Agenda item

The Assistant Director Planning, Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application for the erection of a roadside service facility, including a petrol filling station, car wash bays and associated infrastructure at the junction of the A19 and A163, York Road, Barlby, Selby, North Yorkshire.

 

The application had been brought to Planning Committee at the request of the Head of Development Management as it raised significant planning issues.  The Ward Councillor, Councillor Stephanie Duckett had also requested that the application go before the planning committee due to the number of community responses and concerns over highway safety.

 

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report and advised that an officer update had been published on the Council’s website.  Members were informed that four additional objections had been received, one of which had raised a new issue regarding the absence of a Health Impact Assessment.  The officer confirmed that they did not consider this necessary due to the scale of the development and the fact that Environmental Health Officers had not requested it in their response.  Members were also advised that, in November 2025, an objector had commissioned an independent Transport Audit, which in their view identified transport concerns. Finally, Members were advised that a drainage condition, recommended by the Environment Agency, had been omitted from the original report and was therefore included as an additional condition.

 

Chris Creighton spoke, objecting to the application.

 

The Division Councillor, Stephanie Duckett spoke, objecting to the application.

 

The agent, Rachael Bamford, spoke on behalf of the applicant, in support of the application.

 

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

 

·       A query was raised regarding the presence of a slip road to access the site entrance/exit, and whether an emergency access was proposed should the roundabout become gridlocked.

·       Guidance was sought on the size of the kiosk and what it would be comparable to.  Members expressed their understanding of a typical kiosk and noted that, in this case, the building appeared significantly larger.

·       At paragraph 2.8, the implication was that the level of opposition to the application from local residents was a material planning consideration and it was queried if that was the case.

·       Members queried whether the roundabout represented the minimum size required for an A-road junction.

·       A query was raised as to whether there was any street lighting on York Road and whether the new petrol canopy height of 5.6m was necessary.

·       Whether the proposed screening was adequate for the residential properties adjoining the site.

·       Objectors had raised concerns about the impact on wildlife and it was queried if there was a need for a bat survey to be undertaken.

·       Had consideration been given to the installation of acoustic fencing along York Road.

·       The Chair asked the Highways officer to confirm the current capacity of the A19, how much it had changed in recent years, and how much additional traffic the proposed application would generate.

·       Members had noted that Heavy Good’s Vehicles (HGV’s) would not be permitted to refuel on site; it was queried if access would be restricted to prevent HGVs entering for other purposes, such as purchasing food or drink, and, if so, how this would be communicated to the HGV drivers. They also asked what size of vehicle would be permitted to enter the site.

·       How would delivery vehicles access the site.

·       What the national speed limit was on the road into the site and on York Road.

 

Members expressed concerns that, while the application offered certain benefits, the site was considered too constrained.  It was felt that the applicant was seeking to maximise the use of the site to the detriment of road safety and the amenity of local residents.  Members further considered the site to be inadequately screened, that the nature and scale was not appropriate to the locality, and raised concerns regarding how the facility would prevent HGV’s from entering the site.  Members also felt that the application was contrary to the following planning policies:

 

·       Policy SP2, as it lay outside the defined development limits.

·       Policy SP13C, it was of an inappropriate scale in a rural area.

·       Policy SP14, the impact on retail.

·       Policy T9, there was no demonstrable need with other facilities two miles in either direction of the proposed site.

·       Policy EM1, for the impact on the landscape.

 

The officer recommendation was to approve the application; however, the motion did not receive a proposer and therefore was not carried.

 

The Chair sought advice from the Principal Planning Officer on whether Members had sufficient grounds for refusal.  The officer confirmed that reasons had been identified during the discussions, to include concerns over the layout, overdevelopment of the site, it’s cramped nature, inadequate screening which would impact on the landscape and character of the area, the site being outside the defined development limits, the disproportionate size of the kiosk, the adverse impact on residential properties, and highway safety issues relating to roundabout capacity and the impact on York Road.

 

Councillor Warneken proposed, and Councillor Packham seconded that contrary to the officer recommendation, the application should be minded to refuse, with the detailed reasons for refusal delegated to officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

 

The decision

 

That Members were MINDED TO REFUSE planning permission, with the detailed reasons for refusal delegated to officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

 

Voting record

 

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

 

The meeting adjourned at this point for a short break.