Agenda item

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 encompassed various established business and developments.

The Committee asked if the parking charge of £10, of which £9 would be redeemable within the MSA facilities could be subject of a legal agreement or condition, and also asked for details on how well used Ferrybridge and Wetherby motorway services were and details of proposed potential benefits to local communities.

The Planning Development Manager stated it would be difficult to control through a planning condition, though potentially could be covered by a legal agreement subject to meeting the relevant tests and is something that would usually be managed by the site operator. The Assistant Principal Planning Officer stated that the Applicant had carried out an Automatic Number Plate Recognition survey at the Ferrybridge MSA and determined the usage was lower than expected compared to other MSAs, however, no details were available for the motorway services at Wetherby. The Assistant Principal Planning Officer listed the proposed economic and social commitments submitted by the applicant detailed in section 5.162 of the report relating to job opportunities and investment in the area which have been set out in the draft section 106 agreement which would ensure enforcement of these commitments.

Members asked for more details on how the surface water drainage issues identified could be resolved and were told by the Assistant Principal Planning Officer that the Local Lead Flood Authority had advised that further information was required on any surface water drainage proposals before the determination of the application including testing and evidence of success and their statement, detailed in the Officer Update Note, added this lack of evidence as a further reason for refusal of the application.

The Committee referred to the Circular 02/2013  - Department for Transport’s Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development, which recommended that the maximum distance between MSAs on motorways and all-purpose trunk roads should be no greater than 28 miles and in relation to the spacing of freight facilities, that in areas where there is an identified need, the maximum distances between motorway facilities providing HGV parking should be no more than 14 miles,  and asked how this policy impacted this application.

The Assistant Principal Planning Officer advised that the application before Members was for the construction of a motorway service area, for which it was considered that there was not a compelling need for in this Green Belt location. There is no policy that rules out more frequent services, however, given distances between existing services at Ferrybridge and Wetherby, Officers did not agree that there was a compelling need for the proposed development in this Green Belt location

The Lead Executive Member for Communities and Economic Development, Councillor David Buckle was in attendance and spoke in favour of the application.

The Ward Councillor, Councillor Tim Grogan, was in attendance and spoke in favour of the application.

The Applicant, Dr Ian Mackay, was in attendance and spoke in favour of the application.

Members expressed support for the application against the Officer’s recommendation. It was stated that the proposal would provide a superb gateway to the area. The Committee did not agree that Ferrybridge served the A1(M). It was stated that the proposal would integrate into the existing landscape. It would provide good facilities for potential patrons including much needed parking and conveniences for Heavy Goods Vehicle drivers who approached from the south and serviced the industrial estates at Sherburn in Elmet as well as an increased need for electric vehicle charging points. The Committee agreed there was a compelling need for an MSA to service the A1(M) near the Selby District and that no other suitable sites had been identified. Members stated that the Very Special Circumstances submitted by the Applicant to support development in the Green Belt were legitimate but that there was a need to ensure the proposed benefits of the site outweighed any negative effect.

Members raised the issues with surface water drainage and stated this issue needed to be resolved, along with a complete set of conditions and a section 106 agreement detailed the benefits to the community but overall support was shown for the economic, environmental and social benefits the development proposed.

Questions were asked by the Committee about the process for making a decision contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

The Head of Planning and the Planning Solicitor stated that, whilst it would be possible if Members were minded to approve to delegate the grant of permission to the Head of Planning in conjunction with the Chair of the Committee, this was advised against. The Planning Solicitor explained that this was large development with an EIA that would require an extensive suite of conditions and more detail to a Section 106 Agreement, which Members, and the public, should have sight of in making their decision to ensure robust decision-making in the public interest. Members were strongly advised  against delegating a grant of permission to the Head of Planning and the Chair., Further, given the upcoming Local Government Reorganisation on 1^st April 2023, there would be insufficient time to complete the work required to allow for delegation to the Head of Planning and the Chair of Committee. The recommendation from Officers if Members were minded to approve was that the application be brought back to Committee with a full set of conditions and Heads of Terms for legal agreement.

The Head of Planning and the Planning Solicitor explained that the Committee could vote on whether they were minded to approve the application and, if this were the case, an updated version of the application would go to the Strategic Planning Committee in the new authority following Local Government Reorganisation, North Yorkshire Council, where detailed planning agreements and conditions and any plans to resolve the surface water drainage issues could be scrutinised publicly and by the Committee prior to a decision. Officers would clearly set out what the Selby Planning Committee was trying to achieve.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be minded to approve and would be brought back to the Strategic Planning Committee of North Yorkshire Council with a full suite of conditions and further detail on Section 106 agreement obligations in the public interest. A vote was taken on the Proposal and was carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be MINDED TO APPROVE subject to further consideration at Planning Committee of a full suite of conditions and further detail on the Section 106 obligations