Meeting: PLANNING COMMITTEE Date: 8 JUNE 2011 Time: 4.00PM Venue: COMMITTEE ROOM 2 To: Councillors J Cattanach, I Chilvers, J Crawford, J Deans (Chair), Mrs D Davies, D Mackay, J McCartney, Mrs E Metcalfe, C Pearson (Vice Chair), D Peart, Mrs S Ryder and S Shaw-Wright. Agenda
1. Apologies for absence
2. Disclosures of Interest
Members of the Planning Committee should disclose personal or prejudicial interest(s) in any item on this agenda.
3. Minutes
To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 6 April 2011 (pages 3 to 15 attached).
4. Chair’s Address to the Planning Committee
5. Planning Applications Received
Reports of Business Manager – Dylan Jones
5.1 2010/0386/COU - Lowfield Road, Hillam, Leeds (page 17) 5.2 2011/0222/FUL - Swandam Wood, Sutton Lane, Byram (page 41) 5.3 2011/0303/HPA - Coldhill Farm, Coldhill Lane, Saxton, LS25 3EE (page 51) 5.4 2011/0286/HPA - Rose Villa, Castle Hill Lane, Drax, YO8 8NP (page 62) 5.5 2010/1179/FUL - 1 Chapel Lane, Riccall (page 73) 5.6 2011/0253/FUL - Selby War Memorial Hospital (page 88) 5.7 2011/0404/FUL - Selby War Memorial Hospital (page 97) Planning Committee 8 June 2011 1
6 Consultation response to North Yorkshire County Council
Report of Business Manager – Dylan Jones
2010/1315/CPO – Darrington Quarries, Stubbs Lane, Criddling Stubbs (page 106)
7 Planning Appeals Decisions
Reports of Business Manager – Dylan Jones (page 157)
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
Jonathan Lund Deputy Chief Executive
Dates of next meetings 6 July 2011 7 September 2011 12 October 2011 9 November 2011 7 December 2011 11 January 2012 8 February 2012 7 March 2012
Enquiries relating to this agenda, please contact Karen Mann on: Tel: 01757 292207 Fax: 01757 292020 Email: [email protected]
Planning Committee 8 June 2011 2 SELBY DISTRICT COUNCIL
MINUTES
Minutes of the proceedings of a meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday 6 April 2011, in Committee Rooms 1& 2, The Civic Centre, Portholme Road, Selby, commencing at 4.00pm.
674 Apologies for absence 675 Disclosures of Interest 676 Minutes 677 Chair’s Address to the Planning Committee 678 Planning Application - 2010/14301/FUL – Dovecote Park, Bankwood Road, Stapleton. 679 Planning Application - 2010/1143/FUL – Central Car Park, Chapel Street, Tadcaster 680 Planning Application - 2010/0256/COU – Former Little Chef and Filling Station, Bramham Crossroads, Stutton 681 Planning Application - 2009/0747/FUL – Papyrus Works, Newton Kyme 682 Planning Application - 2010/0749/FUL – Parsonage Hotel, Escrick 683 Planning Application - 2010/0750/LBC – Parsonage Hotel, Escrick 684 Planning Application - 2010/0741/CON – Parsonage Hotel, Escrick 685 Planning Application - 2011/0044/FUL – Tesco Express, Doncaster Road, Brayton, Selby 686 Planning Application - 2010/1333/REM – Stan Valley, Little Smeaton 687 Planning Application - 201/0041/FUL – Mushroom Farm, Gravehill Lane, Whitley 688 Planning Application - 2011/0188/FUL – Kimberley, Went Edge Road, Kirk Smeaton 689 Planning Application - 2010/0676/OUT – Selby Garden and Pet Centre, Hull Road, Osgodby 690 Planning Application - 2010/0857/OUT – Whitefield Lane, Whitley, Goole 691 Planning Application - 2011/0103/COU – Thorganby Methodist Church, Thorganby
Present: Councillor J Deans in the Chair
Councillors: J Cattanach, I Chilvers, Mrs D Davies, Mrs C Goodall, W Inness, D Mackay, Mrs E Metcalfe, C Pearson, Mrs S Ryder and S Shaw-Wright.
Officials: Head of Service – Development Services, Manager of Development Management, Council Solicitor, Principal Planning Officer, Senior Planning Officer, Planning Officers and Committee Services Officer.
Also in Public Speakers: Gillian Ivey, Peter Boyes, Stuart Natkus, Rob Smith, Harry Attendance: Wolton, Malcolm Sizer, Robert Walker, Anthony Hargreaves, Jude Thurlow and Pauline McMorris.
Public: 12 Planning Committee 6 April 2011 3
Press: 0
674 Apologies for Absence and Notice of Substitution
No apologies were received.
675 Disclosure of Interest
Disclosures of interest were received from Councillor Mrs E Metcalfe who declared a Personal Interest with regard to application 2010/1143/FUL, Central Area Car Park, Tadcaster as she owned property on Kirkgate, Tadcaster. Councillor D Mackay declared a Personal Interest with regard to application 2009/0747/FUL, Papyrus Works, Newton Kyme as he had spoken at the last Planning Committee meeting on this item. Councillor Deans declared receipt of letters from the applicant of the Planning Application for Kimberley, a letter from the Land Development Practice and the Applicant for the Application for Dovecote Park.
676 Minutes
Resolved:
That the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday 9 March 2011 be confirmed as a correct record and be signed by the Chair.
677 Chair’s Address to the Planning Committee
The Chair welcomed all to the meeting and paid tribute to the late David Fagan for his work as a Councillor and a member of the Planning Committee. Members of the Committee joined the Chair in mourning the loss of a valued colleague.
Site Allocations Development Plan Document
Due to the level of interest in the Allocations Development Plan Document the consultation period has been extended until 18 April to allow more time for comments.
Planning Applications Received
Consideration was given to the schedule of planning applications submitted by the Head of Service – Development Services. The Principal Planning Officer updated the Committee in respect of a letter from the Chief Planner to the Government and its accompanying ministerial letter and stated
Planning Committee 6 April 2011 4 that this has been taken into account but did not change the recommendations contained in the agenda.
678 Application: 2010/1301/FUL Location: Dovecote Park, Bankwood Road, Stapleton. Proposal: Application for extensions to the existing Dovecote Park complex incuding a new car park and car park access
The Planning Officer reported that the applicant is seeking permission for extensions to the existing Dovecote Park complex including a new car park (270 spaces 26 of which are disabled spaces) and car park access. The proposal involves several extensions, structures and outbuildings to the existing complex that vary in size and design.
Public Speaker – Gillian Ivey
• Potential growth with over 400 jobs • No objections to the extension from local residents • HGV traffic is a problem on the small and bending road, possibly needs to be widened • Car park is in the Green Belt and currently screened by Leylandi Trees • Suggest a smaller area for the car park • Lighting needs to be subdued during the evening, perhaps movement activated lighting
Public Speaker – Peter Boyes
• Been operating since November 1997 with a turnover of over £124 million in the last financial year • Main supplier of beef to Waitrose who are increasing their requirements • 70 further jobs possible plus construction jobs whilst work is being completed • Considered and carefully designed to operate as efficiently and sustainably as possible • All consulted parties are pleased with the proposal • Benefit the local economy • Proposed development is critical to the future of the business
Resolved:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the amended conditions listed in the officer’s update report.
Planning Committee 6 April 2011 5 679 Application: 2010/1143/FUL Location: Central Car Park, Tadcaster Proposal: The resurfacing of car park to include the formal delineation of 143 car parking bays, 3 disabled bays and 4 motorcycle bays and including amendments to access and egress junction and drainage work.
The Principal Planning Officer reported that the application site is Chapel Street Car Park, which is known as Tadcaster Central Area Car Park. The officer briefly went through the items raised by objectors, which were included on the update report circulated and changes to paragraphs 6 on page 52 of the agenda to the end of paragraph 5 of page 63 which should be deleted and replaced with the following text:
“In respect of the issue of private rights of access and restrictive covenants, these are private civil matters and are not material planning considerations. Notwithstanding this, there is the issue that the policy test under VP2 requires that there should not be any loss of car parking spaces. Therefore, should any car parking spaces, shown on the proposed plans, need to be deleted because they are later proven to obstruct a private right of way then this would not in effect result in a de facto loss of car parking on the ground as these should not be counted as existing car parking spaces in the first instance.”
Resolved:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions listed in the officers report.
680 Application: 2010/0256/COU Location: Former Little Chef and Filling Station, Bramham Crossroads, Stutton Proposal: Application for change of use of former restaurant to B1 office, A1 retail or A3 café/restaurant and petrol filling station building to B1 office.
The Principal Planning Officer reported that the application site is comprised of the former Little Chef and petrol filling station with associated areas of hard-standing to the north of the east bound carriageway of the A64 to the east of its Junction with the A1(M).
The Principal Planning Officer also reported that the Environment Agency had removed its objection subject to conditions added requiring the submission of a preliminary risk assessment, site investigation scheme, remediation strategy and verification plan for dealing with land contamination.
Planning Committee 6 April 2011 6 Public Speaker – Stuart Natkus
• Lesser impact on openness • 10 years ago it was a Little Chef Restaurant • From the approach the development cannot be seen • From the A64 the car park would not impact on the openness of the Green Belt • There will be potential jobs • There is a bus stop 800 metres away and both cycle and footpaths to the site from Tadcaster • It would promote economic development and be sustainable
Resolved: That;
The application be APPROVED and the reasons are:
i) Reuse of a Brownfield Site ii) No intrusion into Green Belt by virtue of vehicles iii) In accordance with the latest circular which promotes employment iv) Reuse of a disused site v) Officers be given delegated authority to attach the appropriate conditions to the permission to be granted.
Councillor D Mackay left the meeting.
