared boundary. The proposal was therefore contrary to Policy ENV1 (1) of the Selby District Local Plan and Section 12 of the NPPF.

Voting record:

A vote was taken, and the motion was carried unanimously.

Any other items which the Chair agrees should be considered as a matter of urgency because of special circumstances.

There were no other items.

Wednesday, 16 April 2025 at 2.00pm.

Wednesday 16 April 2025 at 2.00pm.