Agenda item

Application: 2019/0559/FULM

Location:Ibbotsons, Mill Hill, Braegate Lane, Colton

Proposal:Use of agricultural buildings and land for the processing and storage of potatoes, erection of enlarged storage building following demolition of existing building, construction of internal roadway and footpath, construction of water tanks, excavation of lagoons, and construction of hard standings

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before Planning Committee at the request of Councillor R Musgrave.

Members noted that the application was for the use of agricultural buildings and land for the processing and storage of potatoes, erection of enlarged storage building following demolition of existing building, construction of internal roadway and footpath, construction of water tanks, excavation of lagoons, and construction of hard standings.

The Committee considered the Officer Update Note which set out extra information including additional comments from the LLFA on the amended plans and information and an additional representation on behalf of Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster). The Officer had responded to the points raised in these representations on matters including the planning history and landscape.

The Committee asked numerous questions of the Officer about the scheme, in particular about the planning history of the site, when the representation from the LPA had been made, impact on the adjacent green belt, whether a landscape assessment had been undertaken, the removal of tree species, operational hours and traffic impact.

Officers explained that there was no date available for the submission of the representation from the LPA as the current application had been submitted in 2019, and that a traffic survey had been undertaken, but it was not thought that this would affect the green belt. As such, Officers confirmed that the assessment of the scheme and subsequent recommendation would not have been altered. Officers also did not believe that a landscape or formal tree assessment were required.

The Committee noted that Officers had met with the objector to the scheme who had accepted that there was already a lot of traffic in the area; the suggested conditions had been taken from the applicant’s additional information. A traffic survey had been undertaken but there was no data on previous use. As such, the impact and volume of traffic, based on a standard agricultural use, had been assessed from that starting point. It was noted that North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) had agreed with this view. 

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

Christopher Kendall, agent, was invited into the meeting remotely and spoke in support of the application.

Following the resolution of some technical issues, Brian Percival, objector, was invited into the meeting remotely and spoke against the application.

Members debated the application further and acknowledged the objector’s concerns around hours of operation and vehicle movements, and the resulting impacts of such.

The Committee felt that the scheme before them was difficult to assess as there were several issues that required further information, including an assessment of how the site had developed over time. The point was made that the number of jobs on site (86) were likely a result of development without permission in the past. Some Members expressed support for the application in principle but agreed that there were elements that meant that deferral was more appropriate; these included the verification of traffic data, the effects on residential amenity, tree removal and surveying, visual screening and the provision of a landscape visual appraisal. The Committee also asked that Officers request company records relating to information on traffic and vehicle movements.

It was noted that condition 6 as set out in the report was likely to restrict the business heavily and as such could be difficult to see as appropriate. 

Officers informed Members that NYCC would be the body carrying out further data collection and verification on traffic.

A proposal was made that the application be GRANTED, but was not seconded, and as a result the proposal fell.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be DEFERRED; a vote was taken and was carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be DEFERRED in order for further information, as set out below, to be collected and evaluated as part of the scheme before being brought back to the Committee:

·         details of how the site had developed over time;

·         the verification of traffic data;

·         the effects on residential amenity;

·         tree removal and surveying;

·         visual screening and the provision of a landscape visual appraisal; and

·         that company records relating to information on traffic and vehicle movements be requested of the applicants.