681 Application: 2009/0747/FUL Location: Papyrus Works, Newton Kyme Proposal: Proposed residential development of 140 dwellings with associated landscaping, public open space, footpath/cycle route and parking and erection of 14 No employment units at former Papyrus Works
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the proposal is a mixed use development and the main elements of the proposal are summarised in the report. Members of the Committee were asked to note the items listed in the update report.
Public Speaker – Rob Smith
• The height of the properties would not exceed 2.4m • The development will be no bigger than the original footprint • The development will have better landscaping and openness • The Green Belt Policy is complied with
Planning Committee 6 April 2011 7 • It is designated for development as part of the Development Plan • Open up the viaduct access • The Housing Delivery states that 35 affordable houses are needed – the development is below the 40% threshold however it is in line with the District Valuers assessment of viability • The proposals accord with Green Belt Policy • High level benefit including footpaths, cycleway and viaduct improvements
RESOLVED:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and the completion of the S106 Agreement in the officers report and update report.
Councillor D Mackay rejoined the meeting. 682 Application: 2010/0749/FUL Location: Parsonage Hotel, Escrick Proposal: Erection of a hotel spa building
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the scheme is for the provision of a single storey hotel spa building with basement within the hotel grounds, which would be ancillary to the main uses of the hotel. As part of the application demolition is proposed of an existing greenhouse structure and lean-to outbuilding, along with part of the boundary wall alongside the demolition of two other outbuildings, equating to a footprint of 170 square metres.
The Senior Planning Officer also informed the Committee the applicants had demonstrated that Very Special Circumstances exist in support of the proposal.
Public Speaker – Harry Wolton
• Positive negotiations had taken place between the officers and agents • Hotel is expanding and customers expect a spa in the hotel • Without a spa the hotel would not be viable • The harm is minimal • Objections received have been taken into consideration by the applicant
Resolved:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions in the officers report. Planning Committee 6 April 2011 8 683 Application: 2010/0750/LBC Location: Parsonage Hotel, Escrick Proposal: Application for Listed Building Consent for the demolition of outbuildings to facilitate the erection of a hotel spa building
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the scheme is for the provision of a single storey hotel spa building with basement within the hotel grounds, which would be ancillary to the main uses of the Hotel.
Resolved:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions in the officer’s report.
684 Application: 2010/0741/CON Location: Parsonage Hotel, Escrick Proposal: Demolition of outbuildings and wall.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the application relates to the demolition of outbuildings and wall within the walled garden as a prelude to a wider scheme for the provision of single storey hotel spa building with basement within the hotel grounds, to be used ancillary to the main Hotel.
Resolved:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions in the officer’s report.
685 Application: 2011/0044/FUL Location: Tesco Express, Brayton, Selby Proposal: Section 73 application for variation to condition 24 of approval 2009/0555/FUL to allow deliveries to the site to take place between the hours of 7.00am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday, 8.00am and 12 noon on Saturdays and 10.00am and 2.00pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays, with the exception of newspaper deliveries.
The Planning Officer reported that the proposal results in an amendment of the existing conditioned consent to provide for deliveries between 10.00am and 2.00pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
Public Speaker – Mrs Pauline McMorris
• Speaking on behalf of the residents of Brayton • Extra delivery times would detract from the residential amenity • When the delivery bays are full the two lay-bys for buses have HGV’s waiting in them which causes problems for drivers on the highway
Planning Committee 6 April 2011 9 • There can be up to 30 vehicles at a time queuing • Tesco Express already do not comply with the original conditions so by agreeing to further delivery times this will make the matter worse • Residents have sent in formal complaints about the noise and nuisance caused by deliveries, residents need their rest on a Sunday
Public Speaker – Jude Thurlow
• Speaking on behalf of Brayton Parish Council who object to the proposal • The current planning conditions need to be enforced • Breaches to the conditions have been reported to the Parish Council and Selby District Council • HGV deliveries block the line of sight from residents and other drivers on the highway
• Lorries arrive at 6.00am and enter via the ‘no entry’ entrance
• Original application took into account that residents were allowed rest
days and the new proposal would upset residents
• There are houses on three sides of the property • Significant detrimental impact to nearby residential occupants • Health and Safety Risk to pedestrians and other drivers
Public Speaker – Peter Gleave
• Tesco Express is convenient to local residents • Need to give the same level of service as main shops to allow people unnecessary journeys into the main town • Express stores need fresh food delivered daily • Noise level tests been completed to nearby gardens and comply with national and international guidelines • Agreeable to a condition to vary the time imposed
Resolved:
That the application be REFUSED for the reasons in the officer’s report.
686 Application: 2010/1333/REM Location: Stan Valley, Little Smeaton Proposal: Reserved Matters application following outline approval
The Planning Officer reported that the proposal is a reserved matters submission for the approval of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of a single swelling, following the grant of outline consent by the Planning Committee on the 17 September 2008. The principle of the development has therefore been established. Planning Committee 6 April 2011 10 Public Speaker – Anthony Hargreaves
• Unadopted road since October 2008 • Single carriageway up and down Stan Valley • Limited turning space at the end of the cul-de-sac • 25m Poplar Trees may become unstable and have been there over 35 years • Raised issues with drainage which appear to have been ignored • Over development of a small village • Residents will lose their local amenity
Public Speaker – Gillian Ivey
• Local residents are objecting to the development
• The land currently floods and will continue doing so
• Access is the main concern, there is no turning circle simple an entrance which would have to be reversed from by the occupier • Impossible to reverse and turn unless the driver reverses up the entire distance of Stan Valley onto the main highway • North Yorkshire Highways had commented previously but this has been ignored
Resolved:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions in the officer’s report.
687 Application: 2011/0041/FUL Location: Mushroom Farm, Gravehill Lane, Whitley Proposal: Application for the erection of two growing houses with central arcade, staff facilities building, management offices, packaging building, wood chipping building and plant room at Whitley Farm, Gravelhill Lane, Whitley
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the application relates to the expansion of the existing mushroom growing enterprise. It is proposed to erect two additional growing blocks comprising of 18 growing rooms each connected by a central arcade, a purpose built packing house, staff welfare facilities, a plant room and a designated business/management office.
The Officer also informed that Committee that further consultation updates were added to the officers update report circulated.
Planning Committee 6 April 2011 11 Public Speaker – Gillian Ivey
• Another responsible employer in Whitley ward, providing almost 300 jobs • Parish Council met with the Manager and the company have agreed to a litter pick on the surrounding area • New signage and conditions need to be put in and stricter enforcement must be taken • A proposed passing place needs to be improved on Fulham Lane.
Public Speaker – Stuart Natkus
• Highways improvements for the site to be implemented • New junctions and passing places to be installed on Fulham Lane access
Resolved:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions in the officer’s report.
688 Application: 2011/0188/FUL Location: Kimberley, Went Edge Road, Kirk Smeaton Proposal: Conservation area consent for demolition of existing bungalow and planning permission for a replacement with 1 no. dwelling.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the proposal was to demolish an existing bungalow and replace it with a two storey detached house. The officer also reported that there was an error on page 296 of the agenda and there will be no roof lights or accommodation in the roof space and the garage will be integral not attached with storage space above as stated in the original report.
Public Speaker – Malcolm Sizer
• Speaking on behalf of the residents • Three areas of concern: i) New dwelling will over-develop the site ii) New dwelling will be a two storey building iii) Double the volume of the dwelling • The size of the property would have an adverse impact on the Green Belt • Overlooking is an issue to Stone Croft • If the application is granted a second application could be submitted for the other part of the site • Could a condition be imposed to move the oil tank on site? Planning Committee 6 April 2011 12 Public Speaker – Robert Walker
• The floor area will be reduced by 50% • The previous application had been for a six bedroomed property, reduced to a four bedroomed property • Three of the neighbours had either 5 or 6 bedroomed properties • All neighbours properties are two storey dwellings • Significant steps had been taken to reduce the floor space • It would no longer over developed the site • The loss of the second floor windows will benefit the other residents
• Rear garden will have boundary fencing and hedging
Resolved:
That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions in the officer’s report and update report.
The Chair asked the Committee if they would be willing to continue with the
meeting as the three hour deadline arrived. The Planning Committee
Members agreed to continue with the meeting.
689 Application: 2010/0676/OUT Location: Selby Garden & Pet Centre, Hull Road, Osgodby Proposal: Outline planning for the erection of residential dwellings following the demolition of Garden and Pet Centre with all matters reserved on land at Selby Garden and Pet Centre.
The Planning Officer reported that this application is brought before Planning Committee under the delegation agreement due to the size of the development and due to it being a departure from the Development Plan in respect of Policy H2A of the Selby District Local Plan.
The Planning Officer informed the Committee that the application had to be re-advertised as a departure and that this period would not expire until 14 April 2011. As such members could only give a minded decision.
Public Speaker – Stuart Natkus
• There is no visual impact in existence • The five year development for housing does not conflict with the principle development • Holmes Lane in Selby should have 354 properties but only 30 properties per year • need to be built in the next 5 years
Planning Committee 6 April 2011 13 • Staynor Hall development states 700 houses in 5 years, having assessed the site this may not be achievable • Mill Lane Tadcaster has had planning permission since 1984 but had not been developed • Site on the Civic Centre land – 63 houses • Whitley Lodge – only 44 houses • Ullerskelf – 39 houses • Riccall – 15 houses in flood zone 2 • If there is not an amendment on delivery then there would only be a supply of housing for three and a half years not five years as stated by officers
• The application site is in a sustainable location
• Allocation site in Osgodby already there
Resolved: That;
i) The Planning Committee were minded to REFUSE the application for the reasons stated in the officer’s report; and ii) The authority to determine the application be granted to officers following the expiration of the 21 day consultation period.
Councillor Shaw-Wright left the meeting.
Application: 2010/0857/OUT 690 Location: Whitefield Lane, Whitley, Goole
Proposal: Outline application for the erection of 3 No. agricultural
buildings plus the siting of a temporary agricultural worker’s dwelling,
with all matters reserved
The Planning Officer reported that 29 letters of objection had been received
from local residents and in addition objections had been received from
Whitley Parish Council, the Environmental Health Manager and Chris
Clubley & Co. (acting as the Council’s Agricultural Consultant).
