Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - Civic Centre, Doncaster Road, Selby, YO8 9FT

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

Media

Items
No. Item

66.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R Packham, K Ellis and M Topping.

 

Councillor S Duckett was in attendance as a substitute for Councillor Packham. Councillor G Ashton was in attendance as a substitute for Councillor Topping. Councillor R Musgrave was in attendance as a substitute for Councillor Ellis.

 

67.

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:

Councillor R Musgrave declared a personal prejudicial interest in agenda item 5.1 – 2021/0871/OUT - Field House, School Lane, Bolton Percy as he was a joint applicant; Councillor Musgrave confirmed that, following discussions with the Solicitor to the Committee, he would leave the meeting during the Officer’s presentation, the debate and the vote, but would return to the meeting to speak in favour of the application as joint applicant.

 

Councillors S Duckett and P Welch declared non-pecuniary interests in agenda item 5.2 – 2021/1478/OUT – Royal Oak Inn, Main Road, Hirst Courtney as they had both received representations on the application from Councillor M Jordan. Councillors Duckett and Welch confirmed that they would not leave the meeting during consideration thereof.

68.

Chair's Address to the Planning Committee

Minutes:

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.

69.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 220 KB

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 9 March 2022.

 

Minutes:

The Committee considered the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 9 March 2022.

 

Councillor J Mackman proposed an amendment to minute number 62 – Disclosures of Interest; the Housing Trust should be corrected to read ‘Selby and District Housing Trust’.

 

The amendment was seconded, a vote taken and agreed.

 

RESOLVED:

To approve the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 9 March 2022 for signing by the Chairman, subject to the amendment of minute number 62 – Disclosures of Interest, for the title of the housing trust to read ‘Selby and District Housing Trust’.

70.

Planning Applications Received pdf icon PDF 88 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Planning Committee considered the following planning applications.

70.1

2021/0871/OUT - Field House, School Lane, Bolton Percy pdf icon PDF 258 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor R Musgrave stepped down from the Committee and left the room at this point in order to be able to return and speak as applicant.

 

Application: 2021/0871/OUT

Location: Field House, School Lane, Bolton Percy

Proposal: Outline application (with all matters reserved) for the erection of detached dormer bungalow with double garage and associated driveway

 

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before Planning Committee as one of the Applicants (Mr R Musgrave) was a Ward Councillor for Selby District Council and the Councils scheme of delegation required that the application be determined by the Planning Committee. 

 

Members noted that it was an outline application (with all matters reserved) for the erection of detached dormer bungalow with double garage and associated driveway and asked that in the future maps of development limits of applications be provided in hard copy at the meeting.

 

The Committee considered the Officer Update Note which set out additional information from Yorkshire Water, an amendment to Condition 2 and further responses from the Parish Council, Sam Smiths Brewery and third-party comments from an objector. The Officer’s responses to the matters raised were also set out in the Update Noted.

 

The Committee asked numerous questions of the Officer relating to two previous approvals for properties at the site built outside of development limits, the current application’s encroachment into the countryside and greenfield garden land, clarification as to the self-build nature of the scheme, sustainability, connections to past or future planning policies.

 

Officers confirmed that the site was outside of settlement and development limits, encroached into the open countryside and was on greenfield garden land. The scheme had not been formally registered as self-build and there were no existing, emerging or out of date policies that could be applied to the scheme.

 

David Tillotson, objector, had his representation against the application read out by Democratic Services.

 

Councillor Richard Musgrave, applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

 

Members debated the application further, with some emphasising that the application needed to be assessed by existing policies and the by the fact that the Council now had a five-year land supply. The Core Strategy permitted countryside development but only in the event of affordable housing, which the current scheme did not contain. Development in secondary villages was restricted to certain types such as rebuilding or conversion, or the filling of frontage/ However, if such schemes were to be on greenfield sites, they did not meet policy requirements. The application in question did not improve the rural economy and was not being built for business, and similar applications had been refused recently. There was nothing special about the material considerations of the scheme that had been presented to the Committee and would, if approved, be a breach of planning policy and the statutory development plan.

