Agenda item

Councillor R Musgrave re-joined the Committee at this point.

Application: 2021/1478/OUT

Location: Royal Oak Inn, Main Road, Hirst Courtney

Proposal:Outline application for erection of 9 dwellings following demolition of existing public house (all matters reserved)

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before Planning Committee at the request of the Ward Councillor on the grounds that the proposed development would provide housing in the village and contribute towards Selby District Council’s Local Plan, that the site was a brownfield site and was considered to be ‘infill’ within the village.

Members noted that it was an outline application for erection of 9 dwellings following demolition of existing public house (all matters reserved).

The Committee considered the Officer Update Note which clarified that the application had been brought before the Committee at the request of the Ward Member and that the pub had not been registered as an Asset of Community Value. The Update Note went on to provide further information in relation to paragraph 5.24 and the agent’s responses to reasons for refusal 2 (Marketing of the Property) and 4 (Ecology).

Officers were of the opinion that, taking account of the additional information provided and weighed against paragraph 60 of the NPPF where the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, along with the efficient use of previously developed land paragraphs 120c and d of the NPPF, the proposed scheme remained to be contrary to the policies of the Selby Development Plan. The recommendation remained as presented in the report for the reasons that had been previously advised.

The Committee asked numerous questions of the Officer about the outbuilding’s position outside the development limit and when the aforementioned limit was last reviewed, the camp site and hardstanding being considered as greenfield, the exact position of the development limit and rural housing enablers.

Officers confirmed that the outbuilding was outside the development limits, that the new Local Plan had not yet been agreed, that the current development limits in place had not been reviewed for a number of years and that whilst some of the hardstanding on the site could be consideredas previously developed the  visual and spatial impact also needed to be considered.

Members noted that rural housing enablers continued to work in the district but that the site under consideration would not provide any affordable housing as there would be less than 10 properties, and would require a survey to test its viability.

Russ Wagstaff and Ian Forbes of Hirst Courtney Parish Council shared the five minutes speaking time, and both spoke in favour of the application.

Sam Dewar, agent, spoke in favour of the application.

Members debated the application further with some expressing their support for the proposals; the pub was unlikely to operate commercially again, and the scheme was fully supported by the Parish Council.

However, some Members felt that despite the positive nature of the application, the Officer’s recommendation for refusal should be adhered to due to the restrictions of current policy, i.e., that the majority of the proposed development was outside of the development limits and the value in which the property was being offered for sale seemed to be over and above what it was worth along with there being insufficient  details about the marketing exercise.

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

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out at paragraph 7 of the report:

1.     The application site sits partly within the Development Limit of the Secondary Village of Hirst Courtney as defined in the development plan, though largely outside of it. Whilst part of the site may be considered as ‘previously developed’ the proposal would exceed the limited scale of development considered acceptable in open countryside and as such would undermine the Spatial Development Strategy that aims to deliver sustainable development with the District. This would be contrary to Policies SP1, SP2 and SP4 of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan and advice in the NPPF.

2.     The proposal would lead to the loss of a community facility. It is not considered that it has been demonstrated that a suitable alternative facility has been identified or that a suitable marketing exercise has been undertaken or that it has been marketed on reasonable terms. The proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to paragraph 84(d) of the NPPF and Saved Policy S3B of the Selby District Local Plan.

3.     Hirst Courtney is predominately a linear settlement. The proposed development pattern would be inconsistent with local character and the surrounding pattern of development. The proposal would be seen as a form of development that would substantially extend built development into the countryside and would be poorly related to the existing built-up limits of the village. As a result, it would represent an undue visual intrusion into the open countryside, that would harm the open character of the application site. The proposal is therefore considered to be in conflict with Saved Policies ENV1 (1) and (4) of the Selby District Local Plan and Policies SP18 and SP19 of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan and advice contained in Section 12 of the NPPF.

4.     The development includes the demolition of the public house and an associated outbuilding. No bat surveys have been undertaken, and it is not therefore possible for the LPA to determine whether mitigation may be required, and if so, what level of mitigation would be appropriate and whether this can be readily incorporated into the scheme. It is considered that permitting the proposed development without the above information would have the potential to cause considerable harm to a protected species. This would be contrary to both national legislation and Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan Policy SP18(1) and (3) and Saved Selby District Local Plan Policy ENV1(5).