The Planning Officer informed the Committee that the application had to be
re-advertised as a departure and that this period would not expire until 14
April 2011. As such members could only give a minded decision.
Resolved: That;
i) The Planning Committee were minded to REFUSE the application for the reasons stated in the officer’s report; and ii) The authority to determine the application be granted to officers following the expiration of the 21 day consultation period.
Planning Committee 6 April 2011 14 691 Application: 2011/0103/COU Location: Thorganby Methodist Church Proposal: Proposed change of use from Chapel to Residential Unit
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the applicant seeks permission for the conversion of a chapel to a three-bedroom dwelling with a single drive. There would be very limited external alterations to the buildings, which would include the demolition of a flat roofed extension. The proposal includes the formation of a first floor by the inclusion of an internal mezzanine floor.
Resolved:
That the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.
Appeals Decisions
The report was noted.
The meeting closed at 7.55pm.
Planning Committee 6 April 2011 15 Items for Planning Committee 8 June 2011
File Number: Site Address: Case Officer Page 2010/0386/COU Lowfield Road, Hillam, Leeds KERO/ JOOS 17 2011/0222/FUL Swandam Wood, Sutton Lane, Byram RABA 41 2011/0303/HPA Coldhill Farm, Coldhill Lane, Saxton, LS25 3EE SIEA 51 2011/0286/HPA Rose Villa, Castle Hill Lane, Drax, YO8 8NP SIEA 62 2010/1179/FUL 1 Chapel Lane, Riccall LOMI 73 2011/0253/FUL Selby War Memorial Hospital KERO 88 2011/0404/FUL Selby War Memorial Hospital KERO 97
16 6 E S N W 17 <
2010/0386/COU LowfieldRoad,Hillam
APPLICATION SITE APPLICATION
Address: This map has been reproduced This from map reproduced has been the Ordnance Survey with the ofmapping permission Her Majesty's stationary office. © copyright.Crown
Item No: Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright Crown may and to infringes reproduction Selby lead or prosecution Districtproceedings. Unauthorised civil 100018656 Council: 18
Public Session
Agenda Item No: 5.1 ______
To: Planning Committee Date: 8 June 2011 Author: Kevin Robinson (Senior Planning Officer) Lead Officer: Richard Sunter (Principal Planning Officer) ______
APPLICATION 8/56/226/PA PARISH: Monk Fryston Parish NUMBER: 2010/0386/COU Council
APPLICANT: Mr Christopher VALID DATE: 26 April 2010 Johnson EXPIRY 21 June 2010 DATE: PROPOSAL: Change of use of land to showpeoples quarters
LOCATION: Lowfield Road Hillam Leeds West Yorkshire
Summary:
This item is brought to committee for a minded determination on the proposal further to a recently submitted planning appeal against non-determination of the application. This item was previously deferred at 25 August 2010 Planning Committee to enable further consideration of Highways Safety objections received prior to the meeting. A Transport Statement was received from the applicants on the 17 February 2011 with consultations having been undertaken upon receipt.
There is substantial local interest in this application with 108 letters of objection being received. In addition Objections have been received from the Local Ward Members and Monk Fryston and Hillam Parish Councils.
19 The proposal is for the change of use of land to showpeoples quarters at a site that is located outside of the defined development limits of a settlement and therefore located in the countryside. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal meets an identified social or economic need of a rural community. Furthermore the proposal does not meet any of the other criteria in policy DL1 of the Local Plan. In addition the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is a traditional need for showpeoples quarters within the Selby district
As such the proposal is not acceptable in principle being contrary to the test of Policy H16 and Policy DL1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
Recommendations:
i. This application is recommended for a minded REFUSAL on the following grounds:
1. Introduction and background
1.1 The Site
1.1.1 The site is located approximately 1 kilometre to the east of Monk Fryston and lies within an area of open countryside but outside of the Green Belt designation. The boundary of the Green Belt runs along the North boundary of the A63 and Western edge of Lowfield Road. The proposal site comprises a parcel of agricultural land of approximately 1.47 hectares. The site has open aspects to the North, East and West with a site comprising 3 wooden stable blocks to the South. The adjacent site is currently subject to an Enforcement Notice for the change of use from agriculture to equestrian use consisting of three wooden stable blocks, and the siting of touring caravans, small plastic containers with steel frame, tyres, wooden equipment, hardcore and associated equipment stored on the land.
1.2 The proposal
1.2.1 The proposal is for the change of use of land to showpeoples quarters creating eight number plots with an associated maintenance and storage area to each plot. The site is to be accessed from Lowfield Road and hedgerows with intermittent tree planting to the north, east and southern boundaries are proposed. A 1.8 metre high serpentine wall is proposed to the western (Lowfield Road) boundary set approximately 3 metres from the highway with planting indicated in front.
1.2.2 The proposal is for a permanent site and as such would be required to comply with the provisions of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
20
1.2.3 Showpeople are defined in Circular Guidance 04/2007 as being ”members of a group organised for the purposes of holding fairs, circuses or shows (whether or not travelling together as such). This includes such persons who on the grounds of their own or their family’s or dependants’ more localised pattern of trading, educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, but excludes Gypsies and Travellers as defined in ODPM Circular 1/2006”.
1.2.4 The Circular also notes that Showpeople are “members of a community that consists of self-employed business people who travel the country often with their families, holding fairs”. The Guidance goes on to state “Many of these families have been taking part in this lifestyle for generations. Although their work is of a mobile nature, showpeople nevertheless require secure, permanent bases for the storage of their equipment and more particularly for residential purposes. Such bases are most occupied during the winter, when many showpeople will return there with their caravans, vehicles and fairground equipment. For this reason, these sites traditionally have been referred to as “winter quarters”, with individual pitches generally referred to by showpeople as plots. However, increasingly some members of the family occupy showpeople’s quarters permanently. Older family members may stay on site for most of the year and there are plainly advantages in children living there all year to benefit from uninterrupted education”
1.3 Planning History
1.3.1 The site has no recorded planning history.
1.4 Consultations
1.4.1 Monk Fryston Parish Council:
Raised objections on the following grounds: - The proposed development is a departure from the SD Local Plan and should be referred to the Secretary of State as required. - The proposals contravene SDLP Policies ENV1, DL1, EMP6, EMP7, T1, T2 and National Policies PPS 7 and PPS 4. - The site is a major development, is not in a sustainable location, has a significant impact on agricultural interest ( taking up Grade 2 Agricultural Land) and is not in accordance with Policy H16 which in any case only applies to Gypsy Site Provision. There is no specific Policy for Showpeople in SDLP - Visual impact from the Green belt which borders the site - Adverse impact on the recreational facilities comprising the football field which is a short distance away
21 - Adverse impact on adjoining agriculture - Traffic volumes, noise and safety concerns - Adverse impact on local wildlife, including several Priority species in the Selby Biodiversity Action Plan - Overall negative impact on the character and visual impact of the area
1.4.2 In addition Monk Fryston Parish Council has instructed Sanderson Associates Consulting Engineers to provide a detailed response to the Applicants Transport Statement. The Assessment provided raises quires over the suitability of the access provision:
- The proposed development would still have a material harmful impact on the operation of the A63 by the intensification of use of the substandard junction of Lowfield Road and the A63 principal road. Whilst improvements are proposed to this junction they do not satisfactorily accommodate the expected movements of vehicles to the development and particularly those of the Showpeoples trade vehicles, and as such the use of the junction will be detrimental to the free and safe flow of traffic on the A63. - The site cannot be realistically accessed by sustainable modes of travel and as such is non compliant with national policies and with the lack of facilities’ would pose a significant danger to both users of the site. - Finally the applicant’s ability to deliver the proposed highway improvements and the potential physical impact on adjoining land of the works has not been resolved and the granting of any planning consent may be inappropriate until such matters are clarified.
1.4.3 Hillam Parish Council: Raised objections on the following grounds:
- The site is agriculture. - The development is out of character with the village. - Access onto the A63. - Width of Lowfield Road.
1.4.4 District Councillor Raised objections on the following grounds:
- There is a previous refusal for development adjacent to the site (cattery and Kennel) - The application is a departure and should be referred to the Secretary of State - Impact upon the Green Belt - Highways safety - Visibility splays - Urbanisation of the open countryside
22 - Noise disturbance - Functional and Financial test required by PPS7 has not been carried out - The proposal is not in a sustainable location - Loss of agricultural land - Regard must be had to the abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategy
1.4.5 Further to the reconsultation an additional letter of representation was received from both Local District Councillors. The additional letter raised the following objections:
- The A63 is a fast track 60mph busy route with a high accident frequency with several fatalities between Hambleton and Monk Fryston. - There have been previous planning applications on Lowfield Road refused by Selby District Council and the Planning Inspectorate including Boarding Kennels (Appeal Ref: APP/N2739/A/08/2071285). - The previous refusal for boarding kennels was recommended by the Highways Authority for the following reasons “ The Planning Authority considers that the public highway leading to the site is of insufficient width to accommodate the increase in heavy traffic, without serious damage to the carriageway and verges of the highway and consequent loss in amenity value”.
Also this stretch of highway does not have the benefit of adequate lighting, drainage, passing places and the junction with Lowfield Road and the A63 would require significant improvement which may not be possible because of land ownership issues.
It is noted that whilst the applicant proposes to improve the A63 junction and increase the width of Lowfield Road to the site however there will still be no adequate lighting, inadequate drainage and no passing places on Lowfield Road south of the proposed showman’s site entrance.
- In Appeal Reference APP/N2739/A/08/2071285 Lowfield Road Hillam the Inspector concluded that for the road speed on the A63 the “Y” distance should be 215m in both directions and that the “X” distance should not be reduced below 4.5m at the junction between the A63 and Lowfield Road. This is a substantive finding by the inspector and carries significant weight in this determination.
