Agenda item

At this point it was proposed and seconded to continue the meeting beyond 5.00pm; a vote was taken and was CARRIED.

Application: 2021/1087/FULM

Location: Toll Bridge Filling Station (Derelict), Ousegate, Selby

Proposal: Development of one ground floor commercial unit [class uses E[a] and E[b] and 13 no. residential apartments to include landscaped gardens; cycle storage and refuse storage provision; access and flood barrier walls

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before Planning Committee due to the level of affordable housing being proposed.

Members noted that the application was for the development of one ground floor commercial unit [class uses E[a] and E[b] and 13 no. residential apartments to include landscaped gardens; cycle storage and refuse storage provision; access and flood barrier walls.

The Officer Update Note set out additional matters for consideration by the Committee; these included that reference to the open space should be referred to as west side, not east; additional Highways comments on the amended plans, a query from the applicant on several conditions, removal of a materials condition, additional information submitted to address conditions 11 (piling) and 12 (foundations), an amendment to Highways condition 19, removal of drainage condition 22 and lastly that an incorrect location plan had been circulated with the published report.

The Committee asked numerous questions of the Officer about the scheme, in particular about trees bordering the site, whether they had TPO status and if a tree survey had been done; whether a re-consultation had been undertaken following the receipt of additional objections from numerous members of the public who were concerned about the impact of the scheme on the Conservation Area, and lastly on the location of the old fuel tanks on the site.

Officers responded to Member queries and explained that no tree survey had been done as the vegetation and trees were thought to be overgrown scrub and intermittent greenery; and as such were not considered as part of the wider scheme. The existing vegetation would be replaced by a designed open space area.

With regards to any re-consultation, Officers had felt that as the new plans had only been recently submitted and that the points raised in the representations had been addressed, a re-consultation was not required.

The Committee noted that the old petrol tanks had been removed from the site several years ago, in around 2010/2011; as such, they would not be an issue going forward.

Zoe Bell, applicant, was invited to speak remotely at the meeting and spoke in favour of the application.

Members debated the application further and acknowledged that whilst the provision of a crossing was now not required, members of the public would still cross the road at that point.

Some Members recognised that the scheme was well designed and had suitable detail and architectural merits but felt that more consideration should be given to the trees and vegetation already present on the site, which was key to the setting to the gateway of the Conservation Area. As such, it was suggested that a tree survey should have been undertaken for careful consideration of the trees before retention or removal. Officers confirmed that condition 25 would not cover such matters off site. The potential for a tree protection condition was suggested, but this would be subject to agreement and assessment as to whether the trees were viable for protection. Some Members disagreed with the view of the trees and considered them scrub that had grown up since dereliction if the site. Further matters relating to contamination, access of HGVs under the Ousegate Bridge and affordable housing on site were also addressed by Officers.

Following a detailed discussion of the proposals, Members agreed that the applicants had designed a good scheme on what was a difficult site that needed development. There had been a great deal of work by the applicant and Case Officer to get the scheme to the current design, and as such it was proposed and seconded that the application be GRANTED. A vote was taken and was carried.

RESOLVED:

That permission be GRANTED, subject to a Unilateral Undertaking and the conditions set out in paragraph 7 of the report and the Officer Update Note.