Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Microsoft Teams - Remote. View directions

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

Items
No. Item

12.

Planning Applications Received pdf icon PDF 180 KB

12.1

2017/1381/FULM - Land at Viner Station, Roe Lane, Birkin pdf icon PDF 91 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Location: Land at Viner Station, Roe Lane, Birkin

Proposal: Proposed erection of a new grain store including a chemical store and roof mounted solar PV

 

The matter had been brought to the Chief Executive for consideration under urgency as it had been reported to the Planning Committee at its meeting on 6 June 2018 and was deferred. It was deferred for the following reasons, as per the minutes of the meeting on 6 June 2018:

“Members felt that they required more information on the application including on the unauthorised uses of some of the buildings before they could take a decision. Some members expressed a preference for a site visit; however, it was agreed that a decision on such a visit would be taken at a later date.”

 

Following this, a retrospective application, under reference 2018/0681/FULM for the Change of Use of the buildings and land from agricultural use to industrial B2 use (which included 5 Biomass Boilers for the drying and heating of woodchip) was reported to Planning Committee in December 2018 and subsequently refused permission on 6 February 2019. An appeal was lodged against the refusal and would be the subject of a Hearing in August 2020.

 

Officers explained that the application under consideration related solely to the new agricultural grain store. An appraisal had been obtained by an Independent Agricultural Consultant on behalf of the Council which justified the need for the grain store independent of the other buildings on the site. Further information had been provided on the blue line ownership for the entire holding, details of the farm business, justification for the agricultural need for the building and why the existing buildings were to be discounted.

 

The Chief Executive noted that the application was for the proposed erection of a new grain store including a chemical store and roof mounted solar PV. Officers explained that the report from the Agricultural Consultant had made clear that the proposed new buildings could be justified and were needed. This was because the farm had taken on more land, was producing more grain (as opposed to other crops) and storing it for longer. The grain that was produced came from the land holdings owned by the applicants across the District and required a modern grain drying facility.

 

The Chief Executive was informed that the report of the Agricultural Consultant had been made public and no comments had been received by Officers in relation to it.

 

An independent barrister had reviewed both the current application report and that of the appeal and had confirmed that it was possible to differentiate between the appeal site and the current application site. The Planning Solicitor also agreed with this assessment.

 

As part of the decision-making process Members had been consulted on the application. These comments were collated and presented to the Chief Executive as part of the decision making. Comments had been received from some Members of the Planning Committee and the Ward Members.

 

The Chief Executive noted that comments had been received  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.1

12.2

2019/0901/FUL - Field View, Wistow Road, Selby pdf icon PDF 208 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Location: 2019/0901/FUL - Field View, Wistow Road, Selby

Proposal: Retrospective change of use of land to garden land, siting of a static caravan and laying of hardstanding

 

The matter had been brought to the Chief Executive for consideration under urgency as directed by the Head of Planning due to the level of objection. It was also noted that Ward Councillor J. Shaw-Wright had called the application in, should Officers be minded to approve the application.

 

The Chief Executive noted that the application was for the retrospective change of use of land to garden land, siting a static caravan and laying of hardstanding.

 

Officers explained that the water harvesting tank element of the application had been removed, as no details of this had been supplied when the application was submitted and that the application area was mostly outside development limits and in the open countryside.

 

As part of the decision-making process Members had been consulted on the application. These comments were collated and presented to the Chief Executive as part of the decision making. Comments had been received from some Members of the Planning Committee and the Ward Members.

 

The Chief Executive noted that comments from Members expressed their support for the Officer’s recommendation of refusal. Members had stated that the road near the application site was restricted to 30mph, yet vehicles often travelled above the speed limit, and that there was also a sharp bend just before the site. Members had also commented that should the water harvesting tank turn out to be a septic tank, the applicant would have to contact the Internal Drainage Board for permission to connect to the nearby water course.

 

The Solicitor and other Officers confirmed that they had no further comments on the application.

 

The Chief Executive, having considered the report and representations from Members and Officers in full, confirmed that she would support the Officer’s recommendation to refuse permission.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

  1. The proposed development significantly encroaches into open countryside, where in accordance with the overall Spatial Development Strategy for the District, development will be restricted to the replacement or extension of existing buildings, the re-use of buildings preferably for employment purposes, and well-designed new buildings of an appropriate scale, which would contribute towards and improve the local economy and communities, in accordance with Policy SP13; or meet rural affordable housing need (which meets the provisions of Policy SP10), or other special circumstances. The proposal does not comprise any of the types of development that are acceptable in principle under Policy SP2A (c) of the Core Strategy and therefore the proposal is unacceptable in principle and contrary to Policy SP2A (c) of the Selby District Core Strategy and hence the overall Spatial Development Strategy for the District.

 

  1. The application site provides the entrance to the settlement where the countryside meets the residential urban form. The proposed change of use to domestic garden land and the siting of a static caravan in this location, would be harmful  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.2