The applicant’s Transport Statement merely states that the visibility sight lines at the major/ minor priority junction will be maintained. Sanderson Associates Appraisal report Para 2.13 states “Sightlines as measured at a set back of “X” distance of 2.4 are in the order of
23 72 and 133m to the left and right of the junction respectively.” The sightlines are restricted by a combination of the alignment of the A63 and the presence of vegetation in and adjacent to the highway verge. It should also be noted that the inspector in the above appeal did not consider it a realistic proposition to use legal powers to periodically clear vegetation.
Para 3.8 states that for a route such as the A63 sight line standards are drawn from Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, TD42/95 which indicates for an 85 percentile wet weather approach speed of traffic of 63mph the site lines should be 4.5m x 215m which agrees with the Planning Inspector in the case of the Boarding Kennels. Although a reduction in the set back to 2.4m is permissible this relates only “to single dwellings or small cul de sac of half a dozen dwellings.” In this proposed Showpeoples’ development of potentially 32 units this is significantly over the half dozen and more importantly will comprise an element of large slow moving HGV’s which require adequate vision and time before attempting to exit the side road. - 8 residential zones are shown on the site plans it has been stated at the site visit that up to 4 caravans may be accommodated in each zone. As such the overall occupancy level of the development in the fullness of time after allowing for extended family could potentially increase to 32 caravans with at least 16 families eventually occupying the site. - In considering the occupancy of the site, and the number of vehicles and total journeys per week the worst-case scenario should be considered not the purported occupancy at the commencement of the development. Furthermore the anticipated vehicles and journeys per week are substantially understated. The submitted Transport Statement is considered to seriously understate the realistic likely traffic volumes as the site expands through the build up on extended family units. - The ideas of walking and cycling to work and school and to visit amenities is laudable however it is totally unrealistic in practice. There are no footpaths either along Lowfield Road, Hillam common Lane or the A63. The existing bus stop can only be accessed along the A63 which has no lighting or footpath and it is unlikely that the Bus company will put two stops within 150 yards of each other. - The site is not accessible by sustainable modes of travel and as such is non compliant with national policies and with a lack of facilities would pose significant danger to users of the site. - The ability to actually deliver the proposed highway improvements is in question with potential impact upon adjoining land.
1.4.6 North Yorkshire Gypsy and Traveller Officer:
24 Due to statutory requirements to Local Authorities nationally, North Yorkshire County Council commissioned research to find out the needs of Showpeople in North Yorkshire. This research was undertaken by Arc4 and this letter of support will summarise the key findings. The research was to: • Build upon the initial findings of the accommodation assessment and the 62 interviews carried out with Showmen; • Review the travelling patterns of Showmen within North Yorkshire; • Consider the particular pitch requirements of Showmen by local authority district; • Review the facilities required, including pitch size; • Enable further consultation with the Showmen’s Guild on accommodation requirements.
The findings confirm as follows: -
Pitch Provision requirements:
A shortage of 54 plots identified throughout North Yorkshire.
Potential Distribution of New Permanent sites
New Permanent Site % Preferences No. Plots Locations
York 23.3 13 Hambleton 19.4 11 Selby 18.4 10 Harrogate 17.5 9 Richmondshire 9.7 5 Craven 6.8 4
As the information above confirms, the shortage of plots/pitches for Showpeople and their families in Selby is a total of 10 plots/pitches. The site Mr Johnson is proposing is providing within the maximum number of pitches that Selby District Council are required to provide.
1.4.7 North Yorkshire Highways Authority:
No objections, request conditions to require improvements to the access from Lowfield Road and onto the A63.
Further to the Applicants Transport Statement prepared by L.D.A (Civils & Transportation) Ltd the County Highways Officer provided a further consultation response. The reconsultation provided the following response:
Visibility splay.
25 I am aware that the visibility splay (in each direction) shown in the submitted Sanderson Associates Transport Statement (Appendices B) shows that the visibility is obscured by vegetation from adjoining sites. However, depending upon the time of the year these sight lines can be either increased and decreased depending upon the season. As this sight line is needed to ensure safe access from Lowfield Road (public highway) onto the A63 (public highway) and the site is passed regularly by NYCC Highway Inspectors and any issues are dealt with accordingly. The highway extends from one boundary feature on one side to another boundary feature on the opposite side. Only in exceptionally rare instances does the extent of the Highway include those boundary features. This means that walls and hedges alongside a Highway are owned by those persons along whose frontage they are situated. Obstruction of the Highway caused by hedges, trees and other vegetation is an offence under the Highways Act 1980 and owners can be told to remove that obstruction. Powers exist (and are regularly used) for the Highway Authority to undertake the removal of the obstruction where the owner fails to cooperate, and to recover the costs from the owner. The law on obstruction of a Highway overrides any protection afforded to a hedge under the Hedgerow legislation or any protection afforded by a Tree Preservation Order under the Town and Country Planning Act.
Manual for Streets guidance: At present NYCC uses the rule that all highways in built up areas will be classified as “streets” provided that the measured 85 percentile speed is less than the specified speed limit or 60kph (37mph) whichever is the lesser. The corollary of this is that all other highways outside built up areas and those where the 85 percentile speed criteria is not met will be “roads” and NYCC standards will apply, so an “Y” distance of 215m will be required for this stretch of road.
Highway Boundary (Lowfield Road) There has been much discussion regarding the extent of the highway boundary. However, with very few exceptions, highways that NYCC maintain are not actually owned by the Council. The only exception is where a piece of land was specifically purchased in order to build a road, etc. The law assumes - unless there is evidence to the contrary, that a highway is owned by the frontagers on each side up to the centre line of the highway. The presence of highway rights automatically means that landowner rights are not able to be used. It is up to the applicant to prove that the road improvements can be undertaken within the public highway boundaries and is a matter between themselves and the land owners if additional land is required.
Highway Improvements (Lowfield Road/A63) The applicant is willing to improve the junction with A63 by widening the road, bringing the gradient to a safe level and I have also requested that additional signage is provided to highlight that there is a junction ahead and slow moving vehicles are a possibility. On this issue, the
26 applicant has been willing to undertake all the requested highway improvements to ensure safe access is provided not only for the residents of the site, but also for the benefit of all the highway users of the this junction.
I am aware that the Transport Statements from both parties have limitations, data can be incomplete and can be uncertain and unknown and some of the assumptions are only an approximation. Historical information (accident data etc) is used to forecast future events, but significant limitations may result.
Any junction onto a 60mph road will have inherent safety implications. If the road bends, vehicle speeds are reduced, but achievable visibility splays cannot meet NYCC requirements, but a straight 60mph road will have the effect of speeding up vehicles while at the same time increase the likelihood that the required visibility is provided.
With this in mind, the applicant is willing to improve the junction, provide additional signage and as part of NYCC's duties, the sight lines should be maintained at all times.
1.4.8 Environment Agency: No objections but request an informative for a requirement for Environmental Permitting Regulations.
1.4.9 Environmental Health Officer: No objections.
1.4.10 Yorkshire Water Services: The proposed development is in an area remote from the existing mains network. For further details the applicant should contact the Distribution Asset Manager.
This proposal is in an area not served by the public sewerage system , the application should be referred to the Environment Agency and the Local Authority's Environmental Health Section for comment on private treatment facilities.
1.4.11 Selby Area Internal Drainage Board: No objections. Advise that the local authority satisfy themselves that the ground conditions are suitable all year for the proposed soakaway.
1.5 Publicity
All immediate neighbours were informed by letter, a site notice was erected and the application advertised in the local press.
108 objection letters have been received and the following summarises the main concerns raised:
27
- Over subscription of the local school - Access to the site, large vehicles accessing onto the A63 which is a high speed road. - The access road would need widening to accommodate vehicles. The applicants do not own the land to do this. - The site is adjacent to the Green Belt and impacts upon the open aspect of the site. - Impact upon nature and the environment particularly Brown Hares. - Impact upon the community of the village. - No economic benefit to the village. - The caravans would be an eyesore. - Impact upon property prices. - Flood Risk. - Noise generation. - Impact of fencing. - The proposal would result in pressure to infill from the village. - Other sites are available on brownfield land. - Applications on adjacent fields have been refused. - The applicants have a site at Upton, why do they wish to move to this site. - Runoff water from the site may be contaminated with fuel and oil. - Loss of grade 2 agricultural land. - Question as to whether the applicant is a travelling showperson. - Coming and goings will be at any time 24/7 365 days a year. - The functional and financial test of PPS7 has not been submitted. - Question the use of a package treatment plant, and the impact of discharge on adjacent crop fields. - Health services - The Conservation Area is only 100 yards away. - Lighting of the site. - Lack of pavement to the site. - The proposal is commercial in basis with plots let out. - Object to the provision of a secure boundary as it could be regarded as the start of a new hamlet. - The proposed occupiers are not local and the applicant is voluntarily looking to leave their site.
3 letters of support were also received raising the following:
- A letter from the applicants children’s Head Teacher thanking him for his contribution to school activities. - A letter from a neighbour to the applicants existing accommodation in Upton, drawing attention to the insecurity of tender at the site, that there attention has never been drawn to the site and of the prejudices against Showpeople.
28 - A letter from a family friend drawing attention to the lack of facilities at the Upton site. Particularly an inadequate winter supply of water in winter due to frozen pipes.
2. The Report
2.1 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 and the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and the Humber (adopted 2008).
2.2 Regional Spatial Strategy
2.2.1 In respect of the recent announcement by the Secretary of State in regard to his stated intention to abolish regional spatial strategies and the subsequent challenge by Cala Homes, the courts have ruled that the letters of the Secretary of State are material and that it is up to local planning authorities to determine what weight should be afforded to them. Officers consider that, at this point in time, given the letters merely refer to an intention to abolish regional spatial strategies and that the abolition is dependent on the passage of the Localism Bill through Parliament substantial weight should still be afforded to the Regional Spatial Strategy and that only limited weight should be afforded to the letter from the Secretary of State.
