Mission Statement
To Improve the Quality of Life For Those Who Live and Work in The District
12 October 2010
Dear Councillor
You are hereby invited to a meeting of the Planning Committee to be held in Committee Rooms 1 and 2, Civic Centre, Portholme Road, Selby on Wednesday 20 October 2010 commencing at 4:00pm.
AGENDA
1. Apologies for Absence and Notice of Substitution
To receive apologies for absence and notification of substitution.
2. Disclosure of Interest
To receive any disclosures of interest in matters to be considered at the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Section 117 of the Local Government Act 1972, and Sections 50, 52 and 81 of the Local Government Act 2000 and the Members’ Code of Conduct adopted by the Council.
3. Minutes
To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting of the Planning Committees held on 22 September 2010 (page 4)
4. Chair’s Address to the Planning Committee
5. Planning Applications Received
Reports of the Head of Service - Development Services • 2010/0036/FUL - WA Hare & Sons Ltd, 94 Main Street, Kelfield (page 13) 1 • 2010/0504/FUL - Castle Farm, Paradise Lane, Hazelwood, Tadcaster (page 34) • 2010/0785/COU - 2 Denison Road, Selby (page 62) • 2010/0390/COU - Phoenix Electrical Workshop, Hull Road, Hemingbrough (page 78) • 2009/0691/REM - 10 Brigg Lane, Camblesforth (page 96) • 2010/0536/FUL - Escrick Park Estate, Wheldrake Lane, Escrick (page 108) • 2010/0605/HPA - 24 The Haven, Selby (page 130) • 2010/0604/HPA – 1 The Haven, Selby (page 135)
6. Planning Appeals Decisions - Received between 4 September 2010 and 1 October 2010 (page 130)
Report of the Head of Service – Development Services
Reports for Information
1. List of Planning Applications Determined Under Delegated Powers
Applications which have been determined by officers under the scheme of delegation.
A copy of this report is available in the Members’ Room
2. List of Planning Applications Determined by North Yorkshire County Council
Applications which have been determined by North Yorkshire County Council.
A copy of this report is available in the Members’ Room.
M Connor Chief Executive
Public Speaking
Please note the deadline for registering to speak at Committee is 3.00 pm on Monday 18 October 2010.
Disclosure of Interest – Guidance Notes:
(a) Councillors are reminded of the need to consider whether they have any
personal or prejudicial interests to declare on any item on this agenda, 2 and, if so, of the need to explain the reason(s) why they have any personal or prejudicial interests when making a declaration.
(b) The Committee Services Officer will be pleased to advise you on interest issues. Ideally their views should be sought as soon as possible and preferably prior to the day of the meeting, so that time is available to explore adequately any issues that might arise.
Dates of Future Meetings of the Planning Committee
17 November 2010 15 December 2010 12 January 2011 9 February 2011 9 March 2011 6 April 2011 11 May 2011
Membership of the Planning Committee 12 Members
Conservative Labour Independent J Mackman (Chair) D Davies J McCartney J Deans (Vice-Chair) S Shaw-Wright J Cattanach I Chilvers C Goodall W Inness D Mackay E Metcalfe C Pearson
If you have any enquiries relating to this agenda, please contact Democratic Services on: Tel: 01757 292002 Fax: 01757 292020 Email: [email protected]
3 SELBY DISTRICT COUNCIL
MINUTES
Minutes of the proceedings of a meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday 22 September 2010, in Committee Rooms 1& 2, The Civic Centre, Portholme Road, Selby, commencing at 4.00pm.
236 Apologies for Absence and Notices of substitution 237 Declarations of Interest 238 Minutes – 25 August 2010 239 Chair’s Address to the Planning Committee 240 Budget Exceptions to 31 July 2010 241 Tree Preservation Order – 02/2010 Londesborough Arms Hotel, Market Place, Selby 242 Planning Application – 2010/0112/COU Haulage Yard, Hazel Old Lane, Hensall 243 Planning Application – 2010/0474/HPA Woodhouse Cottage, Haddlesey Road, Birkin 244 Planning Application – 2010/0258/OUT 50 West Park, Selby 245 Planning Application - 2010/0333/OUT Old Vicarage Lane, Monk Fryston 246 Planning Application – 2010/0464/HPA Woodsend Cottage, Lilac Avenue, Appleton Roebuck 247 Planning Appeals Decisions Received between 5 August 2010 and 3 September 2010
Present: Councillor J Mackman in the Chair
Councillors: J Cattanach, I Chilvers, Mrs D Davies, J Deans, Mrs C Goodall, D Mackay, J McCartney, Mrs E Metcalfe, C Pearson, S Ryder (sub for W Inness), S Shaw-Wright
Officials: Head of Service – Development Services, Manager of Development Manager, Senior Planning Officer x2, Planning Officer x2, Solicitor to the Council, Overview and Scrutiny Coordinator, Public Speaking Officer
Also in 4 Public Speakers (Councillor Gillian Ivey, Dr Mary Laurenson, Mr Peter Attendance: Wilson and Mr David White)
Public: 6 Press: 0
236 Apologies for Absence and Notice of Substitution
Planning Committee 22 September 2010 4 Apologies were received from Councillors W Inness
Substitute Councillors were S Ryder (sub for W Inness)
237 Disclosure of Interest
No disclosures of interest were received.
238 Minutes
Resolved:
That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 25 August 2010 be confirmed as a correct record and be signed by the Chair.
239 Chair’s Address to the Planning Committee
The Chair informed councillors of the following issues:
Training: No specific or formal training is planned for the coming months, but the Chair suggested that some wind farm training might be necessary given the upcoming applications
Policies: The Selby Core Strategy and Local Development Framework (LDF) is due to be submitted to the Secretary of State in Spring 2011 and Selby District Council will be reviewing interim policies on greenfield and brownfield definitions in the light of proposals from the Coalition Government relating to garden developments.
Pre-application advice: Proposals are being considered by the Policy and Resources Committee in September 2010 to begin charging for pre-application advice.
Planning Committee 22 September 2010 5 240 Budget Exceptions Report to 31 July 2010
The Head of Service – Development Services presented the report and highlighted the salient features.
Resolved:
That the report be approved
241 Tree Preservation Order - Confirmation
Tree Preservation Order Number: 02/2010
The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and highlighted salient points for the consideration of the Committee.
It was explained that the survey found no evidence of movement in relation to neighbouring properties.
Resolved:
That the under-mentioned Tree Preservation Orders be confirmed as unopposed orders:
Londesborough Arms Hotel, Market Place, Selby, North Yorkshire, YO8 4NS.
Planning Committee 22 September 2010 6 242 Planning Applications Received
Consideration was given to the schedule of planning applications submitted by the Head of Service – Development Services.
Application: 2010/0112/COU Location: Haulage Yard, Hazel Old Lane, Hensall Proposal: Change of use from agricultural land to caravan storage area B8
The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and highlighted salient points for the consideration of the Committee.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that the conditions would include amendments and the addition of an informative. • Condition 2 should read ‘Drawing 040a’ rather than ‘040’. • The removal of Condition 3 as it is no longer necessary. • Condition 5 should read ‘Drawing 040a’ rather than ‘040’. • Condition 6 amended to include a submission period of 3 months from date of determination. And amend criterion iii to include a timescale of 12 months for implementation of the approved scheme. • The addition of a condition to remove permitted development rights for the erection of further fences to the applications site as outlined in the report. • A suitable informative should be attached to inform the applicant that the decision does not include the erection of CCTV and Lighting pillars, that the retention of those on site would require a separate planning approval.
Public Speaker – Dr Mary Laurenson (Objector) • The application was retrospective. • The initial application was for 143 caravans and the proposed increase was excessive. • Noise and traffic were issues for the residents. • The area developed is larger than originally requested in the initial application. • Lack of compliance in terms of operating hours. • Landscaping requirements have not been fully complied with at the site. • No environmental checks had been undertaken regarding contaminated land and health risks to residents. • The issue of the legality of razor wire being used on the site. • Maintenance and servicing is being carried out on the site. • 60% increase in capacity will cause additional nuisance.
Planning Committee 22 September 2010 7
Public Speaker – Councillor Gillian Ivey • Speaking on behalf of the residents of Hensall objecting to the proposals. • The immediate area of Hensall now has 2 caravan storage facilities. • Evidence of failure to comply fully with original planning conditions. • Increased traffic along Hazel Old Lane will cause nuisance for the residents. • A travel plan could be put in place to direct traffic from the site around the back of Eggborough Power Station rather than passed the houses on Hazel Old Lane.
Public Speaker – Mr Peter Wilson (Agent) • Refuted claims of abuse and intimidation on the part of his client. • The business is currently operational and conditions have been satisfied with the exception of 2 small areas of bunding. • The land considered in this application had not been used in any way prior to approval being sought. • There would be a slight increase in traffic in the area, but not to the extent suggested by objectors. • The applicant supported the management of traffic approaching and leaving the site to avoid going passed the residential properties. • The visual amenity of the site will improve when the trees/shrubs have matured to obscure the security fencing.
The Chair of Planning explained that a site visit had taken place on Monday 20 September 2010 and issues relating to bunding gaps and the erection of security cameras/lights were addressed to the applicant.
The Solicitor to the Council agreed to look into the legality of razor wire used at the site and would respond to the Planning Committee in due course. It was explained that it would be a planning enforcement issue should it be deemed to be illegal.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that concerns over operating hours would need to be assessed by planning enforcement if objections are raised. The Chair of Planning explained that concern for the residents encouraged the original application to be conditioned with operating hours.
The Manager of Development Management explained that any signage relating to operational hours would not be dealt with by the Planning Committee, but it could be included as an advisory in the recommendations.
Resolved:
That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and amendments to the conditions approved by the Planning Committee. Planning Committee 22 September 2010 8 243 Application: 2010/0474/HPA Location: Woodhouse Cottage, Haddlesey Road, Birkin Proposal: Retrospective application to replace existing wooden conservatory with new Victorian style UPVC conservatory
The Planning Officer presented the report and highlighted salient points for the consideration of the Committee.
The Planning Officer explained the policies in relation to housing extensions and proportionate development, detailing that the current proposals would represent a 122% increase in property floor area and a 93% increase in property volume.
Public Speaker – Mr David White (Applicant) • Improvements had been completed over a period of 20 years. • Misled by planning advice received from Selby District Council regarding any potential problems. • The greenbelt incursion on the site is negligible and the application should receive a special exemption. • The proposed development is not inappropriate or damaging to the amenity. • The garden area for the development is fully obscured by trees and bushes and it is not detrimental. • The nearest neighbour has provided support for the application. • The improvement will only enhance the property and a site visit was suggested.
The Planning Officer confirmed that the area is greenbelt and the proposal was outside the development limits for Birkin.
The Chair of Planning reminded the Committee that there was a need to apply the existing policies in relation to such an application.
Resolved:
That the application be refused for the reasons indicated in the report.
Planning Committee 22 September 2010 9 244 Application: 2010/0258/OUT Location: 50 West Park, Selby YO8 4JL Proposal: Residential development within the curtilage of 50 West Park and Everley
The Planning Officer presented the report and highlighted salient points for the consideration of the Committee.
An amendment note to the report was circulated to the Planning Committee in relation to information from the Environment Agency.
The Planning Officer confirmed the planning history since 2007 in relation to the site and also explained that the flood zones had been changed since the original application in 2008 and that the site was classed as a garden and therefore categorised as greenfield.
Resolved:
That the application be refused for the reasons indicated in the report.
245 Application: 2010/0333/OUT Location: Old Vicarage Lane, Monk Fryston Proposal: Outline application for the erection of one dwelling
The Planning Officer presented the report and highlighted salient points for the consideration of the Committee.
The Planning Officer provided additional information from the Highways Agency and North Yorkshire County Council Highways in relation to the A63.
The Chair of Planning confirmed that the proposed site was Greenfield, greenbelt and outside development limits.
RESOLVED:
That the application be refused for the reasons indicated in the report.
Planning Committee 22 September 2010 10 246 Application: 2010/0464/HPA Location: Woodsend Cottage, Lilac Avenue, Appleton Roebuck Proposal: First floor rear extension over lounge
The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and highlighted salient points for the consideration of the Committee.
The Senior Planning Officer clarified the development history of the site and explained that it had been subject to a site visit by the Planning Committee on Monday 20 September 2010.
The Senior Planning Officer confirmed the dimensions of the proposed extension and that shadowing would occur.
Resolved:
That the application be refused for the reasons indicated in the report.
247 Planning Appeals Decisions Received between 5 August 2010 and 3 September 2010
The Chair of Planning introduced the report.
Resolved:
That the report be noted.
The meeting closed at 5.58pm.
Planning Committee 22 September 2010 11 Items for Planning Committee 20 October 2010 Case File Number: Site Address: Officer Page 2010/0036/FUL WA Hare & Sons Ltd, 94 Main Street, Kelfield YVNA Castle Farm, Paradise Lane, Hazelwood, 2010/0504/FUL Tadcaster RISU 2010/0785/COU 2 Denison Road, Selby LOMI 2010/0803/COU New House, Wistowgate, Cawood, Selby LOMI Phoenix Electrical Workshop, Hull Road, 2010/0390/COU Hemingbrough RABA 2009/0691/REM 10 Brigg Lane, Camblesforth RABA 2010/0536/FUL Escrick Park Estate, Wheldrake Lane, Escrick YVNA 2010/0592/FUL Whitley Lodge, Selby Road, Whitley JOOS 2010/0605/HPA 24 The Haven, Selby KERO 2010/0604/HPA 1 The Haven, Selby KERO
12
Maps and Plans available on request from the Planning Department
13
Maps and Plans available on request from the Planning Department
14 APPLICATION 8/14/71B/PA PARISH: Kelfield Parish Council NUMBER: 2010/0036/FUL
APPLICANT: W A Hare VALID DATE: 12 January 2010
EXPIRY DATE: 9 March 2010 PROPOSAL: Erection of 9 No.dwellings with associated garages following demolition of offices, workshop and outbuildings LOCATION: W A Hare & Son Offices Main Street Kelfield York North Yorkshire YO19 6RG
This application has been brought before Planning Committee as the level of objections from consultees / neighbours exceeds five in total.
The scheme was advertised as a Departure in August 2010 and although this was done based on the scheme being contrary to Policy H2A of the Selby District Local Plan.
Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber have confirmed that it is for the Local Planning Authority to determine if a scheme should be advertised as a Departure based on conflicts with adopted policy. They have also confirmed that if considered to be a Departure then prior to any consent being issued the scheme would be required to be passed to them in line with the triggers in the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 as issued on the 30 March 2009 and enacted from the 20 April 2009. Having considered the triggers in the Direction it is concluded that the scheme would not be required to be referred to GOYH should members be minded to grant consent.
DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The Site
The site is 0.4869 hectares in area, is irregular in shape has a variation in site levels and is accessed from Main Street. The majority of the site is currently occupied by a series of buildings of varied construction and age which are utilised as timber/ joinery yard with associated office space and open areas of storage and is actively used by W A Hare & Sons. Part of the site is garden area to the rear of Pear Tree Farm.
The existing access to the site is via an existing vehicular access located between Redmont House and Pear Tree House. Redmont House takes access to the rear of their property from this same access whereas Pear Tree House has vehicle access from Main Street via a separate access to the east of the farmhouse.
15 To the south of the site are open fields leading down to the River Ouse with a post and rail fence with a semi mature hedge defining this boundary. This would be retained. The northern and western boundaries adjoin a range of existing residential properties with differing boundary treatments in existence. To the east beyond the gardens of Pear Tree Farm are open fields.
The site is within Flood Zone 3a and within the defined development limits of Kelfield.
The Proposal
The proposal is for the demolition of the existing offices, workshop and outbuildings and the erection of 9 dwellings with associated garages. New shrub planting and tree planting is shown on the layout.
7 of the dwellings would be of two storey detached design with single garages and the remaining 2 would be two storey semi detached units with integral garages and accommodation provided above the garage with associated dormers. The density of development proposed is 18.75 dwellings per hectare.
The proposed units would be constructed of brick (specific types to be agreed) and concrete tiles. The windows shown on the elevations and described in the Design and Access Statement are “cottage style” with window bars and are to be upvc material alongside the doors.
The proposed boundary treatments utilises a mix of 1.8m high screen fences, 1 metre high railings to the frontages of Plots 1, 2, 3 4, 8 and 9 and a mix of 1.8m walls or 1.2m walls within the site to define plots.
Approval of the scheme would assist in the relocation of the current business to an alternative location, which has yet to be confirmed.
Planning History
An application was made for the erection of 8No. detached dwellings with associated garages following demolition of offices, workshop and outbuildings in February 2009. This application was withdrawn by the Applicants.
An application for the demolition and rebuilding of general stores and erection of extensions to joiners shop and timber store at existing premises was also granted in December 1994 (application reference CO/1994/0300).
CONSULTATIONS
DEVELOPMENT POLICY MANAGER: Objection to the application on the basis that the publication of PPS3 (June 2010) supports the Councils position in H2A that release of land should be linked to a monitoring process and that priority for development should continue to be previously developed land if an adequate land supply exists. Following the emergence of new national policy the scheme which was compliant at the time of submission is now contrary to Policies H2A and H7.
16 KELFIELD PARISH COUNCIL: Comments made by the Parish Council (2nd February 2010) confirmed no objections to the application but wished to bring to the Officer’s attention the following: -
• There does not appear to be a suitable pedestrian access as there is no footpath provision to and from the site. • The maintenance of the visibility splays will rely on adjacent property owners maintaining their walls at existing levels. • There could be a significant impact on neighbouring properties and every effort should be made to minimise this.
The Parish Council also submitted comments on the 9th February 2010 advising that if S106 monies are to be attained for open space then their preference would be for on site provision rather than a commuted sum.
NORTH YORKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL – HIGHWAYS: No highway objections subject to conditions.
SELBY AREA INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD: No observations.
COUNTY ECOLOGIST: No objections subject to conditions or in formatives in relation to bats and breeding birds.
BRITISH WATERWAYS: No response received.
NORTH YORKSHIRE FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE: No response received.
YORKSHIRE WILDLIFE TRUST No response received.
NATURAL ENGLAND: No response received.
POLICE ARCHITECTURAL LIAISON OFFICER: Kelfield has no real issues with crime or anti-social behaviour. Notes that the Design and Access Statement makes no reference to crime prevention and advises that he would encourage the applicant to consider “Secured by Design” accreditation to the scheme.
NORTH YORKSHIRE BUILDING CONTROL: No response received.
NORTH YORKSHIRE BAT GROUP: North Yorkshire Bat Group is satisfied with the bat surveys carried out and has no objections to this development.
THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: Following submission of additional information by the Applicant the Agency had no further objections to this scheme subject to a series of conditions.
17
YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD: No objection.
NEIGHBOURS: Site notices were posted and a consultation letters sent to neighbouring properties. A total of 7 letters of representation have been received and the representations raise the following valid planning issues these are summarized as follows:
Highway Safety • Proposed entrance is directly facing 1 - 4 Main Street Kelfield, where residents park their vehicles on the carriageway additional traffic from the development will increase danger and risk of accidents where visibility it already a problem on the sharp bend immediately preceding the proposed development. • Vehicles will impact on the "right to a quiet life" as the headlights will shine directly into properties directly facing the proposed development entrance. • Development will mean that vehicles may be parked on the road. • Visitor parking is minimal. • HGV’s will need to access the development for deliveries/collections, any parked cars on the road would make it difficult or indeed impossible for these vehicles to turn round.
Trees/Ecology • Though some trees are earmarked to be retained works will disrupt wildlife during the demolition and building process. • Construction work could possibly de-stabilise the roots of the trees.
Residential Amenity • Adjoining property would be overlooked which is currently not the case which would have an adverse effect on quality of life and the layout is very compact. • More modern properties in the village will spoil the environment and character of the village which is being engulfed by new, modern properties that aren’t sympathetic to either the character of original properties of the village. • Height of the proposed dwellings will reduce impact on views from adjoining properties towards the southern aspect as they will be higher that the building currently on the site – mature planting would assist in impact on the view. • Street lighting for the junction should be muted similar to other lights in the village. • Construction of the scheme will result in impacts in terms of noise, vibration and dirt over a substantial period of time.
Character and Form • Kelfield is essentially a linear village – further secondary development behind the frontage will destroy rather than “enhance the local character” as stated by the applicants.
Principle of Development • The development is not just on brownfield land as stated but also includes Greenfield land from Pear Tree Farm.
18 • Kelfield is not seen as a sustainable location therefore it is not earmarked for Council Planning Policy Unit for large scale developments, as confirmed at a Parish Council Meeting on the 14 November 2007. • New home building on such a scale exceeds demand (two newly built detached houses have been “For Sale” in the village for the past two years and are now available “To Let”. • This development of 9 represents a 5% increase in the number of dwellings in the whole village and is therefore we would suggest a large scale development. • Other developments on adjoining plots next to Hare’s Yard which are for sale and the companies last build in the village (Ings Close) was initially 4 then later an extra 1 thus avoiding the S106 developer contributions to the village community due to a development of 5 or more as paid by the 2 Daniel Garth development: “the Ferns” and “Green Lea”. • Kelfield does not meet the minimum service criteria for development: it has no primary school, post office, general store or doctors surgery. Kelfield is therefore a secondary village as opposed to a primary village according to the Selby LDF and the proposed Core Strategy. • It is the Council’s intention not to seek to set aside any more land in the secondary villages for housing unless it is for the development of affordable homes when the need for such schemes has been identified (Council’s Core Strategy Leaflet page 2). • The demolition and relocation of the business premises will remove the availability of local employment from the village in the medium/ long term if W A Hare and Son relocate.
Flood Risk and Drainage • The sewerage and drainage system of the village is not designed to cope with such an influx of new development. • The proposed development is in a flood plain and is a “flood risk” according to the Environment Agency. • Though the proposed new houses themselves may be built high enough above the ground their very existence will further threaten existing dwellings in the event of a breach of the flood defences. • Flooding is a concern as Kelfield has seen a significant amount of development over the last year or so. With new houses having been erected at both ends of the village some of which are still unoccupied – building more houses on the flood plain will only exacerbate the problem.
One of the representations has raised the matter of impact on house prices in the area. This is not a valid planning reason when assessing schemes. In addition some of the residents have stated an intention to address Committee when the application is considered.
POLICIES AND ISSUES:
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states "if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be, made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise". The development plan for the Selby District comprises of the policies in the Selby District Local Plan (adopted on 8 February 2005) saved by the direction of the Secretary of State.
19 Regional Spatial Strategy
As of 6 July 2010 the Secretary of State announced that with immediate effect Regional Strategies have been revoked under s79(6) of the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and no longer form part of the development plan for the purposes of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
The following policies are considered to be relevant to this proposal:
National Policy: PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development Supplement to PPS 1 : Planning and Climate Change PPS3 Housing PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPS25 Development and Flood Risk PPS25 Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide
Selby District Local Plan: ENV1 Control of Development ENV2 A&B Environmental Pollution and Contaminated Land ENV10 General Nature Conservation Interest ENV21 Landscaping Requirements H2A Managing the Release of Housing Land H2B Density H7 Housing Development in Villages that are only Capable of Accommodating Limited Growth T1 Development in relation to the Highway Network T2 Access to Roads VP1 Vehicle Parking RT5 Open space requirements for New Residential Development CS6 Developer Contributions to Infrastructure and Community Facilities
Other Relevant Documents Supplementary Planning Documents - Developer Contribution – March 2007
Having regard to the above policies the relevant issues in the determination of this application are as follows:
Key Issues:
1. Principle of Development 2. Impact on Character and Form of Settlement 3. Standard of Accommodation and Residential Amenity 4. Highways safety and parking provision 5. Nature Conservation 6. Flood Risk and Drainage 7. Land Contamination 8. Other Issues
1 Principle of Development
20 In considering the principle of development it is important to determine if the land falls within the definition of previously developed land as set out in PPS3 (June 2010). PPS3 as issued on the 15 June 2010 changed the definition of private gardens thus excluding them from the definition of Previously Developed Land (PDL) from Annex B. The other change arising from the new PPS3 was that the national indicative minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare was deleted.
The Council has considered the implication of PPS3 on schemes on Greenfield sites in the context of Policies H6 and H7 of the Selby District Local Plan and the emerging policy approach in the Selby District Consultation Draft Core Strategy – February 2010. An Interim Policy has been prepared and issued for consultation following its agreement by Full Council on the 27 July 2010. On this basis applications are still to be considered in the context of Policy H2A, Policy H6 or Policy H7 depending on the location of the development.
Policy H2A states that “in order to ensure that the annual house building requirement is achieved in a sustainable manner applications for residential development ……will only be acceptable on”…” previously developed sites and premises within defined development limits subject to the criteria in Policies H6 and H7” and sites allocated in
Phase 1. Policy H7 identifies “Kelfield ” as a H7 settlement meaning that development within the Development Limits will be permitted where the proposals meet the requirements of Policy H2A or involves sensitive infilling on previously development land, other small scale redevelopment of previously development land and premises.
The application site it is considered to be:
• Part Greenfield site under the definition in PPS3 Annex B and part Previously Developed Land under the same definition; and • A scheme within the development limits of a “village” listed under Policy H7 given it lies within Kelfield.
It is therefore concluded that as the proposals include, in part, the development of land which is not previously developed it is contrary to Policy H2A of the Local Plan. As such the application should be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
In support of the scheme which facilitates the relocation of the business the applicants have stated that: -
• There is sufficient justification for the relocation of the business in terms of the benefits to the wider economy by enabling the business to expand and by the consequential improvements to local amenity and highway safety. • The applicant has investigated potential alternative sites and premises in Cliffe, Selby Business Park, Riccall Airfield, Landing Lane, Riccall, at Skipwith and Escrick Business Park. All the industrial premises at Escrick Business Park are taken, of the rest, land costs have ranged from £200,000 to £250,000 for the 1 ½ acres needed, depending on the level of infrastructure already provided / to be provided.
21 • Mr Hare estimates build costs will be in the order of £250,000 - £300,000 and the fit out costs for machinery etc. between £75,000 and £100,000. These costs have been confirmed as reasonable by Business Link. To be added to them are the demolition costs of the buildings at the application site including the costs of removing and disposing of quantities of asbestos. • The business was first established in 1890 as a wheelwright and carpenters, over the years the business have grown to become a bespoke joinery manufacture, private, housing association and special needs housing and general contracting for example doctors surgeries and health care centres. • The business has a current workforce of 30 and 95% of these are Selby based. Prior to the recession they employed 50 people and it has a strong record of employing and training apprentices unlike many other house building companies.
The applicants have also made submissions on the suitability of the existing site for the company and have stated that: -
• The buildings on the site are old and most are well past their useful life. They are thermally inefficient and cannot be brought up to modern standards without complete re-building. • Over time buildings have been added to those existing in an ad-hoc manner to meet the needs arising at the time with the result that the present layout is inefficient. It does not allow a flow-through of goods or processes which leads to much wasteful double handling of materials and consequential, time wasting and additional potential risks to the workforce. • Due to the recession, the business is operating at around 50% of its normal capacity yet even at this level the business operations have outgrown the site. Large delivery vehicles are unable to access the site and loading / unloading of necessity takes place in Kelfield Main Street. Even medium sized vehicles cannot turn within the site and so reverse into the access and load/unload there, blocking Main Street during manoeuvring into the site and blocking other vehicle movements in/out of the site during the unloading processes. • To rationalise the layout of the site and provide modern buildings suitable to accommodate modern larger pieces of machinery, a complete re-development of the yard would be needed involving buildings of a larger footprint and height than the existing buildings to facilitate fork-lift truck movements. This would inevitably further restrict the already inadequate area available within the yard for small delivery vehicles, visitors and staff parking. • A recent development of the business has involved the manufacture of bespoke joinery, particularly double glazed sliding sash and specialist windows, for use in large scale renovation projects, particularly in London and the south east. If suitable premises were available to enable this aspect of the business to develop further it would have the effect of safeguarding existing jobs and skills and providing new jobs for the foreseeable future. • The development of bespoke window operations has given rise to the need for a spray booth for which there is no space within the present site. Were space available it is also extremely doubtful whether such a use would be considered acceptable so close to separately occupied dwellings.
