Agenda item

The Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services sought determination of 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.

The application had been brought to Planning Committee at the request of the Head of Development Management as it raised significant planning issues.

The Senior Planning Officer highlighted that Staynor Farms were the applicants, and that the NFU Mutual were the intended tenants for the proposed offices, then proceeded to explain the officer’s reasons to refuse the application.

Amy Morrison of the National Farmers Union spoke as a representative on behalf of the agent, in support of the application.

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

· One Member stated that, during their time on Planning Committee, they had never seen the distance of the bus stop to the site as a reason for refusal and queried how many assessments on the distance to a site from a bus stop had been included in any officer presentations to an application in the previous 25 years. 

· In terms of flood risk, it was highlighted that Members had recently approved housing in the same village, therefore, as this application was for a change of use of buildings at the site, when housing had been approved previously, they could see no reason for refusal.  

·  Clarification was sought on the connection between the insurance business and the NFU Mutual, as general insurers.

·  One Member stated that the Council had no guarantee that the building would be occupied by the NFU as tenants, and that, as Class E use, the building could be used for uses other than an office.

·  Members felt that there was no rationale for not granting the application as it was farm diversification, the applicant was a valued contributor to the local economy in Selby, and it was a well-used facility. 

·  Members noted that no objections had been received in relation to the application, that the local Member of Parliament had expressed support for the proposal, and that its approval would contribute to the retention of secure, well-remunerated employment opportunities within the Selby area.

·  Members queried if the application had been for a house would it come under Class Q use.

The officer recommendation was that planning permission be refused; Councillor Packham proposed, and Councillor Cattanach seconded the motion.  A vote was taken with 3 members for refusal and 4 members against, therefore the proposal fell.

The Solicitor advised Members that any decision to approve the application, against officer recommendation, must be supported by robust and defensible planning reasons, grounded in material planning considerations.  It was further noted that the application could not be approved at this stage, as an appropriate suite of planning conditions had not yet been prepared.

Councillor Shaw-Wright proposed, and Councillor Crane seconded that contrary to the officer recommendation, the application should be minded to approve, with the decision then delegated to the Development Service Manager.

The decision

That Members were MINDED TO APPROVE planning permission and to delegate authorisation, subject to approval of a suite of conditions, to the Development Service Manager. 

Reason

The Committee agreed that the application was an acceptable development in the countryside that would bring economic security to Burn.

Voting record

A vote was taken, and the motion was carried with 5 votes for, and 2 votes against.