2.3 Relevant policies include 2.3.1 There are no policies within the Selby District Local Plan that directly relate to Travelling Show People Sites. As such the application has been advertised as a departure.
2.3.2 There are policies which relate to Development in the Open Countryside, Highways Safety and Visual amenity. The following Policies within Selby District Local Plan are considered to be the basis for the assessment of this application:
ENV1: Control Of Development DL1: Control of Development in the Open Countryside H16: Gypsy Site Provision T1: Development in Relation to the Highway Network T2: Access to Roads GB4: The Character and Visual Amenity of the Green Belt
National Policies considered particularly relevant include:
29 PPG2: Green Belts PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPG13: Transport
Guidance is also provided in Communities and Local Government Circular 04/2007- Planning for Travelling Show People.
Within the introduction to Circular 04/2007 para 9 states “Travelling showpeople do not in general share the same culture or traditions as Gypsies and Travellers” and goes on in Para 15 to state “travelling showpeople” means
‘Members of a group organised for the purposes of holding fairs, circuses or shows (whether or not travelling together as such). This includes such persons who on the grounds of their own or their family’s or dependants’ more localised pattern of trading, educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, but excludes Gypsies and Travellers as defined in ODPM Circular 1/2006’.
2.4 Key issues
2.4.1 The key issues in the determination of this application are: -
1. The principle of the development 2. Impact on the character and form of the area 3. Layout, Design and Scale 4. Sustainability 5. Impact on amenity 6. Impact on highway safety 7. Biodiversity 8. Drainage 9. Loss of Agricultural Land
2.5 Need for referral to the Secretary of State as a Departure
2.5.1 The application has been advertised as a Departure from the Development Plan in line with the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultation) (Departures) Direction 1999. The advertisement of the application as a Departure under this direction does not automatically require the application to be referred to the Secretary of State.
2.5.2 The Town & Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 Circular: 02/2009 relates to developments affecting five categories: Green Belts; retail, leisure and office developments outside town centres; world heritage sites; playing fields; and flood risk.
30 2.5.3 The scheme has been assessed against the criteria in the Circular in each of these instances and it is considered that the application would not need to be referred to the Secretary of State.
2.6 The Principle of the Development
2.6.1 The application site is located outside the defined development limits of Monk Fryston and is therefore situated in the open countryside. Policy DL1 of the Selby District Local Plan set the criteria for when development in the open countryside will be considered acceptable.
2.6.2 The development proposes to change the use of land to Showpeoples’ Quarters. There are no specific development plan policies relating to accommodation for “travelling showpeople” however Policy H16 of the Selby District Local Plan relates to small scale proposals for the accommodation of gypsies and travellers. Whilst recognising that “Travelling Showpeople” are not part of the Gypsy and Travellers community in accordance with circular 4/2007 they have similar requirements to them and therefore the Policy H16 along with DL1 should form the basis for the consideration of this proposal.
2.6.3 Criterion 3 of Policy DL1 allows for development that “is required to meet an identified social or economic needs of a rural community”. Policy H16 states “small scale proposals for the accommodation of gypsies may be permitted as an exception to Policy H9 (No longer saved by the direction of the Secretary of State) provided there is an established traditional need”.
2.6.4 The applicant has submitted a case to address the requirements of policy DL1 and H16 in regards to a social and economic need and traditional need. The applicants in their supporting statement at paragraph 5 places emphasis on there being no designated sites for Travelling Showpeople within North Yorkshire. The case is then expanded drawing support from the arc4 report which states in the section on “North Yorkshire Accommodation Requirements of Showmen” that the “chronic overcrowding of at yards in neighbouring authorities is exacerbated by the lack of provision for Showmen within North Yorkshire”. The case for a demand for sites in North Yorkshire is further supported in the arc4 Report when considering the overcrowding of sites in West Yorkshire that “this is not to dismiss the issue as one restricted to West and South Yorkshire, as survey respondents clearly stated, these yards are overcrowded due to lack of provision elsewhere”. The applicant also provides letters of support from six Travelling Showmen being prospective occupiers of the site.
2.6.5 In December 2009 The North Yorkshire Accommodation Requirements of Showmen: Final Report was published. This finds (para 4.8) that there is a shortfall within North Yorkshire of 54 plots for Showmen, this figure is in addition to the 113 plot shortfall identified in the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment. It also finds that sites should be
31 prioritised in the central corridor which includes the Hambleton, York, Harrogate and Selby area. The NY Accommodation Requirements of Showmen: Final Report identifies that 18.4 % of those questioned had a preference for a site within Selby this has lead to a projected shortfall need for 10 plots within the district.
2.6.6 Further to the Showmens’ Accommodation Assessment (December 2009) Selby District Council Policy and Resources Committee had consideration of the report on 27 July 2010 where it was resolved:
i) That, Councillors agreed to receive the Showmen report by arc4 (December 2009). However in light of the Secretary of State’s statement on 6 July, Councillors’ have considered the findings included in this document as a indicative starting point and have taken into account historic and local considerations.
ii) That, Council concludes there is no local or historic demonstrated need for a permanent site for showmen in Selby District and therefore no provision for this use is to be included in the Local Development Framework documents.
2.6.7 It is considered that the preference for 10 plots within Selby District is not an identified need but rather a desire within the showpeople community to have sites within the district. Whilst it is noted that the applicant intends to occupy one of the plots, there is no information to ensure those indicated as prospective occupants will occupy the remaining plots. In this respect it the application must be considered to be on a speculative basis. As such the application fails to demonstrate that there is an identified social or economic need and a traditional need to provide permanent sites for travelling showpeople within the district.
2.6.8 The proposal is therefore not considered to meet an identified social or economic need of a rural community nor a traditional need and is therefore not acceptable in principle being contrary to the test of Policy DL1 and H16 of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.7 Sustainability
2.7.1 The issue of sustainability in relation to the provision of Travelling Showpeople sites is addressed in Circular 04/2007 – Planning for Travelling Showpeople.
2.7.2 Showpeople are a community consisting of self employed business people who travel, often with their families, holding fairs. Circular 04/2007 makes it clear that the nature of such sites is unusual in planning terms in that there is a requirement for a combination of residential, storage and maintenance uses with links to good communication routes. Paragraph 55 of circular 04/2007 states that
32 “LPA’s” should have regard to the same broad principles for locating housing developments set out in PPS3 housing. Accessibility to existing local community facilities, infrastructure and services, including public transport should be considered”.
2.7.3 Circular 04/2007 para 54 states:
Issues of sustainability are important and should not only be considered in terms of transport mode and distances from services. Such consideration should include;
a. the extent to which the nature of the traditional lifestyle of travelling showpeople whereby they live and work from the same location thereby omitting many travel to work journeys, contributes to sustainability;
b. the promotion of peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community;
c. the wider benefits of easier access to GP and other health services;
d. children attending school on a regular basis;
e. the provision of a settled base that reduces the need for long- distance travelling and possible environmental damage caused by unauthorised development; and,
f. not locating sites in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans and other vehicles.
2.7.4 The proposed site is approximately 1 km from the edge of Monk Fryston settlement. The direct access route to the village is along the A63 which is primarily a national speed limit restriction. There is an unmarked bus stop located approximately 150 metres to the west on the A63. The village of Hillam can be accessed by Lowfield Lane and Common Lane and is approximately 1.4 km from the site. Although there is limited accessibility in terms of footpath links in the area on balance it is considered that due to the traditional lifestyle of travelling showpeople, living and working from the site and the need to be to the edge of settlements for noise and operational reasons that the site is acceptable in relation to the accessibility of the site. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with criterion a, of paragraph 54 of Circular 04/07.
2.7.5 The site is located a suitable distance from the nearest properties to allow for a peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community. It is considered that there is nothing in the submission, which would result in the occupiers of the site being
33 unable to integrate into the local community. Furthermore the facilities within the village of Monk Fryston include a Doctors Surgery and Primary Schools. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with criteria b, c and d of para 54 of Circular 04/07.
2.7.6 The North Yorkshire Accommodation Requirements of Showmen: Final Report para 3.83 and table 3.17 indicate that of those surveyed that 41 percent of their travel was within the North Yorkshire area. It is considered that the proposal would help to promote a reduced need to travel in terms of the distances covered. The proposal is therefore considered to comply in this respect with the guidance in criterion e of para 54 of Circular 04/07.
2.7.7 The site is not located within an area identified as being at risk of flooding and is therefore considered to be acceptable in relation to criterion f of para 54 of Circular 04/07.
2.7.8 The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of sustainability grounds and the advice contained within circular 04/2007.
2.8 Layout, Design and Scale
2.8.1 Policy H16 criterion 4 requires that “the site is well screened, or capable of being screened, and would not have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside”.
2.8.2 The proposal lays the site out in a linear fashion with an access road to the northern section of the site with residential zones and maintenance and storage areas located to the south of this road in an alternating pattern. The site has an access track to a package treatment plant located to centre of the site to the southern boundary.
2.8.3 Paragraph 2 of circular 04/2007 provides that members of the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain are required to follow a strict code of practice regulating the use of their sites. This requirement provides exemption from the requirements of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 when the site is as a result of travelling for their business or for quarters between October and March. The proposal is for a permanent site and as such would be required to comply with the provisions of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
2.8.4 It is considered that there is sufficient space within the residential zones (measuring approx 14 metres by 34 metres per plot, with larger plots at the entrance and end of the site) to allow for compliance with these regulations. This requirement along with those of the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain would ensure that the provisions are in place to provide an acceptable level of amenity within the site.
34 2.8.5 The Showman’s Guild of Great Britain Model Standard Package and the desires for sites outlines in the arc4 “North Yorkshire Accommodation Requirements for Showmen” state that a “separate grassed area/ play space for children” should be provided. The proposed layout provides within each plot an area for recreation and children’s play. It is considered that the provision would accord with the requirements of best practice for sites. The proposal is considered to provide an acceptable standard of residential amenity of the occupiers of the proposed site in accordance with the requirements of Selby District Local Plan Policy H16(3)
2.9 Impact on the character and form of the area
2.9.1 Selby District Local Plan Policies ENV1(1,4), GB4, and H16(4) state that provided they do not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the area and in relation to GB4 not detract from the open nature of the Green Belt.