The applicants have also stated in the application that
22 • Irrespective of this new venture and even assuming no significant improvement in the economy in the foreseeable future, there is an urgent need to move to new modern premises and equipment to enable the business operating at its current level to maintain competitiveness within the industry. • 30 existing jobs and upwards of 50 potential jobs in the future are dependent on new premises being obtained. • It is also material to note that the Applicant is approaching the age where he could choose to take early retirement. The business is unlikely to be carried on by the next generation, as his 2 daughters are pursuing other interests and the Applicant advises that if the current application is not approved in its current form i.e. including a small area of garden land, the decision whether to relocate or to close the business would become marginal. Mrs Scothern (Head of Development Policy) has in the past indicated to the Applicant that in her opinion due to the constraints of the existing site and buildings it would be extremely unlikely that a purchaser could be found to continue the business in Kelfield.
A review of the policy context has been undertaken by the Development Policy Manager in light of the issuing of the revised PPS3 (June 2010), they have outlined that:
• At the time of submission the proposal on the former builders yard and adjacent back gardens fell under the definition as brownfield land in the former PPS3, the revised definition of the brownfield land in PPS3 now excludes garden land. As planning applications have to be considered on the planning policies and material considerations at the time of determination not at submission therefore officers and Planning Committee will have to consider the application against H2A in addition to H7. • The saved Policy H7 states within the defined development limits residential development will be restricted to sensitive infilling on previously development land or small scale redevelopment of previously developed land and premises. At the time of submission the planning application was compliant with this policy. However following the publication of the revised PPS3 (June 2010) part of the site is now classed as Greenfield and the proposal is contrary to Policy H7. • At the time of preparing the Selby District Local Plan there was the potential of an excessive supply of housing allocations/planning permissions, in order to manage the release of housing land, the SDLP included Policy H2A. The policy included a reference to the year 2006 and that post this date Phase 2 sites should only be released if monitoring showed a potential shortfall. Policy H2A is therefore still relevant as it provides the mechanism for the Plan Monitor Manage process. • The publication of PPS3 (2010) and its implications for housing delivery has been considered by the Local Development Framework Task and Finish Group, it recommended to Policy and Resources Committee on 27 July that a interim housing policy be prepared to allow “Greenfield” development in selected settlements. Following a consultation period the responses will be considered at Policy and Resources Committee on 14 December 2010. This will determine whether an interim policy will be introduced. The proposed policy should be given no weight as it only refers to the Council’s intention and it has not been through a robust assessment at this point in time.
23 • On 2 September the Local Development Framework Task and Finish Group received a paper on the level of housing land supply and will be recommending to Policy and Resources on 28th September that no action is required but to keep the situation under review. If Policy and Resources Committee agree to this recommendation, the Council will not be releasing any Phase 2 sites and applications for windfall development will need to be assessed on the basis that the Council is of the view there is sufficient land supply and the presumption is against development on “Greenfield” sites. • The Development Policy Manager has spoken to Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber on this issue. Although Government Office do not provide an interpretation of policies in local authorities statutory development plan documents, they have however raised no objection to the statement that H2A is still relevant and it is up to the local authority to determine the weight afforded to this policy as opposed to new national policies and new evidence at a local level. • The Development Policy Manager is of the opinion that the publication of PPS3 (June 2010) supports the Councils position in H2A that release of land should be linked to a monitoring process and that priority for development should continue to be previously developed land if an adequate land supply exists. Following the emergence of new national policy the scheme which was compliant at the time of submission is now contrary to Policies H2A and H7.
In addition a recent decision at appeal for a new dwelling at 9a Moor Lane, Sherburn –in- Elmet has confirmed that Policy H2A precludes development on Greenfield site. The Inspector stated that “Policy H2A sets out that in order to ensure that house building requirements are achieved in a sustainable manner, residential development will only be acceptable on, of relevance, previously-developed sites and premises within defined development limits. The recent revision to PPS3 removed private residential gardens from the definition of previously-developed land. The site cannot, therefore, be considered previously-developed. On this basis, the proposal fails to comply with the approach set out in Policy H2A.”
Under Policy H2A and Policy H7 development of the site would not be supported in principle given the sites part Greenfield status. Re-consultations with Development Policy since the publication of PPS3 and in the context of the case made by the Applicants in terms of the business history, existing site considerations and the future of the business outlined above have been considered by Officers. Therefore, in the context of the latest PPS3 it is considered that the principle of development on that part of the site which is Greenfield land the scheme cannot be supported even when taking account of the case submitted by the Applicants.
2 Impact on the Visual Amenity, and the Character and Form of the Settlement
The proposals lie within the “Development Limits” of Kelfield and therefore subject to Policy H7. Under Criterion 1 of Policy H7 a scheme should not detract from the form and character of the settlement and under Criterion 4 of Policy H7 requires that proposals should not constitute unacceptable form of backland or tandem development.
Neighbouring occupiers and objectors have raised various concerns about the impact the proposal would have on the character of the area which are referenced earlier in this report and which have been given due consideration in the preparation of this report.
24 Having regard to the recent appeal at Colton (Ref 2009/0257/FUL) where it was stated by the Inspector that 3 detached dwellings did not constitute small scale Members are advised that the current scheme would not be considered small scale residential development given the number and size of the individual units proposed. As such it would be contrary to Policy H7. However, the scale of the proposed scheme is dictated by the size of the application site. With this in mind it is noted that at a net housing density of 18.75 dwellings per hectare the proposed scheme achieves a balance between making effective and efficient use of a largely previously developed site and protection of the character and form of the settlement. Notwithstanding the provision of Policy H7 it is considered on balance that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of the number of units and its overall scale in relation to Kelfield village.
The site is surrounded by existing residential development that includes modern detached and semi detached development alongside post-war and Victorian properties resulting in a varied character of development and form. There are units directly to the rear of the footpaths along Main Street, units set back with drives accessing the main road. In addition in the immediate vicinity of the site there are cul-de-sac type developments including “The Crescent” to the immediate east of the application site and further east at “Hall Court”. On this basis the form and character of the settlement is considered to be varied particularly in the area immediately surrounding the site. Therefore the proposed form of development is appropriate in terms of the character of its immediate locality.
The siting of the units within the development site has been subject to detailed discussions between the applicant and Officers in order to seek to secure a scheme that in its form of development takes full account of the surrounding properties, site character and the existing trees. The proposed layout includes 7 detached units; 6 of which have separate garages and one on which has integrated garage provision, alongside 2 units in a semi-detached configuration where the units are linked via link elements providing garages within accommodation above. It is therefore considered that the siting of units within the scheme is appropriate in the context of the layout of surrounding properties.
In terms of scale and elevation treatment the proposed dwellings have been designed to seek to reflect the traditional elements of properties in the surrounding area. All units are two storeys in height and elevational detailing has been used which is appropriate in terms of the character of the surrounding area including the heights in relation to the existing properties given the proposed siting.
Formal boundary treatments have been confirmed as part of the submitted plans and are considered to be acceptable given the use of a mix of approaches including screen fencing, walls and railings.
In conclusion it is considered that the scheme would be of a form and character of the settlement and its immediate locality and therefore would not be contrary to Criterion 1 of Policy H7 of the Local Plan.
3 Standard of Accommodation and Residential Amenity
Criterion 2 of policy H7 requires consideration of the scheme in terms of securing a satisfactory standard of accommodation and amenity.
25 Neighbouring occupiers and objectors have raised various concerns about the impact of the proposal on residential amenity which are referenced earlier in this report and which have been given due consideration in the preparation of this report. This includes concerns in terms of lights from cars exiting the site, the change in hours of operation with the view being expressed that having a business may be better, that additional street lighting will have more impact and that there will be impact arising from the construction of the site.
The siting of the units combined with the internal layouts of the accommodation, results in appropriate relationships with the surrounding properties in terms of securing appropriate residential amenity and an appropriate standard of accommodation.
The redevelopment of the site would remove a commercial activity from the site and the nature of activity on site would be altered. The removal of the commercial use from the site is on balance considered to be a positive benefit of the scheme in terms of residential amenity.
It is therefore considered that a satisfactory standard of accommodation would be achieved and the scheme is appropriate in the context of Criterion 2 of Policy H7 in terms of the impact on residential amenity.
4 Highways Safety and Parking Provision
Criterion 3 of policy H7 requires that proposals should not create conditions prejudicial to highways safety or have a significant effect on local amenity. In this respect it is noted that objections have been received in respect of highway safety.
Detailed consultations have occurred in relation to the highways design for the scheme and the Highway Officer has no objection to the proposals based on the information provided which included speed surveys and confirmation that the neighbouring property (Remount House) will alter the frontage boundary treatment to allow an increased visibility splay.
In terms of the changes to the frontage boundary treatment in front of Remount House the Site Layout Plan (Ref 08-033-01-A) shows a visibility splay of 2.4m x 33m achieved through the removal of an existing section of wall and its replacement with bollards to the site of Remount House and then retention of the existing 300mm high wall to the front of Remount House.
As such the scheme is considered acceptable in respect of highway safety subject to the conditions as follows:
• Construction of Roads and Footways Prior to Occupation of Dwellings (Residential) in order to ensure safe and appropriate access and egress to the dwellings, in the interests of highway safety and the convenience of prospective residents. • Visibility Splays in order to secure clear visibility of 33 metres measured along Main Street in a western direction along the frontage with Remount House from a point measured 2.4 metres down the centre line of the access road.
26 In addition the County Council have confirmed that the internal road would either be adopted (subject to payment of an the estimated cost of highway works in accordance with the Notice served under the Advance Payments Code or via a Section 38 agreement under the Highways Act or if the developer wishes the road to be retained as a private road then a S106 contribution would be sought at this stage.
In addition to the above it is considered that parking provision accords with the ‘maximum’ requirements outlined in the Local Plan.
On this basis the access and egress points and the internal layout of the scheme are considered acceptable and the proposal is not considered to be prejudicial to highway safety. As such the proposal would not be contrary to policy H7 and policy T2.
5 Nature Conservation
Criterion 5 of Policy H7 requires that schemes are assessed in terms of impact on acknowledged nature conservation interests, impact on open space of recreation or amenity value or impact on areas which are intrinsically important to the character of the area.
Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Council states that the Council in considering proposals will take into account, amongst other things, the potential loss of wildlife habitats. Further policy and guidance is provided by PPS9: Planning Policy Statement 9 “ Biodiversity and Geological Conservation” and accompanying ODPM Circular 06/2005 “Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. Further guidance in relation to the ecology and habits of bats and great crested newts is provided by English Nature’s Bat Mitigation Guidelines and Great Crested newt Mitigation Guidelines. These documents have been taken into account in the following assessment.
A Bat Survey has been submitted with the application (dated June 2009) which followed up a Scoping Survey undertaken in 2008. The June 2009 survey did not detect any evidence of bat activity at the site. As recommended by the 2008 Bat Scoping Survey report a follow on survey in 2009 included an activity and emergence survey during the active bats season. An unmanned remote bat survey using an Anabat unit was undertaken in June 2009 and as a result of this survey no bats were detected. On this basis the Report concludes that bats are not active in or around the buildings. However, it goes on to state that as there is always potential in the future for bats to use any suitable habitat available it is recommended that the roof tiles be removed carefully by hand prior to the demolition of the buildings.
The County Ecologist and the North Yorkshire Bat Group have raised no objection to the application subject to conditions or informative(s).
The main body of the application site is approximately 250m from the nearest pond, which is located at Old Manor House. This pond is known to support a colony of Great Crested Newts.
27 In respect to amphibians and in particular the great crested newt it is noted that the latter can regularly move up to 250 metres from breeding ponds and can, and has been recorded to migrate up to 500 metres. However, the distance that newts from a particular colony would travel is dependent upon the nature of the terrestrial habitat around the breeding ponds and the presence of obstacles and barriers to migration in particular features such as roads, walls etc. In this instance given the distance of the application site from the breeding pond at Old Manor House the intervening land uses and associated habitat characteristics, the nature of the application site itself, and the fact that it is separated by Main Street and numerous physical barriers such as walls and fences from the breeding pond, it is considered that the probability of newts on the application site is so low as to mean that there would be no material impact on any species of amphibian, and in particular the great crested newt as a result of the application proposal. As such no surveys have been requested from the Applicants as it was considered unnecessary and unreasonable to request them given the particulars of this case.
Therefore in respect to potential impacts on acknowledged nature conservation interests the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to the guidance in PPS9 and accompanying ODPM Circular 06/2005, Policy ENV1, Policy H7 and the guidance in PPS9.
6) Flood Risk and Drainage
The Approach To Assessing Flood Risk in PPS25 The application site is located within Flood Zone 3a within an area “benefiting from flood defences” on the Environment Agency’s Flood Zone Map. Land within Flood Zone 3a is considered to have between a 1 in 100 or greater and 1 in 200, or greater, annual probability of river and sea flooding respectively. As such flood risk and flood prevention is an issue of paramount importance in the determination of this application.
In this respect PPS25 provides national policy in respect of development and flood risk. Furthermore it not only defines the proper approach to assessing proposals in respect of flood risk but also defines the vulnerability of particular land uses.
Paragraph 5 of PPS25 states ‘the aims of planning policy on development and flood risk are to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding and to direct development away from areas of highest risk. To this end PPS25 advocates a sequential approach and divides land into Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3, with Zone 1 having the least probability of flooding and Zone 3 the highest probability of flooding. The sequential test aims to direct development towards land that has the least probability of flooding, that is Zone 1.
Only when the Sequential Test has been passed should the next phase of the assessment be applied. This looks at the vulnerability of particular land uses in terms of flooding, with uses being categorised as ‘essential infrastructure’, highly vulnerable’, ‘more vulnerable’, ‘less vulnerable’ and ‘water compatible development’.
Using table D.3 of PPS25 and having regard to the flood risk vulnerability one is able to determine whether a particular land use or development is appropriate within a particular flood zone or whether an exception test is required. For the exception test to be passed it must be demonstrated that the development provides (a) wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, (b) should be developable previously developed land and that there are no reasonable alternative sites on developable previously
28 developed land and(c) a flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere.
Flood Risk Vulnerability of the Proposed Scheme As stated above PPS25 not only defines the proper approach to assessing proposals in respect of flood risk but also defines the vulnerability of particular land uses. In this respect The Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification in Table D.2 of PPS25 defines dwelling houses as “More Vulnerable”. Furthermore table D1 of PPS 25 states that a ‘More Vulnerable’ use should only be permitted in Zone 3a where the exception test is passed.
Assessing the Applicant’s Scheme The first part of the assessment is to determine whether the proposal meets the sequential test. Paragraph 4.17 of PPS25 ‘Practice Guide’ states that the sequential test should be applied to the whole of the local planning authority area. Paragraph 4.19 of the PPS25 ‘Practice Guide’ states that in all cases the developer must justify with evidence to the LPA what area of search has been used when making the application’. To this end the applicant is required to demonstrate that the need for housing within the whole Selby District cannot be met on land in flood zones 1 and 2.
Paragraph 3.3 of the applicant’s Planning Supporting Statement, states ‘for the purposes of this statement it is accepted that in terms of flood risk, sufficient sequentially preferable land can be identified to meet the Council’s housing land requirement (although this is currently under review)’ and continues ‘on the basis of information currently available, therefore, the proposed development fails the PPS25 Sequential Test’. Having had regard to current housing allocations and the high rate of development on windfall sites before the economic downturn, this stance is accepted by officers.
It is therefore concluded that the proposal is unacceptable in terms of flood risk and contrary to the requirements of PPS25. As such the exceptions test should not be considered.
Notwithstanding the above the applicant has submitted information in support of his claim that the exceptions test would be met and that a flood risk assessment indicates that the development would be safe.
In respect of compliance with the exceptions test the applicant has brought attention to the following issues: -
• The wider sustainability benefits to the local community in relation to the removal of a bad neighbour development and to the wider community in terms of protecting existing jobs and allowing a long established local business to continue to grow and meet changing markets • The introduction of less hardstanding on the site through the introduction of garden will significantly reduce the area of impermeable surfacing within the site and contribute to sustainable drainage • The effect of the development on surrounding area has been fully assessed and subject to conditions is expected to be supported by the Environment Agency.
In respect of the Flood Risk Assessment the Environment Agency (EA) were consulted on the application and initially raised concerns in terms of the FRA. However through the submission of additional information the EA have confirmed that “the Agency has no
29 further objections to this scheme subject to the following conditions being appended to any subsequent planning consent.”
They have advised that the proposed development will only be acceptable if the following measure(s) as detailed in the FRA submitted with this application are implemented and secured by way of a planning condition on any planning permission. The proposed condition wording is as follows:
“The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) dated December 2008 and additional information (Ref: BJS/12240/5000) and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA: - 1. Limiting the surface water run-off generated by the 1in 100 year critical storm so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off-site as detailed in sections 9.12 – 9.15 of the FRA. 2. Flood-proofing measures detailed on page 26 Section 10.3.a in the proposed development. 3. Finished floor levels are set no lower than 7.95m above Ordnance Datum (AOD), set in accordance with 10.3b of the FRA taking into account the additional information included within Martin Smiths email dated 30/04/2010 regarding the 58mm error. 4. There shall be no development within 8m of the landward toe of the flood defence embankment.
Conclusion on Flood Risk Matters
However notwithstanding the merits of the case in respect of whether the exceptions test or the flood risk assessment is passed it is noted that the scheme, by virtue of its failure to meet the sequential test, is contrary to the requirements of PPS25 and is therefore unacceptable in relation to development and flood risk.
8 Land Contamination
Part of the site is an active commercial operation and the site is considered by the Authority to be a site, which would be “potentially contaminated” given its use. On this basis should Members with to support application then a condition would be utilised to ensure that contamination is fully assessed prior to the commencement of development.
The proposed wording would be as follows:
No development shall commence on site until a detailed site investigation report (to include soil contamination analysis), a remedial statement and an unforeseen contamination strategy have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the agreed documents and upon completion of works a validation report shall be submitted certifying that the land is suitable for the approved end use. Reason: To ensure that any potential contamination is identified and dealt with in an acceptable manner.
However the Contaminated Land Consultant has stated that given the nature of the existing use on the site, and the nature of potential contamination, the issue of
30 contamination should not be so great so as to preclude the site’s redevelopment for residential uses and that the forms of contamination to be found can be mitigated. As such subject to a condition requiring a scheme of investigation and remediation it is concluded that the proposal is acceptable in terms of land contamination.
7 Other Issues
Overriding considerations under Policy H7 Criterion 6 of Policy H7 requires that schemes are assessed in terms of whether “there are any overriding considerations that would render the site unsuitable or the development inappropriate”. The scheme is considered, by virtue of its failure to meet the sequential test, to be contrary to the requirements of PPS25 and is therefore unacceptable in relation to development and flood risk. It is therefore clearly unsuitable for this type of development.
Trees There are trees located on the western boundary of the site. These would be retained as part of the development. Elsewhere on the site two smaller trees as shown on the topographical survey are shown to be removed to accommodate the development.
Concerns have been raised by neighbours in terms of the relationship of the development to the trees on the boundaries of the site. The concerns relate to the impact of the proposed scheme on the existing trees, the loss of light to the trees and their longer term retention. However given that the trees along the boundary are to be retained these issues are irrelevant.
Furthermore none of the trees on the site are subject of a Tree Preservation Order within a Conservation Area and they are not considered to be of such amenity value to be worthy of protection under a TPO. A condition could be placed on any consent granted that requires protection of the trees during the construction phase, however their longer term retention cannot be protected through the consent.
On balance it is considered that any loss of tree cover would not be so significant as to warrant refusal of the application.
Demand for Housing Objectors have raised concerns in terms of the demand of the units given that there are other properties in the village, which have been on the market for a significant period of time. This is not considered to be a valid reason for refusing of consent on the proposal site as schemes will be required to meet demand as the economy recovers from recession.
Sustainability of the Location Objectors have raised concerns in terms of the sustainability of the settlement with reference to the emerging the LDF documents. Policy H7 supports growth in the settlement subject to a series of criteria and the weight afforded to the LDF is limited given that it is not part of the development plan.
Loss of Employment Site Objectors have raised concerns in terms of loss of the employment site from the village. The Selby District Local Plan Policy EMP4 protects employment sites in established employment areas, however there is no such policy for the protection of sites in villages
31 such as Kelfield. In terms of the resultant loss of the employment use which is considered to be no longer suitable for operational purposes of this business the applicants have been working with Business Link and the Development Policy Team on identifying alternative accommodation. A scheme for the redevelopment of the site for employment use has not been submitted to the Authority and from the evidence submitted by the Applicants the redevelopment of the site is intended to fund the relocation of the business. It is considered that the scheme for the redevelopment is appropriate under Policy H7 in terms of the sustainability of the settlement, the resultant increase in the size of the village as a consequence of the proposal and the loss of the employment site.
S106 Matters A Heads of terms of a S106 was submitted by the Applicants as part of the Application. This confirmed that contributions would be provided in terms of
1. Affordable Housing 2. Off Site Public Open Space 3. Waste and re-cycling contributions
The principle of these contributions has clearly been accepted by the applicant and therefore subject to final agreement on the scope/extent of the provision it is considered that should the application be granted approval it is done on the proviso that a S106 be progressed. Clearly any such agreement in terms of the level of provision would be in line with the Council’s SPD on Developer Contributions and the current evidence base.
CONCLUSION:
Although predominantly on previously developed land the application proposal, in part, relates to residential development on land that is considered Greenfield in PPS3. Although PPS3 does not preclude development on Greenfield sites, Local Plan policy H2A does require that housing development is on previously developed sites within defined development limits. In this respect the proposal is contrary to the adopted development plan and should be refused unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise.
In respect to size, scale, housing density, impacts on character and form, residential amenity, highway safety, nature conservation interests the proposal is considered compliant with the criteria in Policy H7 of the Local Plan. However, the proposal does not meet the sequential test in respect of directing development to lowest areas of flood risk and as such the proposal fails to meet the requirements of PPS25.
The applicant has put forward a case in support of the proposal in relation to the needs of the existing business to relocate and the benefits to both local employment and amenity arising from a relocation of the business. However no firm plans have been put before the Council, to allow substantial weight to be afforded to the applicant’s case in support of the proposal.
In any event the failure to meet the sequential test is an issue of paramount importance and considerable weight. This is not attenuated by whether the proposal would meet the exception test or whether the flood risk assessment is acceptable.
In conclusion it is considered on balance that the inclusion of Greenfield land within the development and the failure to comply with the sequential test greatly outweighs the merits of the proposal and it is recommended that the application be refused.
32
RECOMMENDATION:
The application is recommended for REFUSAL on the following grounds:
1. The proposal constitutes residential development on a site that, in part, is not considered previously developed land, under Annex B of PPS3, and is therefore contrary to Policy H2A of the development plan, which seeks to restrict residential development to previously developed sites.
2. The application site is located within Flood Zone 3a therefore having, between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 annual probability of river flooding (1% - 0.1%) in Table D1 of PPS25. Paragraph 17 of PPS25 states that development located within flood zones 2 and 3 should be subject to a sequential test. The proposal is located in Flood Zone 3a and is classified as more vulnerable in Table D2 of PPS25. The applicant has conceded that the proposal does not pass the sequential test and that there are sequentially preferable sites to currently satisfy the need for housing within the district. The proposal therefore fails to accord with paragraphs 4.17 and 4.19 of PPS25 Practice Guide and goes against the precautionary approach to flood risk advocated in PPS25.
33
Maps and Plans available on request from the Planning Department
34
Maps and Plans available on request from the Planning Department
35 APPLICATION 8/70/84D/PA PARISH: Stutton With Hazlewood NUMBER: 2010/0504/FUL Parish Council
APPLICANT: Mr Thomas Tate VALID DATE: 24 May 2010
EXPIRY DATE: 19 July 2010 PROPOSAL: Erection of an amenity block providing racing administration office, tack room, storage and drying room and changing facilities LOCATION: Castle Farm Paradise Lane Hazlewood Tadcaster North Yorkshire LS24 9NJ
The application was presented to Planning Committee on 25 August 2010 when it was resolved that the application be deferred pending a site visit. The original report to Planning Committee is given below.
DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The Site The application site is Castle Farm Stables comprising traditional detached ‘farmhouse’ three modern stable blocks and a further modern agricultural barn style building used as an indoor menage, two horse walkers, a range of traditional brick stables along the northern boundary and a traditional red brick building with single storey outriggers to the rear of Castle Farm.
The northern boundary of the site comprises a brick wall of approximate 3-4 metres in height, over which is the grounds of Hazlewood Castle.
The boundary of the southern part of the site comprises a stone-wall of approximate 1.5 metres in height.
The actual site of the proposed amenity block is comprised of a formal garden area consisting of lawns with a variety of small ornamental trees of approximately 3-4 metres in height. In addition growing out of the base of the wall is a semi-mature sycamore.
The whole site is situated on a prominent hill top position with the land falling away to the east, south-east and south to form a wide shallow vale and as such the site benefits from commanding views. Similarly the site can be seen from a number of vantage points and when seen from the south, particularly from the Towton Battlefield site comprises one of the very few collections of buildings within the landscape, with Castle Farm, being painted white being a particular noticeable feature even at this distance.
36 As stated above the site lies adjacent to the Hazlewood Castle complex with its various listed buildings set in an historic park and garden of local importance.
The site is also located within the West Yorkshire Green Belt and within a Locally Important Landscape Area.
The application has been advertised as a Departure from the development plan.
The Proposal The applicant is seeking permission for a two storey amenity block to provide a storage and drying room, tack room with male and female changing facilities on the ground floor and a yard canteen and kitchen, office store, head trainers office, racing administration office, meeting room and w.c at first floor level.
The proposed amenity block would measure some 8.6m in height and some 14m in length, constructed from ashlar limestone under a natural grey slate roof. At ground floor level there would be an arcade of arches to all four elevations which are intended reflect those on the stables at the adjacent listed Hazlewood Castle.
In support of the proposal the applicant’s agent has stated that
“With 4 people working full time or part time on racing admin including entries for 55 horses and 20 staff working in the yard directly with horses. The racing complex desperately needs a building to provide admin offices together with tack and drying areas, toilets and changing rooms to provide the correct welfare provisions as set out under the Factory Safety Acts and Health and welfare Provision at work. The Racing Yard would not be able to continue without this facility being provided. The future expansion of the yard to 80 horses and 29 staff depends upon this provision”.
In addition a letter has been received from the applicant stating: -
“We have over the past 9 years increased the number of horses in training by 3 to 4 each year up to our current level of 55 horses, many of which are international level performers.
Next year we have clients who want to send more horses. The increase will be 20 horses. A total number in training of 75 horses.
The increase in horses we can easily accommodate within the commercial steel barns on site. We cannot accommodate the amenity building within these existing buildings.
The increase in horses requires an increase in staff. The staff at present have no facilities of their own for toilets, showers or canteen. We also do not have proper tack rooms or drying rooms fro wet tack and wet clothes for both horses and staff.
37
The building will not be visible form from beyond the existing site because of all the existing buildings and the mature planting.”
Planning History
The following historical applications are considered to be relevant to the determination of this application.
An application (reference number CO/1999/121) The erection of an extension to existing stables and storage building was permitted in 1999.
An application (reference number CO/2004/0564 for the erection of a general- purpose agricultural barn and implement shed was permitted in 2004.
CONSULTATIONS
STUTTON AND HAZLEWOOD PARISH COUNCIL: The Parish Council have stated that they do not have any objections to this application but requests that the limestone to be used must match the existing property especially as the location is so close to historical important Hazlewood Castle.
COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGIST: The proposed development lies in an area of archaeological significance with potential for the survival of remains of medieval and later settlement. Therefore advises that an archaeological watching brief is undertaken during ground disturbing works associated with this development.
YORKSHIRE WATER: Application form states to "Main Sewer" for foul water, connection via existing drainage system. There is no public sewer network available in the area. It is most likely Castle Farm, has its own septic tank/package treatment plant, which would explain via existing drainage system, and the existing site plan appears to back up the possibility of a private system.
On this basis, and that surface water is to Suds/Soakaway, no comments are required from Yorkshire Water. If agent/applicant, say that foul water is to "Main Sewer", please re-consult Yorkshire Water, as they would have to provide evidence to where the farm connects to the public sewer network (possibly miles away).
SOUTH WHARFE INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD: No objections.
ENGLISH HERITAGE: Advises that the application be determined in line with national and local policy and on the basis of the Council’s specialist conservation advice.
GARDEN HISTORY SOCIETY:
38 No comments received.
NEIGHBOURS AND PUBLICITY: One letter of objection has been received from Cunnane Town Planning on behalf of Samuel Smith’s Old Brewery, who objects on the following grounds: -
1. The Principle of the Development in the Green Belt.
The objector reiterates the advice in Paragraphs 1.4 and 3.4 of PPG2 and in particular that para 3.4 of PPG2 states that the construction of new buildings within the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is for, amongst other purposes, essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation.
