Agenda item

Application: 2020/1042/FULM

Location: Police Station, Brownfield Site, Portholme Road, Selby

Proposal: Demolition and construction of a Class E food store, together with car parking, landscaping and associated works

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before Planning Committee as part of the site (the north-eastern corner (0.04 ha)) was still owned by Selby District Council and included some existing trees and redundant gas governor. The sale was agreed to Aldi in June 2021; however, its completion was subject to planning permission being obtained. Hence, the Council were still landowners. This therefore did not comply with Council’s Constitution (3.8.9 b (ix)), which did not allow applications on Council owned land to be determined under delegated powers, unless they were minor applications and no objections had been received. The application had received objections and was not minor in nature.

Members noted that it was for the demolition and construction of a Class E food store, together with car parking, landscaping and associated works.

The Committee considered the Officer Update Note which set out the detail of two additional letters of representation and a consultation response, and the resulting supplementary conditions relating to detailed drainage design, exceedance flow routes and SuDs maintenance.

The Committee asked numerous questions of the Officer relating to the road junction at Portholme Road, the increased levels of traffic in the area and the redesign of the access to the site, tree cover and replacement and representations by the Highways Authority and their acknowledgment that mitigation would be required to address the increase in traffic via a £125k contribution from the developers.

Officers recognised that traffic in the area would be busier, but that the Highways Authority’s traffic assessment had been sought and potential issues acknowledged; the £125k contribution for mitigation of such issues was deemed appropriate by the Highways Authority.

The Committee noted that the existing trees on the site were not of great quality but did provide greenery. Officers confirmed that 17 new trees would be included on the site.

The Democratic Services Officer read out two representations submitted by J Webber and R Dodgson, objectors, who had asked that they be read out on their behalf to the Committee. The Chair had agreed that two representations could be read out on this occasion.

Will Brooke, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

Members debated the application further. Whilst they understood why some local residents would support it, the lack of proposed improvements to deal with the additional traffic were of significant concern, despite the Highway Authority’s views. Members felt that clear guidance should be provided by the Highways Authority as to what specific works were envisaged to tackle the additional traffic in the area resulting from the development.

The Committee debated the proposals further and agreed that a decision on the application should be deferred in order for further discussions with the Highways Authority to take place.

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

RESOLVED:

That a decision on the application be DEFERRED for further discussions to take place with the Highways Authority relating to the mitigation of expected traffic difficulties caused by the development, in particular:

1.    the acceptability of the access/egress given the proximity of two other supermarkets;

2.    additional traffic on the localised network and;

3.    a better understanding of what NYCC planned to do to improve and when as part of the wider movement study.