2.9.2 The site is not located within the Green Belt. It is however conspicuous from the Green Belt with the boundary to the Green Belt being to the North and West of the site. The character of the area is defined by large open agricultural fields to the north of the A63 with the fields to the south of the A63, including the application site being smaller and disjointed in nature. It is acknowledged that the proposed development would result in the storage of HGV’s, trailers, rides and caravan accommodation. However by virtue of the topography of the site and the disjointed nature of the surrounding area, along with the ability to suitably screen the site through appropriate planting that the proposal can be suitably mitigated. It would be considered appropriate to attach a condition to any consent granted to ensure suitable planting, to minimise the impact upon the open nature of the site and its impact upon the setting of the Green Belt beyond. The proposed scheme indicates a landscaping scheme with the provision of reinforcement to the existing boundary hedging and groups of tree planting it is considered that such a scheme could sufficiently screen the storage within the site to mitigate visual intrusion into the rural landscape.
2.9.3 The proposed use of the site would potentially result in a requirement for outside lighting in the site. Bright lighting in this location could potentially have a significant detrimental impact upon the character of the area. However suitable lighting for the site would not necessarily result in floodlighting of the area. It is considered that the impact of lighting of the site can be suitably controlled through a condition to require approval of a scheme for the lighting of the site.
2.9.4 Subject to appropriate conditions it is considered that the proposal would not have a significant detrimental impact upon the character of the area to warrant a refusal in this instance. The proposal is not considered to be contrary in this respect with Policies ENV1(1), GB4 and H16 of the Selby District Local Plan.
35
2.10 Impact on residential amenity
2.10.1 Selby District Local Plan Policies ENV1(1) and H16(2,5) states that proposals should provide a suitable level of amenity for the proposal on site and not adversely impact upon adjacent occupiers.
2.10.2 The nature of showpeoples’ sites is such that they have a mixture of residential and commercial use in the form of repairs and maintenance of their rides and machinery. The proposed site is located approximately 160 metres from the nearest dwelling. No objections have been received from the Environmental Health Officer in relation to the proposal. However it is considered that given the close relationship within the site between the commercial use, in terms of repair and maintenance of machinery, and residential uses that it would be appropriate to condition the hours of operation for the protection of amenity. Subject to such a condition it is considered that the proposal would not result in a significant detrimental impact upon the residential amenity of neighbouring properties or the occupiers of the site. The proposal would therefore not be contrary in this respect with Policy ENV1(1) and H16(2,5) of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.11 Impact on highway safety
2.11.1 Selby District Local Plan Policy ENV1 criterion 2 requires that account is taken of “the relationship of the proposal to the highway network, the proposed means of access, the need for road/junction improvements in the vicinity of the site, and the arrangements to be made for car parking”.
2.11.2 Selby District Local Plan Policy H16 criterion 6 requires that “the site has good access to the strategic road network and would not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety”.
2.11.3 Selby District Local Plan Policy T1 states that “development proposals should be well related to the existing highways network and will only be permitted where existing roads have adequate capacity and can safely serve the development, unless appropriate off-site highway improvements are undertake by the developer”.
2.11.4 Selby District Local Plan Policy T2 states “Development proposals which would result in the creation of a new access or the intensification of the use of an existing access will be permitted provided:
1) There would be no detriment to highway safety; and 2) The access can be created in a location and to a standard acceptable to the highway authority.
36 Proposals which would result in the creation of a new access onto a primary road or district distributor road will not be permitted unless there is no feasible access onto a secondary road and the highway authority is satisfied that the proposal would not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety”.
2.11.5 A number of objections were received in reference to the refusal of a previous application for the erection of a kennelling business on land adjacent to the proposal site. The application for the erection of a kennel business (reference 2007/1324/FUL) was refused on 7 February 2008 the following reason:
“The public highway leading to the site (Lowfield Road) is of insufficient width to accommodate the increase in traffic without serious damage to the carriageway and verges of the highway. This stretch of highway does not have the benefit of adequate lighting, drainage or passing places and the junction of Lowfield Road and the A63 is of insufficient standard to serve the proposed development. The proposal would therefore be detrimental to highway safety and contrary to policies EMP7, T1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan.”
2.11.6 The refusal was subsequently dismissed at appeal on 3 December 2008 on highways grounds.
2.11.7 Para 56 of circular 04/07 provides guidance on highways considerations for travelling showpeople sites. Stating that consideration should be given to the amenity impacts of vehicular activity. In addition para 56 states “Proposals should not be rejected if they would only give rise to modest additional daily vehicle movements and/or the impact on minor roads would not be significant.”
2.11.8 The objections raised by Sanderson Associates Consulting Engineers are noted with the Highways Officer having been reconsulted on the content of the objections raised. The Highways Officer raised no objections to the proposed vehicle access, parking and manoeuvring provision, subject to a condition requiring implementation in accordance with the plans submitted.
2.11.9 Concerns were raised in regards to the applicant’s ability to implement the required visibility splays and highways improvements. Following further discussion with the Highways Officer it is confirmed that the splays would be within the Highway. The Local Highways Authority have powers to ensure that any adjacent vegetation does not overhang the highway such powers can be utilised to ensure that the visibility splays required remain in place. In addition the width of the Highway verge has been provided and that the works proposed can be undertaken within the extent of the highway. Any dispute over the extent of the Highway Verge or the ability to implement those works would be a civil issue and is beyond the control of planning in this
37 respect. It is considered that subject to an appropriate condition the proposal would be acceptable in Highways Safety terms in accordance with Policies T1, and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.12 Biodiversity
2.12.1 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. The site is not within a designated ecological conservation area and is not known to support any protected species. As such it is considered that the proposal would not result in a significant impact upon the ecology in the locality. The proposal is considered to comply in this respect with PPS9.
2.12.2 The presence of Brown Hares was raised in objections. Brown Hares are considered to be a regionally important species acknowledged in the Selby Biodiversity Action Plan (2004) and adopted by the regional assembly as a biodiversity indicator. The Brown Hare is not granted special protection in the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act section 9. The Brown Hare is associated with open landscapes and is common and widespread in central Yorkshire. Given the size and scale of the proposal it is considered that the proposal would not have a significant impact upon the conservation status of the Brown Hare.
2.13 Drainage
2.13.1 The application is proposed to provide surface water drainage to soakaway and foul drainage to a package treatment plant. The Environment Agency, The Environmental Health Manager, Internal Drainage Board and Yorkshire Water were consulted on the application. No objections were received from these bodies subject to suitable conditions to ensure soakaways are suitably provided and that the discharge would not exceed the current rate from the site. Subject to such a condition the details of drainage are acceptable in this respect.
2.14 Agricultural Land
Loss of agricultural land is considered in national guidance PPS7 and Natural England Technical Note TIN049.
2.14.1 The agricultural land classification system divides land into five grades of which grade 3 is subdivided into 3a and 3b. Grades 1, 2 and 3a are categorised as ‘best and most versatile agricultural land. The site is classified as grade 2 agricultural land. It is noted that the size of the area to be affected is relatively small and therefore its loss would not significantly prejudice the aim of protecting the best agricultural land.
38 As such the proposal, on balance, is considered acceptable in terms of the guidance in TIN049 and PPS7.
2.14.2 Objections were received in relation to other applications having been refused for development of adjacent sites. All applications are determined in accordance with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires regard to be had to the development plan unless material considerations dictate otherwise. On this basis every application should be determined on its own merits against the development plan and any material considerations. The details of previous applications were considered at the time and determined accordingly.
2.15 CONCLUSION:
2.15.1 The proposal is for the change of use of land to showpeoples’ quarters. The tests of Selby District Local Plan Policy DL1 and H16 requires that it can be demonstrated that there is a social or economic need and there is a traditional need for the site. It is considered that the proposal fails to establish an identified social or economic need of a rural community and is therefore not acceptable in principle being contrary to the test of Policy DL1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.15.2 Having had regard to the development plan, all other relevant local and national policy, consultation responses received to date and all other material planning considerations, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of impact on sustainability, the open character of the area, views of the Green Belt, highways safety, drainage, impact on biodiversity and loss of agricultural land.
2.15.3 The following reason for refusal is recommended:
1. The applicant has failed to establish that there is an identified social, economic and traditional needs of a rural community, for a Travelling Showperson’s site and is therefore not acceptable in principle being contrary to the test of Policies DL1 and H16 of the Selby District Local Plan.
3. Legal/Financial Controls and other Policy matters
3.1 Legal Issues
3.1.1 Planning Acts This application has been determined in accordance with the relevant planning acts.
3.1.2 Human Rights Act 1998 It is considered that a decision made in accordance with this recommendation would not result in any breach of convention rights.
39 3.1.3 Equality Act 2010 The Report to the Special Policy and resources Committee, on 27 July 2010, stated that an ‘Equality Impact assessment has been completed and signed off by the Equalities Working Group’. It is considered that the report currently before Planning Committee raises no significant issues that were not considered in the previous report to Policy and resources Committee. Members are therefore advised that this report and its recommendation fulfils the Council’s duties and obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
3.2 Financial Issues
3.2.1 Financial issues are not material to the determination of this application.
4. Conclusion
4.1 As stated in the main body of the report.
5. Background Documents
5.1 Planning Application file reference 2010/0386/COU and associated documents.
5.2 Report to Policy and Resources Committee (Item 8) 27 July 2010.
Contact Officer: Richard Sunter (Principal Planning Officer)
Appendices: None.