The objector goes on to state that provided they are genuinely required for uses of land, which preserves the openness of the Green Belt, small changing rooms are an example of an essential facility for outdoor sport and recreation. However the objector goes on to state that the proposed development is a private business for training racehorses and therefore, the facility cannot be described as an essential facility for outdoor sport and recreation. In addition although the proposed amenity block includes changing rooms it also comprises a number of other functions including office accommodation, a tack room, a storage room, canteen and a drying room. None of these purposes are listed within PPG2 as being appropriate. The objector goes on to conclude that a building of this nature cannot possibly be regarded as being essential and, therefore according to PPG2, must constitute inappropriate development.
The objector states that although the applicant has concluded that the development is not inappropriate they have not provided any justification for this conclusion.
The objector alludes to Policy GB2 of the Selby District Local Plan and notes that although it does not use the appropriate or inappropriate test as advocated in PPG2 it lists a number of purposes for which development in the Green Belt is acceptable. The objector goes on to note that GB2 is broadly base on paragraphs 3.4 and 3.8 of PPG2 and includes the provision of essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation and the limited redevelopment, alteration and small-scale extension of existing commercial premises, which do not have a materially greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt.
The objector states that compliance with Policy GB2 does not mean that the development is appropriate in PPG2 terms.
The proposed development would result in a large two-storey building within an otherwise open part of the site. It is a matter of fact and degree that the proposed development does have a materially greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Due to the size, scale and massing of the building, it cannot possibly be regarded as small-scale extension to existing
39 premises. The proposed building will be clearly visible from Paradise Lane, Chantry Lane and the grounds of Hazlewood Castle, within vistas that currently provide some of the only remaining open views through the application premises.
The objector states that of additional relevance to this issue is the open admission by the applicant’s agent, in paragraphs 5.7 and 5.8 of their supporting statement that the proposed building is intended to provide facilities sufficient to facilitate the expansion of the business. Expansion of the business, to the tune of an extra 25 horses and an extra 9 employees, will undoubtedly have a greater impact on the Green Belt than the present use, potentially requiring even more building on the site. In view of the fact that the proposed building is designed to cater for needs which do not currently exist, and there is no guarantee that future expansion will actually happen. The objector further states that if the District Council were to grant planning permission for the proposed development it would be pre-determining its own future decisions on further development proposals at the application site that may be required to facilitate the said expansion. Such an act on behalf of the Council would be erroneous.
The objector goes on to state that if on the other hand the desired expansion can be accommodated within the existing stable and training complex, negating the need for future building works to accommodate any expansion, then it must be asked as to why underused facilities elsewhere within the complex are not being considered to provide the proposed facilities.
As such the objector concludes that on the basis of the uncertainties the proposal would be an unjustified incursion into the Green Belt and would have a materially greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt.
2. Impact of the Proposal on the Green Belt
The objector refers to policy GB4 and the contents of paragraph 5.17 of the applicant’s supporting statement. Although the objector agrees that the physical features mentioned by the applicant would to a limited degree reduce the impact of the development upon the visual character of the surrounding Green Belt, this is not sufficient to claim that there will be no materially greater impact on the Green Belt. It is a matter of fact that the development, which is large in scale and volume will detract from the openness of the Green Belt. In addition it is intended to facilitate a potentially more intensive use of the application site, to the detriment of the open character of the Green Belt.
3. The Impact of the Proposal upon a Historic Park or Garden
The objector notes policy ENV16 is concerned with proposal that affect historic parks or gardens and that the site is located within the Hazlewood Castle designated historic park or garden and that the park provides the setting for the grade II listed Castle and Chapel and several grade II listed buildings. The objectors goes on to state that the proposed development will
40 harm views from the garden into Castle Farm Stables site, and as a result will create harm to the appearance, setting and character of this historic garden. Furthermore the elaborate design of the proposed amenity block does not sit well with the surrounding utilitarian buildings. The design has been chosen to mimic the design of the stable block to the south of the site, and as a result does not for comfortably within its immediate surroundings. This detracts from the character and visual amenity of the historic garden and as such the proposal is contrary to policy ENV16.
4. The Applicant’s Case for Very Special Circumstances
The objector alludes to the requirements of para 3.1 and 3,2 of PPG2 and the contents of para 4.3.7 of the applicant’s statement. However the objector states that at no point has the applicant agent indicated what he considers to be very special circumstances and therefore the decision maker has to make assumptions as to whether any of the benefits advanced comprise very special circumstances.
The objector goes on to state that the applicant’s agent’s has claimed that the building is necessary to ensure the continued success of the existing business, to meet business demands and to ensure the welfare of horses. However the objector states that no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the business would fail in the event of the proposed facilities not being provided or whether the existing buildings could be utilised or adapted to fulfil their business requirements.
5. The Impact of the Proposal on the Countryside
The objector alludes to Policy EMP9 and its criteria.
Criterion 1 of EMP9 relates to highway safety and amenity. The objector alludes to the condition and character of the local road network and that the proposal is required to expand the business with consequent intensification of use of the site and traffic generated. The objector notes that no additional parking is proposed, that the applicant does not indicate the level of increase in numbers of vehicles visiting the site. The objector therefore concludes that the Council must consider whether there are adequate parking facilities available, as if staff are forced to park on the highway, this would cause detriment to highway safety.
Given the expansion of the workforce this would have a detrimental impact to the occupants of the adjacent farmhouse.
The height of the amenity block is similar to that of the existing farm-house and it would be clearly seen from the ground of Hazlewood Castle. As such it would result in harm to local amenity.
Criterion 2 of EMP9 relates to the impact on the character and appearance of the area and on nature conservation interests. The objector notes that the
41 development will be visible in views from Hazlewood Castle, Paradise Lane and Chantry Lane. Furthermore the proposed development will increase the intensity of development on the site to the detriment of the surrounding area.
The objector refers to PPS9 and DEFRA Circular 06/2005, paragraph 5.34 of the applicant’s statement and concludes that the applicant is proposing to remove a number of small trees and shrubs, which could provide nesting grounds to bats and breeding birds. Furthermore the applicant also states that there are a number of mature trees and shrubs surrounding the site, which could provide ideal habitats for a number of protected species. The objector concludes that the need to ensure that correct ecological surveys are carried out is, essential to ensure that all material planning consideration have been assessed in this case.
The objector also notes references made by the applicant in respect of trees on or near the site and states that the applicant should have undertaken a full tree survey as without this, it is impossible to assess whether any harm will be created to an important element of the character of the area.
The objector notes as the proposal would be within the existing equestrian complex the fourth criterion of policy EMP9 is not relevant.
6. The Impact of the Proposal upon the Fabric and Setting of Surrounding Listed Buildings
The objector notes that the applicant’s supporting statement refers to PPG15 (which he notes has been replaced by PPS5) and policy ENV22 of the Local Plan, which has been deleted and no longer forms part of the development plan. The objector goes on to cite policy HE7.5 of PPS5 and asserts that the proposed amenity block will not only harm views into the site but will also harm the setting of the Grade I listed Hazlewood Castle, the Grade II listed chapel and several Grade II listed buildings. The objector goes on to state that the proposed amenity block would result in the expansion of built development, detract from the character and appearance of the listed building, would not fit comfortably within its immediate setting, introducing a flamboyant building into the site which would not complement the immediate buildings. As such the objector states that the building would be contrary to PPS5.
7. Miscellaneous Issues
The objector suggests that the planning permission has not been granted for the two horse walkers and that numerous inspectors have concluded that such structures represent inappropriate development within the Green Belt.
In addition to the above six letters have been received supporting the proposal for the following reasons: -
1. The racing yard has gone from strength to strength over the past nine years and the number of horses has gone up each year.
42 2. Support for the new toilet, shower and canteen facilities. 3. To be able to have toilet and shower facilities is an essential part of the daily working needs of staff. 4. The stable yard wishes to increase the number of horses and the new amenity building will allow that to happen. 5. The close connection between Hazlewood Castle and Castle Farm Stables has been considerably beneficial to both businesses. The hotel has organised ‘racing days’ with escorted tours of the yard, the horses and the gallops and owners of the horses often stay at the hotel. 6. The successful business must be allowed to continue, to expand and to success over the next ten years as it has done so over the previous ten years.
POLICIES AND ISSUES:
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states "if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be, made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise". The development plan for the Selby District comprises of the policies in the Selby District Local Plan (adopted on 8 February 2005) saved by the direction of the Secretary of State
Regional Spatial Strategy
As of 6 July 2010 the Secretary of State announced that with immediate effect Regional Strategies have been revoked under s79(6) of the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and no longer form part of the development plan for the purposes of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
The planning application has been assessed against the following policies:
Selby District Local Plan
GB2: - Green Belt (Principle). GB4: - Character and Amenity of the Green Belt. EMP9: - Expansion of Existing Employment Uses. ENV15: - Locally Important Landscape Areas. ENV16: - Historic Parks and Gardens.
The applicant has referred to policy ENV22 of the Selby District Local Plan. However this was not saved by Direction of the Secretary of State and therefore no longer forms of the development plan.
National Policy
PPG2: - Green Belts.
43 PPS5: - Planning for the Historic Environment. PPS4: - Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth. PPS9: - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. PPS9: - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, Good Practice Guide. Circular 06/2005: Bat Mitigation Guidelines. Great Crested newt Mitigation Guidelines.
The applicant has alluded to PPG15 ‘Planning and the Historic environment’ and PPS7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’. The former document has now been cancelled and superseded by PPS5, and large parts of PPS7, especially in relation to horse and economic related development have been cancelled and superseded by PPS4.
Regional Spatial Strategy
As of 6 July 2010 the Secretary of State announced that with immediate effect Regional Strategies have been revoked under s79(6) of the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and no longer form part of the development plan for the purposes of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Assessment
The issues in the determination of this application are: -
1. The principle of the development within the Green Belt. 2. The impact of the proposal on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt. 3. The impact of the proposal on heritage assets including the setting of listed buildings, the historic park/ gardens and archaeology. 4. Compliance with the requirements of PPS4. 5. Compliance with the requirements of policy EMP9.
1. The Principle of the Development within the Green Belt.
Normally the decision making process when considering proposals for development in the Green Belt is in three stages, and is as follows:-
a. It must be determined whether the development is appropriate or inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
b. If the development is appropriate, the application should be determined on its own merits.
c. If the development is inappropriate, the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt applies and the development should not be permitted unless there are very special circumstances which outweigh the presumption against it.
44
Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted and “very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations” (PPG2, para 3.2).
The starting point in the assessment of this application should be Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The Act requires that "if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning acts the determination must be, made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise’.
Policy GB2 of the Selby District Local Plan provides the framework for assessing whether proposals are ‘acceptable in principle’ in the Green Belt. It essentially repeats and, or, distills the guidance within paragraphs 3.4, 3.8 and 3.12 of PPG2 but with two exceptions. In addition to the categories of development deemed not inappropriate in Green Belts identified in PPG2, policy GB2 also allows for ‘small-scale extension of existing commercial premises which do not have a materially greater impact on the openness of the green belt’ and ‘small-scale residential development within the defined development limits of settlements’.
The objector has stated that ‘compliance with policy GB2 does not mean that the development is appropriate in PPG2 terms’. This statement alludes to the fact that policy GB2 uses the term ‘acceptable in principle’ rather than the terms ‘appropriate’ or ‘inappropriate’ as used in PPG2 and that ‘small scale extension of existing commercial premises….’ is not referred to in PPG2.
However, it is clear from the wording of policy GB2 and its accompanying text, particularly paragraphs 3.20 and 3.26 that the terms ‘acceptable in principle’ and ‘not inappropriate’ are intended to be, and are effectively used to mean the same thing. Indeed paragraph 3.20 of the Local Plan states ‘approval should not be given, except in very special circumstances, for the construction of new buildings, or for other forms of development, other than for the following purposes’ and goes on to list within the paragraphs 3.21 to 3.33 various types of development, including in para 3.26 ‘small scale extensions to business premises’. The reasons given within para 3.26 for the inclusion of small-scale extensions to existing commercial businesses’ within GB2 is ‘not to unnecessarily restrict rural enterprise’.
If the above situation was not the case one would result in the extraordinary circumstance that a development could be found to be ‘acceptable in principle’ in terms of GB2 and yet still considered to constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt under PPG2 and therefore subject to the test for ‘very special circumstances’. Such a circumstance could not reasonably be considered as the intention of policy GB2. It is therefore considered obvious that the Selby District Local Plan seeks to apply Green Belt policy to
45 the local situation and not refer to a different assessment to be undertaken with regard to PPG2.
Therefore in considering the difference in wording between GB2 and PPG2 and the weight to be afforded to this material consideration it is noted that in the first instance PPG2 is in the nature of national ‘guidance’ and that in the second instance PPG2(revised 1995) also predates the Selby District Local Plan (adopted 2005), with policy GB2 saved by direction of the Secretary of State in 2008. As such it is policy GB2, which sets the relevant Green Belt policy for development control in the Selby District and which leads the assessment of proposals in the Green Belt within the district. Given this, it is considered that the guidance in PPG2 is of insufficient weight and cannot alter the conclusion reached as to the approach to take to the proposed development.
In respect to the above it is noted that criterion 5 of policy GB2 of the Selby District Local Plan allows for
‘the conversion of buildings to new uses and the limited redevelopment, alteration and small scale extension of existing commercial premises which do not have a materially greater impact than the present use on the openness of the green belt’ ,
and that criterion 7 also allows for,
‘proposals for uses of land, the carrying out of engineering and other operations, the provision of essential facilities associated with uses of land, including essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, cemeteries, and for other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it’.
Therefore in relation to the tests established under policy GB2 of the Local Plan a proposal would be ‘acceptable in principle’ provided that it constituted: - 1. a small-scale extension of existing commercial premises, which do[es] not have a materially greater impact than the present use on the openness of the Green Belt, or 2. the provision of essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation or for other uses of land which preserve the Green Belt.
Whether the Proposal Constitutes a Small Scale Extension to Existing Commercial Premises Which Would Not Have a Materially Greater Impact than the Present Use on the Openness of the Green Belt
The term ‘small-scale’ in respect to the extension of existing commercial premises is not defined within policy GB2 of the Local Plan. Whether a proposed extension is of ‘small-scale’ is a matter of fact and degree. The term small-scale can be viewed both in absolute and relative terms. However, in the context of the current application it is considered that the only meaningful
46 way of assessing whether the proposal is ‘small-scale’ is to compare it with its immediate environment.
The supporting statement prepared by the applicant’s agent offers little help with the assessment. Despite referring to the provisions of criterion 5 of policy GB2 in sections 4.5.4 and 5.5, the statement does not provide any analysis as to whether the proposal constitutes a ‘small scale extension’ or justification for the agent’s conclusion that it does.
In considering the proposal it is noted that the proposed amenity block would measure some 8.6m in height and some 14m in length and in this respect it would reflect the size and scale of the existing dwelling at Castle Farm. It would also be higher than the adjacent stable blocks. In this respect one would expect a ‘small-scale extension’ to be not only smaller than the surrounding buildings but also to be considerably smaller than the surrounding buildings.
Looking at the wider site it is noted that in addition to the house there are a further four stable buildings which make up the complex. The amenity building would be comparable in size and scale to these, being a little higher to its nearest stable building and to the stable at the site entrance. Therefore even when taking the whole site and its buildings into account it is still considered that it would not appear as a subservient or ‘small scale’ addition. As such, having had regard to its context it is considered that the proposed amenity block, by virtue of its size, height, scale and mass would not constitute a ‘small-scale extension to the existing commercial premises’. In this respect it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to criterion 5 of policy GB2 of the Local Plan.
In respect to the second part of the test in policy GB2(5) (i.e. ‘materially greater impact than the present use on the openness of the Green Belt’) it is noted that the wording of policy appears to be derived from the contents of paragraph 3.8 (a) of PPG2 which relates to the ‘reuse of buildings inside a Green Belt’. Whereas the wording makes sense within the context of the reuse of a building it appears to be somewhat inappropriate, or at least ill fitting in respect of an extension to an existing building, which does not include any material change of use of land or buildings. Nevertheless it does form part of the policy and therefore needs addressing in so far as it relates to this proposal.
As to whether the proposal would have a materially greater impact than the present use (rather than impacts on openness directly attributable to the amenity building itself- which is considered later in this report) on the openness of the Green Belt it is noted that the use of the land would not in fact change and the site would remain a stable facility in connection with the training of horses. Furthermore the applicant has stated that in respect of the additional horses that the stable block is purported to support, these would be housed in the existing stable buildings and therefore not require additional buildings (other than the amenity block). Therefore even taking the additional vehicles and activities arising from additional staff and horses into
47 consideration it is concluded that the proposal would not have a materially greater impact than the present use on the openness of the Green Belt.
Whether the Proposal constitutes the Provision of Essential Facilities for Outdoor Sport and Outdoor Recreation or for Other Uses of Land which Preserve the Openness of the Green Belt
Notwithstanding the above the proposal could still be acceptable in principle if it was for the provision of essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation or for other uses of land, which preserve the openness of the Green Belt.
Whether the proposal is in relation to an outside sport or other form of outdoor recreation is debatable. The training of horses at the application site is clearly in relation to the sport of horse racing. However the sport itself does not take place on the site. Conversely it could be argued that the sport could not take place at its current level, without provision for the training of the horses.
Notwithstanding the above it is clear that the training of horses, in the manner, carried out at the application property and its associated land, with its extensive area of gallops, and grazing land is a use of land which preserves the openness of the Green Belt and which does not conflict with the purposes of including land in it.
However it still needs to be ascertained whether the amenity block itself constitutes an ‘essential’ facility. The objector has noted that the amenity block would include changing rooms, office accommodation, a tack room, storage room, canteen facilities and a drying room and goes on to state that ‘none of these purposes are listed within PPG2 as being appropriate. However paragraph 3.5 of PPG2 only provides ‘possible examples’ of such [essential] facilities and it is clear that it is not intended to be an exhaustive list. Therefore all because a facility is not mentioned within paragraph 3.5 of PPG2 this does not necessarily mean that it cannot constitute an essential facility for a use of land, which preserves the openness of the Green Belt etc.
The applicant has stated that ‘all the facilities provided by the application are considered essential for the day to day running of the Castle Farm Stables’ and that ‘the workforce currently has no amenity facilities and has to utilise rooms in the applicant’s house for breaks, sanitary facilities and office accommodation’. Furthermore the applicant has stated that the proposed amenity building will ensure that expansion of the business can take place and that the ‘present agricultural storage buildings on site have the capacity for the increase in horses’.
However in the first instance it is not particularly true that currently there are no amenity facilities available for the workforce. The eastern stable block does provide a small tack room that also doubles up as a small canteen, with stove, benches and tea making facilities, and with storage area/drying room above. Presumably these facilities have served the business since its commencement nine years ago. Furthermore this area could be expanded upon within the existing stable block by making more efficient use of the
48 space available and this could be achieved without affecting the functioning of the stable, for example by restricting airflow.
It is also noted that several other buildings on the complex appear to be under utilised and on both occasions were not found to be in use at the time of the case officer’s site visit. These included a range of stables abutting the wall along the northern boundary and a range of unused and dilapidated part two- storey, part single-storey red brick buildings fronting onto the tennis court at the rear of the applicant’s house. Both these ranges could be used to provide basic amenities such as toilets, additional storage and changing rooms and a small tea-rest room for workers.
The proposed amenity building is considered to be overly large for the functioning of the stables, even when taking into account the plans for its expansion. Furthermore if all the facilities it contained were truly essential, then it begs the question, how have the stables managed not only to function, but to be successful, in the absence of the facilities. It is accepted that the amenity block may be desirable, but this is not the same as being essential.
It is also noted that the applicant’s agent has, in an email dated 17 July 2010, stated that ‘the present agricultural storage buildings on the site have the capacity for the increase in horses’. However this contradicts the applicant’s agent’s statement at paragraph 5.12 of the supporting statement which states ‘Castle Farm Stables continue to utilise existing buildings and land to their full potential’. One cannot use buildings to their ‘full potential’ but have ‘capacity’. However in his letter, dated 28 July 2010 the applicant has stated ‘the increase in horses we can easily accommodate within the commercial steel barns on site. We cannot accommodate the amenity building within these existing buildings’.
The applicant’s case is at best confused and in some respects contradictory and certainly does not provide a compelling case that the proposal constitutes ‘essential facilities’. It is considered that there is some scope within existing buildings for additional facilities, for example storage, tackroom and that certain other smaller buildings one site could be utilised to provide toilets and changing rooms. Furthermore given that an additional 20 horses can be easily accommodated within the existing buildings it is considered that there must currently be room for many of the facilities that would be housed within the proposed amenity block.
In addition to the above it is not unreasonable to assume that the existing house is currently used as an office as it is not unusual to find this situation in an occupational workers dwelling. Many farm workers dwellings for example contain toilets, showers and offices for staff. What is certain is the fact that the existing office facilities, whatever and wherever they exist have served the business since its commencement nine years ago. Whereas it is conceded that the relocation of such offices from the dwelling (or from wherever they currently exist) to a separate building may be desirable from the applicant’s point of view this does not mean that it is essential.
49 The applicant’s statement suggests that the amenity block is needed to provide for the needs of the current workforce and to facilitate the expansion of the business. In relation to the first point it as been clearly demonstrated that there is sufficient space within existing buildings to accommodate the needs of the existing staff. In respect to the second point the words of the inspector at planning appeal APP/N2739/A/10/2125461 that ‘just because a business is successful, it does not mean it should be allowed to undertake development that would otherwise be considered to be unacceptable in planning policy terms’ appear pertinent to the determination of this application.
It is clear that the applicant has a choice either to provide the facilities required/ desired in connection with the running of the existing business and perhaps to allow for perhaps limited or even no expansion, or to expand and keep the current facilities to the work force.
As such it is concluded that the applicant’s claim that the amenity block would constitute ‘essential facilities that are genuinely required’ is unconvincing and in this respect it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to criterion 7 of policy GB2 of the Local Plan and the guidance in paragraph 3.5 of PPG2.
Given that the proposal fails to comply with both policy GB2 of the Local Plan and the guidance in PPG2 it is concluded that it constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt. As such the proposal is harmful, by reason of inappropriateness and in accordance with the guidance in paragraph 3.2 of PPG2 it is considered that substantial weight should be afforded to the harm by reason of inappropriateness.
Impact on the Openness of the Green Belt
Paragraph 1.4 of PPG2 states that ‘the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open’ continuing ‘the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness’. To this end policy GB4 of the Local Plan requires that proposals for development in the Green Belt, or which are conspicuous from an area of Green Belt, will only be permitted where the scale, location, materials and design of any building or structure, or the laying out and use of land, would not detract from the open character and visual amenity of the Green Belt….’.
In its proposed location the amenity block would be situated within the context of other buildings and with a brick wall as part of its backdrop. The view of the amenity block would also be obscured in part by the horse walkers in the front garden. However in respect of the horse-walkers it is noted that these do not appear to benefit from planning consent and as such may not be lawful.
In this connection it is noted that the applicant’s agent in paragraph 5.17 of the supporting statement as stated ‘the proposed building will only be visible in its entirety from close proximity within the Castle Farm complex and the only views of the building from public vantage points are along the section of Paradise Lane which is adjacent to the site’ continuing ‘ even along Paradise Lane the proposed building would be barely visible beyond the existing
50 stables, horse walkers and boundary wall’. Again at paragraph 5.4 of the statement the agent opines that ‘views of the property and the castle are minimal from public vantage points’.
However the proposed amenity building would comprise two storeys, with a maximum height of approximately 8.5 metres at ridge, which is very similar to the farmhouse. It would also be situated within a space between the existing stable blocks and the dwelling. The whole site occupies a commanding hill top position with extensive views across the gently rolling countryside associated with the magnesian limestone belt. From Paradise Lane the land falls gently down towards the east and south-east after which it rises to form a series of ridges and plateaus. Not surprisingly the site is clearly seen from a wide range of public vantage points including several parts of Chantry Lane, the lane leading from Chantry Lane northwards to the A64/ A659 intersection, the lane leading to Willow Farm at grid reference 447152 440437, and even at the Towton Battlefield Cross and its environs along the B1217.
Not surprisingly given its commanding position the site features prominently in many surrounding views. When seen from these positions the house, particularly given it white colour, contrasts sharply with its wooded backdrop and is readily discernible. However the agricultural-style stable buildings being lower and constructed from timber are less noticeable, as are the horse walkers. The gap between the house and stable blocks provides a sense of space and this forms an essential part of the character of the site and helps to contribute to the general feeling of openness.
The proposed building would be as high and would have a similar size, scale and mass as the existing farmhouse, and would substantially close the gap between house and the stables. In addition by virtue of its domestic and elaborate design it would appear as another dwelling in the landscape. This would emphasis the built form of the site, reduce the ameliorating effect of the woodland backdrop and contribute towards a sense of built sprawl across the site.
From the car park of Hazelwood Castle the view is framed by the wall to the garden but the upper part of existing dwelling at Castle Farm can be seen. However much of the skyline above the wall is relatively uncluttered contributing to the sense that one is in an open rural location. The top of the proposed amenity block would likewise be clearly seen above the wall and give a sense of enclosure.
It is noted that the proposed building would be located near to existing buildings and therefore to some extent its impact on openness would be ameliorated, say from a situation in which a building would be situated in a complete open situation such as the middle of a field. However, all because a proposal is less harmful to openness compared to other situations, this does not mean that it is not harmful per se.
As such it is concluded that the proposal, by virtue of its size, scale, mass, design and location would significantly detract from the open character of the
51 Green Belt and in this respect it would be contrary to Policy GB4 of the Selby District Local Plan and the guidance in PPG2.
Impact on the Visual Amenity of the Green Belt
PPS1 exhorts the importance of good design and the principles of good design are of particular importance in Green Belts with its emphasis on the need to protect visual amenity. In this regard it is noted that paragraph 3.15 of PPG2 states that the ‘visual amenities of the Green Belt should not be injured by proposals for development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt, which although they would not prejudice the purposes of including land in Green Belts, might be visually detrimental by reason of siting, materials or design’.
The importance of good design and the need to protect character is reflected in local policy. For instance criterion 2 of policy EMP9 requires that ‘the nature and scale of [a] proposal should not have a significant effect on the character and appearance of the area’. However, a proposal’s impact on the visual amenity of an area is largely determined by its design and materials in relation to its context. In this connection criterion 3 of policy EMP9 requires that proposals should achieve a high standard of design, materials and landscaping which complements existing buildings.
The proposal is located within a Locally Important Landscape Area and hence is subject to policy ENV15 which requires that priority is given to the conservation and enhancement of the quality of the landscape and that particular attention should be paid to design, layout, landscaping of development and the use of materials in order to minimise impacts and to enhance the traditional character of buildings and landscape in the area.
In addition to the above it is considered that whether a proposal would have an impact on character and form and therefore visual amenity depends on its context. A style of building that is acceptable in a given location may appear incongruous in another, and therefore in this respect detract from visual amenity. In the case before committee it is noted that the site is located adjacent to the Hazlewood Castle complex with its array of grade I and II listed buildings and its historic park and garden.
In this instance the proposed amenity building would be two-storeys high with external walls constructed from coursed square stone with ashlar quoins under a natural slate roof, with traditional Yorkshire sash windows in a 75mm reveal. The architectural style is based upon the C18 stable courtyard designed by John Carr, in the adjacent Hazlewood Castle. However, given its size, somewhat divorced location from the main Hazlewood Castle buildings, and general design the amenity building would appear as a dwelling, rather than as an agricultural or equine related building (which are normally stark and functional in character). In this respect the proposal would have an urbanising impact and therefore detract from the rural character of the area to the detriment of the visual amenity of this Green Belt location.
52 The applicant has stated that the ‘impact of the proposed building on visual amenity would be minimal due to the inconspicuous nature of the development’ and that there are ‘few public vantage points from which to view the site. As demonstrated earlier both the site and the proposed building would be clearly seen from a number of public vantage points over a wide area. It would also be seen rising above the boundary wall from the car park area of Hazlewood Castle, which currently presents an open aspect above the wall, reinforcing the sense of a lack of development associated with rural areas. As such any detrimental impact would be seen from over a wide area.
