Agenda item

Please note that Appendices 1, 2 and 3 to this report are collated in a separate document pack for ease of reference.

At this point Councillor J Cattanach vacated the Chair.

Councillor D Peart, Vice-Chair, in the Chair.

Application: 2018/0818/EIA

Location: Gascoigne Rail Freight Interchange, Former Gascoigne Wood Mine, New Lennerton Lane, Sherburn in Elmet

Proposal: Outline planning application with all matters (scale, appearance and layout) except access and landscaping reserved for the demolition of existing colliery buildings and construction of up to 186,000 sq m (approx. 2,000,000 sq ft) of Class B2/B8 and associated Class B1 floor space with supporting container storage area and associated buildings, trackside facilities, access and landscaping.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought back to Planning Committee in the light of the resolution in December 2018 when the Committee was minded to refuse the application. Five potential reasons for refusal were given by Committee and officers were instructed to undertake further research and obtain more information in support of the suggested reasons, before bringing the matter back to Committee. The applicant had provided further information in response to the issues raised at Planning Committee and further representations had been received from other interested parties and consultees which needed to be taken into account in coming to an overall decision on the application.

Members noted that Appendices 1, 2 and 3 to the report were in a separate document pack to the agenda for ease of reference.

The Chair informed Members that the Council’s Head of Economic Development and Regeneration and representatives from the Highways Authority were in attendance at the meeting to answer Members’ questions if required.

The Committee noted that the application was for outline planning permission with all matters (scale, appearance and layout) except access and landscaping reserved for the demolition of existing colliery buildings and construction of up to 186,000 sq m (approx. 2,000,000 sq ft) of Class B2/B8 and associated Class B1 floor space with supporting container storage area and associated buildings, trackside facilities, access and landscaping.

Officers explained that of the five reasons for refusal suggested by the Committee at its meeting in December, officers had only been able to work one of these into a valid reason for refusal. This was set out at paragraph 4.5 of the report:

‘The development of approximately 43ha of unallocated agricultural land unrelated to any existing settlement and without any present relationship or connections to the existing rail freight infrastructure and poorly served by public transport would constitute development in the open countryside that would be of a form, location and a scale that was contrary to Policies SP2 and SP13 of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan and saved Policies EMP2 and EMP9 of the Selby District Local Plan.’

In relation to the officer update note, the Committee acknowledged that a hard copy of the Highway Authority note that had previously been circulated to the Committee was attached. The Highways Authority had confirmed that this was the final version. Members noted at paragraph 5 of the note that the Highway Authority was of the opinion that refusal of the application on highway grounds could not be sustained.

Members acknowledged that additional comments from the County Landscape Officer had been the subject of further discussions with the applicants; the County Landscape Officer had confirmed that as a result of these discussions there were no outstanding objections.

In respect of the previous representations made by Sherburn Aero Club, a Joint Position Statement had been agreed between the applicants and the Aero Club, which was also included in the officer update note. The statement anticipated the withdrawal of the Aero Club’s objection, subject to the conclusion of an obligation, the Heads of Terms of which had been agreed by those parties.

Members asked questions of officers on a number of matters, including work on estimating the cumulative impact on traffic in the surrounding areas of Saxton and Sherburn, if viability assessments had been produced for the site, the accuracy of job creation figures, the objections of the Aero Club, ecology matters, the application’s relationship to the Council’s Core Strategy and Development Plan and the transportation of future workers to and from the site.

Dale Petty, Sherburn Aero Club, spoke to confirm that the Club’s objection had been withdrawn on the basis that a Joint Position Statement had now been agreed with the applicants. Mr Brian Bartle of Bartles Chartered Surveyors spoke in objection to the application at the Chair’s discretion. The two objectors shared the five minutes and were allocated two and a half minutes each in which to speak.

Stuart Natkus, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Members considered the application in full and expressed their concerns in relation to the scheme. Members felt that the development was not in line with the Council’s Core Strategy and NPPF, particularly the amount of employment land, which would be over and above what had been identified as being required in the Core Strategy. Members were of the opinion that the development amounted to unacceptable development in the countryside, and was contrary to policies SP2, SP13, the Core Strategy, ENP2, ENP9 and SP1.

The Committee queried whether the workers at the site would come from Selby District or would need to be brought in from further afield, i.e. West Yorkshire. Members felt that the development was contrary to overarching elements of sustainability as set out in paragraph 8 of the NPPF, as well as undermining the Council’s spatial strategy and distorting the Local Plan. In addition, the surrounding road networks and infrastructure would not be able to cope with a scheme of this size.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused.

RESOLVED:

To REFUSE the application based on the officers recommended reason for refusal and subject to the following additional reasons proposed by the Committee:

i.              The proposed development was unrelated to any existing settlement, poorly served by public transport and involved the development of approximately 43ha of unallocated agricultural land including best and most versatile land and would constitute inappropriate development in the open countryside.

ii.            The development would not be sustainable and be of a form, location, scale and extent that was contrary to the Council's Spatial Strategy, and specifically Policies SP1, SP2 and SP13 of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan and saved Policies EMP2 and EMP9 of the Selby District Local Plan.

iii.           In addition the three overarching objectives of achieving sustainable development set out in the National Planning Policy Framework would not be satisfied by this development. For the above reasons the application is contrary to the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework and in the opinion of the local planning authority there were no material considerations of sufficient weight to justify overriding these objections.