Agenda item

Application: 2017/1381/FULM

Location: Land at Viner Station, Rose Lane, Birkin, Knottingley                  

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

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been reported to the Planning Committee at its meeting held on 6June 2018, and was deferred for the following reasons, as set out in the minutes of that meeting:

“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.”

Subsequently 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 had been lodged against the refusal and would be the subject of a hearing later in August. Members were directed to the relevant planning history section of the report, from paragraph 1.7, for the refusal reasons.

Officers explained that the current application for consideration by Members related solely to the new agricultural grain store. In view of the time period that had passed, the report was re-written, updated and addressed the queries which had arisen previously at committee. 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 also been provided on the following:

·      Blue line ownership for the entire holding;

·      Further details of the farm business;

·      Greater justification for the agricultural need for the building and why the existing buildings were to be discounted; and

·      Advice by an Agricultural Consultant on behalf of the Council.

The Committee noted that the application was for the proposed erection of a new grain store including a chemical store and roof mounted solar PV.

An Officer Update Note had been circulated to Members and made available on the Council’s website that responded to comments and queries raised when the application was previously considered at the CEO Planning Decision Session on 24 June 2020.

The Officer’s report concluded that the application could be determined ahead of the appeal decision because there was clear evidence of sound agricultural justification for the new grain store, even if the appeal was dismissed and the biomass building was again available for agricultural use.

Members asked questions relating to the difference between multiple planning and business units within agricultural holdings, the bunding on site and the grain storage capacity and its relation to the proposed grain cash and carry business.

The Committee also asked about Condition 13, which specified that no drying of grain from other farms could take place on site; Officers confirmed that the purpose of the condition was to restrict the drying and storage of grain to that which had been produced on the land which served the agricultural business and to prevent the site being used for commercial grain storage.

The Committee debated the application, with some Members expressing concerns around the capacity of the roads surrounding the site to accommodate increased farm traffic and heavy vehicles. Officers confirmed that North Yorkshire County Council Highways had expressed no such concerns and had agreed that the proposed application for grain storage would not result in more than normal agricultural traffic, as was expected in the countryside.

The Committee debated the application further and accepted that as submitted, it was acceptable to policy and should be supported. Some Members stated that the proposed grain business was in context with the existing uses on the site, and that the bunding and screening allowed for the proposed building to blend in.

It was subsequently proposed and seconded that permission be granted; a vote was taken on the proposal and was carried.

RESOLVED:

To GRANT permission for the application subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 7 of the report.