Agenda item

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 motion was carried unanimously.

Members asked that Officers take a sympathetic view with enforcement to allow time for the building that had already been built to be relocated.