Although it is noted that the amenity building has been designed to reflect the architectural style of the listed Hazlewood Castle Stables this is, at best, an issue of limited weight. The existing stables at Hazlewood Castle were built to reflect the tastes, technologies and materials available at that time. They are arranged in such away to reflect the hierarchies of the building’s functions in relation to the host property and this in turn imparts a sense of meaning and significance to the arrangement.
However, there is no imperative for modern additions/ extensions, even to listed buildings, to slavishly reflect the style of the host property. In fact modern conservation philosophy emphasises that extensions and additions should be of their own age. It should also be borne in mind that the buildings at Hazlewood Castle comprise a holistic architectural set piece. Therefore what may be acceptable, in terms of size, scale and design as part of this ensemble may not necessarily sit comfortably and may appear incongruous and out of context elsewhere.
In this case the proposed amenity block would be located within the Castle Farm complex, which is adjacent to the Hazlewood Castle site. As such the proposed building would be viewed against the plain, functional, modern stable blocks and the relatively plain farmhouse. In this instance the amenity block, by virtue of it’s over elaborate architectural detailing and domestic appearance would appear out of place and constitute a pastiche.
Therefore although the use of magnesian limestone is welcomed, as it is a traditional building material in the locality, the proposal would be, by its somewhat domestic style and over elaborate design, out of character with its immediate rural surroundings and in this respect be poorly designed. In this respect it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to policy PPS1, PPG2, and policies EMP9(2) (3), ENV1 and ENV15 of the Selby District Local Plan.
Impact on Trees
Noting the above description of trees within the site it is considered that it is quite clear the proposed amenity block would not result in any significant loss of trees. The proposal would result in the loss of a shrubbery containing small apple tree, laurel, box, flowering currant and wisteria. None are specimen trees and would be barely visible outside of the application site. The trees within the area of lawn contain three holly trees whose canopies have
53 coalesced and which stand 3 metre high, a flowering cherry standing at a height of 4m, a 3m high holy, a 3m high apple and a mature sycamore growing out of the base of the wall. None of the trees would be directly affected, or could be considered as specimen trees. The only tree of any significant height would be the sycamore. However this tree would be situated 12 metres from the proposed building, which is considered sufficient to ensure that there would be no conflict between the tree and the building. It is also noted that this tree is growing close to the existing boundary wall and may result in conflicts with the stability of the wall in the future.
The existing trees within the lawn area could in theory be protected through the use of a condition to ensure protection during the construction phase. However, it is considered that any loss of the trees would not have a significant impact on the amenity of the area and in this instance it is not considered necessary, or in the case of the sycamore desirable, to impose such a condition on any application granted.
Impact on Highway Safety and Amenity
Under criterion 1 of policy EMP9 proposals should not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety or have a significant adverse effect on local amenity. However the Highway Officer has no objections to the proposal.
As such it is considered that the proposal would not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety and therefore would not be contrary to policies T2 and EMP9 of the Selby District Local Plan.
Given the distance of the amenity block to the dwelling at Castle Farm, its design, fenestration and orientation, together with the fact of its juxtaposition with the existing stable buildings and their impact on amenity it is considered that the proposal would not affect the amenity of the residents of Castle Farm or the amenity of the surrounding properties through noise, general disturbance, overlooking or overshadowing or appearing oppressive. In this respect the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of policy EMP9(1) of the Local Plan.
Impact on Nature Conservation Interests
In support of the application the applicant agent has stated that ‘there are no known species to be nesting or living within any feature existing on the site, nor is the application considered to impact upon any protected species, continuing ‘in the absence of any evidence to the contrary it is not considered that the application is likely to result in harm to a protected species or its habitat’. However the supporting statement goes on to state ‘the site is located in close proximity to other buildings and large expanses of open countryside and forests which may be home to the habitats of protected species.
As a consequence objections have been received stating that as some trees will be removed and that by the agents own admission that the ‘site is located
54 in close proximity to other buildings’ etc ‘which may be home to habitats of protected species’ an ecological report should be submitted with the application.
Notwithstanding the applicant’s statements in respect of ecology, and having had regard to the guidance in English Natures (now known as Natural England) Bat Mitigation Guidelines and Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines it is noted that the trees to be removed are relatively small and young. They do not exhibit any feature, such as rot holes within their trunks that could be used by bats for roosting. In addition their canopies are relatively low and open so that they do not provide any realistic opportunity for bats to use them for rest or for breeding purposes. Furthermore the nearest building to the proposed amenity block would be a modern stable. Again such modern buildings do not provide any cover within which bats could roost either for the purposes of breeding or hibernation. All other buildings and trees are of such distance, or character that should bats be present they would not be disturbed by the development.
In relation to great crested newts there are few ponds or other water bodies on the magnesian limestone belt and the great crested newt is relatively rare in this natural area. There is only one pond in the vicinity of the application site. This is an ornamental pond in the courtyard at Hazelwood Castle, and is known to support a large population of goldfish. It is well recorded that the great crested newt is not able to coexist with most species of fish for any length of time as their larvae are highly susceptible to predation. This is especially the case where fish stocks are high as is the case at Hazlewood Castle. As such, it is considered there is little realistic prospect of great crested newts inhabiting the area or being affected by the proposal.
Having had regard to the habits and habitat requirements of other protected species, such as badgers, otters and crayfish and water vole, and the physical and ecological features of the site and its immediate environment, it is also considered that there is no realistic prospect of any of these species being materially affected by the proposal.
Given the low level shrubbery there is the potential that some of the common garden birds could nest on the site. During the case officer site visits in May and June no evidence of breeding, such as singing male birds, or feeding activity was noted and on this basis it is considered that the proposal would not have a material impact on breeding birds.
However breeding in most bird species can be a transitory activity and therefore it is considered that any approval should be subject to an informative outlining that breeding birds, their nests, eggs and nestlings are protected under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act and that should any works be undertaken in the breeding season a prudent developer would ensure that birds are not breeding on site before works commence, or delay works to take place outside of the breeding season.
55 Having had regard to the above it is concluded that, subject to the attached informative in respect of breeding birds the proposal would not have a material impact on ecology or any protected species. In this respect the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of policies ENV1 and EMP9(2) of the Local Plan and the guidance in PPS9 and its accompanying Good Practice Guide.
Effect on Agricultural Land
The proposal by virtue of its location within an existing stable yard would not involve the use of, or expansion onto, best and most versatile agricultural land and therefore would not in this respect be contrary to criterion 4 of policy EMP9 of the Local Plan.
However in terms of screening and the relationship with existing buildings the comments made in the sections on visual amenity and openness of the Green belt apply equally here. For the reasons given above it is considered that the proposal, given its height and prominent location would not be well screened, and due to its over elaborate design would not relate well to its immediate surroundings. In this respect it is considered that the proposal is contrary to criterion 4 of policy EMP9 of the Local Plan.
Compliance with Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth
The application proposal is subject to policies EC10 ‘Determining Applications for Economic Development’, EC11 ‘Determining Applications for Economic Development (other than main town centre uses) Not in Accordance with an Up to Date Development Plan’and EC12 ‘determining Applications for Economic Development in Rural Areas’.
Policy EC10 .1 states that ‘local planning authorities should adopt a positive and constructive approach towards planning applications for economic development’ and continuing ‘planning applications which secure sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably’.
Under criterion (a) of policy EC10.2 proposal should be assessed as to whether they have planned over their lifetime to limit carbon dioxide emissions and minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to climate change.
In this respect it is noted that the applicant has provided a ‘Sustainability and Climate Change Mitigation Statement’ outlining the thermal and environmental performance of the building. The contents of the statement are accepted and it is considered that in this respect the proposal as demonstrated that it has been planned over its lifetime to limit carbon dioxide emissions.
The building would be located on an elevated hill position and therefore would not be particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels or flooding. Furthermore it would not involve the use of best and most versatile agricultural land and so
56 would preserve this vital resource that could be needed should climate change predictions be realised.
Under criterion (b) of policy EC10.2 proposals should be assessed against the accessibility of the proposal by a choice of transport. However, in this connection it is noted that the site is remote and access to it is from the A64 or via a series of unmade tracks from Stutton. As such any means of transport to the site other than by private car is unfeasible.
Under criterion(c) of policy EC10.2 proposals should secure a high quality and inclusive which takes the opportunities available for improving the character of the area and the way it functions. In this connection the comments made previously in respect to visual amenity and impacts on the character of the area apply equally here.
Criteria (d) and (e) relate to economic and physical regeneration and impacts on local employment. In this connection it is noted that Hazlewood and Stutton is a small, rural parish with a low population. The parish is relatively prosperous and does not suffer from high unemployment and could not be considered to be deprived or socially excluded, either in the context of Selby District or North Yorkshire as a whole. Similarly the site and its locality are not in need of regeneration.
Under criterion (a) of policy EC11.1 local planning authorities when determining applications for economic development (other than main town centre uses) that are not in accordance with an up to date development plan should weigh market and other economic information alongside environmental and social information.
In this connection it is noted that the only ‘market information’ supplied by the applicant is that the business is successful and the applicant has a plan to expand the business’. Limited information has been put before the Council to demonstrate that the proposed expansion will actually take place, or how it will be facilitated. However it is noted that Policy EC6.2(g) of PPS4 states that local planning authorities should ‘where appropriate, support equine enterprises, providing for a range of suitably located recreational and leisure facilities and the needs of training and breeding businesses that maintain environmental quality and countryside character’. It is noted that the support in PPS4 for equine related activities is qualified by the term ‘where appropriate’ and it should not be taken that all proposals are acceptable per se. It is also noted that para 1 of PPS4 states that ‘these policies complement but do not replace or override other national policies and should be read alongside other relevant statement of national planning policy’. In terms of the jobs created these will be taken into consideration as part of the assessment as to whether very special circumstances exist.
Under policy EC11.1(c) of PPS4 local planning authorities should consider whether proposals help to meet the wider objectives of the development plan. In this respect the proposal would conflict with the wider primary objective of the plan to ‘protect and enhance environmental quality and the other key
57 objectives of the plan to 1) to sustain rural communities and the growth of the rural economy in a way which respects the character and appearance of the countryside, 2) to protect the countryside for its open character and its landscape, recreational and natural resource value, and 3) to promote excellence in the quality of design of new development. It is therefore clear that the proposal conflicts with the wider objectives of the development plan.
Policy EC12 specifically relates to the determination of planning applications for economic development in rural areas and states ‘the ‘re-use of buildings in the countryside for economic development purposes will usually be preferable’ and goes on to provide criteria with which to assess such proposals.
Criteria (a) states that local planning authorities should support development which enhances the viability and vitality of market towns and other rural service centres. In this respect it is noted that the proposed use is not one normally associated with town centres. As such it is considered that it would have a neutral impact on the objectives of this criterion.
Criterion (b) states that support should be given to small-scale economic development where it provides the most sustainable option in villages, or other locations, that are remote from local service centres, recognising that a site may be an acceptable location for development even though it may not be acceptable by public transport. In this respect it is noted that the proposed amenity block would be used in connection with an existing equine business. Many equine related uses require extensive areas of open land and hence are often found in remoter areas, as is the case at Castle Farm. In this respect it is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable in relation to its general location in terms of sustainability. In terms of the level of support to be given to the proposal this should depend ultimately on other material planning considerations and compliance or otherwise with other national policies.
Criterion (c) relates to the loss of economic activity. The proposal does not entail the loss of economic activity and hence this policy is not relevant.
Criterion (d) states that local planning authorities should approve planning applications for the conversion and reuse of buildings in the countryside for economic development, particularly those adjacent or closely related to towns or villages. This proposal does not entail the reuse of existing buildings. However it is noted that there are several buildings on site that are currently not in use, such as the red brick range of buildings and that the applicant has stated that the additional 20 horses could be easily accommodated within existing buildings. As such it is considered that efficient use of existing stables and the reuse of the existing unused buildings should be undertaken before any new buildings are considered by the applicant.
The Applicant’s Case For Very Special Circumstances
58 The applicant’s agent has stated in paragraph 4.3.7 of the supporting statement that ‘very special circumstances have also been compiled in support of the application’ and this stance is reiterated in paragraph 6.1 which states ‘it is considered very special circumstances exist which outweigh the deemed harm imposed’. However at no point in the supporting statement does the agent overtly clarify what the very special circumstances are that he is alluding to. In this respect it is noted that paragraph 3.2 of PPG2 states that it is for the ‘applicant to show why planning permission should be granted.
One is therefore left to speculate that the purported benefits of the proposal, outlined in the supporting statement are meant to represent the very special circumstances alluded to. These can be summarised as: -
1. The amenity block would provide welfare facilities for existing staff (toilets, canteen) enable an existing thriving business to expand. 2. The existing buildings on site are used to capacity. 3. The proposal would not be conspicuous.
The Test of Very Special Circumstances
In relation to the first issue it is considered that just because a business is successful, this does not mean it should be allowed to undertake development that would otherwise be considered to be unacceptable in planning policy terms. Furthermore the applicant states that the proposal is needed to facilitate future expansion. However, details provided by the applicant in respect of the proposed expansion are at best hazy and at worse contradictory. The agent, in the Supporting Statement states that the existing buildings are used to capacity, but then the architect later claims in an email further supported by a letter from the applicant that the present agricultural buildings on the site can easily accommodate the increase in horses. Notwithstanding this it is considered by the case officer that the existing buildings on the site have reasonable potential to be more efficiently utilised to provide many, if not all, of the facilities, such as an expanded tack and drying room, toilet and changing rooms.
In relation to the need for office space it is questioned why such an area of office space is now required when the business has been able to function and grow without it. Furthermore it is considered that the level of office space proposed is excessive. Again having regard to the dimension of some of the office rooms it is questioned whether these could be accommodated in some of the other buildings on the site, such as the red brick range, unused stables or even as overhead offices on mezzanine floors within the roofs of the existing portal steel framed blocks. Furthermore it is again reiterated that the applicant has stated that the additional horses could be easily accommodated within the existing buildings and therefore he has a choice as to whether to provide canteen/ toilet facilities for staff or not. As such it is considered that this case for very special circumstances should be given little weight.
59 In relation to the applicant’s agent’s opinion that the building would be inconspicuous and would not be readily seen from public vantage points, it is noted that this has been demonstrated to be clearly untrue. In fact the proposed building would be clearly seen from many vantage points, both near and far and occupies a prominent hill top position. Again little weight should be afforded this case for very special circumstances.
In addition to the applicant’s ‘case’ for very special circumstances it is noted that the proposed building would reflect the architecture of the adjacent stables at Hazlewood Castle and that it is purported that it would facilitate an expansion of the business and the creation of 9 jobs. However there is no imperative for the building to reflect the architectural style of Hazlewood Castle and that there is no significant social deprivation, social exclusion, high unemployment in the parish and its surrounding area or need to physically or economically regenerate the local area. As such only limited weight should be afforded to the economic benefits of the proposal.
In relation to the harms resulting from the proposed amenity block it is noted that in accordance with the guidance in paragraph 3.2 of PPG2 substantial harm should be afforded to the proposal by reason of its inappropriateness alone.
In addition to the above is the harm to the visual amenities and the openness of the Green Belt. In respect to openness it is noted that the site is within a collection of buildings which, to some extent, ameliorate its impact. However given that the site is readily visible and in a prominent location over a wide area it is concluded that significant weight should be afforded the harm to the visual amenities and openness of the Green Belt. Furthermore, it is considered that some, but limited weight should be attached to the harm to nearby designated heritage assets.
When put in the balance it is considered that the applicant’s case does not clearly outweigh the substantial weight harm to the Green Belt and therefore very special circumstances do not exist to justify approval of the proposal.
CONCLUSION:
The site is located within the Green Belt wherein there is a presumption against inappropriate development. Although the Local Plan does allow for some form of development over and above that of PPG2, the proposal does not fall into those categories and should therefore only be allowed in very special circumstances that have not been demonstrated to exist. In addition to the above the proposed amenity block would occupy a prominent hill top location, where its enclosure of space and height and its over elaborate design would detract from the openness and visual amenity of its Green Belt location.
As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies ENV15, GB2, GB4, EMP9 and PPG2, PPS4 and PPS5.
60 The application, as it constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt is considered to be a Departure from the development plan. Not all Departures need to be referred to GOYH and the criteria for assessing whether proposals which constitute a Departure from the development plan should be referred to GOYH is set out in the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009. In respect to proposals in the Green Belt the triggers are (a) the provision of a building or buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is 1000 metres or more and (b) any other development which, by reason of its scale or nature, would have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Although the floor space is well under 1000 metres this report concludes that the proposal would have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt. It is therefore concluded that the scheme would be required to be referred to GOYH should members be minded to grant consent.
RECOMMENDATION:
This application is recommended to be refused for the following reasons: -
1. The amenity block would be located within the Green Belt wherein it is national and local policy to refuse inappropriate development unless there are very special circumstances to justify approval. The proposal fails to accord with the requirements of Policy GB2 of the Selby District Local Plan and paragraph 3.4 of PPG2 and therefore constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The applicant’s case for approval does not clearly outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriate and other harm resulting from the proposal and therefore very special circumstances do not exist to justify approval.
2. The proposed amenity block buy virtue of its size, scale, location and over elaborate design would appear as a dominant urbanising feature within a prominent location, that would be visible from several locations, thereby detracting from the openness and visual amenity of its greenbelt location contrary to policy GB4 and the guidance in paragraph 3.15 of PPG2.
3. The proposed amenity block, by virtue of its size and location would detract from the open setting of the historic park and therefore the wider setting of the listed building, contrary to policy ENV16 and PPS5.
61
Maps and Plans available on request from the Planning Department
62
Maps and Plans available on request from the Planning Department
63
APPLICATION 8/19/1777/PA PARISH: Selby Town Council NUMBER: 2010/0785/COU
APPLICANT: Mr El Bourkadi VALID DATE: 22 July 2010
EXPIRY DATE: 16 September 2010 PROPOSAL: Change of use from 3 bed terrace house to 2 bed 1st & 2nd floor flat with Hot food takeaway to ground floor LOCATION: 2 Denison Road Selby YO8 8BZ
This application is brought to committee as 32 letters of objection have been received from local residents. In addition a request for the application to be heard by committee has also been received by a local Councillor who considers that “the properties in the terrace are two storey and the proposals will alter the street scene. There are also highway concerns as the site is too near to an already busy junction and there may be parking issues. In relation to environmental issues the smells from the takeaway due to it not being an end property would create environmental issues for neighbours”.
DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The Site
The application site is a two storey mid terraced property currently occupied as a residential dwelling which contains a two storey and single storey extension to the rear which projects up to the rear access road. The grounds of the property consist of a small garden to the front bounded by low brick wall and a small yard to the rear bounded by a brick wall and fencing to a height of 1.8m. The designated parking for the property is within the existing single storey rear garage.
The adjoining property to the north known as 2a Denison Road currently operates as a general convenience store (The Waterfront) with a vacant flat above. The adjoining property (no. 4 Denison Road) to the south is in residential use. The other properties to the north-west at D’Arcy Court, those to the south- west at Chamberlain Court, Abbey View and Darcy Road and to the south-east along Denison Road and Volta Street are predominantly residential. The site to the north east is currently vacant and was previously an industrial site.
64 The Proposal
The proposal relates to the change of use of a 3 bedroom terraced house to a 2 bedroom first and second floor flat with hot food takeaway at the ground floor. As part of the application it is proposed to install an extractor fan to the rear of the building, alter the front dormer, convert the garage to a delivery area, insert a new entrance door in the existing bay window and remove the front boundary wall. In addition the application states that sound insulation would be installed on the interior of the building to protect the occupiers of the first floor flat and adjoining residential property.
The hot food takeaway would employ 1 full time employee and 2 part time employees. It is proposed that the hours of opening would be 17.00hrs to 23.00hrs Monday to Sunday (including Bank Holidays). The supporting statement confirms that a litter bin would be sited outside the front of the takeaway for the disposal of litter with waste bins located in the rear yard for disposal of other waste associated with the takeaway.
Planning History
There is no relevant planning history for this property.
Consultations
NYCC HIGHWAYS: There are no highway objections to the proposal. In response to objections from residents, the location does not have any restrictions in place at present (no waiting, no loading etc) and the Waterfront Shop or local residents do not have an automatic right to park on the highway in close proximity to their property. As parking is not restricted in the area, it would be difficult to justify a reason for refusal on those grounds.
In relation to the disabled bay proposed at a neighbouring property, if provided it will be non-enforceable, so it will not be illegal for anyone to park in the bay and this could happen irrespective of the planning application so this could not be a reason for refusal.
Denison Road is wide enough to allow traffic to pass (including buses) even if there are cars parked along one side of its length. If it was considered that parking on D'Arcy Road would be a problem, the applicant could provide parking restrictions near the junction. However, this would prevent parking for all vehicles and may not be supported by the local residents and the shop keeper.
There is no evidence that there would be deliveries by huge wagons at all hours of the day and Highways are not aware of any issues relating to the deliveries for the Waterfront Shop.
65 YORKSHIRE WATER: From information submitted, no comments are required from Yorkshire Water.
SELBY AREA INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD: No response received.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANAGER (EHM): In principle the EHM has no objection to the proposed planning application however, he would like to make the following comments:
The sale or letting of the proposed residential living accommodation should be restricted to staff who are employed by the business.
Adequate arrangements must be made for the storage and disposal of waste. Any company or business that removes waste from the proposed premises must be a registered Waste Carrier with the Local Authority. Written details of the type of waste, amount produced and details of the company removing the waste must be kept for a period of two years.
Adequate arrangements must be made for the collection, extraction and discharge to atmosphere of the products of combustion from oil or gas fired burners and cooking fumes. The Planning Authority must approve the design of the extraction system.
Suitably sealed and fireproofed exhaust ducting must be installed from the outlet of any cooking equipment to an extractor fan and then to a suitable point of discharge to atmosphere. The discharge must be at a height of not less than 1metre above ridge level of the building, having due regard to the position and height of adjoining buildings. The fan should be of appropriate size and precautions taken to prevent a noise nuisance.
If tables and chairs are provided for customers' use, then sanitary accommodation for customers must be provided under the Local Government (Miscellaneous provisions) Act 1976 and in accordance with BS 6465:1994.
In response to objections from local residents, there are no specific requirements that this department can impose concerning the movement of people to and from the takeaway. However, in light of the matters raised, concerning late night disturbance, it would probably be appropriate to add a caveat that if the planning committee are of a mind to grant consent a condition should be applied to restrict opening hours to mitigate any disturbance.
The Environmental Health Department does have powers to deal with any problems of litter around the premises, should this occur. However the department has no powers concerning litter and food debris being thrown through people’s letterboxes.
66
There are no specific requirements that this department can impose concerning the smell of hamburgers being “offensive to vegetarians”.
BRITISH WATERWAYS: No comments.
POLICE ARCHITECTURAL LIAISON OFFICER: An analysis of police recorded incidents within a 50m buffer zone of the application premises covering a period from 1 August 2009 to 31 July 2010 shows that crime and anti-social behaviour incidents are particularly high.
Increased numbers of customers around A5 uses, particularly in the late evenings when trading activity tends to reach its peak can lead to problems of disturbance, increased noise and anti social behaviour. The effects are exacerbated where more of such uses are concentrated or clustered together. It is therefore important that such uses are controlled or restricted to protect the residential amenity of occupiers living in close proximity to such establishments.
For comparison purposes there is a Chinese takeaway situated in a converted end terraced house at Volta Street a short distance from the application premises. An analysis of police recorded incidents over the past twelve months showed no crime or anti social behaviour directly associated with these premises. Enquiries with Police Licensing reveal that these premises operate until midnight on most evenings. Immediately next door to the application premises is a convenience store called the Waterfront. This store operates from 9am to 9pm Monday to Saturday and from 9am to 7pm on Sundays. An analysis of crime and anti-social behaviour over the past twelve months showed two thefts and one racially motivated crime. Enquiries with staff reveal that they have few problems, although every now and again they do get a gathering of youths outside, evidenced by litter in the garden of the application site.
Previous objections to hot food takeaways on crime and disorder grounds, both locally and nationally, have generally been overruled by the Planning Inspectorate. The difficulty is providing hard and fast evidence that would withstand scrutiny at planning [I]nquiry. There is therefore no evidence taking the statistics from the two existing premises into account that would justify an objection to the planning application.
SELBY TOWN COUNCIL: The Town Council wishes to change its previous response of no objection subject to consultation with neighbours and monitoring of the opening hours to one of objection. Selby Town Council objects to this application for the following reasons:
67 • Adverse effect on the residential amenity of local residents due to its proximity to other dwellings • Adverse effect on the street scene by the removal of a ground floor residential dwelling from a terrace. • Concern at the provision for ventilation given that the property is not an end terrace.
NEIGHBOURS: The application was advertised by site notice and neighbour notification letters to the immediate neighbours resulting in 32 letters of objection being received raising the following issues:
• Noise from vehicles pulling up and leaving and car doors slamming well into the evening/night, noise from takeaway equipment, people etc. • Impact on elderly people and families living in this area due to late opening hours. • Opening hours 5pm to 11pm - needs to be clear if that is close or last orders as this will impact on the amount of time people will hang around. • Litter and food leftovers in street and thrown in peoples' gardens or put through letterboxes. • Waste storage and disposal - including fat blocked drains, rotting food/cooking waste causing issues with flies, rats and smell. • Customers of the shop already cause a mess, although the shop is an invaluable service and closes at 9pm and earlier on Sunday. • Strong cooking smell for most of the day. • Drains are already smelling bad at this end of the road and the takeaway may increase this. • The smell of hamburgers may be offensive to vegetarians and the smells would rob residents of the enjoyment of their gardens, other outdoor space and would make it impossible to hang washing out. • Location of extractor fan close to neighbouring properties will impact on them through smells. • Customer waiting area is very small and therefore greater number of people may wait outside and potentially smoke. • Anti-social behaviour including shouting, swearing (loudly), fights, damage (to property, cars etc) and vomiting. • There have been thefts to the rear of these properties. • The proposal would result in parking difficulties for people who live nearby and/or customers wanting to make a quick visit to the Waterfront shop. • A neighbouring resident is in the process of obtaining a disabled parking bay outside property, which other people may use. • Parking will interfere with the main bus route, and this could lead to interference of emergency services trying to access the properties and could increase the use of the back lane making it dangerous for children and pedestrians.
68 • Deliveries are usually by huge wagons at all hours of the day. • There is already a local shop, sandwich hot/cold snack shop, chinese takeaway and pizza takeaway in the locality as well as countless other takeaways nearby. • There is no requirement for a further outlet as there are no longer workers at Rigid Paper, nor at Sturges. • Competition amongst the businesses might force others to close resulting in empty commercial premises. • There is a shortage of housing in the Selby area, this could therefore be located in empty business premises. • There is no necessity for a flat given The Waterfront complex etc have many empty flats available. • Drop in house values as a result of the above problems. • It is believed that the deeds to the properties on Denison Road stipulate that you cannot run a business from the property.
Policies and Issues
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states "if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be, made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise". The development plan for the Selby District comprises of policies in Selby District Local Plan (adopted on 8 February 2005) saved by the direction of the Secretary of State.
Regional Spatial Strategy
As of 6 July 2010 the Secretary of State announced that with immediate effect Regional Strategies have been revoked under s79(6) of the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and no longer form part of the development plan for the purposes of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
The existing property is situated within the defined development limits of Selby within Flood Zone 3. The following policies are therefore considered to be of particular relevance:
National Guidance:
PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 Housing PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPG24 Planning and Noise PPS25 Development and Flood Risk
69 Selby District Local Plan:
ENV1 Control of Development ENV2 Environmental Pollution and Contaminated Land S3 Local shops H8 Re-use of upper floors for residential use
ASSESSMENT
The main issues in the determination of this application are:-
1) Principle of development 2) Impact on residents through noise and odours 3) Crime and disorder 4) Highway issues 5) Flood Risk 6) Re-use of upper floors for residential use 7) Design and impact on the character and appearance of the area 8) Other issues
1. Principle of development
Policy S3 relates to proposals for local shops (Use Class A1) and commercial premises such as financial and professional services, public houses, cafes, restaurants and takeaways (Class A2 and A3) and states that proposals for such uses will be permitted subject to six criteria.
Policy S3 (1) requires the proposal to be within the defined development limits. The application site is located within the defined development limits of Selby within close proximity to the town centre and although it is outside the defined shopping and commercial centre the proposals accord with Policy S3 (1).
