Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Duggan.

Councillor Duckett was in attendance as a substitute for Councillor Duggan.

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.

Councillors Packham, Ashton, Richardson, Topping and Ellis declared they had all received direct representations from the Planning Agents for items 5.1 and 5.2 and confirmed they retained an open mind and would not leave the meeting during consideration of these items.

The Chair announced that an Officer Update Note had been circulated and was available to view alongside the agenda on the Council’s website.

The Committee noted that any late representations on the applications would be summarised by the Officer in their presentation.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 8 February 2023.

The Committee considered the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 8 March 2023.

RESOLVED:

To approve the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 8 March 2023 for signing by the Chairman.

The Planning Committee considered the following planning applications.

Application: 2019/0547/EIA

Location: Land Off Lumby Lane, South Milford

Proposal: Proposed construction of a motorway service area (MSA).

The Assistant Principal Planning Officer presented the application which was accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement and, in addition, had been brought before Planning Committee as the application was a major application where 10 or more letters of representation had been received which raised material planning considerations and where Officers would otherwise have determined the application contrary to these representations.

Members noted that the application was for the proposed construction of a Motorway Service Area (MSA).

Members noted the Officer Update Note which detailed amended plans to the route of the public right of way to the north east corner of the site following discussions between the Applicant, the District Council and the Public Rights of Way Officer and an amended plan which showed some of the offsite mitigation works following discussions between the Applicant, the District Council, the Public Rights of Way Officer and the Highways Officer. The Officer Update Note relayed that NYCC Ecologythe Public Rights of Way Officer and the Highways Officer had not raised any objections to the proposed alterations. Yorkshire Water had confirmed verbally that i had no objections in principle, but a formal written consultation response was awaited to confirm this position, along with the acceptability of the post and rail fence within the easement area of the water main. The Officer Update Note also set out that further information on surface water drainage that was required by the Local Lead Flood Authority and had not yet been received. It  set out a further reason for refusal of the application on the basis of insufficient information being received to demonstrate a viable means of surface water drainage. The Officer explained that two further letters of representation in support of the proposal had been received and summarised the details therein. Furthermore, the Officer advised that two letters of representation objecting to the application had been requested to be removed; that seven representees had queried their response with the Council, after which the Council had not received confirmation whether their representation was valid; and the validity of eleven further representees was questioned as their email addresses no longer existed.

Members asked if the presented plan was finalised and asked for clarity on whether issues raised by Yorkshire Water could be resolved. The Committee also asked for details of the extent of the Green Belt surrounding the application site.

The Assistant Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the plan displayed in the presentation was the finalised design but that amended plans to the public right of way were detailed in the Officer Update Note and that Yorkshire Water had confirmed verbally that it had no objections to this amendment but that a formal written response had not yet been submitted. The Officer confirmed that the site lay fully in the South and West Yorkshire Green Belt as the boundary crossed in North Yorkshire and the Selby District and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

Application: 2022/1445/HPA

Location: Garth House, Landing Lane, Hemingbrough

Proposal: Demolition of the attached rear single storey porch and workshop to be replaced with new single storey extension to form new kitchen and garden room.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before Planning Committee at the request of the Ward Councillor Karl Arthur, should Officers be minded to refuse the application. The reasons provided for the application being called to committee were detailed in the report.

Members noted that the application was for the demolition of the attached rear single storey porch and workshop to be replaced with new single storey extension to form new kitchen and garden room.

Members noted that they had all received additional drawings from the Planning Agent further explaining the application in the week prior to Committee.

The Committee asked the Planning Officer for confirmation that the assertion by the architect in the submitted drawings that a detached outbuilding similar to the application would be granted under permitted development rights was correct.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that an application for such an outbuilding would likely be granted under permitted development rights but that this application differed as the ridge height of this proposed extension was higher than the hypothetical outbuilding and the building was to be attached to the main house.

Democratic Services read a statement on behalf of the Agent in favour of the application.

Members debated the application further and showed support for it stating that this proposal was preferable to the previous, approved proposal. Members posited that the completed extension would be congruous with the existing built form and street scene on Landing Lane and would complement the main building.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be GRANTED against the Officer’s recommendation. A vote was taken on the Proposal and was carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be GRANTED subject to conditions agreed in application 2022/0564/HPA and that the decision be delegated to the Head of Planning Services in consultation with the Chair of Planning Committee.

Application: TPO/24/2022

Location: Kenilworth House, Stillingfleet

Proposal: Confirmation of the proposed Tree Preservation Order with no modifications.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before the Planning Committee in accordance with the scheme of delegation 3.8.9(b)(viii), the confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order cannot be issued under delegated powers due to an objection to make the order. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 198 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 this report sought the permission of the Planning Committee to “Confirm with no Modification”, Tree Preservation Order No. 24/2022.  A copy of the Order is at Appendix A.

Members noted that the application was for Confirmation of the proposed Tree Preservation Order with no modifications.

The Committee asked the Principal Planning Officer whether the conditions of the Tree Preservation Order would extend to the relevant utility company given the proximity of the tree to the power lines.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the utility company was a statutory undertaker and as such would have the right to prune the tree irrespective of any Tree Preservation Order but only if it crossed into operational land; this tree is currently on domestic land. The Principal Planning Officer suggested that the need to prune the tree to avoid the power lines supported this application as the Order would ensure the tree was maintained in a controlled and approved way.

Members questioned the individual value of the tree and it’s contribution to the Stillingfleet Conservation Area.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the tree was juvenile but that it was of value to the Stillingfleet Conservation Area and that controls on its maintenance under a Tree Preservation Order would protect its future and its contribution to the Conservation Area.

Members debated the application noting that the tree was non-native and juvenile but that this application was primarily to control any proposed maintenance to the tree to preserve the value of the Conservation Area.

It was proposed and seconded that the Tree Preservation Order be refused but the Proposal fell.

It was proposed and seconded that the Tree Preservation Order be Confirmed with no modifications. A vote was taken on the Proposal and was carried.

RESOLVED:

That the Tree Preservation Order be CONFIRMED with no modifications.

Application: TPO/27/2022

Location: Oak Lodge, Skipwith Road, Escrick

Proposal: Confirmation of the proposed Tree Preservation Order with no modifications.

The Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before the Planning Committee in accordance with the scheme of delegation 3.8.9(b)(viii), the confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order cannot be issued under delegated powers due to an objection to make the order. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 198 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 this report sought the permission of the Planning Committee to “Confirm with no Modification”, Tree Preservation Order No. 27/2022.  

Members noted that the application was for Confirmation of the proposed Tree Preservation Order with no modifications.

Members noted the Officer Update Note which detailed an objection to the confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order from a neighbour of the site which had been received after the deadline for comments.

The Committee asked the Planning Officer to confirm that a Tree Preservation Order did not preclude maintenance of the tree, just that any works needed approval.

The Planning Officer confirmed that was correct.

Members debated the application emphasising the intrinsic value of native trees such as T1 and agreeing that correct and proactive maintenance of trees, including regular pruning, was necessary and not precluded by a Tree Preservation Order.

It was proposed and seconded that the Tree Preservation Order be Confirmed with no modifications. A vote was taken on the Proposal and was carried.

RESOLVED:

That the Tree Preservation Order be CONFIRMED with no modifications subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 7 of the report and the details set out in the Officer Update Note.