40 N
W E
S APPLICATION SITE Item No: 2011/0222/FUL Address: Swandam Wood, Sutton Lane, Byram, WF11 9NE 41 This map has been reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty's stationary office. © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Selby District Council: 100018656
Public Session
Agenda Item No:5.2 ______
To: Planning Committee Date: 8 June 2011 Author: Rachael Bartlett (Senior Planning Officer) Lead Officer: Richard Sunter (Principal Planning Officer) ______
APPLICATION 8/50/206/PA PARISH: Byram Cum Sutton NUMBER: 2011/0222/FUL Parish Council
APPLICANT: E.On Climate VALID DATE: 8 March 2011 And Renewables EXPIRY 3 May 2011 DATE: PROPOSAL: Erection of 1 no. meteorological mast with a maximum height of 80m for a temporary period of three years on land to the south of Swandam Wood LOCATION: Swandam Wood Sutton Lane Byram Knottingley West Yorkshire WF11 9NE
Summary:
The above application is referred to the Planning Committee for a Decision on the grounds that the application is considered to be controversial having received a large number of objections (81 at the time of writing this report) from members of the public.
Recommendations:
i) The Planning Application is recommended to be APPROVED subject to the conditions detailed at paragraph 2.10.3 of this report.
42 1. Introduction and background
1.1 The Site
1.1.1 The site is located approximately 2km east of the village of Byram. Burton Salmon is approximately 1.1km to the west and Beal and Birkin are approximately 1.4km to the east.
1.1.2 The site comprises arable farmland and is generally flat.
1.1.3 The site is located within a designated Green Belt.
1.2 The Proposal
1.2.1 The proposal is for the erection of a meteorological mast measuring up to 80 metres in height for a temporary period of three years. After this temporary period the mast would be dismantled and removed from site.
1.2.2 The mast would be a slender steel pole supported by steel guy ropes.
1.2.3 Access to the site would be gained from Byram Park Road.
1.3 Planning History
1.3.1 There is no relevant planning history relating to this application.
1.4 Consultations
1.4.1 Byram Parish Council: Strongly object on the grounds of Green Belt, impact on birds and bats, wind farms are an ineffective source of energy production, lowland area is evidently unsuitable for a wind farm and proximity to dwellings.
1.4.2 Ministry of Defence: No safeguarding Objections.
1.4.3 Selby Internal Drainage Board: Comments made in relation to surface water.
1.4.4 Civil Aviation Authority: General comments/observations made.
1.4.5 Burn Gliding Club: No reply received.
1.4.6 Sherburn Aeroclub: No reply received.
1.5 Publicity
43 1.5.1 The application has been advertised by site notice resulting in 81 letters of objection being received. The issues raised are summarised as follows:
• Green Belt issues – inappropriate development, no very special circumstances, adverse impact on openness. • Contrary to planning policies. • This is a precursor to a wind farm application to which local people strongly object. • Data could be obtained from other test masts in the area and the development is therefore unnecessary. • Impact on wildlife in particular birds flying to and from Fairburn Ings that would fly into the guy lines. • Height, visual impact, unsightly. • Proximity to residential properties. • Potential lighting of mast. • Incorrect planning fee paid. • Errors in Design and Access Statement. • Request that if the mast is approved it is only for 2 years not 3. • Request that if the mast is approved the developers are required to publish their results.
A significant amount of other issues were raised by objectors however these comments related to the development of a wind farm and are not considered to be specifically relevant to this application e.g. noise, shadow flicker, health issues, devaluation of properties, inefficiencies of wind farms, construction traffic etc.
2. The Report
2.1 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 and the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and the Humber (adopted 2008).
2.2 Selby District Local Plan
Policy GB2: Green Belt Policy GB4: Character and Amenity of the Green Belt Policy ENV1: Control of Development Policy ENV6: Renewable Energy
2.3 Regional Spatial Strategy
44 2.3.1 In respect of the recent announcement by the Secretary of State in regard to his stated intention to revoke regional spatial strategies and the subsequent challenge by Cala Homes, the courts have ruled that the letters of the Secretary of State are material and that it is up to local planning authorities to determine what weight should be afforded to them. Officers consider that, at this point in time, given the letters merely refer to an intention to revoke regional spatial strategies and that the revocation is dependent on the passage of the Localism Bill through Parliament substantial weight should still be afforded to the Regional Spatial Strategy and that only limited weight should be afforded to the letter from the Secretary of State. The relevant policies in relation to this application are: -
Policy YH9: Green Belts Policy ENV5: Energy
2.4 National Guidance
PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPG2: Green Belt PPS22: Renewable Energy
2.5 Key Issues
2.5.1 The main issues in the determination of this application are: -
1) Principle of Development 2) Visual Impact 3) Impact on Local Residents 4) Impact on Wildlife
2.6 Principle of Development
2.6.1 The application is for a wind monitoring mast. Whilst the proposal itself is not for renewable energy generation it relates to the assessment of the suitability of the site for such purposes. Therefore the planning policy context under which renewable energy proposals are considered against are of relevance.
2.6.2 PPS22 sets out the Government’s Sustainable Development Strategy including reduction of greenhouse gases, prudent use of natural resources and a reliance on ever diminishing supplies of fossil fuel. Selby District Local Plan Policy ENV6 relates to the provision of renewable energy sources. The mast proposal should be regarded as a piece of infrastructure associated with the delivery of renewable energy and should be supported in principle in accordance with PPS22 and Policy ENV6 of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.6.3 The proposal is made specifically for the monitoring of wind speeds at this site and therefore it is not considered feasible or reasonable for
45 such equipment to be installed on existing equipment on other sites or for the developer to rely on data from masts on other sites.
2.6.4 The proposal is situated in the Green Belt and therefore subject to to the policy tests set out in Policy GB2 and PPG2. The preliminary assessment when considering proposals for development in the Green Belt is as follows:-
a) It must be determined whether the development is appropriate or inappropriate development in the Green Belt. PPG2 and the Local Plan set out the categories of appropriate development.
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.
2.6.5 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, paragraph 3.2).
2.6.6 In this respect paragraph 3.12 of PPG2 states “The statutory definition of development includes engineering and other operations, and the making of any material change in the use of land. The carrying out of such operations and the making of material changes in the use of land are inappropriate development unless they maintain openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt”.
2.6.7 Policy GB2 criterion 7 reiterates the requirements for proposals of this nature to preserve openness and not to conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.
2.6.8 The application is for the erection of a monitoring mast to a height of 80 metres. By virtue of its slender nature it is considered that the proposal would be of limited massing. Furthermore by virtue of the use of guy wires the proposal would be designed in such a way as that any views through it would not be unduly obstructed. By virtue of its design and massing it is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the openness of the Green Belt.
2.6.9 It must also be established whether or not the proposal would conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. PPG2 paragraph 1.5 identifies the purposes of including land within the Green Belt these are:
- to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
46 - to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; - to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; - to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and - to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
2.6.10 The proposed erection of a temporary measuring mast, by virtue of its slim-line nature is not considered to conflict with any of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt identified in PPG2.
2.6.11 The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle in accordance with policies GB2 and ENV6 of the Local Plan and PPG2 and PPS22
2.7 Visual Impact
2.7.1 Policy GB4 of the local plan requires that development in the Green Belt would not detract from its open character and visual amenity by virtue of its scale, location, materials and design.
2.7.2 Policy ENV1(1) of the local plan takes account of impact on the character of the area and (4) the standard of layout, design and materials in relation to the site and its surroundings.
2.7.3 As stated above the proposed mast would be tall slender steel pole with steel guy ropes. Despite the height of the mast, due to the slender and temporary nature of the equipment and the presence of woodlands and other significant structures in the locality, it is not considered that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the wider area given the limited views of the site within the wider area.
2.7.4 The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in terms of visual impact and would not detract from the open character and visual amenity of the Green Belt and Open Countryside. The proposal would therefore accord with Policies GB4, ENV1 (criteria 1 & 4) and H14 of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.8 Impact on Local Residents
2.8.1 Policy ENV1(1) of the Local Plan requires that in the determination of planning applications, the local planning authority will give consideration to the impact proposals would have on residential and local amenity.
2.8.2 The nearest dwellings are over 800 metres away from the proposed mast.
2.8.3 The mast does not generate any noise.
47 2.8.4 Access to the site would be via an existing farm track that travels from Byram Park Road.
2.8.5 No alterations are required to the road network as the movement of vehicles to site will consist purely of light duty delivery vehicles during the construction and decommissioning of the meteorological mast. The vehicle used for the majority of these visits is likely to be a small four wheel drive vehicle with an attached trailer. However, there may be an occasional need for a larger vehicle to access the site to carry out maintenance to the mast. 2.8.6 It is therefore considered the proposal would have no impact on the amenity of local residents and would accord with ENV1(1) of the local plan.
2.9 Impact on Wildlife
2.9.1 Concerns have been raised regarding potential impacts on birds, in particular geese and swans etc migrating to and from Fairburns Ings, and also bats.
2.9.2 The submitted design and access statement advises that as a precaution, to minimise any risk of bird collisions with the mast’s guy wires, these can be fitted with bird diverter discs should the Council deem it necessary. Although a condition could technically be imposed to this effect all conditions are subject to the tests set out in Circular 11/95 and have to reasonable and necessary. It is considered unlikely that the mast and guy cables would pose any greater threat to birds than other electrical / telephone cable and masts etc and as such in this instance it is considered that such a condition would be unnecessary and unreasonable. As such it is recommended that such a condition is not attached to any permission granted.
2.9.3 Objections have been received suggesting that the proposal would be harmful to bats. All species of British bat are protected under European and British law. No evidence has been submitted to substantiate claims that the proposal would pose a significant threat to any species of bat. In addition it is noted that the site is located within an arable field and the mast has no moving parts. As such there is no evidence to suggest that bats would be using the area occupied by the mast or that the mast would pose a significant threat to any bat should a bat enter the area. As such it is considered that little or no weight should be attached to the issue of harm to bats.