Policy S3 (2) relates to the proposal being intended to serve a purely local function or there being a demonstrable need for the particular outlet in the locality. As with most such outlets, the proposed takeaway by virtue of its nature and location within a predominantly residential area, would serve the local community as such is in accordance with Policy S3 (2).
In terms of there being a demonstrable need, objectors’ letters refer to the need for another takeaway stating that there are approximately 4 indian takeaways, 6 chinese takeaways, 6 pizza/kebab takeaways, 1 chicken takeaway along with numerous fish and chip shops and restaurants which also do takeaway food within close proximity to the site. They also state that the proposed takeaway should be located within one of the vacant units within the town centre.
70 Whilst these comments are noted, there is no requirement under the Local Plan Policies or within PPS4 for a sequential test to be carried out to try to locate the takeaway within the town centre, given the limited floorspace required for the takeaway. In addition planning cannot restrict competition amongst businesses and there are no other takeaways immediately adjoining the site to result in a cumulative impact on residents. Furthermore PPS4 supports applications for economic development which should be assessed in terms of the impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area and the impact on local employment. The proposals would result in the employment for 1 full time employee and 2 part time employees which would contribute to the local economy and as such would be in accordance with PPS4.
Policy S3 (3) requires proposals to be of a scale of provision which would be appropriate to the locality. The proposed takeaway is of a scale similar to other takeaways in the area and would be considered appropriate to the locality in accordance with Policy S3 (3).
Policy S3 criteria (4) and (5) relate to highway issues and criteria (6) relates to residential amenity which are discussed in more detail below.
2. Impact on Residents, Noise, Odours and Litter
S3 (6) requires that the proposal would not have a significant adverse effect on residential amenity. Similarly, Policy ENV1 (1) requires the amenity of residents to be taken into account with PPG24 and Policy ENV2 requiring development which would give rise to noise, nuisance, contamination or other environmental pollution to ensure that satisfactory remedial or preventative measures to be incorporated as an integral element in the scheme.
A number of objections have been received from local residents regarding the impact on residential properties through odours, noise and the location of the extraction unit. The extractor is sited on the side elevation of the two storey rear extension, closest to the existing convenience store. It is set a distance of 0.8m from the rear elevation of the convenience store which contains a flat above, 15m from the closest residential properties at D’Arcy Court (on the opposite side of D’Arcy Road) and a distance of 15m from 1 Abbey View (on the opposite side of the rear access road). Although the position of the extraction unit is acceptable on this elevation, the Environmental Health Manager considers it should be extended so that the flue is 1m above ridge level. This can be dealt with via a condition requiring the exact design, appearance, technical information and detailing of the finished colour to be submitted and approved in writing to ensure that it gives an acceptable appearance.
In response to the objections received, Environmental Health Officers have confirmed that the proposals are acceptable subject to conditions regarding the letting of the residential living accommodation being restricted to staff who are
71 employed by the business, adequate arrangements being made for storage and disposal of waste, the design of the extraction system to be approved to ensure that it minimises cooking fumes and noise and a restriction on the opening hours to close at 11pm to minimise any impact on residents through unsociable hours.
The dropping of litter is a material consideration even though it can be controlled by the other legislation. The application proposes adequate waste facilities including a litter bin for customers to the front and waste bins to the rear which would minimise any impact on litter. Furthermore, given that most users of the takeaway would normally take the food home to be consumed or it would likely be delivered to them and not eaten in the street it is not considered that there would be a significant impact through littering. The Environmental Health manager has not raised any objections in terms of litter and have confirmed that should problems occur this will be dealt with by them at that time.
Given that the property adjoins a residential property at no. 4, the application states that the applicant will install sound insulation between the ground and first floor and between the neighbouring properties to protect residential amenity and it would be recommended that a condition be added in relation to this.
The proposals are therefore not considered to result in a significant detrimental impact on existing residents through odours or noise and as such are in accordance with Policies S3 (6), ENV1 (1) and ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan and national guidance contained in PPG24.
3. Crime and disorder
PPS1, paragraph 36 states that developments should ‘create safe environments where crime and disorder and fear of crime does not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion’. A number of objections have been received from local residents concerning anti-social behaviour resulting from the change of use to a takeaway. North Yorkshire Police have been consulted and have undertaken a comparison with a takeaway in Volta Street which showed no crime or anti social behaviour directly associated with these premises over the past twelve months. In addition they analysed the crime and anti social behaviour associated with the Waterfront convenience store, which operates until 9pm Monday to Saturday and 7pm on Sundays. This showed two thefts and one racially motivated incident over the last twelve months.
The Police have noted that objections to hot food takeaways on crime and disorder grounds, both locally and nationally have generally been overruled by the Planning Inspectorate, as it is difficult to provide evidence that would withstand scrutiny at planning inquiry. Therefore there is no evidence, taking the statistics from the two existing premises into account that would justify an objection and as such the proposals are in accordance with PPS1.
72 In terms of people smoking outside the premises, there is no evidence to substantiate these claims and this can be dealt with under other legislation.
4. Highway Issues
Policy S3 (4) states that proposals should not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety or the free flow of traffic. Policy S3 (5) requires satisfactory parking and servicing be achieved and the site should be accessible and safe for pedestrians and cyclists. Similarly Policies ENV1 (2) and H8 (4) requires development to take account the relationship to the highway network, the means of access and arrangements for car parking.
Highway Officers have been consulted and have raised no objections given that there are no waiting restrictions on Denison Road so vehicles for customers, employees and the residents of the first floor flat can park on-street without causing a detrimental impact on highway safety. Furthermore given its location within a predominantly residential area customers may walk to the premises or could have food delivered to them which reduces the impact on the existing highway network from on-street parking.
Highways Officers have also stated that the existing road is wide enough to accommodate sufficient space for car parking and to allow a flow of traffic including buses, or emergency vehicles therefore they consider that the proposals would not result in a detrimental impact on highway safety and is in accordance with Policies S3 (4), S3 (5), ENV1 (2) and H8 (4) of the Selby District Local Plan.
5. Flood Risk
The application site is located within Flood Zone 3. Paragraph D15 of PPS25 states that applications for minor development and changes of use should not be subject to the Sequential or Exception Tests but will still have to meet the requirements for Flood Risk Assessment and flood risk reduction measures set out in table D1.
The application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment which identifies the main risk of flooding being as a result of the River Ouse over topping or from internal drainage systems failing. The site is protected through flood defences along the River Ouse and in the event of these failing it would be expected that flood waters would flow through the site. In order to minimise damage to the building, the use of concrete floors, electric feeds from above and sockets set 1m above finished floor level would be incorporated. It is not considered that the surface water flooding would increase as a result of the use and climatic change has been considered and would be dealt with through the current drainage systems that exist on the site. Due to the proposals being for a change of use which would have limited impact in terms of flood risk and subject to the
73 mitigation measures outlined, the proposals would not result in a significant impact in terms of flooding in accordance with PPS25
6. Re-use of Upper Floors for Residential Use
Policy H8 states that proposals for the re-use and conversion to residential development of upper floors of premises will be permitted within defined development limits provided the proposal would provide a satisfactory standard of residential accommodation and the environment is suitable for residential use. The property is currently in residential use and is within a largely residential area therefore it is compatible with surrounding land uses. In terms of the impact from the ground floor takeaway, Environmental Health have requested that this be restricted to staff employed by the business and internal sound proofing would be installed between the floors to ensure that there is minimal impact from the takeaway use. The property appears to be easily adaptable to residential use with very few internal alterations required and provides sufficient living accommodation for a two bedroom flat and as such is in accordance with Policy H8. The use of the first floor as a flat would also add to the housing mix within the area in line with the requirements of PPS3 which supports the re-use of vacant sites for providing housing, particularly in areas within easy access of community facilities, services, jobs and infrastructure.
7. Design and Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area
Policies S3 (6) and ENV1 (1) requires proposals to take account of the effect upon the character of the area, with ENV (4) requiring development to achieve a standard of layout, design and materials in relation to the site and its surroundings and Policy H8 (3) requiring proposals to ensure that they would not harm the architectural and historic character or fabric of the building.
The existing property is a traditional mid terrace property constructed from brick with a small flat roof dormer to the front and two storey and single storey extensions to the rear. The property although of a traditional design is not of any significant architectural or historic interest. The application includes alterations to the appearance of the property including altering the position of the existing front dormer. The dormer would be to the same dimensions as the existing dormer, although it would be stepped down a further 0.5m from the ridge of the original roof which gives a more central appearance on the roof. It is also proposed to insert a new entrance door in the existing front bay window whilst retaining the same design and proportions as currently exist. The front low boundary wall would also be removed.
On the rear elevation it is proposed to convert the garage to a delivery area by bricking up the garage door which could be conditioned to be carried out in materials to match the existing building. It is also proposed to install an extraction fan, the full design and specification of which could be conditioned to
74 ensure that it has minimal impact on the external appearance of the building. The external alterations to the property are of a minor nature and would not significantly impact on the character or appearance of the existing property and as such would be in accordance with Policies S3, ENV1 and H8 of the Selby District Local Plan.
8. Other issues
Objectors have raised concerns regarding a possible drop in house values as a result of the application, however this is not a material planning consideration.
It has been suggested by residents that the deeds to the properties on Denison Road stipulate that you cannot run a business from the property. It must be noted that planning consents do not override any legal covenants that may exist on a property.
CONCLUSION
Having had regard to all relevant local and national policies, consultation responses and all other relevant material considerations, it is considered that the proposed change of use to 3 bed terrace house to 2 bed first and second floor flat with hot food takeaway to ground floor would be acceptable in this location and would not result in a significant detrimental impact on residents through noise and odours, subject to conditions. In addition the proposals do not result in a significant impact on crime and disorder, highway safety, flood risk or the character and appearance of the area and as such is in accordance with Policies ENV1, ENV2, S3 and H8 of the Selby District Local Plan and national guidance contained in PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS3: Housing, PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, PPG24: Planning and Noise and PPS25: Development and Flood Risk.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the application be Granted subject to the following conditions:
1. The development for which permission is hereby granted shall be begun within a period of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The materials used to brick up the garage door shall match those used on the existing building in terms of type, colour, texture and scale.
75 Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the character of the area in accordance with Policies S3, ENV1 and H8 of the Selby District Local Plan.
3. The proposed flat hereby permitted shall not be occupied other than by the owner, member of staff or dependents thereof of the ground floor takeaway.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policies S3, ENV1 and ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan and national guidance contained in PPG24.
4. The use hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the times of 17.00hrs to 23.00 hrs Monday to Sunday (including Bank Holidays).
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policies S3, ENV1 and ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan and national guidance contained in PPG24.
5. There shall be no activities, deliveries to or dispatches from the premises outside the times of 09.00hrs to 23.00hrs Monday to Saturdays. No deliveries shall take place on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policies S3, ENV1 and ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan and national guidance contained in PPG24.
6. The use hereby approved shall not commence until scheme for sound insulation, designed to protect the amenity of the occupants of the first floor flat and the occupants of 4 Denison Road from noise emitted from the application premises has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the works comprising the approved scheme completed. The works comprised within the sound insulation scheme shall thereafter be retained.
In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policies S3, ENV1 and ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan and national guidance contained in PPG24.
7. The use hereby permitted shall not begin until details of the design, appearance, finished colour and technical information of the extract ventilation system, including details of methods of treatments of emissions and filters to remove odours and control noise emissions have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the works specified in the approved scheme have been installed. Such
76 works shall thereafter be retained, operated at all times when the takeaway is in use and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers instructions.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policies S3, ENV1 and ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan and national guidance contained in PPG24.
8. The use hereby approved shall not commence until details of storage and access for collection of wastes from the premises have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works comprising the approved details shall be provided before the buildings is brought into use and shall be retained thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policies S3, ENV1 and ENV2 of the Selby District Local Plan and national guidance contained in PPG24.
77
Maps and Plans available on request from the Planning Department
78
Maps and Plans available on request from the Planning Department
79 APPLICATION 8/18/404A/PA PARISH: Hemingbrough Parish Council NUMBER: 2010/0390/COU
APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs John VALID DATE: 19 April2010 Harrison EXPIRY DATE: 14 June 2010 PROPOSAL: Retrospective application for the change of use of 2No. agricultural buildings to class B2 industry and B8 warehousing and retention of two storage containers
LOCATION: Phoenix Electrical Workshop Unit Hull Road Hemingbrough
DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
This application was deferred by the Planning Committee on 25th August 2010 for a site visit and the provision of additional information from Environmental Health and Enforcement in relation to complaints received regarding the use of the site.
The additional reports from the Environmental Health Manager and Enforcement Officer are given below, together with a response to additional information received and the issues raised by objectors at the previous meeting of Planning Committee. This is followed by the original report presented to Planning Committee on 25th August.
Report of the Environmental Health Manager:
The Environmental Health Department has received complaints from 4 separate residential properties regarding activities undertaken at Phoenix Electrical (Barnsley Loft), Hemingbrough. The complainants have, over the past year made a series of complaints alleging noise nuisance resultant from the intermittent sounding of a burglar alarm (in the early hours of the morning) and more recently noise nuisance due to fabrication activities and the use of power tools. The department has also received complaints regarding the burning of trade waste at the site. The response to the above issues was as follows:
• In respect to the burning of trade waste, this was witnessed by SDC Officers and reported to the Environment Agency. Environmental Health Officers are aware that the Environment Agency also witnessed burning on the site and subsequently served a warning notice on the site operator. No further incidents of burning have been reported to SDC.
• The initial report of the repeated intermittent sounding of the burglar alarm was investigated by SDC Officers and a statutory nuisance was established. Noise abatement notices were served under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in December 2009. In response to the service of notice the site operator disconnected the alarm so as to review the system and its operation. We have recently received information (August 2010) from the original complainants stating that the alarm is again sounding in the early hours of the morning. The site operator was informed of this new allegation. The situation is now being monitored by SDC Environmental Health Officers so as to determine if the site operator is in breach of the abatement notice.
80
• The original complainants have recently (September 2010) reported that a noise nuisance is now being generated at the site resultant from manufacturing noise and the use of power tools whist the unit’s doors are left open. This allegation is currently being investigated by SDC Officers.
Report of the Planning Enforcement Officer:
The Council was made aware in October 2008 that an unauthorised change of use had occurred at the site. The Planning Enforcement Officer visited the site and informed the owner that planning permission was required for the unauthorised change of use to the buildings. An application was submitted in May 2009 and enforcement action was held in abeyance until the application was determined. The agent withdrew the planning application in February 2010 in order for them to address a number of planning issues. This has resulted in the current application which was subsequently submitted in April 2010. No Enforcement Notice has ever been served only a Planning Contravention Notice.
Other Additional Information:
An Ecological Survey of Hagg Lane Green, which is adjacent to the site, was submitted by the Parish Council on 6th September 2010. Members are advised that this document merely assesses the ecology of the Hagg Lane Green site and does not purport to asses the impact of the proposed development.
The original committee report acknowledges the presence of the adjacent nature conservation site and protected species. There is no dispute about the presence of protected species within the area.
The issue for consideration in relation to this particular application is whether or not there are any existing protected species or habitats on the actual application site (not on land adjacent site) and whether or not the change of use proposed would, if approved with appropriate conditions, be more likely to cause any harm to protected species than an agricultural use taking into account the facts that an agricultural use could also result in all kinds of equipment, machinery, fertilisers, chemicals etc being stored on the site without any means of control.
As such this new report on the adjacent site does not change the assessment or recommendation in respect of ecology and protected species. Ecological mitigation measures could be conditioned as recommended in the original report.
Comments and Issues Raised by Public Speakers on 25th August 2010:
1. Security lighting and intruder alarms do not require planning consent and these could remain on the building even if permission is refused and the buildings revert back to agricultural use. Issues of noise and light nuisance can be dealt with under Environmental Protection legislation. Conditions are recommended in relation to outdoor working, noise levels, hours of work and delivery hours and control of dust and waste.
2. Unauthorised burning of waste has ceased following the Environment Agency warning. This is not a planning matter.
81
3. Foul language and urinating in public are anti-social behaviour problems and not planning considerations.
4. Providing unobstructed field access and parking and turning facilities would be controlled by conditions which can be enforced.
5. Conditions restricting the height of display buildings and requiring provision of landscaping would be imposed.
All other matters raised by speakers at the Planning Committee on 25th August are addressed in the original report below.
COPY OF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE ON 25TH AUGUST 2010
The Proposal
This application seeks retrospective planning consent for the change of use of two former agricultural buildings and retention of two large storage containers. The building at the front of the site is currently used for B2 (General Industry) and the building to the rear is used for B8 (Storage and Distribution) use. The external size and appearance of the buildings will remain the same. It is proposed to improve the parking and turning facilities at the front of each building.
The Site
The application site is situated on the outskirts of Hemingbrough, a large predominantly residential village. It is accessed off Hull Road (A63). The site currently comprises two agricultural buildings (erected in the late 1970’s), two large storage containers stacked one on top of the other, and associated hard standing. Several small sheds, pigeon lofts, summer houses etc are also displayed at the front of the site which is bounded by agricultural land to the north and east, a small piece of woodland known as Hagg Lane Green to the west and residential properties to the south.
The site is located outside the defined development limits of Hemingbrough within the open countryside.
Planning History
The following historical applications are considered to be relevant to the determination of this application:
2009/0512/COU – Retrospective application for change of use of former agricultural building to general storage (B8) – Withdrawn 26.01.2010
2009/0436/FUL - Retrospective application to change the of use of agricultural store shed to a unit for manufacturing and store of pigeon lofts and the retention of two metal shipping containers used to store electrical contracting equipment – Withdrawn 12.02.2010
CONSULTATIONS
82 PARISH COUNCIL: Hemingbrough Parish Council strongly objects to the above planning application for the reasons listed below:
1) Work at the site is commencing very early in the morning which is disturbing local residents and they are working very long anti-social hours which is unreasonable due to the close proximity of local properties. 2) Two ponds that are present within a few feet of the units have been omitted from the site plans and only one ecological survey has been carried out which was done at the wrong time of year to prove the presence of any wildlife. 3) There are light pollution concerns for wildlife, which could cause harm and disturbance and is also a nuisance to local residents. 4) There are major concerns regarding safety as the numerous advertising signs that are present could be a distraction to drivers travelling along the A63. Also due to the inadequate turning circle for lorries delivering to the site this is causing traffic to back up from site and holding up traffic travelling along the A63. 5) There are concerns regarding the fire risk to nearby properties and the potential hazardous waste on site i.e. timber treatments that are used. 6) Concerns have been raised regarding a possible biological hazard with vermin being present on site, no facilities for sewage and toilets/handwash facilities not being present. 7) Query on the number of skips on site and no facilities for the recycling of waste. 8) Noise Pollution - Hemingbrough Parish Council would question the validity of the noise survey conducted and would like further information on this as there are large discrepancies in the average figures that have been quoted.
The Parish Council feel that the change of use would not be beneficial to the residents of Hemingbrough, would be hazardous to wildlife and potentially dangerous due to the increase of traffic around the site on what is already a very busy road.
YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD: No comments are required from Yorkshire Water.
NYCC HIGHWAYS: No objections.
THE OUSE & DERWENT INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD: The Board has no objection to the proposed development subject to a condition in relation to soakaways.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: The development is to be located within close proximity (less than 50 metres) to a number of existing residential properties and is likely to have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the area due to the generation of manufacturing/industrial noise & associated delivery traffic noise. This department has already received a series of complaints from a number of residential properties relating to existing manufacturing noise, hours of operation, security lighting, delivery traffic noise, the burning of waste and noise resultant from the sounding of an intruder alarm located at the unit.
The applicant has submitted a retrospective noise impact assessment undertaken in accordance with British Standard 4142: Rating Industrial Noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas. The noise assessment states ‘the overall sound level from the
83 workshop was measured at the nearest dwelling in front of it at 47dB LAeq (1 hour) corresponding to the noisiest typical utilisation of power tools within the workshop, and with the workshop door open’. The assessment concludes that ‘ after applying a correction of 5 dB for the character of the workshop sound its rating level was 4 to 6 dB above the daytime background. The situation is assessed by BS 4142 as being of marginal significance’.
The assessment fails to demonstrate compliance with Section 4 (measurement equipment) and Section 5 (measurement practice) of British Standard 4142.
British Standard 4142 describes a method of determining the level of industrial noise together with procedures for assessing whether the noise in question is likely to give rise to complaints from persons living in the vicinity. Complaints have already been received by this department regarding the manufacturing noise emanating from the agricultural units. British Standard 4142 also states that ‘the likelihood of complaint in response to a noise depends on factors including the margin by which it exceeds the background noise level, its absolute level, time of day, change in the noise environment etc., as well as local attitudes to the premises and the nature of the neighbourhood’
In light of the matters raised above Environmental Health cannot support this application and would recommend its refusal. Conditions to control noise, delivery hours, emissions, paint spraying etc are recommended should permission be granted.
PUBLICITY: Neighbours have been consulted by letter and a site notice has been posted. Four letters of objection have been received from local residents and a fifth has been received from Hemingbrough Hagg Lane Green Conservation Group. The following concerns have been raised.
• The street scene - as this is predominantly a residential area. • We have concerns that there are already several containers outside and if permission is granted there may be more put there. • It is outside the planning restraints of the village. • An enforcement notice was served by yourselves on 26 March 2010 and all the reasons in that enforcement notice are still valid. How an application can be approved on those grounds alone as no notice has been taken of your instructions. • The noise assessment has been carried out on behalf of the land owner, under controlled conditions and is therefore not a true recording of what happens. The assessment does not take account of deliveries, fork lift truck and it is considered that more power tools are used than stated. • Details in the application do not reflect the situation on site (e.g. parking, turning, containers) • Highway Safety – Access onto busy A63 close to Hagg Lane / Water Lane cross roads. There is a keep left island opposite the entrance. There are at least 12 sheds / summerhouses at the front of the site that restrict turning causing lorries to reverse into site which obstructs and causes danger to other traffic. This may result in waiting vehicles parking on grass verge and footpaths restricting visibility for vehicles and pedestrians at the crossroads. Insufficient parking for staff and customers. • Ecology – All ponds in the area are not shown on the submitted plans. Great Crested Newts and other wildlife have been found within the conservation area and were present when previous surveys have been carried out. Bats are also know to
84 be in the area. The Biodiversity Assessment was done on behalf of the land owner during hibernation period and is flawed. Newts may seek shelter under waste piles etc. Protected trees have been cut back. Debris may blow on to the conservation site. Potential pollution from materials stored in the building, pollution of pond system could jeopardise the environment required for amphibians etc. • Amenity – Sawing, sanding, banging, forklift truck going between the two buildings, flood lights on and around the building are left on all night with impacts on wildlife as well as amenity. • Enjoyment of visitors to the conservation site could be impaired by the industrialisation of this site. • Fire Risk - We have had to have the Fire Brigade out due to a skip fire in an open area which could have caused much greater damage if it had spread. This could be a disaster for the conservation area. • No main sewer or permanent toilet facilities. Query raised regarding foul water disposal. • No security fencing. • Site will gradually be extended and become an industrial site. • The front barn has been covered with polythene sheeting on the west side which is visually unattractive and not in keeping with the area. • Alterations to buildings and retention of storage containers not mentioned in application. • Retailing of pigeon related products e.g. food, medicines etc not mentioned in application. • Area shown on plan as buffer for no storage currently used for displaying products. • This is the wrong place for a manufacturing site and retail warehouse of this scale and detracts from the open character and visual amenity of the countryside.
POLICIES AND ISSUES
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states "if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be, made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise". The development plan for the Selby District comprises of the policies in the Selby District Local Plan (adopted on 8 February 2005) saved by the direction of the Secretary of State
Regional Spatial Strategy
As of 6 July 2010 the Secretary of State announced that with immediate effect Regional Strategies have been revoked under s79(6) of the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and no longer form part of the development plan for the purposes of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
The planning application has been assessed against the following policies:
National Policy
PPS4 - Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPS9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPG24 - Planning and Noise
Selby District Local Plan
85
DL1 - Control of Development in the Countryside ENV1 - Control of Development ENV2 - Environmental Pollution and Contaminated Land ENV3 - Light Pollution ENV10 - General Nature Conservation EMP8 - Conversion to Employment Use in the Countryside T1 - Development in Relation to Highway T2 - Access to Roads
The key issues are considered to be:
1. Principle of Development 2. Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 3. Access and Parking 4. Residential Amenity 5. Impact on Trees and Wildlife 6. Drainage
1. Principle of Development
The site is located outside of the development limits of Hemingbrough in the open countryside. Policy DL1 of the Local Plan set out the types of development that may be acceptable in principle in such locations.
Policy DL1 states:
“Development in the countryside, outside the Green Belt and development limits, will only be permitted where the proposal complies with all other relevant policies and the proposal: 1) Would be appropriate in a rural area; or 2) Involves the re-use, adaptation or extension of an existing building; or 3) Is required to meet the identified social or economic needs of a rural community; or 4) Would be of direct benefit to the rural economy including additional small-scale employment development and the expansion of existing firms. Where development is considered appropriate, it must be located and designed so as not to have a significant adverse effect on residential amenity or the character and appearance of an area and must not harm acknowledged nature conservation interests.”
The application proposes the change of use of two existing agricultural buildings to be used as B2 (industry) and B8 (warehousing). The application proposes no external alterations to the buildings and proposes to use an existing access. Furthermore, the proposals will also create additional small scale employment to the area.
It is considered that the proposal would meet criteria 2 and 4 of this policy (it should be noted that only one of the criteria needs to be met). Amenity, nature conservation etc are addressed elsewhere in this report.
Policy EMP8 also makes provision for proposals for the conversion of rural buildings for commercial, industrial or recreational uses subject to criteria relating to amount of re-build,
86 alteration and extension, amenity, highway safety and impact of ancillary works. Again these issues are addressed elsewhere in the report. It should be noted that the economic development sections of PPS7 have been superseded by PPS4.
Policy EC10.1 of PPS4 states that LPA’s should adopt a positive and constructive approach towards planning applications for economic development and applications that secure sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably.
Policy EC10.2 sets out considerations to be assessed which include climate change issues, accessibility, design and character of the area, regeneration and impact on local employment.
Policy EC12.1 relates specifically to economic development in rural areas. This concurs with local plan policies in terms of identifying that re-use of buildings in the countryside for economic development purposes will usually be preferable to residential conversions. The policy sets out the following criteria against which applications should be assessed:
A: support development which enhances the vitality and viability of market towns and other rural service centres. B: support small-scale economic development where it provides the most sustainable option in villages, or other locations, that are remote from local service centres, recognising that a site may be an acceptable location for development even though it may not be readily accessible by public transport. C: take account of the impact on the supply of employment sites and premises and the economic, social and environmental sustainability of the area, when considering planning applications involving the loss of economic activity. D: approve planning applications for the conversion and re-use of existing buildings in the countryside for economic development, particularly those adjacent or closely related to towns or villages, where the benefits outweigh the harm in terms of: i) the potential impact on the countryside, landscapes and wildlife. ii) local economic and social needs and opportunities. iii) settlement patterns and the level of accessibility to service centres, markets and housing iv) the need to conserve, or the desirability of conserving, heritage assets and v) the suitability of the building(s), and of different scales, for re-use recognising that replacement of buildings should be favoured where this would result in a more acceptable and sustainable development than might be achieved through conversion.
The site is located within a service village, despite being just outside of the development boundary, and is accessible by public transport. It is approx 5 miles from Selby the Principal Town within the district, and is closer still to several other smaller villages. The proposal would not involve the loss of economic activity and would involve the conversion and re-use of existing buildings. Impact on the countryside, landscapes and wildlife are assessed further into this report. The buildings are not listed nor are they of any significant historic or architectural merit. The site is not located within a deprived area and is not in urgent need of physical regeneration. The proposal will clearly create local employment opportunities.
The application is therefore considered to be in accordance with the general aims of PPS4.
87 The change of use of the buildings to commercial use is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle. 2. Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area
The application relates to a change of use. The existing buildings are structurally sound and the re-use has taken place without any significant alteration, re-build or extension. The buildings are steel framed agricultural buildings with asbestos and timber boarded cladding. They are not considered to be of any architectural or historic interest. However, this type of building is commonly located in rural areas such as this and the buildings would remain in place regardless of whether or not a change of use is approved.
The application seeks consent to continue using the buildings in connection with the manufacture, storage and sale of timber sheds, pigeon lofts, summer houses etc. In connection with this numerous end products are displayed at the front of the site (the highest product is 3.1m high) and there are steel storage containers at the rear of building one that are proposed to be retained.
