Agenda item

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 9, a vote was taken for the meeting to continue beyond three hours in length in the event it ran over this time.

RESOLVED:

                        To continue the meeting beyond three hours if needed.

Application: 2020/0149/FULM

Location:Sellite Blocks Ltd., Long Lane, Great Heck, Goole

Proposal: Proposed erection of a foamed glass manufacturing facility including hard surfacing for material storage

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been considered by the Committee on 6 October 2021, as the application was a major application where 10 or more letters of representation had been received against the officer recommendation. Members had resolved to defer the application for a site visit to assess the impact on the highway, visual impact on the countryside and the impact on occupiers of residential properties. The Committee had also deferred for further information with regards to the necessary conditions, HGV traffic movements, hours of operation, clarification of emissions from the plant and further details on visual impact. Planning Committee Members, Parish Councillors and Mr Vendy as agent for Heck Parish Council had been invited to the site visit along with NYCC Highways Officer and SDC Environmental Health Officer.

Members noted that the application was for the proposed erection of a foamed glass manufacturing facility including hard surfacing for material storage.

In attendance at the meeting was an Environmental Health Officer from Selby District Council.

An Officer Update Note had been circulated and published online ahead of the meeting which gave details of an amendment to the recommendation and Heads of Terms for the legal agreement, additional information from the applicant relating to traffic routing, draft CEMPs and the landscaping scheme, comparison of building heights to other tall buildings in the district and lastly additional representations from objectors that referred to the Local Plan and landscaping.

The Committee asked numerous questions of the Officer about the scheme which covered other block manufacturing in the area, building elevation and visibility of the highest point, night-time operations and resultant noise and the views of the Landscape Officer.

Officers explained that the facility was one of a number of such businesses in the area, which also included environmental and waste recycling companies.

The Committee were informed that a noise impact assessment had been undertaken by Environmental Health at both day and night; the operations at night were between 11.00pm and 7.00am. The Environmental Health Officer was satisfied that suitable mitigation measures were in place to reduce noise. Officers also confirmed that the night operations were reduced from those in the day and that there were fully enforceable conditions regarding the use of such things as vehicle reversal beepers.

Lastly, Members noted that in terms of the Landscape Officer’s report when considering views of the facility, the landscape effects were moderate adverse to negligible, as were the visual effects. Officers confirmed that subject to the landscaping scheme, the residual effects on the landscape were not considered to be significant. The proposed development would be visible from close, medium and long-range regions of the surrounding landscape because of the substantial height and scale. Mitigation measures would reduce the visual effects but were less effective in terms of the tallest part of the building. As a result, it was accepted by all parties that the tallest part of the building would be seen, which could not be mitigated against.

Stuart Vendy, objector, was invited to speak at the meeting and spoke against the application.

John Hunter, Heck Parish Council, was invited to speak at the meeting and spoke against the application.

Councillor J McCartney, Ward Member, was invited to speak at the meeting and spoke against the application.

Colin Hope, applicant, was invited to speak to the meeting and spoke in favour of the application.

Members debated the application further and acknowledged that the scheme before them constituted a major application; some Members felt that the proposals were acceptable and that potential effects on the surrounding landscape and residential amenity were manageable though the numerous conditions attached to the Officer’s recommendation.

Other Committee Members strongly felt that in terms of the scheme’s carbon footprint there needed to be policies that took this into account so it could be properly assessed; as a result some Members stated they would not be supporting the application.

The site visit undertaken by the Committee was judged to have been very useful as it had allowed Members to assess how the proposals would impact the surrounding area; on balance, the application was felt to be acceptable.

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

RESOLVED:

1.        That the application be GRANTED, subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 3 of the report and the Officer Update Note, and the completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in relation to the following matters:

a)    long term landscape and ecology management plan (30 years);

b)   delivery of 10% biodiversity net gain on land identified within the blue land (owned by the applicant) in accordance with a detailed scheme to be agreed; and

c)    traffic routing plan for HGVs.

2.            That the Head of Planning/Panning Development Manager be authorised to issue the planning permission on completion of the agreement.