Agenda item

At this point in the meeting, at 5.24pm, the Chairman announced a short comfort break; the meeting reconvened at 5.31pm.

Application: 2019/0031/FUL

Location: Land South of Chapel View, Marsh Lane, Bolton Percy

Proposal: Proposed erection of three dwellings

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application been brought before Planning Committee as the determination was limited by Part 3 (b) (vi) of the Selby District Constitution; the application is recommended for refusal, but 10 letters of support have been received. The application had previously been on the agenda for the meeting to be held on 7August 2019 but was withdrawn from Committee at the agent and applicant’s request, due to them not being able to attend the meeting. Since this time, the applicant and agent had requested time to consider the report, their case and to make further submissions which were delayed due to COVID impacts. 

Additional information was received by Officers on 1 December 2021, and this was now considered within the report. Further consultations had been undertaken based on the additional information submitted. Responses had been requested by the 15 December 2021 from neighbours, all previous objectors, and the Parish Council.

Members noted that the application was for the proposed erection of three dwellings.

Officers presented the information in the Officer Update Note, which covered further details of the planning history of the site, additional consultation responses from third parties, the Landscape Officer and Parish Council, comments from the applicants and an amendment to reason for refusal 2.

The Committee asked numerous questions of the Officer about the scheme, in particular the planning history of the site and how many refusals there had been, Planning Inspector comments, current unlawful use of the site and its non-designation as greenfield.

Officers explained that there had been numerous applications for a variety of units on the site since the 1980’s, all of which had been refused and appeals on them dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate. There had been four residential applications and one for glass houses. The main concerns amounted to extending a built-up area into the surrounding countryside.

Members noted that the current use of the site, which was greenfield designated, was for wood processing; however, there had never been a lawful development certificate for this use.

Democratic Services read out a representation on behalf of the applicant, Dave Tomlinson, which was in favour of the application.

Members debated the application further, with some expressing the view that the proposed scheme was greenfield land and outside development limits. In addition, the current use of the site for wood storage and processing was unlawful. There had been no previous residential development on the site and appeals to the Planning Inspectorate had all been dismissed; as such, the application should once more be refused.

Other Committee Members made the point that three new homes in a secondary village would be beneficial, as the demand for housing in such places was high, with the public wanting to live in small villages such as Bolton Percy. The site was outside development limits; however, the point was made that these had not been reviewed for the village in many years, which meant that perhaps the limits should be given less weight when assessing the scheme. Some Members felt that that the site was a natural one to develop, and whilst the design of the dwellings should be reassessed to be more appropriate for the character of the area, suitable screening and landscaping could also be utilised.

Other Members stated that they did not support the scheme as it was not fitting with the local area.

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

RESOLVED:

That permission be REFUSED for the reasons below:

1.    The proposal for 3 dwellings was not considered to be appropriate to the size and role of Bolton Percy, a settlement, which is secondary Village in the Core Strategy. The expansion of the village beyond the development limits would undermine the spatial integrity of the Development Plan and the ability of the Council to deliver a plan-led approach. The proposal did not fall within any of the categories of development set out in Policy SP2 (c) and would therefore conflict with the Spatial Development Strategy for the District and the overall aim of the Development Plan to achieve sustainable patterns of growth.

2.    The site is outside the development limits of Bolton Percy and the proposed scheme does not fall within any of the acceptable forms of development included in Policy SP2 (c) of the CS. It would be a substantial encroachment of a greenfield site in the open countryside and would not represent a natural rounding off to the settlement. The scheme would therefore result in a development which would have a significant and demonstrably harmful impact on the character, form and setting of the village contrary to Policy SP2 of the Core Strategy and NPPF.

3.    The layout and form of the development would not reflect the existing layout and form of nearby development and would result in a harsh urban appearance dominated by frontage hardstanding and parking areas, which would be at odds with the existing form, layout and character with the other dwellings on Marsh Lane due to position and scale of the dwellings and the single access with scale and position of the hard standing at the front of the site, contrary to Policies SP1, SP18 and SP19 of the Selby District Council Core Strategy, Policy ENV 1 of the Selby District Council Local Plan and Chapter 12 of the NPPF.