There is an existing tarmac hard standing for delivery vehicle parking and turning at the front of building one and hardcore parking areas for staff to the rear of building one and for visitors at the front of building one. These areas are existing and appear to have been present for several years at least.
The site is screened to the north west by Hagg Lane Green nature conservation area, a small area of mature public woodland. The south eastern and rear site boundaries are open onto the adjacent agricultural land. At the front there is a timber post and rail fence, some trees on the southern side of the site entrance and some hedging on the northern side of the entrance. Beyond the field to the south east is R & R Country and the Yorkshire Fryer, two further commercial premises.
A small earth mound exists along the front boundary to the south of the access road. It is not considered that this has any significant benefits in terms of screening the parking, turning and display areas or buffering any noise that may result from the use of the site. As such it is considered that further hedge and tree planting, along the front, the open side and the rear of the site, would be beneficial to preserve and enhance the rural character of the area. This could be imposed as a condition should planning permission be granted and is considered to be reasonable given the intensification of use of the area outside the building for parking, storage, display purposes etc. The extent of any external storage and display products could also be limited by condition in terms of height and location etc. Part of the side boundary would need to remain open to allow access to the agricultural land with tractors and combines etc.
Subject to conditions restricting the height and location of any external storage and to provide additional landscaping it is considered that the proposal would not be significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such the proposal would accord with policy EMP8(5) of the Local Plan in this respect.
3. Access and Parking
The site has an existing vehicular access onto the A63 which is of sufficient width for two way traffic and has good visibility. No objections have been raised by the Local Highway Authority. Local residents and the Parish Council have raised concerns that there is
88 inadequate turning space for lorries which results in lorries reversing into the site and holding up other traffic.
The submitted plan indicates provision could be made to improve parking and turning facilities which would address this problem and conditions can be imposed to ensure that these parking and turning facilities are made available within a specified time scale and are thereafter retained for their intended purpose and kept unobstructed and available for use at all times. As the hard standings already exist this would only involve the removal of relocation of display sheds, a skip and some materials.
Whilst the proposed B2 / B8 use would result in a more intense use of the access than would be expected of agricultural buildings it is considered that given the standard of the access and visibility together with the proposed improvements to the parking and turning facilities the proposal would not be detrimental to highway safety. The access is located within the 40mph limit of Hemingbrough village.
Concern has been raised regarding advertisements distracting drivers however the signage that is present does not require consent.
The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of access, parking and highway safety and to accord with policies T1 and T2 of the Local Plan.
4. Residential Amenity
Concerns have been raised by local residents, the Parish Council and the Environmental Health Officer regarding noise from the site from machinery in the workshop, fork lift truck movements, deliveries and an intruder alarm. Concerns have also been raised in relation to working hours, lighting, burning of rubbish on the site and dust and rubbish blowing off the site.
Policies DL1 and EMP8 of the Local Plan state that development will not be considered acceptable if it has ‘a significant adverse effect on residential amenity.’ Further commentary relating to the protection of nearby residents is contained within policy ENV1 which makes it clear that the District Council will take account of ‘the amenity of adjoining occupiers.’ Policy ENV2A states that proposals for development which would give rise to unacceptable levels of noise will not be permitted unless satisfactory remedial or preventative measures are incorporated as an integral element in the scheme. Policy ENV3 relates to lighting and states this should represent the minimum level required for security and/or operational purposes, should be designed to minimise glare and should not be detrimental to highway safety, local amenity or the character of the area.
PPG24 sets out guidance and considerations to be taken into account in determining applications for developments which generate noise. It explains noise exposure categories (NECs), recommends appropriate levels of exposure and advises conditions to minimise the impact of noise. Paragraph 19 in Annex 3 to PPG24 specifically relates to noise from industrial or commercial developments.
A noise survey has been undertaken, in accordance with British Standard 4142: Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas, and submitted with the application to identify the impact of noise coming from the site. The survey was conducted over two days to ensure that a true representation of the level of noise was recorded.
89 The building at the front of the site is the manufacturing workshop in which the construction of timber buildings and structures takes place. The majority of the work is completed using manual tools although some power tools such as saws, sanders and nail guns are also used. The measurements taken found that the nail gun was the noisiest piece of equipment. The noise level measured from in front of the nearest dwelling, with the noisiest power tools in the operation and the door open was 4 to 6 dB above the normal daytime background which according to the British Standard is considered as being of marginal significance.
The Environmental Health Officer commented that the assessment fails to demonstrate compliance with Section 4 (measurement equipment) and Section 5 (measurement practice) of British Standard 4142. Correspondence has since been received from the Agent confirming that the equipment and procedure used are completely in accordance with the British Standard.
Environmental Health also commented on complaints that they have received already in relation to this site which related to burning of waste, the over sensitive alarm and working hours. These issues have since been addressed through Enforcement and Environment Health procedures and can be further controlled through the imposition of conditions should permission be granted.
Employees on site have advised that deliveries are usually once a week or twice a week maximum and that the fork lift truck is generally used approx half an hour per day but possibly more when there has been a delivery. The lighting which already exists on the site does not require planning consent and no additional lighting is proposed. Three sensor triggered security lights are located on the western side of building one, and there is also one at the rear of building one and one at the front of building two. There is one light at the front of building one however this is not a sensor flood light. As the existing lights do not require planning consent and no additional lighting is proposed any light nuisance should be dealt with by Environmental Health.
It is considered that subject to conditions to control issues such as hours of operation and deliveries, scheme to control dust, restrictions on maximum noise levels etc that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of amenity and would accord with policies ENV1, ENV2A, ENV3, DL1, EMP8 and PPG24 in this respect.
5. Impact on Trees and Wildlife
The application site lies adjacent to a small woodland known as Hagg Lane Green. This woodland is made up of a mixture of trees and also includes a number of small ponds. Other ponds are also present within the nearby surrounding area. The trees are located on the opposite side of a watercourse and would not be affected by the proposal.
The application site itself does not contain any significant trees or any ponds; however there may be the potential for the proposed development to impact on protected species nearby.
Wildlife is protected under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 1994. In respect to impacts of development proposals on protected species planning policy and guidance is provided by Planning Policy Statement 9 “ Biodiversity and Geological Conservation” and accompanying ODPM
90 Circular 06/2005 “Biodiversity and Geological Conservation- Statutory Obligations and Their Impact Within The Planning System”.
Paragraph 98 of PPS9 states:
“The presence of a protected species is a material planning consideration when a Planning Authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat”.
Furthermore Paragraph 99 of PPS9 states:
“It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material planning considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision.”
Due to the nature of the application and its location next to an area known to have protected species, a biodiversity assessment has been carried out and submitted which identifies any possible risk to bats, great crested newts, badgers and water voles.
The document confirms that there is no sign of badger activity and therefore no further survey work is required in this respect.
No signs of bat activity were detected. However, the buildings have been assessed externally as having medium probability of bat interest due to gaps underneath external asbestos sheeting. The internal features of the building are considered to be of low interest to bats because they are heavily disturbed, well lit, comprise steel structures unsuitable for roosting bats and are dusty with many cobwebs. As no external alterations are proposed it is considered that the retrospective change of use would pose no / negligible impacts to the local bat population.
With regards to great crested newts there are no ponds within the site however there are numerous ponds within the locality with confirmed presence of great crested newts. Breeding ponds are present within 250 metres of the site. The site would provide poor quality habitat for newts in relation to the other high quality habitats available within the locality and as such the newts are unlikely to move to the site. The likelihood of newts being present on the application site is low given that it has no ponds, there is an excellent adjacent habitat and the site would offer a very poor quality habitat.
Great crested newts may seek temporary refuge under piles of rubble and externally stored materials etc. It is recommended that materials are stored off ground on timber pallets and these should be located on areas of hard standing.
There were no signs of water vole presence when the survey was carried out however the report highlights that the boundary ditch has above average conditions for water voles. Additionally the presence of possible water voles within the ditch is strengthened further due to the specie being recorded within 400 metres of the site. It is recommended that the bank sides of the watercourse are kept free of debris and storage. The submitted plan indicates a buffer strip between the watercourse and the access road in which no storage or parking is to take place.
91 In respect of the requirements of the Habitats Regulations 1994 it is noted that as a competent authority the Local Planning Authority should have regard to the requirements of the Directive so far as they might be affected by those functions. The directive allows “derogation” (deviation) from the requirements of the Directive where there are reasons of “overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment” and provided that there is ‘no satisfactory alternative’ and the proposal would not be ‘detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range’.
The applicant has commissioned a biodiversity survey which concludes that no protected species appeared to be present on site at that time. It advises that the external fabric of the buildings may provide medium interest to bats, that great crested newts in the locality may occasionally seek refuge under piles of rubble and materials and that there is high potential for water voles to be present in the adjacent watercourse which should therefore be kept clear.
The tests of the Habitat Regulations require a weighing exercise to be undertaken between the significance of the protected species and the public interest. In order to give appropriate weight to the protected species, in this instance bats, great crested newts and water voles, it is necessary to have information on the type of habitats, species and numbers occupying a particular site. This information is also required in determining the nature and extent of mitigation works that may be required and to give weight to the ‘conservation status of the species’.
It is considered that subject to the implementation of the recommendations outlined in the biodiversity report the impact on any protected species would be minimal. As such it is concluded that subject to conditions to ensure adequate mitigation, the proposal would maintain the species at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.
In addition to the above the proposal, in all other respects, would meet all other national and local policy and therefore it is considered that the benefits arising from the development, in respect of reusing an existing building in a sustainable location for employment purposes, would outweigh the negligible harm resulting from the mitigated proposals. As such it is concluded that there is overriding public interest in support of the proposal. Furthermore it is also considered that the only alternative to the proposal is to refuse planning permission, which for the above reasons would not be satisfactory in terms of local and national employment policy.
Therefore, having had regard to all the ecological issues associated with the proposal, it is concluded that, subject to the attached conditions, it would meet the requirements of the Habitats Regulations and would not be contrary to the guidance contained within PPS9, accompanying Circular 06/2005, and policy ENV1(5) of the Selby District Local Plan.
6. Drainage
As the buildings and hard standings are existing there would be no changes in relation to surface water and the Internal Drainage Board’s suggested condition is not considered to be necessary.
There is currently no foul drainage provision on site and a portable toilet is used. Should planning permission be granted toilet facilities would be provided within unit 1 and foul
92 drainage would be connected to the public sewer in the main road. Yorkshire Water have no objections to these proposals.
The application is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of drainage.
CONCLUSION
The proposal relates to the retrospective change of use of two former agricultural buildings to B2 and B8 uses in connection with the manufacture and storage of timber sheds, summer houses etc and the improvement of ancillary parking and turning facilities. Support is given to the conversion of existing buildings to employment uses in the countryside in PPS4 and policies DL1 and EMP8 of the Local Plan, subject to meeting various criteria, and the proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle.
No new buildings are proposed however the existing storage containers are to be retained and products are on display at the front of the site. Subject to conditions requiring further landscaping and to control the extent of external storage it is considered that the proposal would not have a significant adverse effect on the character of the area.
The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of highway safety and improvements are proposed to the parking and turning facilities. A condition could be imposed to ensure these works are completed within a reasonable time and thereafter retained.
A noise assessment has been carried out in accordance with PPG24 and British Standard 4142 and concern raised by local residents and the Parish Council in relation to amenity have been taken into consideration. Concerns raised by Environmental Health have been addressed by the Agent and it is considered that subject to conditions to control issues such as hours of operation and deliveries, scheme to control dust, restrictions on maximum noise levels etc the proposal would be acceptable in relation to residential amenity.
A biodiversity survey has been submitted which concludes that although protected species are present within the immediate locality they are unlikely to be present on the site or to be harmed subject to appropriate mitigation measures which can be imposed by condition.
The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable and to accord with the relevant policies and guidance as set out in this report.
RECOMMENDATION
This application is recommended to be Granted subject to the following condition(s):
1. No manufacturing or treatment processes shall take place outside of the building hereby approved for B2 use at any time.
Reason: In the interests of protecting the amenity of nearby residential properties having had regard to Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
2. Any works, deliveries, loading and unloading of goods and vehicle movements related to the commercial operation of the proposed unit shall be restricted to between the hours 08.00 and 18.00 hours Monday to Friday and 08.00 and 14.00
93 on Saturdays. No works shall take place at any time on Sundays, Bank Holidays or Public Holidays.
Reason: In the interests of protecting the amenity of nearby residential properties having had regard to Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
3. The level of noise emitted from the site shall not at any time exceed 47dB LAeq (1 hour) as measured from the front of the nearest dwellings (shown as Darfield and Hazeldene on the submitted site location plan) on the opposite side of Hull Road.
Reason: In the interests of protecting the amenity of nearby residential properties having had regard to Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
4. Within 3 months of the date of this permission a written scheme for the control and management of dust, waste and recycling facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall thereafter be complied with throughout the life of the development.
Reason: In order to prevent dust and waste blowing off the site and affecting the adjacent nature conservation area and the amenity of nearby residents.
5. Any emissions to the atmosphere resulting from the proposed development shall be controlled in accordance with a scheme, including details of any extract system and any discharge points, to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 3 months of the date of this decision.
Reason: In the interests of amenity.
6. Any paint spraying shall be carried out in a suitable booth and air extracted from this area by mechanical means and filtered before being discharged into the atmosphere in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before such a use commences.
Reason: In the interests of amenity.
7. Within 3 months of the date of this decision the approval of the Local Planning Authority is required to a scheme of landscaping and tree planting for the site, indicating inter alia the number, species, heights on planting and positions of all trees, shrubs and bushes. Such scheme as approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be carried out in its entirety within the period of twelve months beginning with the date on which the scheme is approved. All trees, shrubs and bushes shall be adequately maintained for the period of five years beginning with the date of completion of the scheme and during that period all losses shall be made good as and when necessary.
Reason:
94 In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.
8. No display buildings shall exceed 3.5 metres in height and there shall be no other form of external storage on the site.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and protecting the character and appearance of the area.
9. The use of the site shall be operated in accordance with recommendations set out in the Biodiversity Assessment by Wold Ecology Ltd dated February 2010 submitted with the application.
Reason: To ensure no harm is caused to protected species or their habitats.
10. Within 3 months of the date of this decision the parking and turning areas shown on the submitted drawing shall be cleared of any obstructions and made available for use. These areas shall thereafter be retained clear and available for their intended purpose at all times.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
11. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans/drawings listed below:
Location Plan Drawing Number 9065/01 Site Layout Plan Drawing Number 09625/1/a
95
Maps and Plans available on request from the Planning Department
96
Maps and Plans available on request from the Planning Department
97 APPLICATION 8/23/82K/PA PARISH: Camblesforth Parish Council NUMBER: 2009/0691/REM
APPLICANT: TMP Associates VALID DATE: 11 August 2009
EXPIRY DATE: 6 October 2009 PROPOSAL: Approval of Reserved Matters (Scale, External Appearance and Landscaping) for the erection of 3 detached dwellings with integral garages and a detached double garage
LOCATION: 10 Brigg Lane Camblesforth Selby North Yorkshire YO8 8HS
DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
This application seeks the approval of the reserved matters (scale, appearance and landscaping) for the erection of three detached houses with integral garages and a detached double garage to serve two existing dwellings “The Cottage, 10 Brigg Lane” and “The Barn, Brigg Lane”.
The site, which is located within the development limits of Camblesforth, previously formed part of the garden to 10 Brigg Lane, and has outline planning permission for three dwellings, including details of layout and access.
The original dwelling on the site has been retained and continues to gain vehicular access through the site via the original access which has now been altered. Additionally a former barn attached to the original dwelling has been demolished and rebuilt creating a further dwelling that also has vehicular access through the site. The double garage (that has already been constructed) provides parking for 10 Brigg Lane and the new attached dwelling “The Barn”.
The site, at the time of the outline application, comprised a two storey cottage (10 Brigg Lane), an attached barn at the northern end of the site, a range of domestic outbuildings and a 2m high brick wall along the western side. There were gardens to the east and to the south divided by low boundary fencing. There was a large Willow tree, covered by a Tree Preservation Order, adjacent to the southern boundary which was later given consent to be felled subject to a suitable replacement tree being planted. Vehicular access to the site was via an access in the south west corner of the site adjacent to 6 Brigg Lane.
The site and its surroundings have since changed as the outbuildings have now been demolished, the front boundary wall has been lowered in height, a new dwelling has been erected to the south of the site adjacent to 6 Brigg Lane, the former barn has been replaced by a new dwelling, the new access road and the double garages to serve 10 Brigg Lane and the new dwelling attached to it have been constructed, 1.8m high timber fencing has been erected to the rear of the new dwelling and along the western boundary of the site, ground levels appear to have been raised, the replacement tree has died and a bin collection area has been created.
98 Whilst the layout of the new access road and the location of the garages are generally in accordance with the outline approval, no development approved under the outline consent should have been commenced prior to all reserved matters being approved and all conditions precedent being formally discharged in writing by the Planning Authority.
An application for the approval of reserved matters was granted in March 2008 prior to the construction of the access road, the garages and the bin store. It is therefore understandable, despite the fact that conditions were not formally discharged, that the developer would believe the relevant consents had been obtained prior to commencement. However, it later became apparent that the approved plans were not accurate and could not be lawfully built.
The application (ref. 2008/1158/FUL) for the new dwelling attached to 10 Brigg Lane did not have the access included in the red line boundary, it was on other land in the applicant’s ownership outlined in blue on the submitted plans. Therefore a condition of this permission was that the new dwelling was not occupied until the access and parking facilities had been completed in accordance with the outline consent on the adjacent site. It is therefore clear that the access works have not been permitted under the separate consent for the new dwelling to the north (The Barn) and that they are therefore unauthorised which means the occupation of the new dwelling to the north would also be unauthorised.
PLANNING HISTORY
2009/0959/FUL – S73 application to vary condition 6 (boundary treatment) of outline consent ref 2006/1169/OUT – Approved 23.12.2009
2008/1158/FUL – Retrospective application for amendments to previously approved dwelling – Approved 16.12.2008
2008/0064/REM - Reserved Matters application for the erection of 3no dwellings and 5no garages (Following the demolition of outbuildings) – Approved 20.03.2008
2008/0223/FUL - Proposed demolition of barn and erection of new dwelling to the same footprint as the barn – Approved 24.04.2008
2006/1170/FUL - Resubmission of refused application 8/23/82C/PA for conversion of barn to dwelling house – Approved 25.10.2006
2006/1169/OUT – Resubmission of refused outline application 8/23/82D/PA for the erection of three dwellings and 5 garages – Approved 25.10.2006
2006/0798/OUT - Outline Application for the erection of three dwellings including siting and means of access – Refused 14.08.2006
2006/0797/FUL - Proposed conversion of barn to dwelling house - Refused 14.08.2006
2006/1206/TPO - Application for consent to fell willow tree within TPO No. 10/2006 – Approved 17.10.2006
99 CONSULTATIONS
CAMBLESFORTH PARISH COUNCIL: No objections were raised to the initial consultation and no response received to further consultations on amended plans.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY: No objections subject to compliance with outline conditions.
YORKSHIRE WATER: No objections to latest proposals.
SELBY AREA INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD: Have no observations on the latest proposals.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: Object to the location of the refuse bin storage area.
PUBLICITY: Neighbours have been consulted by letter and a site notice has been posted. Objections have been received from 2 local Councillors and from 2 local residents. The following concerns have been raised:
• 3 storey houses are out of character with the rural environment of Camblesforth village. • Location of the bin storage area. • Site level has been raised approx 3ft resulting in loss of privacy to the new dwelling adjacent to 6 Brigg Lane. Increasing the height of the boundary fence would not be an acceptable solution as it is already 5.5ft on south side and an increase would reduce natural light to window. • Insufficient landscaping. • Impact of raised ground levels in terms of drainage and surface water run off. • Query suitability of the road construction as the land has been raised using bricks etc from demolished barn and outbuildings. • Boundary dispute. • Site levels on the plan are insufficient to show the situation and it is unclear if houses on would be on different levels. • Position of replacement TPO tree is inappropriate as it is too close to new dwelling.
Both Councillors have requested that the application is determined by the Planning Committee and Councillor Hulme has requested that a Committee site visit takes place.
POLICIES AND ISSUES Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states "if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be, made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise". The development plan for the Selby District comprises of the policies in the Selby District Local Plan (adopted on 8 February 2005) saved by the direction of the Secretary of State.
Regional Spatial Strategy
100 As of 6 July 2010 the Secretary of State announced that with immediate effect Regional Strategies have been revoked under s79(6) of the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and no longer form part of the development plan for the purposes of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
National Guidance
PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 Housing PPS25 Development and Flood Risk
Selby District Local Plan
Policy ENV1 – Control of development Policy H6 – Housing development in towns and larger villages
Key Issues
1. Principle of Development 2. Scale and External Appearance 3. Landscaping and Replacement TPO Tree 4. Residential Amenity 5. Access and Parking 6. Drainage and Flood Risk
1. Principle of Development
Camblesforth is identified as a sustainable settlement in the local plan and the site is located within the village development limits. The site was last used as garden land, which following recent amendments to PPS3 no longer falls within the definition of previously developed land (PDL). However the principle of the development has already been accepted through the granting of outline planning permission. As such only the reserved matters applied for can be considered at this stage.
2. Scale and External Appearance
Means of access and layout were approved on the outline application and the submitted proposal accords with this permission.
All three of the proposed dwellings would be modern, two storey, detached houses, with additional rooms located within the roof space (served by roof lights and not dormers) and integral single garages.
House type D, which would be located at the northern end of the site, would measure approximately 9.1m high. House type E, which would be located in the centre, would measure approx 9.3m high and house type C, at the southern end, would be approximately 9.1m high.
The new dwelling recently constructed to the south of the site is approximately 9m high and has velux roof lights at the front and rear. The new dwelling to the north is approx 7m high.
101 There is a very slight increase in the land levels, which slope gradually upwards from south to north and from west to east. A sectional drawing has been submitted to show the difference in levels and roof heights in relation to adjacent properties.
Brigg Lane comprises a wide variety of building styles and ages including old cottages, 1950’s style semi detached houses and new, detached houses. There is no particular local distinctive character other than a predominance of two-storey houses in frontage form. It is therefore considered that the scale and appearance of the proposed houses would be acceptable and would not detract from the appearance of the area.
A further material consideration is the previous reserved matters approval. Whilst this did contain errors and cannot be lawfully implemented, it does demonstrate that the Planning Authority previously considered a very similar scale and appearance of development to be acceptable in this location.
In view of the mix of house types in the area and the previous approval of a similar scheme the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of scale and external appearance and would accord with policies ENV1(1&4) and H6(1) of the Selby District Local Plan.
3. Landscaping and Replacement TPO Tree
In October 2006 consent was granted to fell a Willow tree on the site that was protected by a tree preservation order (TPO). This was consent was granted subject to a condition requiring the planting of a replacement tree on the site. The condition specified the size and type of replacement tree to be planted but not its location. A replacement tree was planted but later died. Normally a further replacement would therefore be required. This matter can be dealt with by Enforcement separately from this application if this was considered expedient. In addition it is noted that the original tree was protected by an emergency order and the neighbour advises the original Willow tree was subsequently found to be rotten and was therefore allowed to be felled. As such it could be argued that it should not have been protected, given its condition. It could therefore be considered unreasonable to insist on a replacement tree under these circumstances.
However, the submitted landscaping scheme does show a new tree proposed in the location of the former Willow tree, although not of the type conditioned. Concern has been raised regarding the impact of the tree on the adjacent new dwelling, which is approximately 5m away. The agent has been requested to address this matter prior to Planning Committee and to provide an amended plan showing the correct type of replacement tree in a suitable location taking into account the potential future impact of the tree on existing and proposed dwellings.
The remainder of the landscaping details submitted, which include a Beech hedge along the site frontage, lawned rear gardens, ornamental shrubs adjacent to the access drive and two further trees, are considered to be acceptable and would accord with policy ENV1(1 & 4) of the Selby District Local Plan.
4. Residential Amenity
There would be over 40 metres between the rear elevations of the proposed dwellings and the rear of the dwellings on Mill Lane. There are no dwellings directly opposite the front of the site and the dwellings to the north are located on a right angle to the proposed
102 dwellings facing only the side gable and the rear of the garages. The new dwelling to the south has a blank gable end facing the site. In view of this it is considered that the proposed development would not result in any significant overlooking or overshadowing issues.
The owner of the new dwelling to the south has raised concerns regarding increased land levels on the site leading to over looking from users of the access road and surface water run-off problems. Concerns have also been raised regarding the location of the bin store and the location of a tree.
Whilst there are some differences in site levels between the two sites this is partially due to the ground levels being lowered to build the new house to the south. The applicant claims that the only increase on the application site is the road level increase of 200mm. He confirms that the retaining wall between the two sites was constructed by the adjacent owner because the ground levels of his new house had to be lowered.
It does appear on site that the land levels have been increased by more than the 200mm claimed by the applicant. However the increase is not considered to be so significant or to be so significantly harmful to the amenity of the neighbour to warrant taking enforcement action.
The new dwelling to the south has a blank gable wall facing the site. However the owner has raised concerns about loss of privacy to the front and rear windows and gardens of his property from people using the access road to the application site and the bin storage area. The access road and layout of the site were approved at outline stage and the adjacent land owner was well aware of this prior to developing his own site. However, it is claimed that it is the increase in land levels on the application site that would cause the over looking concerns as opposed to the layout.
In relation to the rear of the adjacent property this is screened by an existing timber fence erected on top of the retaining wall. It is approximately 1.6m high on the neighbours side and approx 0.8m high on the application site. This could be increased to 2m high without planning permission. Landscaping is proposed adjacent to the existing fence which separates the rear garden of the neighbour’s house and the turning head within the application site. Whilst it is possible to see over the fence from the application site into the neighbouring garden this would be unlikely to occur as pedestrians would have no reason to pass this part of the site and the few vehicles likely to be using the turning head (given that each dwelling has its own parking) would be concentrating on driving rather than looking over the fence. It is therefore considered unlikely that there would be any significant loss of amenity to the rear of the neighbouring house.
The submitted plans make reference to a ‘bin storage area’. This in fact is a waste bin collection area, intended for use only on bin collection days to prevent the bins being placed on the highway. As such it would only be used for a short period each week and would have similar impacts on amenity arising in all situations where domestic refuse bins are put to the front of properties for collection.
The position of the bin collection area was highlighted on the outline approval although it was shown to be much smaller. Such provision was considered necessary to avoid the bins and boxes being left on the Brigg Lane footpath on collection days and potentially obstructing pedestrians, bus stop users and adjacent accesses. The access road into the site is not suitable for use by refuse vehicles. Several amendments have been made to
103 the size and location of the bin collection following comments and concerns raised by the neighbour and Environmental Health Manager.
In order to safeguard the amenity of the adjoining neighbour it is essential that provision is made for general bin storage within the site in addition to the bin collection area. The bin storage areas should be made within the curtilages of each of the proposed dwellings, as is normal arrangement. Such provision of bin storage areas can be controlled via condition and subject to such a condition it is considered that the scheme would be acceptable in this regard.
The concerns regarding the proposed replacement tree have been referred to above in section 3 of this report and it is accepted that this would be too close to the neighbouring dwelling. An amendment has been requested prior to the Committee meeting however should no suitable amendment be brought forward this matter could be addressed by other means e.g. under TPO legislation. Indeed a replacement tree may be considered unreasonable to enforce given that the original tree had an emergency TPO placed on it and it was later found that the tree was rotten and needed to be removed. As such it is recommended that the replacement tree does not form part of the approved scheme.
It should be noted that planning consent is not required for tree planting and should the developer decide to plant a tree in this location anyway either now or at any time in the future any problems as a result of this would be a civil matter to be resolved between the private parties.
The tree and bin store issues can be resolved and the increase in land levels is not considered to be significant. The layout was approved at outline stage and the location and orientation of existing and proposed dwellings and the positioning of windows etc would not result in any significant levels of over looking or over shadowing. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of residential amenity and would accord with policies ENV1(1) and H6(3) of the Selby District Local Plan.
5. Access and Parking
The access to the site was approved at outline stage and each of the dwellings would have a garage and parking space. The Highway Authority has raised no objections to the proposed scheme for approval of reserved matters subject to compliance with the outline conditions.
The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of access and parking and would accord with policies ENV1(2) and H6(2) of the Selby District Local Plan.
