Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Microsoft Teams - Remote

Contact: Victoria Foreman  01757 292046 or Email: vforeman@selby.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

16.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J Mackman, I Chilvers, M Topping, M Jordan and R Packham.

 

Councillor R Musgrave was in attendance as a substitute for Councillor Mackman and Councillor T Grogan as a substitute for Councillor Chilvers.

 

 

 

 

 

17.

Disclosures of Interest

A copy of the Register of Interest for each Selby District Councillor is available for inspection at www.selby.gov.uk.

 

Councillors should declare to the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest in any item of business on this agenda which is not already entered in their Register of Interests.

 

Councillors should leave the meeting and take no part in the consideration, discussion or vote on any matter in which they have a disclosable pecuniary interest.

 

Councillors should also declare any other interests. Having made the declaration, provided the other interest is not a disclosable pecuniary interest, the Councillor may stay in the meeting, speak and vote on that item of business.

 

If in doubt, Councillors are advised to seek advice from the Monitoring Officer.

 

Minutes:

Councillors Cattanach, Grogan and Musgrave declared non-pecuniary interests in agenda items 5.1 – Laurel Lodge, Airfield Lane, Acaster Selby and 5.3 – 4 The Crescent, Kelfield, York as they had received additional representations on the applications by email.

 

Councillor R Musgrave also declared an additional non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 5.1 – Laurel Lodge, Airfield Lane, Acaster Selby as the application was in his Ward and as such he had been involved in discussions relating to the application with the applicants, local residents and the Parish Council. However, Councillor Musgrave confirmed that he had come to the meeting with an open mind and without predetermination of the application.

 

The Solicitor confirmed that Councillor Musgrave was entitled to take part in discussions relating to agenda item 5.1 – Laurel Lodge, Airfield Lane, Acaster Selby as long as he was not predetermined.

 

18.

Chair's Address to the Planning Committee

Minutes:

The Chair informed Members that an Officer Update Note had been circulated and that the business would be taken in the order as set out on the agenda.

 

The Committee noted that details of any further representations received on the applications would be given by the Officers in their presentations.

 

19.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 399 KB

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 5 August 2020.

 

(The minutes of the meeting held on 12 August 2020 will be included for sign off on the agenda for the meeting of the Planning Committee to be held on 2 September 2020.)

 

Minutes:

Members considered the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 5 August 2020 but were unable to approve them as only those who were present at the meeting on 5 August 2020 were able to do so.  

 

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 5 August 2020 be included in the agenda of a subsequent meeting of the Committee for approval.

 

20.

Planning Applications Received pdf icon PDF 10 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Planning Committee considered the following applications.

20.1

2019/1173/FUL - Laurel Lodge, Airfield Lane, Acaster Selby pdf icon PDF 211 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Application: 2019/1173/FUL

Location: Laurel Lodge, Airfield Lane, Acaster Selby 

Proposal: Retention of one dwelling and car port/garden store and removal of the second dwelling

 

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before brought before Planning Committee as it constituted inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The matter for consideration

was whether the case put forward by the applicants amounted to the ‘Very Special Circumstances’ necessary to ‘clearly outweigh’ the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm identified.

 

The Committee noted that the application was for the retention of one dwelling and car port/garden store and removal of the second dwelling

 

An Officer Update Note had been circulated to Members and made available on the Council’s website which stated that a letter from the applicants had been sent to all Members in advance of the meeting. Officers had also seen the letter and were aware of its contents.

 

Members asked questions of the Officer regarding the application before them, on matters such as the size of the proposed development compared to what had been on site previously and any possible enforcement action that may be required.

 

Officers explained that to build on the Green Belt required very special circumstances. Members noted that the granting of permission for a scheme such as the application before them could set a dangerous precedent for development in the Green Belt. It was not considered that the current application amounted to very special circumstances and as such the application should be refused, as recommended in the report.

 

The Committee acknowledged the regrettable situation that the applicants found themselves in but agreed that proper regulation and protection of the Green Belt was crucial; as such it would not be appropriate to grant permission on the site.

 

It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused; a vote was taken on the proposal and was carried.

 

RESOLVED:

To REFUSE the application for the reasons set out at paragraph 7 of the report.

 

20.2

2020/0073/COU - North Newlands Farm, Selby Road, Riccall pdf icon PDF 81 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Application: 2020/0073/COU

Location: North Newlands Farm, Selby Road, Riccall

Proposal: Change of use of land for siting of a caravan for use as granny flat/annexe to the existing property (Retrospective)

 

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before brought before Planning Committee as the proposal was contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan (namely SP1 and SP2 of the Core Strategy) but it was considered there were material considerations which would justify approval of the application.

 

The Committee noted that the application was for the change of use of land for siting of a caravan for use as granny flat/annexe to the existing property (Retrospective).

 

Officers confirmed the situation of the applicants and the reasons why the caravan was required.

 

The Committee expressed the opinion that the application before them was appropriate and that they had no concerns with the proposal.

 

It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved; a vote was taken on the proposal and was carried.

 

RESOLVED:

To GRANT the application subject to the condition set out at paragraph 7 of the report.

 

20.3

2020/0510/HPA - 4 The Crescent, Kelfield, York pdf icon PDF 207 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Application: 2020/0510/HPA

Location: 4 The Crescent, Kelfield, York

Proposal: Erection of two-storey side extension

 

The Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before Planning Committee at the discretion of the Head of Planning as 11 letters of representation had been received.

 

The Committee noted that the application was for the erection of a two-storey side extension.

 

An Officer Update Note had been circulated to Members and made available on the Council’s website which stated that additional information had been received in support of the application from the applicant; the additional information had been circulated to Members in advance of the meeting.

 

Members asked questions of the Officer about both the previous and current designs of the extension and its size compared to the original footprint of the existing dwelling. Officers explained that letters of support for the scheme had been received but these had not been from immediate neighbours to the application site, or the local Parish Council.

 

The Committee considered the application in full and felt strongly that the design of the proposal was not appropriate and did not sit well with the surrounding area; as such, it was proposed and seconded that the application should be refused.

 

A vote was taken on the proposal and was carried.

 

RESOLVED:

To REFUSE the application for the reason set out at paragraph 7 of the report.