Agenda item

Application: 2020/0225/FULM

Location: Land South of Gloster Close, Busk Lane, Church Fenton

Proposal: Proposed change of use from grazing agricultural land to BMX cycle track with toilet block, picnic area and car park

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been deferred from Committee on 30 June 2021 for a site visit. The application was then reported back to the Planning Committee on 18 August 2021. Members resolved at the August 2021 meeting that they were minded to GRANT planning permission, subject the resolution of various minor matters. Members also authorised delegated powers to Officers to issue the decision, subject to these matters being resolved.

These matters included:

·           no issues being raised following statutory consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority and Leeds East Airport;

·           agreement of any additional conditions in relation to site management;

·           agreement of the conditions set out at paragraph 7 of the report and in the Officer Update Note; and

·           agreement of an additional condition that the site revert back to agricultural use should the BMX site be abandoned in the future.

The outcome of the above matters was as follows:

·           the statutory consultations were carried out with the CAA and Leeds Airport and no objections or issues were raised; and

·           since the Committee’s resolution, Officers had received delayed comments from the Local Lead Flood Authority. The LLFA advised that additional conditions were recommended and that further information on the final discharge arrangements was required, prior to determination of the application. The additional conditions required Committee approval as they did not fall within the scope of the delegated powers agreed by Members at the time of making the decision. The additional information regarding final discharge arrangements had been requested from the applicant; however, this had not been provided and the applicant confirmed that they did not intend to provide this information.

Officers explained that on this basis, the application had been brought back to Members for further consideration. Officers recommended that the application now be refused based on advice provided by the LLFA due to lack of sufficient information to fully assess the impact of the development in terms of water discharge arrangements.

Members noted that the application was for a proposed change of use from grazing agricultural land to BMX cycle track with toilet block, picnic area and car park.

The Officer Update Note gave details of one further representation; the main points raised were the potential danger for children to travel to the site as there were no footpaths, cycleways or lighting connecting to the village, as well as the current high levels of HGV traffic in association with nearby airbase, which would increase if the recent planning application for increased storage of modular homes and cars was approved.

The Committee asked numerous questions of the Officer about the scheme, in particular about comments from the Local Flood Authority (LFA), which had now been included in the report. Officers explained that the LFA wished to know that infiltration tests had been undertaken before determination of the application took place.

Members also asked whether a stop notice had been served on the site; Officers confirmed that a temporary stop notice had been served for the bunding work, but that Members could not take that into account when considering the scheme as it was not a material consideration.

The Committee asked if there was any further response on soakaway calculations or soil importation. Officers stated that they had asked if soil would be imported or if soil from the site would be used, but no response had been received. The lack of information meant that it was not possible to make an accurate decision on site drainage.

Sam Dewar, agent, was invited to speak at the meeting and spoke in favour of the application.

Members debated the application further and were informed by Officers that there were occasions when conditions could be added to the scheme to provide further information, but this was on a case-by-case basis.

Clarification was sought by Members on the responses from the drainage consultees and if any issues had been identified. Officer explained that the site was on Flood Zone 2 and adjacent to the fens. There had been some concern expressed about the effect of the hydrology of the fens, with drainage needing to be checked to assess the impact. The remaining information provided by the LFA had been delayed due to resources and capacity.

Members asked if there would be any impact on vulnerable properties near the proposed site, or just on the neighbouring fens. Officers were not aware of any potential impact on such properties, as there was likely to be more runoff from the car park and toilet block. The site would be landscaped with vegetation that would hold water; however, the LFA had emphasised that they would want percolation testing completed before a decision was taken.

The Officer went through the LFA’s comments in detail for the Committee, who further questioned other conditions the LFA required and matters they had raised, such as runoff destination details, peak flow control and a viable means of discharging water.

Members acknowledged that the recommendation of the LFA was that the scheme was not considered to be acceptable in terms of flood risk and drainage, due to insufficient information being available to determine whether the development could achieve a viable means of discharging surface water.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be REFUSED.

It was then proposed that the application be APPROVED; there was no seconder to the proposal and it fell.

A vote was taken on REFUSAL of the application and was carried.

RESOLVED:

That permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

The scheme was not considered to be acceptable in terms of Flood Risk and Drainage, due to insufficient information being available to determine whether the development could achieve a viable means of discharging surface water. The proposed development would therefore conflict with the aims of SDLP Policy ENV1, CS Policy SP1, SP19, Policy F1 of the CFNP and with the NPPF.