6. Drainage and Flood Risk
Drainage and Flood Risk are not reserved matters and these issues were addressed at outline stage. However, as a result of changes in land levels within and adjacent to the site and comments made by a neighbour further consideration has been given to this.
The site is located within flood zone 2 (medium risk). This matter was considered at outline stage where the development was accepted in principle and flood risk conditions were imposed.
104 Yorkshire Water and Selby Internal Drainage Board have raised no objections to the most recent amendments which include details of the proposed foul and surface water disposal arrangements.
The neighbour has raised concern regarding surface water run-off on to his site as a result of the increased land levels. As the neighbour has lowered his own site levels this problem would have been likely to occur anyway. It would appear from the topography of the site that surface water would be most likely to run into the site and down the access road which would have a surface water drain. However, it is also clear on site that the site level is higher than the retaining wall built by the neighbour and as such soil is packed up against the fence, which will rot the fence over time, and in heavy rain soil is likely to (and has already) fallen between the wall and the fence onto the neighbours site. It is considered that a condition could be imposed to address this matter which would be likely to require the developer to increase the height of the retaining wall to above the height of any soil and to erect a new boundary fence, the bottom of which would be on the northern side of the retaining wall, which would prevent any debris falling onto or running into the neighbours site.
Subject to a condition to control the above the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to drainage and flood risk.
CONCLUSION
This application seeks reserved matters consent for the scale, appearance and landscaping of three detached houses. The principle of residential development on the site including the layout and access has previously been approved under the outline planning consent. The scale, appearance and landscaping are considered to be acceptable and would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area or the residential amenity of adjacent properties subject to suitable amendments being received prior to committee or the imposition of suitable conditions to control the outstanding issues in relation to the bin collection point and boundary treatment changes to prevent debris falling onto the adjacent site. It is recommended that the replacement TPO tree does not form part of the landscaping scheme. However it can be dealt with through other procedures if this is considered necessary.
The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable, subject to conditions, and to accord with policies ENV1 and H6 of the Selby District Local Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
This application is recommended to be Granted subject to the following conditions and reasons:
01. The development, for which the reserved matters are hereby approved, shall be carried out in complete accordance with the conditions set out below and those imposed on planning permission reference 2006/0011/OUT granted on 21/02/06.
Reason: The approval hereby granted is for reserved matters only.
02. Prior to the construction of any of the dwellings hereby approved details of the materials to be used in the construction of the exterior walls and roof(s) of the
105 dwellings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and only the approved materials shall be utilised.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and in order to comply with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
03. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 or any subsequent Order, the garages shall not be converted into domestic accommodation without the granting of an appropriate planning permission.
Reason: To ensure the retention of adequate and satisfactory provision of off-street accommodation for vehicles generated by occupiers of the dwellings and visitors to them, in the interests of safety and the general amenity the development.
04. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) no extensions, garages, outbuildings or other structures shall be erected, nor new windows, dormer windows, doors or other openings shall be inserted, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity, having had regard to Policy ENV1.
05. The scheme of landscaping and tree planting shown on Drawing Number R/1117/1 received by the Local Planning Authority on 6th April 2010 shall be carried out in its entirety (with the exception of the replacement tree at the front of 8 Brigg Lane) within the period of twelve months beginning with the date on which development is commenced, or within such longer period as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. All trees, shrubs and bushes shall be adequately maintained for the period of five years beginning with the date of completion of the scheme and during that period all losses shall be made good as and when necessary.
Reason: To secure the satisfactory implementation of the proposal, having had regard to Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
06. Within one month of the date of this permission a scheme for the provision of a bin storage area in the curtilage of each dwelling shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until its bin storage area has been provided in accordance with the approved scheme. The bin storage area shall thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the development.
Reason: The scale, location and means of enclosure of the bin store on the submitted plans is considered to be unacceptable in relation to the visual amenity of the area and the residential amenity of 8 Brigg Lane.
07. Within one month of the date of this permission an amended scheme of boundary treatment for the southern boundary of the site shall be submitted to and agreed in
106 writing by the Local Planning Authority. This should ensure that adequate provision is made to prevent surface water run-off or any other debris from the site falling or running onto the adjacent residential site to the south (8 Brigg Lane). The approved scheme of boundary treatment shall be constructed within three months of being approved and shall thereafter be maintained as such.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and in order to comply with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
08. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans/drawings listed below:
(pulled automatically from computer system onto the decision notice)
107
Maps and Plans available on request from the Planning Department
108
Maps and Plans available on request from the Planning Department
109 APPLICATION 8/10/246/PA PARISH: Escrick Parish Council NUMBER: 2010/0536/FUL
APPLICANT: Escrick Park VALID DATE: 20 July 2010 Estates EXPIRY DATE: 14 September 2010 PROPOSAL: Erection of 50kw wind turbine
LOCATION: Wheldrake Lane Escrick York North Yorkshire
This application has been brought before Planning Committee as the level of objections from neighbours and statutory consultees exceeds five in total.
DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The Site
The site is approximately 2¼ miles from Escrick and Wheldrake and to the south of Wheldrake Lane which links the two villages. The site comprises land which is currently part of an agricultural field lying to the south of a belt of trees and a watercourse.
The site is located within the open countryside. The York Green Belt runs to the north of the site. The boundary of the Green Belt is Wheldrake Lane.
The Proposal
Planning consent is sought for the erection of a single 50 KW wind turbine. The tower of the wind turbine would have a height of 24.6 metres. The total height of the turbine including the blades would be 34 metres accounting for the diameter of the blades. The turbine is a triple bladed design.
As well as the erection of the actual turbine the proposal also includes: -
• the formation of a 25 square metre concrete base for the siting of the turbine; • upgrading through the use of hardcore of the existing farm track access from Wheldrake Lane to the north western corner of Keldcarr’s Plantation; • the formation of a new 4m by 320m long hardstanding track mainly along the currently grassed field margin from the end of the existing track to the turbine location; • the formation of a 120 square metre base adjacent to the turbine to site for delivery/off loading of the turbine components and to provide parking for subsequent maintenance vehicles and equipment during the life of the turbine; • the siting of a 6 square metre reinforced polyester electrical housing building on a concrete pad adjacent to the turbine site; • storage facilities for parts and maintenance equipment; and
110 • connections to the overhead electricity transmission line which runs north-south to the east of the turbine location along the western edge of Gilbertson’s Wood which would be formed underground. No additional poles or overhead cables would be required.
As part of the negotiations on the application the red line boundary for the application was changed to allow for access to be attained to the site for construction and operation via a route from Skipwith Road via the Mount Pleasant Farm / Manor Farm as an alternative to that proposed in the initial application (referred to here after as Access Option B). Should Access Option B be required then works will be required to extend the route to the turbine site.
Planning History and Concurrent Application
There is no planning history for the site considered to be relevant to the determination of this application.
Members should note that this application was submitted concurrently with a scheme for the conversion of the Manor Farm buildings to live work units (Application 2010/0535/FUL) to the south of the turbine which was refused under delegated powers on the 10th August 2010.
The reasons for refusal on this scheme were as follows:
• The proposed development is considered contrary to Policy H12 (1) as it has not been adequately demonstrated that the building or its location is unsuited to business use or that there is no demand for buildings for those purposes in the immediate locality. • The proposed development is considered contrary to Policy H12(5) and EMP8 (5) due to lack of defined parking areas for beyond the provision of a single parking space for occupiers. • The proposed development is considered contrary to Policy H12 (8) as the office accommodation (work element) is not considered to be subordinate to the proposed living accommodation. • The applicant has failed to submit a noise impact assessment and therefore the Council has been unable to adequately assess the potential loss of amenity at the proposed noise sensitive residential/mixed units. On this basis it is considered that the proposed development is considered to be contrary to Policy H12(5), Policy ENV1 and PPG24.
The Applicant has lodged an appeal in relation to this decision. However the start letter in respect of this appeal is still to be received by the Council from the Planning Inspectorate.
CONSULTATIONS
ESCRICK PARISH COUNCIL: The Parish Council has no objection in principle to the application and feels that it ought to support proposals for alternative energy technology, but only where they are sensitively located and have no detrimental environmental effect on residents of Escrick Parish.
It should be recalled that this application was initially linked to that of redevelopment of agricultural buildings nearby at Manor Farm, Skipwith Road, (Application 8/10/15A/PA) to
111 residential / live-work use, as a means of ‘offsetting’ and enhancing the ‘green’ credentials of that application. The Parish Council understands that this application has been refused and therefore the Parish Council questions whether there is still a requirement for the proposed wind turbine and, if so, whether it’s exact location is still so crucial. The application was discussed in detail at a recent meeting of the Parish Council on 16 August 2010 where several residents raised concerns regarding noise assessment, transport assessment both during construction and post completion, shadow flicker, blade glint and overall impact on ecology.
The Parish Council have requested that further representations should be allowed to be made once the implications of the application (with the balloons erected) can be further understood.
The main other issue raised by local residents, and thus of concern to the Parish Council, is the proposed location of the access road to the turbine with regard to both its initial erection and future maintenance. Again the agent agreed that she would be willing to relook at this. The Parish Council therefore enquire whether any amended proposals have been considered with the Council and indeed submitted formally. There was a particular highways safety concern regarding the position of the access road on Wheldrake Lane (near a dangerous blind corner with an established accident record) as well as the location and extent of the road itself to the turbine and its ecological implications; also the implications of the construction (and to a lesser extent maintenance) traffic on the amenity of nearby residents.
Due to these potential adverse implications, we would ask you to weigh up the potential environmental benefits against these amenity issues and the potential visual impact on the local environment, in what is a rural location.
WHELDRAKE PARISH COUNCIL: Series of objections as follows: • There is no mention in the application of the proximity of the proposed location of the turbine and associated access to the Wheldrake Parish boundary. • There are a number of residential properties in Wheldrake Parish which are within 1000 metres of the proposed site and are downwind in terms of the prevailing wind direction. • The proposed access off Wheldrake Lane will be at a location near to the east of a sharp bend with limited visibility and at the boundary between Escrick and Wheldrake Parishes. It is considered that City of York Highways should be consulted. • The completed turbine would introduce an industrial structure into the landscape and which will be in or near to land designated as Green Belt. It will be industrial in appearance and out of scale compared to other structures for a radius of several kilometres. • It is unclear as to the expected load factor for the turbine or as to the electrical transmission losses in the local cable connection or in the local regional grid network. • The proposed arrangement will mean that electricity users fed by the regional network will be effectively providing financial support to the general development and maintenance of the Escrick Estate. (This is implied in the supporting document to the application, section 7.25).
112 • If the proposal is approved it is suggested that a condition be attached that will require some or all revenue (after capital and maintenance allowances) from the operation of the turbine to be used in the local communities to improve leisure and other public amenity e.g. a Section 106 requirement.
THORGANBY PARISH COUNCIL: Pre-application comments received raising concern that the development is inappropriate on both environmental grounds and in terms of the potentially poor efficiency levels given the remote nature of the siting of this facility which would be well away from possible users of the power when generated. The Parish Council have verbally confirmed that they have no further comments over those stated at the pre-application stage.
DEIGHTON AND HESLINGTON PARISH COUNCIL: No response received on the application.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANAGER (EHM): The Environmental Health Manager originally objected to the proposal on the grounds that insufficient information had been submitted by the applicant to allow the local planning authority to undertake a thorough and proper assessment of the proposal. However the EHM after researching the proposal has been able to find the full technical specification for the wind turbine and his comments are given below: -
“The applicant has submitted a limited single paged technical document entitled ‘Wind turbine E-series noise level as a function of distance (Wind Speed: 6.0 m/s) that has been produced by the CSTPQ (Centre specialize de technlogie du Quebec inc). This document states the calculated sound pressure level resultant from operation of the E-series turbine at a series of distances from the turbine hub. This entire document (and the calculated noise levels it contains) is referenced to an IEC-61400-11 compliant report (for the E3120 turbine) that the applicant has failed to submit. I have however been able to independently locate this document so as to verify the submitted predicted noise levels. In light of this independently sourced information I have no further objections relating to the validity of the submitted predicted turbine noise levels.
The applicant has assumed a background noise level of 27dB (A) based upon measurements taken on agricultural land within the Escrick Park estate. The selection of this value reflects the nature of the area surrounding the proposed development site and may be treated as a conservative figure. In considering this background noise level, the calculated turbine sound pressure levels and the separation distance of 700 metres to the nearest residential dwelling it is unlikely that the turbine will exceed the noise requirements stipulated in ETSU-R-97. In light of these factors I have no objection to the application.
This department is unable to comment on the impact of turbine flicker and as such I would suggest you contact a specialist consultant who may be able to advise you in regard to this matter.”
ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICER: The proposed development lies in an area of archaeological interest. The Historic Environment Record contains evidence of a prehistoric and later landscape with field systems and enclosures shown as crop marks. The development associated with this application has the potential to disturb and/or destroy archaeological finds and features dating to the prehistoric and later periods. Therefore the Archaeology Officer advises that
113 an archaeological watching brief be undertaken during the ground disturbing works on this site including the storage compound, the turbine base and any required cabling routes.
ATKINS LTD WINDFARM CONSULTATION (ACTING ON BEHALF OF YORKSHIRE WATER): The application has been examined in relation to UHF Radio Scanning Telemetry communications used by our Client in the region and there are no objections to the proposal.
THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: The Environment Agency has no comment to make on the application.
THE OUSE & DERWENT INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD (IDB): Although the site lies within the IDB area, there are no maintained watercourses adjacent to the site. The IDB have raised no objections.
JOINT RADIO COMPANY LTD: JRC analyses proposals for wind farms on behalf of the UK Fuel & Power Industry. This is to assess their potential to interfere with radio systems operated by utility companies in support of their regulatory operational requirements. In the case of this proposed wind energy development, JRC does not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios and the data the applicants have provided.
LEEDS BRADFORD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT: The proposal has been reviewed against the aerodrome safeguarding parameters and we find that the details that have been submitted are unlikely to conflict with aviation interests in regard to the Leeds Bradford International Airport.
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (MOD): The MOD initially objected to the application (dated 24th August 2010), however following further assessment of the information submitted they have no objections to the proposed development.
NERL SAFEGUARDING NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE (NATS) – CTC: The proposed development does not conflict with NERL safeguarding criteria. Accordingly NERL has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.
NYCC HIGHWAYS: No objections to the proposed scheme.
YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD: No comments are required as no public apparatus is proposed in the area.
ROBIN HOOD AIRPORT, DONCASTER / SHEFFIELD No objections as this development is unlikely to affect operations at Robin Hood Airport.
NORTH YORKSHIRE BAT GROUP: No response received on the application.
YORKSHIRE WILDLIFE TRUST: No response received on the application.
114 BBC, SPECTRUM PLANNING GROUP: No response received on the application.
THE BRITISH HORSE SOCIETY: No response received on the application.
CABLE & WIRELESS: No response received on the application.
DEVELOPMENT POLICY MANAGER: No comments on the application.
NEIGHBOURS:
Letters of objection were received from the occupiers of eight neighbouring properties. The letters raised the following concerns:
Impact on Character and Form • The proposal will not be in keeping with the surroundings. • The proposal will affect the character of the area. • Positioning of the turbine right at the very edge of the Escrick Park Estate seems totally inappropriate. • Whilst the proposed site is not within the Green Belt, it is near to the Green Belt and as such the landscape is not without quality worthy of protection.
Visual Impact and Amenity • Loss of amenity with the visual impact • Will be a great ‘blot’ on the landscape, which will impact on the view from surrounding properties. • Erection of a wind turbine would have an immense visual impact, it will have a detrimental affect and result in loss of amenity. • The turbine will exceed the height of existing screening from existing vegetation/trees and will be visible at properties in close proximity (including The Granary). • There is little tangible assessment of the impact of the proposed development on distant views. • The visual impact will be far greater in the winter months when very little screening will be available due to the deciduous nature of the trees. • The turbine will be visible and is not fully screened by existing vegetation/woodland.
Ecology • The proposal would have a detrimental effect on bird life, particularly red kite, buzzard, barn owl and snowy owl. • The area has abundant wildlife and probably supports a host of amphibians including newts and bats. • Applicant has provided no supporting information to verify the conclusions upon ecology and objectors consider the impact has been understated and the application should be supported by a desktop study to obtain any ecological data for the proposal and an extended phase 1 habitat survey. • No assessment of the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposed underground cabling to the Grid.
115 • Construction of an access road would have a highly detrimental effect upon the ecology within Gilberston’s Wood, Keldcarrs Plantation and the hedgerows along the length of its route.
Highway Safety • The track is used extensively as a bridleway, has no foundation or hardcore and is merely a strip of land along the hedgerow and no consideration appears to have been given to the potential risk or safety concerns to horse riders using the access track. • Construction of the new road cannot be described as upgrading an existing roadway and is essentially a new construction. The bridleway can only be accessed by off road vehicles at present and during winter it is completely waterlogged. • Application is not accompanied by any detailed transport assessment and therefore no detailed survey of the configuration of the site access nor consideration of any highway safety matters. • The proposed access is right on the bend of the road and will create a blind spot for traffic. • The choice of the access from Wheldrake Lane is wholly inappropriate.
Noise • The application contains insufficient information on noise impacts and no details of the times, locations, measurement of wind speed etc of any noise survey. Calculations and assessment methodology are not provided with the application. • The specified turbine noise levels for this system have not yet been verified in accordance with the required accreditation.
Blade flicker • The applicant has not provided sufficient information to verify the conclusions in terms of the potential impact upon dwellings in proximity to the development site posed by shadow flicker and blade glint.
Miscellaneous Issues • The proposal would have an impact on a holiday cottage business. • The infrastructure required to construct and maintain the turbine and road would be destructive and not justified. • What impact will the turbine have on flights from Elvington Airfield and local RAF bases? • There are financial rewards for erecting wind turbines, which are appearing like a rash all over the country, with very little regard to whether they are efficient, beneficial, healthy or needed. • Insufficient notice has been given to the peoples of Thorganby and Wheldrake. • Objectors understand that there is support in national planning policy for the provision of renewable energy projects however they do believe that any benefit must be balanced against the impact upon the surrounding area and its inhabitants. • No comprehensive assessment of the suitability of the location in terms of connection to the grid or the long-term viability of the wind turbine. • Consultation with the residents has been limited and there is a general lack of information with the application. • No information provided on anticipated period of construction. • A wind turbine in this location does not justify the disruption to the local residents, businesses and the environment.
116 • The average wind speed at the proposed site varies between 4.4 m/s and 5.4 m/s; how many days per year on average does the wind blow with sufficient strength, but not too strongly, to generate electricity? The average useful wind days per year has been calculated at 120 in recent research in other areas. • Is this single wind turbine the precursor to many more or will this always be a single turbine site? • Recent report submitted to the planning enquiry at Sheriff Hutton concluded that wind turbines should not be sited within 2km to the nearest habitation. This proposal is within 700 metres from our house and is far too near.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The application has been considered within the context of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulation 1999 with a view to determining whether an Environmental Impact Assessment was required. Taking into account the requirements of the Regulations and the guidance contained in Circular 02/99 it was determined that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required in this case.
POLICIES AND ISSUES: Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states "if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be, made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise". The development plan for the Selby District comprises of the policies in the Selby District Local Plan (adopted on 8 February 2005) saved by the direction of the Secretary of State.
Regional Spatial Strategy As of 6 July 2010 the Secretary of State announced that with immediate effect Regional Strategies have been revoked under s79(6) of the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and no longer form part of the development plan for the purposes of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Whilst it is acknowledged that there are numerous documents that relate to and encourage the use of Wind Energy and sustainable development, the following main planning polices and guidance are considered to be relevant to this proposal:
National Planning Guidance PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development Supplement to PPS 1 : Planning and Climate Change PPS5: Planning and the Historic Environment PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPG: 13 Transport PPS 22: Renewable Energy Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide to PPS22 PPG 24: Planning and Noise PPS 25: Developments and Flood Risk PPS25: Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide
Selby District Local Plan Policy DL1 Control of Development in the Countryside Policy ENV1 Control of Development Policy ENV6 Renewable Energy
117 Policy ENV 20 Landscaping Policy ENV21 Landscaping Policy GB4 Character and Visual Amenity in the Green Belt
Other Documents Consideration has been given to the following documents to which the applicants have made reference in their submissions:
• 2009 UK Renewable Energy Strategy • UK Low Carbon transition Plan (2009) • Consultation PPS : Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate • National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure
The applicants have made reference to the supporting information to the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and specifically Policy CP14. The Core Strategy has no weight in terms of the determination of applications at this time and does not form part of the development plan for the purposes of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
The main issues to be taken into account when assessing this proposal are: -
1. General Planning Policy Considerations for Renewable Energy Schemes 2. Principle of the Development in the Countryside and Consideration of Proposals for Renewable Energy 3. Impact on Landscape and visual amenity 4. Site Selection and Relationship to Proposed Conversion of Manor Farm 5. Noise Levels 6. Highways Safety and Access 7. Emissions and Electromagnetic Interference 8. Design, Materials and Landscaping 9. Impact on neighbouring Residential Amenity in terms of Flicker Effect 10. Impact on Protected Species 11. Flood Risk Implications 12. Other Considerations
1. General Planning Policy Considerations for Renewable Energy Schemes
PPS1 sets out the overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system.
The planning policy context under which renewable energy proposals should be considered is set at national level by Planning Policy Statement 22 (August 2004). PPS22 sets out the Government’s Sustainable Development Strategy including reduction of greenhouse gases, prudent use of natural resources and an ever-diminishing reliance of fossil fuel. In rural areas, it is recognised that renewable energy projects have the potential to play an increasingly important role in the diversification of rural economics. PPS22 states that wider environmental and economic benefits of renewable schemes are material considerations, whereas assumptions regarding technical and commercial feasibility should not be made. Small and large-scale developments are promoted, with large and small outputs acknowledged as valuable contributions.
118 An associated report “Planning for Renewable Energy – A Companion Guide to PPS22” provides information to support PPS22, and of particular relevance is technical Annex 8 on Wind. The Annex provides guidance on planning issues and relevant criteria that should be applied to proposals.
Planning Policy Statement 1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ states that the planning system needs to support the delivery of the timetable for the reducing carbon emissions from domestic and non-domestic buildings and that Local Planning Authorities should promote and encourage renewable and low carbon energy generation.
Paragraph 1 of PPS 22 ‘Key Principles’ also states that small scale projects can provide a limited but valuable contribution to overall outputs of renewable energy and planning authorities should not reject applications simply because the level of output is small.
Policy ENV6 of Selby District Local Plan also seeks to support renewable energy projects provided a number of issues are addressed, including effect on the immediate and wider landscape, proximity to electric grid or user buildings, noise, vehicle movements, emissions, electromagnetic interference, design, materials and landscaping and safeguard amenity and highway safety during construction.
2. Principle of the Development in the Countryside and Consideration of Proposals for Renewable Energy
PPS22 and its companion guide contain the guidance for renewable energy setting down the overriding principles. The above scheme would contribute to these objectives. This proposed Wind Turbine would therefore comply with National Planning Guidance with regard to Renewable Energy.
The application site lies within the open countryside and wind turbines are generally considered to represent appropriate forms of development to locate within rural areas, as they need space for operation. As such the proposal would comply with Policy DL1 (1) as being appropriate in principle in the countryside.
In line with Policy ENV6 of the Selby District Local Plan proposals for development for renewable energy will be permitted provided that a series of criteria are met. These criteria relate to: -
• impact on the immediate and wider landscape • location in relation to the electrical grid or buildings to keep power lines to a minimum • nuisance by virtue of noise, vehicular movements, emission and electromagnetic interference • design, materials and landscaping and • measures to safeguard local amenity and highway safety during construction.
Policy ENV6 also states that planning conditions will be used to secure the restoration of the site in the event of decommissioning.
Given the above, the proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle subject to meeting the other relevant policies of the Development Plan with regard to the developments impact on matters of acknowledged importance and subject to the tests in Policy ENV6 of the Local Plan.
119 3. Impact on Landscape and Visual Amenity
Criterion 1 of Policy ENV6 requires consideration of schemes for renewable energy in terms of any impact on the immediate and wider landscape. Policy ENV1 Criterion 4 also requires that proposals are considered in the context of the impacts on the site and its surroundings and Policy GB4 requires that proposals, within or conspicuous from Green Belts do not detract from the open character and visual amenity of the Green Belt.
PPS 22 advises that of all renewable technologies, wind turbines are likely to have the greatest visual and landscape effects, but the impact will vary depending on the size and number and the type of landscape involved and these impacts may be temporary if conditions are attached to planning permissions which require the future decommissioning of turbines.
The turbine is a tall structure located on level, open ground. As a result it will be visible and full concealment of the mast would not be possible. The applicant has considered a series of locations and has chosen a location that they consider to be a balance between securing the least impact on adjoining properties whilst ensuring effective connection to the network.
Notwithstanding the above it is noted that the site is not located in any landscape protected by national, or local designations and although located close to the boundary of the York Green Belt it is not located within the Green Belt itself.
The application site is located away from the Manor Farm conversion scheme and is set within an open field. The wider landscape is characterised by the relatively flat to very gently rolling arable landscape interspersed by blocks of woodland associated with the moraine belts of the Vale of York.
When viewed from the north the proposed site is set against the background of a L-shaped block of woodland comprised of Gilbertson’s Wood-Keldcarr Plantation and Gray Reins, which runs south-east from Wheldrake Lane and dog-legs to the west, just south of the site. Conversely this woodland block screens the site when viewed from the east and south. Again from road known as Mill Lane, which runs from Escrick to Skipwith, and to the west of the application site and partly from the north-west from Wheldrake Lane the view of the application site is broken up by the woodland blocks called Partridge Demise, Easterby’s Plantation and Millfield Plantation. The site is further screened from longer views by the numerous woodlands and copses and shelter-belts that are scattered across the wider landscape.
As such the proposed turbine, although clearly seen from a number of public vantage points would benefit from some vertical context within the landscape, arising from the woodland blocks and would largely be screened from longer distance views. The issue is not whether the turbine would or would not be seen. Most wind-farms and turbines by their very nature and their requirement for open environments and therefore are highly visible. Examples include the wind-farms at Ogden Moor (Calderdale), Millhouse Green (Penistone) and Easington, which are all set within very open situations.
120 In this particular instance it is considered that the proposal by virtue of woodland blocks would in part benefit from a degree of screening in the medium and long distance views and from the vertical context provided by nearby woodland blocks, such that it would not significantly detract from the character and openness of the surrounding area, the wider landscape and the nearby York Green Belt. Therefore the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of Policy ENV1, GB4 and Criterion 4 of Policy ENV6 of the Selby District Local Plan.
4. Site Selection and Relationship to Proposed Conversion of Manor Farm
As outlined earlier in this report the turbine is proposed as part of the scheme for the conversion of the Manor Farm complex which lies to the south west of the turbine site.
Policy ENV6 Criterion 2 states that schemes can be supported provided that they are located in close proximity to the electric grid or user buildings in order to keep new power lines to a minimum.
The Planning Support Statement submitted with the turbine application outlined that the site for the proposed turbine has been selected following technical assessments by accredited energy Consultants who considered four possible locations for the turbine. The chosen location was ultimately chosen as it was considered by the Applicants as the location that would be readily absorbed into the local landscape, would be appropriate in terms of the impacts from Wheldrake Lane and the private properties to the west of Gilbertson’s Wood and it would be able to effectively connect to the gird via underground connections.
The siting of a turbine at this location has therefore been linked by the applicants to a scheme for a live work unit at Manor Farm buildings that has not being supported by Officers for the reasons stated earlier in this report. On this basis the case for the siting of the turbine in this location as part of the sustainability element for the conversion scheme is no longer a required linkage as part of a local determination, however as also outlined earlier in this report the scheme for the conversion is the subject of an appeal which may be successful.
Without the linkage to the conversion it is considered that the siting of the turbine in this location should be questioned. If Members are minded to support a turbine in this location then it is considered that its implementation should be restricted to being in association with the conversion of the Manor Farm grouping. On this basis any permission granted should be subject to a condition to link the implementation of the turbine to the scheme for the conversion.
On this basis, subject to a condition linking the erection of the turbine to the conversion of Manor Farm the scheme would be considered acceptable under Policy ENV6 Criterion 2.
5. Noise Levels
Criterion 3 of Policy ENV6 requires consideration of schemes for renewable energy in terms of it giving rise to nuisance by virtue of noise.
PPS 22 advises that Local Planning Authorities should also ensure that renewable energy developments are located and designed in such a way as to minimise increases in ambient noise levels.
