Agenda item

Application: 2022/0918/OUT

Location: 7 Low Street, Sherburn in Elmet

Proposal: Outline application for development of 5 new detached houses including access, appearance, layout and scale (all other matters reserved) on land to the rear of 7 Low Street.

Councillor Ashton left the room.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before Planning Committee as 3.8.9(b)(vi) is triggered as there had been more than 10 letters of representation received that raised material planning considerations and where officers would otherwise determine the application contrary to these representations.

Members noted that the application was for outline application for development of 5 new detached houses including access, appearance, layout and scale (all other matters reserved) on land to the rear of 7 Low Street.

Members noted the Officer Update Note which included additional comments from Sherburn Town Council expressing concern about the drawings relating to parking and access and the loss of public parking and that houses not truly bungalows. The Officer Update Note also noted the number of objections received to the loss of the car parking at the front of the site and in front of the Spar. The Officer clarified that the land to the site frontage is privately owned, that the land in front of the Spar is not being claimed as owned by the applicant and so does not remove parking, only access across the land which is a private legal matter and not a material planning condition. Correction of paragraph 5.25 of the report with confirmation that the proposal provided 5 new car parking spaces at the rear and that each proposed dwelling had 2 parking spaces in addition to these. Request for amendment to wording to condition 10.

The Committee asked the Senior Planning Officer whether the shop at 7 Low Street continued to trade and also asked whether evidence had been provided for the ownership of the land to the front of the development and the right of access to the parking spaces in front of the shop at 9 Low Street.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed the shop at 7 Low Street had been open for trade when first visited the site but was unable to confirm current or future status. The Senior Planning Officer explained there was no legal requirement to submit evidence of ownership and so could not confirm land ownership or rights of access to the front of 9 Low Street. It was also confirmed that the land to the front of 9 Low Street did not form part of this application so rights of access to it was a legal matter between the parties and not a material planning consideration.

Members asked the North Yorkshire County Council Highways Officer about why the proposed access road did not meet adoptable standards and why the site would not be adopted by the North Yorkshire County Council Highways if that had formed part of the application.

The North Yorkshire County Council Highways Officer explained adopted residential roads typically have designated footways constructed and maintained to North Yorkshire County Council Highways design specification which this site would be unable to accommodate due to the size and layout of the plan. The North Yorkshire County Council Highways Officer clarified the design guide and specification for adopted roads was designed for developments of over 5 dwellings meaning that, as this application is under this limit, the road to the dwellings remained a private road and not a concern of the North Yorkshire County Council Highways. It was clarified that highway safety at Low Street was something that Highways would look at.

The Committee asked for clarification on whether vehicles could enter and leave the site simultaneously and for an explanation of the consequences if that was not possible.

The North Yorkshire County Council Highways Officer explained simultaneous passage was possible for one vehicle but only for the first 6 metres of the access point to the road. The North Yorkshire County Council Highways Officer acknowledged that multiple vehicles trying to access the site at once could cause queuing on Low Street but noted that this situation already existed with multiple vehicles queuing to access the existing parking spaces.

Members asked further questions regarding the bollards and the access to the parking spaces outside the front of the shop at 9 Low Street.

The Senior Planning Officer and the North Yorkshire County Council Highways Officer explained that the land to the front of the shop at 9 Low Street was not part of this application so had not been considered. The Planning Solicitor confirmed access issues to the parking spaces in front of 9 Low Street were a legal matter and not a planning issue. The Senior Planning Officer explained that the bollards shown on submitted plans were a drawing error and that the application proposed railings as detailed on the plan to provide a border to the entrance of the private road that would effectively prevent access to the parking in front of 9 Low Street.

Members asked for clarification on whether the proposed 5 car parking spaces to replace those lost on the frontage could be conditioned for use of patrons of the local shops only. The Senior Planning Officer explained this was not possible as it was private land but this was similar to the existing parking spaces, but that the applicant had indicated that the spaces would be provided as replacement for those lost at the front. The Senior Planning Officer explained that if the shop continued to trade, patrons could use the 5 proposed spaces proposed to the rear or a number of local car parks in Sherburn within walking distance.

Objector Alex Tant-Brown was in attendance and spoke against the application.

Town Councillor Gary Limbert of Sherburn Town Council was in attendance and spoke against the application.

Planning Agent Jeremy Williams was in attendance and spoke in favour of the application.

Members debated the application further noting that they felt issues regarding site access, potential traffic risks, and existing and proposed parking car parking spaces had not been fully satisfied. They also noted that the landscaping scheme was a reserved matter so net gain for biodiversity as required by the National Planning Policy Framework could not be demonstrated and that the lack of detail regarding a suitable scheme for the discharge of surface water from the site with separate systems for foul and surface water drainage as recommended by Yorkshire Water was of great concern given the level of flood risk in Sherburn.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be DEFERRED for a site visit and for submission of a Traffic Management Plan; a vote was taken and was carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be DEFERRED in order for a site visit to be arranged and a Traffic Management Plan to be submitted.