 

Some Members felt that the application should be approved, but others expressed further concern about the effect on flooding and the opinions of the Parish Council and therefore continued to voice their opposition.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.1

70.2

2021/1478/OUT - Royal Oak Inn, Main Road, Hirst Courtney pdf icon PDF 988 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor R Musgrave re-joined the Committee at this point.

 

Application: 2021/1478/OUT

Location: Royal Oak Inn, Main Road, Hirst Courtney

Proposal:Outline application for erection of 9 dwellings following demolition of existing public house (all matters reserved)

 

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before Planning Committee at the request of the Ward Councillor on the grounds that the proposed development would provide housing in the village and contribute towards Selby District Council’s Local Plan, that the site was a brownfield site and was considered to be ‘infill’ within the village.

 

Members noted that it was an outline application for erection of 9 dwellings following demolition of existing public house (all matters reserved).

 

The Committee considered the Officer Update Note which clarified that the application had been brought before the Committee at the request of the Ward Member and that the pub had not been registered as an Asset of Community Value. The Update Note went on to provide further information in relation to paragraph 5.24 and the agent’s responses to reasons for refusal 2 (Marketing of the Property) and 4 (Ecology).

 

Officers were of the opinion that, taking account of the additional information provided and weighed against paragraph 60 of the NPPF where the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, along with the efficient use of previously developed land paragraphs 120c and d of the NPPF, the proposed scheme remained to be contrary to the policies of the Selby Development Plan. The recommendation remained as presented in the report for the reasons that had been previously advised.

 

The Committee asked numerous questions of the Officer about the outbuilding’s position outside the development limit and when the aforementioned limit was last reviewed, the camp site and hardstanding being considered as greenfield, the exact position of the development limit and rural housing enablers.

 

Officers confirmed that the outbuilding was outside the development limits, that the new Local Plan had not yet been agreed, that the current development limits in place had not been reviewed for a number of years and that whilst some of the hardstanding on the site could be consideredas previously developed the  visual and spatial impact also needed to be considered.

 

Members noted that rural housing enablers continued to work in the district but that the site under consideration would not provide any affordable housing as there would be less than 10 properties, and would require a survey to test its viability.

 

Russ Wagstaff and Ian Forbes of Hirst Courtney Parish Council shared the five minutes speaking time, and both spoke in favour of the application.

 

Sam Dewar, agent, spoke in favour of the application.

 

Members debated the application further with some expressing their support for the proposals; the pub was unlikely to operate commercially again, and the scheme was fully supported by the Parish Council.

 

However, some Members felt that despite the positive nature of the application, the Officer’s recommendation for refusal should be adhered to due to the restrictions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.2

70.3

2022/0050/REM - Yew Tree House, Main Street, Kelfield, Selby pdf icon PDF 500 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Application: 2022/0050/REM

Location: Yew Tree House, Main Street, Kelfield

Proposal:Reserved matters application including access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of 6 No dwellings (resubmission of 2021/1295/REM)

 

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before Planning Committee as a previous reserved matters application 2021/1295/REM. It had been twice presented to Committee on 8 December 2021 and the 12 January 2022 and was deferred by Members in order for a better scheme to come forward. Whilst the application was a new submission, the Head of Service deemed it appropriate to allow Members to reconsider the new scheme in light of previous comments.

 

Members noted that it was a reserved matters application including access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of 6 No dwellings (resubmission of 2021/1295/REM).

 

The Committee considered the Officer Update Note which corrected paragraph 5.25 of the report.

 

In response to a query from Members the Officer confirmed that that the number of dwellings on the site had not changed.

 

Chris Cade, objector, spoke against the application.

 

Rachael Bartlett, agent, spoke in favour of the application.

 

Members debated the application further, noting that the application had been considered by the Committee previously, and that the applicants had addressed the numerous issues raised by Members during past debates. The new layout presented as part of the revised scheme was acceptable with the frontage of the dwellings similar to the existing farmhouse on the site.

 

It was proposed and seconded that the application be GRANTED; a vote was taken and was carried.

 

RESOLVED:

That the application be GRANTED subject to the conditions set out at paragraph 7 of the report.