121
The application has been accompanied by some noise information as part of the initial application and as part of the additional information submitted on the 14th September 2010. The 14th September 2010 submissions include reference to a scheme for a turbine approved by the Council at Skipwith where a noise survey was submitted and supported by EHM. It is however considered that each scheme should be assessed on its merits and this scheme has to be assessed accordingly. Noise assessments do not just require details of the noise emitted from a source but also details of existing noise at receptor sites. The latter can vary from place to place depending on the characteristics and potential sources of noise within a locality. As such, a dwelling in a village locality, or one near to a highway may experience a higher ambient noise level than an isolated property and hence the noise from a given source may have different impacts on the occupiers of those properties. As such it is essential in most cases that an acoustic report containing measurements of noise levels at receptor sites is provided to allow the Local Planning Authority the ability to fully assess impacts of noise. However whether measurements are needed is dependant amongst other factors on the distance of the receptor site(s) to a source of noise.
With regard to the above the comments made by the Environmental Health Manager are accepted and it is concluded that given the technical specification of the turbine together with the distance from the surrounding properties that the proposal would not significantly detract, by virtue of noise, from the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties.
The proposal would therefore be acceptable having had regard to Policies ENV6 (3) and ENV2 (A) of the Selby District Local Plan.
6. Highways Safety and Access
Criterion 3 of Policy ENV6 requires consideration of schemes for renewable energy in terms of it giving rise to nuisance by virtue of vehicle movements. In addition Criterion 5 of Policy ENV6 requires consideration of highways safety at the construction stage. Policy ENV1 Criterion 2 also requires that schemes are assessed in terms of the impact on the highways network, the proposed means of access and the need for any improvements.
As outlined above the implementation of the scheme would require improvements to the bridleway and tracks serving the site and the provision of a base adjacent to the turbine which would provide parking in the longer term for maintenance and the initial hard base for the delivery/off loading of the turbine. In addition the applicants have offered two access options for the routing of access to the site for both the construction phase and the maintenance of the site in the longer term – one from Wheldrake Lane and one from Skipwith Road via Mount Pleasant Farm and past Manor Farm.
The initial construction stage for the proposed turbine would require access for 40 foot articulated container vehicles or 4 wheeled flat bed lorries. Vehicles will also need to access to the site for maintenance purposes. In addition hard-standing adjacent to the turbine site would be required to accommodate a crane for the construction stage.
Although the issues raised by objectors in relation to highway safety are noted the scheme and proposed access options have been considered by NYCC Highways and they have raised no objections to the proposed scheme in terms of highways safety. Therefore the
122 routing of the construction and maintenance vehicles can be subject of a condition requiring access to be taken to the site from both Wheldrake Lane or Skipwith Road as shown on the submitted plans.
The proposal would therefore be acceptable having had regard to Policies ENV6 (3), ENV6 (5) and ENV1 (2) of the Selby District Local Plan.
7. Emissions and Electromagnetic Interference
Criterion 3 of Policy ENV6 requires consideration of schemes for renewable energy in terms of it giving rise to nuisance by virtue of emissions and electromagnetic Interference.
Consultations have been undertaken with the Ministry of Defence, the local airport operators, National Air Traffic Service (NATS - who provide air traffic control services to aircraft flying in UK airspace), the Joint Radio Company and Council’s EHM team. No objections have been raised in terms of these bodies in relation to the scheme in terms of electromagnetic interference.
The scheme would not result in any emissions generated given that it is a turbine. Therefore it is considered that there are no impacts to be assessed in this instance. Furthermore no evidence has been placed before Planning Committee demonstrating that the proposal would result in electromagnetic interference.
The proposal would therefore be acceptable having had regard to Policies ENV6 (3) of the Selby District Local Plan.
8. Design, Materials and Landscaping
Criterion 4 of Policy ENV6 requires consideration of schemes for renewable energy in terms of securing a high standard of design, materials and landscaping.
The proposed scheme is for a standard turbine design and no further landscaping is proposed as part of the scheme. However given the particular circumstances of this proposal no further landscaping is considered necessary.
The proposal would therefore be acceptable having had regard to Policies ENV6 (4) of the Selby District Local Plan.
9. Impact on Neighbouring Residential Amenity in Terms of Flicker Effect
Criterion 5 of Policy ENV6 requires consideration of schemes for renewable energy in terms of securing that adequate measures are incorporated to safeguard local amenity during construction. Policy ENV1 Criterion 1 requires the consideration of the effect upon the amenity of adjoining occupiers which in this instance is taken to be the surrounding residential properties. Policy DL1 also requires consideration of the impact of development on the residential amenity of an area.
One potential impact on residential amenity is shadow flicker. Paragraph 73 of the Planning for Renewable Energy, Companion Guide to PPS22 states that ‘under certain combinations of geographical position and time of day, the sun may pass behind the rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring properties. When the blades
123 rotate, the shadow flicks on and off, the effect is known as shadow flicker. It only occurs inside buildings where the flicker appears through a narrow window opening. The seasonal duration of this effect can be calculated from the geometry of the machine and the latitude of the site’.
Whether flicker occurs depends on a number of factors but the Companion Guide states that ‘only properties within 130 degrees either side of north, relative to the turbines can be affected at these latitudes in the UK. Paragraph 76 of the Companion Guide goes on to state ‘flicker effects have been proven to occur only within ten rotor diameters of a turbine. Therefore if the turbine has 80m diameter blades the potential shadow effect could be felt up to 800m from a turbine’.
The proposed turbine has blades with a radius of 9.5 metres giving an overall diameter of 19.2 metres and therefore shadow flicker should only be experienced up to 192 metres from the turbine. The turbine would be situated at least 700 metres from the nearest dwelling in the locality with the nearest dwelling being Gilbertson House (based on the plans submitted, despite contradictory distances in the submitted reports). As such the proposal should not affect the amenity of any neighbouring property by virtue of shadow flicker. The applicant has submitted his own appraisal of shadow flicker, which concurs with officers’ own assessment.
As such, in terms of shadow flicker it is considered that the proposal would not be contrary to Policies DL1, ENV1 (1) and ENV6 (5).
10. Impact on Protected Species
Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan states that the Council in considering proposals will take into account, amongst other things, the potential loss of wildlife habitats. Further policy and guidance is provided by PPS9: Planning Policy Statement 9 “ Biodiversity and Geological Conservation” and accompanying ODPM Circular 06/2005 “Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. Further guidance in relation to the ecology and habits of bats and great crested newts is provided by English Nature’s Bat Mitigation Guidelines and Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. These documents have been taken into account in the following assessment.
In respect to the impacts on ecology the comments made by objectors area noted, in particular that red kites, buzzards, barn owls have been recorded in the area, in addition to several species of bats. Objectors have also suggested that there may be amphibians and in particular newts in the area.
Having had regard to the above it is noted that the application site is located within the midst of an arable field. Arable fields have very little nature conservation value in themselves usually being formed by a monoculture, which is subject to pesticide sprays.
In relation to protected sites the application site is approximately 4.1km from the Derwent Valley SSSI, RAMSAR Site, Special Protection Area and Special Area for Conservation and approximately 4.6km from Skipwith Common SSSI, National Nature Reserve to the south of the village of Skipwith. However given these distances it is considered that the proposal would have no significant impact on the special nature conservation interests of these sites.
124 In relation to impacts on Red Kites and Buzzards, it is noted that these species have extensive territories. No information has been provided by objectors to suggest that either species are breeding in the immediate vicinity of the proposed turbine or evidence provided that the proposed turbines would pose a significant risk over and above that of other turbines and wind-farms that are in existence. In relation to impacts on Snowy Owls it is noted that this species is a rare visitor to the northern extremities of the British Isles. It is not native to Yorkshire and its occurrence would be as an erratic. As such the proposal is extremely unlikely to impact on this species.
In addition barn owls hunt at low level over areas of semi-natural grassland, a habitat which is well known to support small animals which form its prey. Given the distance of the turbine from areas of semi-natural grassland and the height to the lowest point of the turbine blade it is considered that the proposal would not have a significant impact on barn owl populations.
In relation to bats it is noted that all species of native British bat are protected under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 1994. In respect to impacts of development proposals on protected species planning policy and guidance is provided by Planning Policy Statement 9 “ Biodiversity and Geological Conservation” and accompanying ODPM Circular 06/2005 “Biodiversity and Geological Conservation- Statutory Obligations And Their Impact Within The Planning System”. The presence of a protected species is a material planning consideration.
Bats normally travel alongside landscape features such as the edge of woodlands, hedgerows and streams and ditches. Specific guidance in relation to wind turbines and bats is provided by Natural England Technical Information Note TIN051 which states that in order to minimise risk to bat populations a 50metre buffer should be placed around any feature (woodland and hedges) into which no part of the turbine should intrude. In this respect it is noted that the turbine would be 57 metres from the nearest stream, hedge or woodland. It is noted that there are several scattered trees nearer to the turbine, however given their arable setting, relative isolation from other semi-natural vegetation and susceptibility to pesticide drift it is considered that these would be less attractive to bats then full woodland edges and streams with their abundance of invertebrates. As such it is concluded that the proposal would not pose a significant risk to bats.
In respect to amphibians and in particular the great crested newt it is noted that the latter regularly moves up to 250 metres from breeding ponds and can migrate up to 500 metres. In this respect it is noted that the turbine would be approximately 600metres from the nearest pond, which is situated to the north of the Manor Farm grouping. In addition the application site is comprised of arable land, which is known to be sub-optimal as a habitat for amphibians. Therefore on the basis of the limited size of the turbine site, the nature of the development, its distance from the nearest pond, and the habitat/ nature of the land that it would disturb, that there would be no material impact on any species of amphibian, and in particular the great crested newt.
Therefore in respect to potential impacts on acknowledged nature conservation interests the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to the guidance in PPS9 and accompanying ODPM Circular 06/2005.
125 11. Flood Risk Implications
The wind turbine is sited outside any defined Flood Zones and positioned in an arable field. The turbine will have a 5sqm concrete base and any surface water run off will drain away into the field surrounding the turbine. It is therefore considered that due to the position of the turbine it would neither contribute to flooding, or be adversely affected by flooding. The proposal is therefore in accordance with national guidance contained within PPS25.
12. Other Considerations
House Prices Devaluation of House prices is not a material planning consideration and cannot be taken into account in the determination of this planning application.
Impact on Elvington Airfield Officers have verified with the MOD that Elvington Airfield is no longer owned by the MOD. In addition the facility is no longer listed in the UK Terminal Charts or in the British Isles and North Atlantic listings as an operational aerodrome. Nor is it listed as a focal point from an aerodromes operator’s perspective. As such it is not considered that the proposal would have an impact on the operation of the airfield.
Sherriff Hutton Case Objectors have made reference to a Planning Inquiry at Sheriff Hutton where they have stated it was concluded that wind turbines should not be sited within 2km to the nearest habitation. Officers have spoken with Officers at Ryedale District Council and they have confirmed that no Public Inquiry has been held in relation to turbines in their area and no such scheme has been considered. Officers have also contacted the objectors to seek further information on this case. However at the time of the completion of this report the case was still to be identified.
Access Road and Ecological Impacts Objectors have raised concerns in terms of the ecological impact of the construction of an access road on Gilberston’s Wood, Keldcarrs Plantation and the hedgerows along the length of its route. The scheme does include improvements to the access routes alongside existing woodland. The access routes are largely existing routes and their improvement is not considered to be of significant impact in ecological terms. Disturbance could occur to breeding birds and therefore an informative could be added to any decision making reference to the legislation in the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
Need for Detailed Transport Assessment Objectors have raised concerns in terms of the lack of a detailed transport assessment as part of the application. The scheme is below the threshold that would require a detailed transport assessment and is considered acceptable to NYCC Highways Officers.
Impact on Business Objectors have raised concerns in terms of the impact on business in the area principally in terms of the impact on views from nearby holiday cottage lets. The scheme is considered to be acceptable in principle in the open countryside. On this basis the impact on the letting of holiday lets in the area is considered to not outweigh the benefits of the scheme in other terms.
126 Financial rewards and Case for the Scheme in terms of Viability Objectors have raised concerns in terms of the long-term viability of the scheme and the case for the scheme in terms of financial reward. These are commercial considerations that are for the applicants to assess and are not considered to be material to the decision making process on this application.
Consultations Objectors have raised concerns in terms of the consultation process on the application and the notification of residents. The Council advertised the application via a site notice, through consultation with 4 Parish Councils and through letters to immediate neighbours in the area which were posted and hand delivered in this instance. On this basis it is considered that the acceptable consultations have been undertaken.
Construction Timeframe Objectors have raised concerns in terms of the period of construction for the scheme. The Council has requested clarification on this matter from the Applicants and Members will be updated on this matter at Committee.
Wind Speeds Objectors have raised concerns in terms of the location of the turbine in terms of attainable wind speeds and whether the wind speeds are of sufficient strength. The suitability of the site has been assessed by the Applicants and the Council is not in a position to question this assessment.
Precursor to Further Turbines Objectors have raised concerns that this is the first turbine on the Estate and more will follow. The Council is required to consider the application as submitted and any future applications would be considered on their merits at the time of consideration.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed scheme is for a 50 KW Wind Turbine in association with the conversion of the Manor Farm grouping to the south west of the turbine site. It is acknowledged that there are numerous documents that relate to and encourage the use of wind energy and sustainable development.
PPS22 and its companion guide contain the guidance for renewable energy setting down the overriding principles. The above scheme would contribute to these targets and objectives. This proposed Wind Turbine would therefore comply with national planning guidance with regard to Renewable Energy.
The proposed wind turbine complies with local plan policies in terms of providing renewable energy and nature conservation. It is considered that the scale, appearance and location of the proposed wind turbine would be such that it would not have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the open countryside, and that any visual harm likely to result from the wind turbine is outweighed by the benefits of the proposal in terms of contributing to renewable energy targets, and meeting the objectives of PPS22. It is also considered that based on the submissions the proposal would not have an acceptable impact on neighbouring amenity.
The proposal is considered therefore to meet the requirements of Policies ENV1, ENV6, ENV2 (A) and ENV8 of the Selby District Local Plan, and the guidance in PPS22.
127
RECOMMENDATION:
01. The development for which permission is hereby granted shall be begun within a period of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
02. The turbine hereby permitted shall not be erected until a scheme for the conversion of Manor Farm to live-work units or offices has been approved and commenced. The turbine shall not be operational until the units at Manor Farm are completed.
Reason: The use would be unjustified in this location unless part of the conversion scheme for Manor Farm.
03. The development hereby permitted shall take place strictly in accordance with the terms of the submitted application and plans. The maximum height to tip of turbine blade will be 34 metres.
Reason: This condition is imposed because in reaching its decision, the Local Planning Authority has had regard to all the information submitted.
04. Access to the turbine site should be taken from Wheldrake Lane or Skipwith Road via the routes shown on Plan EPE/Y/0241/1 Revision A as received on the 14th September 2010.
Reason In the interest of residential amenity in line with the objectives of Local Plan Policies ENV1.
05. This permission is for a period not exceeding 25 years from the date that electricity from the development is first connected. Within three months of the cessation of electricity generation at the site, a scheme for the removal from the site of the turbine and associated works, including, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, the turbine foundations and underground cabling, and the restoration of the land to its previous condition, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter restoration shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme within 12 months of the restoration scheme being approved by the Local Planning Authority, or such other period as the Authority may agree.
Reason This condition is imposed to protect the visual amenities of the area and to ensure that the turbine is removed from the site at the end of their operational life, and to protect the character of the countryside and visual amenity of the area and to accord with the objectives of Local Plan Policies ENV6, ENV9 and ENV10.
128 06 No development shall take place until details of the external appearance (including colour finishes) of the turbine to be erected have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out as approved and the agreed colour finishes of the wind turbines shall not be changed without the prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: This condition is imposed in order to ensure there is a satisfactory relationship between the proposed development and the surrounding area.
07 If the wind turbine hereby permitted fails to produce electricity for a continuous period of 12 methods, the wind turbine and ancillary equipment shall be removed from the site within a period of 9 months from the end of the 12 months period and the site returned to its former agricultural use.
Reason This condition is imposed to protect the amenity of local residents from the adverse effects due to noise nuisance.
129
Maps and Plans available on request from the Planning Department
130
Maps and Plans available on request from the Planning Department
131
APPLICATION 8/19/1762A/PA PARISH: Selby Town Council NUMBER: 2010/0605/HPA
APPLICANT: Barratt Homes VALID DATE: 11 June 2010 Yorkshire East Division EXPIRY DATE: 6 August 2010 PROPOSAL: Erection of a 1.8m high boundary wall with timber infill panels
LOCATION: 24 The Haven Selby YO8 8BJ
This application is brought before committee as it is considered to be of local controversy.
DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The Site
The site is located on a prominent corner plot on a new open plan housing estate. The estate comprises high density 3 storey town houses with parking at the front and has little landscape or amenity value.
The Proposal
This application seeks full planning consent for the erection of a 1.8m high boundary wall with timber infill panels adjacent to the existing dwelling at 24 The Haven.
Planning History
In 2004 an application (reference number 8/19/1451/PA) for residential development of 206 units consisting of 132 apartments and 74 dwellings, the re-instatement of a public footpath and the provision of associated access and parking arrangements was approved.
An application (reference number 8/19/1762/PA) for the erection of a 1.8 metre high close- boarded timber fence was subsequently withdrawn before determination.
CONSULTATIONS
SELBY TOWN COUNCIL: No response received.
NORTH YORKSHIRE HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY: No objections raised.
PUBLICITY: All immediate neighbours were notified and a site notice was erected.
132 Two letters of objection have been received one of which contains the signatures of the occupiers of nine neighbouring properties.
The objections raised are:
- Dominance of the wall. - Prominence of the location of the wall. - That the wall should be put back two metres as agreed.
POLICIES AND ISSUES:
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states "if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be, made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise". The development plan for the Selby District comprises of the policies in the Selby District Local Plan (adopted on 8 February 2005) saved by the direction of the Secretary of State.
National Policy PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development.
Regional Spatial Strategy
As of 6 July 2010 the Secretary of State announced that with immediate effect Regional Strategies have been revoked under s79(6) of the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and no longer form part of the development plan for the purposes of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Selby District Local Plan
ENV1; Control of Development.
ASSESSMENT
The site is located on a new housing estate within development limits and the application relates to the replacement of an existing unauthorised boundary fence with a wall with timber infill panels.
The most relevant planning policy is considered to be Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan. Criteria 1 of Policy ENV1 relates to the character of the area and criteria 4 relates to the standard of layout, design and materials in relation to the site and its surroundings.
The character of the area (The Haven) can be defined as an open plan housing estate comprising high density, three storey town houses, with parking at the front. There is very little soft landscaping and the street scene appearance is very urban and bland. The existing 1.8m high timber fence on the site is located up to the footway, in part, and is almost parallel with front of the houses identified as 24 and 26 The Haven. It is proposed to replace the boundary fence with a brick wall with timber infill panels.
At the entrance to The Haven there are 1.8m high timber fences with grass verges and planting in front of them similar to the proposal on the application site. However, these
133 fences enclose the rear gardens of older properties that were not part of The Haven development. A separate application is currently under consideration for a boundary wall at the side of 1 The Haven, which is also a prominent corner plot and additionally is visible from the site entrance.
Elsewhere on the estate prominent plots have been predominantly bounded by brick walls with timber infill panels. These are considered to be of suitable quality design and materials. Standard 1.8m high fencing is generally used on less visible boundaries at the rear of properties and between dwellings etc. Indeed condition 11 on the original planning permission for the housing development states “Details of the boundary treatment, in the form of screen walls or wooden fencing where appropriate, shall ….. Reason: To provide a satisfactory appearance to the development in the interests of amenity.” Officer’s interpretation of this would be that screen walls were expected in general, particularly in prominent locations and wooden fencing may be appropriate in less visible areas.
The current proposal is to replace the existing fence with a wall with timber infill panels. It should be noted that there is already some soft landscaping in front of part of the proposed wall although it would do little to soften its appearance.
The Council expressed a preference, in pre-application discussions, for the boundary treatment on this plot to be a brick boundary wall with timber infill panels set back from the footway with landscaping in front. This higher quality boundary treatment would undoubtedly result in a greater enhancement to the appearance of the area, over that of the existing fence and would be more in keeping. However the sitiing of this boundary treatment adjacent to the public highway is considered to result in a dominant feature which detracts from the amenity of the area.
CONCLUSION
The revised details of the boundary, being a brick wall with timber infill panels is welcomed. However, the prominence of this boundary treatment is not considered to be acceptable on this corner position. The proposal is therefore considered to be unacceptable and contrary to policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
This application is recommended to be Refused for the following reason:
1. By virtue of its siting the proposed boundary treatment would result in a detrimental impact upon the character and form of the locality to the detriment of visual amenity contrary to Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
134
Maps and Plans available on request from the Planning Department
135
Maps and Plans available on request from the Planning Department
136
APPLICATION 8/19/1736B/PA PARISH: Selby Town Council NUMBER: 2010/0604/HPA
APPLICANT: Barratt Homes VALID DATE: 11 June 2010 Yorkshire East Division EXPIRY DATE: 6 August 2010 PROPOSAL: Erection of a 1.8m high boundary wall with timber infill panels
LOCATION: 1 The Haven Selby YO8 8BJ
This application is brought before committee as the proposal is considered to be of local controversy.
DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The Site The site is located on a prominent corner plot on a new open plan housing estate. The estate comprises high density 3 storey town houses with parking at the front and has little landscape or amenity value. There is a children’s play area to the rear of the site and a small area of public open space opposite the front of the property.
The Proposal This application seeks full planning consent for the erection of a 1.8m high timber boundary fence adjacent to the existing dwelling at 1 The Haven.
Planning History In 2009 an application (reference number 2009/0162/FUL) for retrospective permission for the retention of a 1.8m high close boarded timber fence was refused.
An application (reference number 8/19/1736A/PA) for the erection of a 1.8 metre high close-boarded timber fence was subsequently withdrawn from determination.
In 2004 and application (reference number 8/19/1451/PA) for residential development of 206 units consisting of 132 apartments and 74 dwellings, the re-instatement of a public footpath and the provision of associated access and parking arrangements was approved.
CONSULTATIONS
SELBY TOWN COUNCIL: No response received.
NORTH YORKSHIRE HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY: No objections raised.
PUBLICITY: All immediate neighbours were notified and a site notice was erected.
137
Four letters of objection have been received one of which contains the signatures of the occupiers of eight neighbouring properties.
The objections raised are: -
- The wall should be sited where it originally was. - The wall detracts from the open plan nature of the area. - The proposed wall does not compare with that at 2 The Haven, which should not be used as a precedent.
In addition three letters have been submitted by the applicant in relation to the proposal. These letters state the boundary treatment is required as a security feature and that the boundary treatment is required to provide privacy to the rear garden area of the property. In addition it is stated that the wall at 2 The Haven sets a precedent for such a boundary treatment.
POLICIES AND ISSUES:
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states "if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be, made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise". The development plan for the Selby District comprises of the policies in the Selby District Local Plan (adopted on 8 February 2005) saved by the direction of the Secretary of State.
Regional Spatial Strategy
As of 6 July 2010 the Secretary of State announced that with immediate effect Regional Strategies have been revoked under s79(6) of the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and no longer form part of the development plan for the purposes of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Selby District Local Plan
ENV1- Control of Development.
National Policy
PPS1: Delivering sustainable Development
ASSESSMENT
The site is located on a new housing estate within development limits and the application relates to the relocation of an existing unauthorised boundary fence. The retention of the existing fence was refused in June 2009, by planning committee, for the following reason:
“The site is located in an area intended to be open plan and the design, materials and positioning of the boundary fence right up to the pavement are considered to detract from the character and appearance of the area. As such the approval of this application would be contrary to policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.”
138
The most relevant planning policy is considered to be Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan. Other policies that have been referred to by residents were previously taken into account when determining the application for the whole estate however they are not considered to be directly relevant to the current application.
Criteria 1 of Policy ENV1 relates to the character of the area and criteria 4 relates to the standard of layout, design and materials in relation to the site and its surroundings.
The character of the area (The Haven) can be defined as an open plan housing estate comprising high density, three storey town houses, with parking at the front. There is very little soft landscaping and the street scene appearance is very urban and bland.
At the entrance to The Haven there is a 1.8m high timber fencing similar to that of the proposed fence on the application site. Further into the estate other prominent plots are predominantly bounded by brick walls with timber infill panels. Whilst the brick walls with infill panels are also very prominent, particularly when located right up to the edge of the footpath, they are considered to be of higher quality design and materials. Standard 1.8m fencing is generally used on less visible boundaries at the rear of properties and between dwellings etc.
Indeed condition 11 on the original planning permission for the housing development states “Details of the boundary treatment, in the form of screen walls or wooden fencing where appropriate, shall ….. Reason: To provide a satisfactory appearance to the development in the interests of amenity.”Officer’s interpretation of this would be that screen walls were expected in general, particularly in prominent locations and wooden fencing may be appropriate in less visible areas.
Original plans for The Haven development show that this plot was intended to have a 1.8m high fence running parallel to the side of the house within about 1m of the garage. Whilst the remaining land was intended to be additional garden land for this plot (and not public open space) it was proposed to be bounded by a knee rail fence that retained the open plan nature of the development.
The current proposal is to replace the fence with a wall with timber panels. This partly addresses (although does not necessarily over come) the previous reason for refusal, regarding the details of quality of materials and design of the fence. However the siting of the boundary treatment remains unchanged. The Council has, in pre-application discussions, expressed preferences for the boundary treatment on this plot to be completed either in accordance with the original approval, that is for the 1.8m high fence to be set well back alongside the garage and knee high rails erected adjacent to the footway or for a brick boundary wall with timber infill panels set back from the footway with landscaping in front. It was also advised that any wall or fence should be parallel to the house and/or angled at the corner to create a more open appearance. All of these preferences have been dismissed by the other parties involved on the grounds loss of usable private garden space and security reasons.
The current proposal does not fully address the previous reason for refusal and a quality boundary treatment, as proposed, set further back from the footpath would undoubtedly result in a greater enhancement to the appearance of the area and would be more in keeping with the intended open plan character of the area. Whilst there are other wooden fences set back from the footpath adjacent to either side of the estate entrance, these fences enclose the rear gardens of older properties that were not part of The Haven
139 development and which nether the less have a greater set back from the footpath than the proposed fence.
A separate application is currently under consideration for a boundary wall with inset fencing at the side of 24 The Haven, which is also a prominent corner plot.
CONCLUSION: The revised design and materials of the boundary treatment only partly addresses the previous reason for refusal. The concerns in relation to retaining the open plan character of the area have not been fully addressed and as such the proposal is still considered to be unacceptable and contrary to policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
This application is recommended to be refused for the following reason:
1. The site is located in an area intended to be open plan and the positioning of the boundary wall right up to the pavement are considered to detract from the character and appearance of the area. As such the approval of this application would be contrary to policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
140
Planning Appeal Decisions
Received between 4 September 2010 and 1st October 2010
Local Authority Ref: 2009/0521/FUL Inspectorate Ref: APP/N2739/A/10/2124401 Site Location: Mount Pleasant Cottage York Road Barlby YO8 5JZ Proposal: Conversion of outbuilding to create one dwelling
Status: Appeal Allowed
Local Authority Ref: 2009/1072/HPA Inspectorate Ref: APP/N2739/D/10/2133396 Site Location: Common Farm Southmoor Road Thorganby Proposal: Proposed demolition work and erection of two storey extension Status: Appeal Dismissed
Local Authority Ref: 2009/0881/OUT Inspectorate Ref: APP/N2739/A/10/2126122 Site Location: Proctor House Market Weighton Road North Duffield Proposal: Outline application for the erection of a dwelling Status: Appeal Dismissed
Local Authority Ref: ENF/2010/0080/ENF Inspectorate Ref: APP/N2739/C/10/2130510 Site Location: Land at Mill Farm Old Great North Road Brotherton Proposal: Appeal against the issuing of an enforcement notice concerning the change of use of the land to caravan storage and importation of material without planning permission Status: Appeal Dismissed and enforcement notice is upheld without variation.
141 Local Authority Ref: 2009/0864/FUL Inspectorate Ref: APP/N2739/A/10/2127465 Site Location: 9 Moor Lane Sherburn In Elmet Proposal: Three storey extension to side of, and two storey extension above existing single storey extension to facilitate the conversion to a three storey house Status: Appeal Dismissed
142