Agenda item

The Assistant Director Planning, Community Development Services sought to resolve the position the Council would take at an upcoming appeal against non-determination for an application for full planning permission for the residential development of 137 dwellings, open space, landscaping, and associated infrastructure and Community Centre with associated car parking and recreational space at land north of Hull Road, Hemingbrough, Selby, North Yorkshire.

The application had been reported to Committee as the Head of Development Management considered the application raised significant planning issues such that it was in the public interest for the application to be considered by Committee.

The Principal Planning Officer highlighted that there was an officer update on the application since the agenda had been published, which was available to read on the Council’s website, and explained that at paragraph 10.105 the correct amount of affordable housing that could be sought for this area should read 20%, as Hemingbrough lies in a higher value area.  At paragraph 10.79 Yorkshire Water had confirmed that their position on this application remained unchanged, therefore in light of their maintained objection the officer highlighted that Members may be minded to add an additional reason for refusal regarding foul drainage.  And finally, at paragraph 12.1 there had been an amendment to the officer recommendation contained within the original report which should now read: It is recommended that Planning Committee resolve that had the Local Planning Authority determined the application it would have refused planning permission for the reasons set out in section 12 of the committee report.

Ken McCann spoke on behalf of Hemingbrough Hagg Lane Green Conservation Group, objecting to the application.

Councillor Ann Tomlinson spoke on behalf of Hemingbrough Parish Council, objecting to the application.

The Division Councillor, Karl Arthur, spoke objecting to the application, and then left the meeting.

Ian Reynolds spoke as an unpaid advisor to the Hall for Hemingbrough Group, in support of the application.

During consideration of the above application, the Committee discussed the following issues:-

• In the absence of a response from the North Yorkshire Council (NYC) Arboriculturist, Members questioned if planning officers were aware of what, if any, would be the potential impact on any trees which had tree preservation orders (TPO’s) attached to them.
• In relation to the dog pond, it was queried what measures would be put in place to prevent animals, in particular dogs, from entering the water.
• Members asked whether any trees to be removed from the site would be replaced, and if so, would they be semi mature trees. 
• Whether the applicant had consulted Yorkshire Water with regard to the proposed foul water discharge and the additional impact on capacity at the wastewater treatment works.
• It was queried whether the issue of trees would be considered at appeal, given it was not a refusal reason, and if not, whether officers could pursue for a response from the NYC Arboriculturist.
• It was commented that if dogs were kept on a leash that newts and other wildlife would still detect predators, therefore, should Members decide to approve the application, could a condition be added to mitigate this impact.
• Members highlighted the poor bus service through Hemingbrough and queried if the developers had plans to support its improvement.

Councillor Warneken proposed, and Councillor Packham seconded that the application would have been refused had the Local Planning Authority determined the application and further requested the addition of two conditions to address the concerns raised around drainage and the landscape and trees.

The decision

That had the Local Planning Authority determined the application Members would have REFUSED planning permission.

Reason

The Committee agreed with the reasons for refusal put forward by the Principal Planning Officer as detailed in section 12 of the committee report, and in the officer update note; and the additional two reasons as set out below.

Additional Reasons

Reason 08: The proposed masterplan does not provide a sufficient buffer around existing landscape features to robustly protect them from physical encroachment, harm and/or conflict.  Parts of the development pose a significant risk of harm to existing mature trees that are a strong and valuable component of the rural landscape and public amenity, contrary to Policies ENV1 and SP18.

Reason 09: The increased foul water discharge from the proposed development would result in the capacity of the receiving waste water treatment works failing its agreed standard, leading to impacts on water ecology from such failure, contrary to Core Strategy Policy SP18 and Selby District Plan Policy ENV1(5)

Voting record

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