Agenda item

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

The Assistant Director Planning, Community Development Services sought determination of an outline planning application including access, with all other matters reserved for the erection of up to 32 no. dwellings, amenity space, access road and footways, drainage infrastructure, and other associated works on land at Colton Lane, Appleton Roebuck.

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised Members that there was an officer update on the application; additional comments had been received from the Parish Council, two additional objections had been received, and there was clarification of the wording at paragraph 10.24 of the report within the agenda pack.

 

Trevor Costello spoke, objecting to the application.

 

Councillor Janet Flint M.B.E., spoke on behalf of Appleton Roebuck and Acaster Selby Parish Council objecting to the application.

 

The agent for the applicant, Steve Grimster, spoke in support of the application.

 

During consideration of the above application, the Committee discussed the following issues.

Clarification was sought as to whether Appleton Roebuck was a designated        service village (DSV) within the Core Strategy, which was now outdated.

·       References had been made to the fact that the settlement had lost services, and it was queried whether making the village a DSV was still appropriate.

·       Did the application site sit within the Neighbourhood Development Plan as a preferred site.

·       It was highlighted that in their consultation response, Appleton Roebuck and Acaster Selby Parish Council had objected to the application on a number of grounds; one of which was infrastructure capacity and access to services.  Members stated that there was no justification for approving the application, and it was queried why officers considered the village to be sustainable.

  

Councillor Packham commented that there were a number of complicated issues with the application; the planning history was not straightforward, and the Neighbourhood Plan had been drawn up in a different overall planning context particularly in relation to the NPPF.  In his opinion there would be a high impact on the landscape, it was quite a large site in relation to the scale of the village, and there were very few services.  Balanced against that the Council had a new housing requirement, they no longer had a 5-year housing land supply, and the village was part of the draft allocation in the discontinued Local Plan.  Officers having looked at all these issues within the report had recommended grant, and therefore he could see no justification to refuse the application.

 

Councillor Warneken stated that he considered the application to be unacceptable in terms of sustainability and that Members should take note of the views and concerns of the Parish Council and local residents.

 

The officer recommendation was to grant the application; however, this motion did not receive a proposer.  It was subsequently proposed by Councillor Warneken that the application be refused on the grounds of sustainability, in particular with relation to the lack of public transport, and this was seconded by Councillor Jordan.

 

A lengthy discussion then took place between Members and officers regarding the planning definition of sustainability.

 

The decision

 

That planning permission be REFUSED.

 

The reasons

 

The proposed development was unsustainable given the lack of services in Appleton Roebuck for future residents, and given limited public transport options residents would be largely reliant on private transport modes and would not be able to use bus services to access work employment opportunities. The scheme was considered to be contrary to Policy SP1 and SP2 of the Selby Core Strategy, and the overall approach of the NPPF with regards location of development in sustainable locations.

 

Voting record

 

A vote was taken, and the motion was carried with 4 votes for, and 2 votes against.

 

As per his earlier declaration, Councillor Mike Jordan left the meeting at this point, and did not return

 

Councillor Cliff Lunn moved to the public gallery at this point.