2.10 Conclusion
2.10.1 It is considered that the proposed development is not inappropriate within the Green Belt and would not have a detrimental effect on the visual amenity and openness of the area, residential amenity or on
48 wildlife. The application is therefore considered to be acceptable and to accord with the relevant policies as set out above.
2.10.2 It should be noted that if this application is approved no assumption should be made that a wind farm would automatically be considered acceptable in the surrounding area. Any subsequent proposal to develop a wind energy project in the area would be the subject of a separate planning application including an Environmental Impact Assessment and significant consultation and would have to be considered on its merits at that time.
2.10.3The following conditions are recommended to be attached to any permission granted:
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 Meteorological Mast and associated infrastructure hereby permitted shall remain on site for no longer than 36 months from the date of erection. After the expiration of 36 months the mast shall be removed and the land shall thereafter be restored to its former condition within 3 months of its removal. The restoration of the land shall be in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The local planning authority shall be notified in writing of the date on which the mast is erected within 1 calendar month of the erection date.
Reason: To ensure the site is returned to its original condition in the interests of the visual amenity of the Green Belt.
03. Prior to the commencement of the development, details of any proposed lighting required on or in relation to the mast, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of air safety and amenity.
05. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans/drawings listed below: (plan reference numbers to be added to the decision notice).
3. Legal/Financial Controls and other Policy matters
49
3.1 Legal Issues
3.1.1 Planning Acts This application has been determined in accordance with the relevant planning acts.
3.1.2 Human Rights Act 1998 It is considered that a decision made in accordance with this recommendation would not result in any breach of convention rights
3.1.3 Equality Act 2010 This application has been determined with regard to the Council’s duties and obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
3.2 Financial Issues
3.2.1 Financial issues are not material to the determination of this application.
4. Conclusion
4.1 As stated in the main body of the report.
5. Background Documents
5.1 Planning Application file reference 2011/0222/FUL and associated documents.
Contact Officer: Richard Sunter (Principal Planning Officer)
Appendices: None
50 E S N W 51
6
2011/0303/HPA Coldhill Farm, ColdhillColdhillLane,Farm,Saxton
APPLICATION SITE APPLICATION
Address: This map has been reproduced This from map reproduced has been the Ordnance Survey with the ofmapping permission Her Majesty's stationary office. © copyright.Crown
Item No: Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright Crown may and to infringes reproduction Selby lead or prosecution Districtproceedings. Unauthorised civil 100018656 Council: 52
Public Session
Agenda Item No:5.3 ______
To: Planning Committee Date: 8 June 2011 Author: Simon Eades (Planning Officer) Lead Officer: Richard Sunter (Principal Planning Officer) ______
APPLICATION 8/58/935D/P PARISH: Sherburn In Elmet Parish NUMBER: A Council 2011/0303/H PA APPLICANT: Mr Richard VALID DATE: 30 March 2011 Bayston EXPIRY 25 May 2011 DATE: PROPOSAL: Proposed demolition of existing sitting room together with erection of a two storey extension and garage extension LOCATION: Coldhill Farm Coldhill Lane Saxton Tadcaster North Yorkshire LS25 3EE
Summary:
The above application is referred to the Planning Committee for a Decision at the request of the local member who states that although the property is located within the Green Belt it is also within an array of agricultural buildings and that she like the committee to make a decision as to whether there is any demonstrable harm to the openness of the countryside in view of this situation.
The development is unacceptable in principle as the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. In addition the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the open character of the countryside and the character and visual amenity of the Green Belt and the Locally Important Landscape Area. The key issues are the principle of development in the
53 Green Belt, impact on the visual amenity and character of the Green Belt, residential amenity and highway issues.
No representations have been received within the statutory period.
The proposal is considered to be contrary to Policies GB2, GB4, ENV1, ENV15 and H14 of the Selby District Local Plan and the advice contained with PPG2.
Recommendations:
i. This application is recommended to be REFUSED for the reasons as detailed in paragraph 2.9 of this report.
1. Introduction and background
1.1 The Site
1.1.1 The application site is located outside the defined development limits, within the Green Belt and the Locally Important Landscape Area, and within Flood Zone 1 on the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Maps.
1.1.2 The proposed two storey extension and garage extension are proposed to be located on southwest elevation of the existing dwelling. The application site is a stand-alone farmstead within a small cluster of farm buildings within this farmstead. The application site is predominately open from most views as there are no high hedges along the boundaries. The only area of screening is found on the front lawn where there are scattered trees.
1.2. The Proposal
1.2.1 The applicant is seeking permission for the demolition of existing sitting room together with erection of a two-storey extension and garage extension.
1.3 Planning History
1.3.1 An application, reference number 2008/1033/FUL, for the erection of a grain store was approved in 2009.
1.3.2 An application, reference number 2009/0110/DPC, for the discharge of conditions 2 (materials) and 3 (noise) of decision 2008/1033/FUL was approved in 2009.
1.3.3 An application, reference number 2010/0690/HPA, for the erection of a first floor and garage extension following demolition of existing sitting room was refused in 2010.
54
1.3.4 An application, reference number 2010/1002/HPA for a demolition of existing sitting room together with proposed erection of a two-storey extension and garage extension was approved in 2011.
1.4 Consultations
1.4.1 Saxton Parish Council: No objections subject to neighbours.
1.4.2 NYCC Highways: There are no highway objections to the proposed demolition of existing sitting room together with erection of two-storey extension and garage extension.
1.5 Publicity The immediate neighbours have been consulted by letter, a site notice has been posted and the application has been advertised in the local newspaper. No representations have been received within the statutory period.
2. The Report
2.1 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 and the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and the Humber (adopted 2008).
2.2 Regional Spatial Strategy
2.2.1 In respect of the recent announcement by the Secretary of State in regard to his stated intention to abolish regional spatial strategies and the subsequent challenge by Cala Homes, the courts have ruled that the letters of the Secretary of State are material and that it is up to local planning authorities to determine what weight should be afforded to them. Officers consider that, at this point in time, given the letters merely refer to an intention to abolish regional spatial strategies and that the abolition is dependent on the passage of the Localism Bill through Parliament substantial weight should still be afforded to the Regional Spatial Strategy and that only limited weight should be afforded to the letter from the Secretary of State.
2.3 Relevant Polices include:
55 Selby District Local Plan Policies GB2: Green Belt (Principle) GB4: Character and Amenity of the Green Belt H14: Extensions to Dwellings in the Countryside ENV1: Control of Development ENV15: Locally Important Landscape Areas
Regional Spatial Strategy No relevant policies
National Guidance and Policy PPG2: Green Belt
2.4 key issues
2.4.1 The key issues in the consideration of this application are considered to be:
1) Principle of development in the Green Belt 2) Impact on the Green Belt, visual amenity and character of the area 3) Residential amenity 4) Highway issues
2.5 Principle of development in the Green Belt
2.5.1 The existing property is situated outside the defined development limits of the village of Saxton within an area allocated as Green Belt, as such policies GB2 and GB4 of the Selby District Local Plan and national guidance contained within PPG2 are relevant.
2.5.2 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 not inappropriate, the application should be determined on its own merits.
(c) If the development is inappropriate, there is a presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt applies and the development should not be permitted unless there are very special circumstances, which clearly outweigh the presumption against it.
2.5.3 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
56 unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations” (PPG2, paragraph 3.2).
2.5.4 Policy GB2 (4) of the Local Plan states that development for the replacement, extension or alteration of existing dwellings is acceptable in principle, however proposals must also comply with policies intended to control development in the countryside and with all other relevant polices. In addition national policy PPG2 provides further guidance on this matter, paragraph 3.6 of which states, ‘provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, the extension or alteration of dwellings is not inappropriate in Green Belts’.
2.5.5 Whether an extension by itself, or cumulatively with other extensions constitutes a disproportionate addition is a matter of fact and degree, which is tested through the comparison of the proposal (and other extensions to the property) in relation to the size, scale and mass of the existing original building. In this context the existing original building refers to the building as it stood in 1947 or as it was originally built after that date. On the basis of planning appeal decisions it is noted that extensions exceeding 50% of the volume of the original dwelling, taken either singularly or cumulatively with other extensions, have normally been considered to constitute a disproportionate addition. Notwithstanding this each case should be judged on its own merits.
2.5.6 There have been 3 applications submitted for this site for a two storey extension and a garage extension and they are as follows:
2.5.7 In the first application 2010/0690/HPA which was refused it was established from information provided by the agent in his email of 23 August 2010 that the original house and the outbuilding with the pitched roof currently used as the garage constitute the original dwelling as it stood in 1947. A flat roof sun room was subsequently added some years later but has now been demolished. The cumulative increase of the proposal resulted in 74% increase in volume from the original dwelling and as such it was considered that it would have constituted a disproportionate addition. It was also noted that the width of the garage extension to the existing dwelling would have resulted in a doubling of the width of the property when viewed from the front. The proposed extension due to its size, massing, volume and width when viewed against the original dwelling was considered to constitute a disproportionate addition and as such it was concluded that it would have been inappropriate within the Green Belt.
2.5.8 In the second application 2010/1002/HPA, which was approved, the applicant had submitted documentation confirming that the whole of the detached building constituted the original dwelling. Furthermore it was noted that proposed extension had been reduced in size so that it would only have resulted in a 46% increase in volume from the original dwelling. Despite this reduction in size it was still considered that the
57 extension constituted a disproportionate addition and therefore inappropriate development in the Green Belt. However the applicant had presented a case for very special circumstances. This related to the fact that the extension was the minimum building required to house the applicant’s collection of vintage cars. This case was accepted and the application was approved.
2.5.9 The third (current) application 2011/0303/HPA results in 55% increase in volume from the original dwelling and is exactly the same proposal as the original, previously refused, application 2010/0690/HPA. As such it is concluded that the extension would constitute a disproportionate addition and therefore inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The proposal should therefore only be approved where very special circumstances have been shown to exist. Furthermore PPG2 makes it clear that it is for the applicant to demonstrate why permission should be granted. Such circumstances have not been demonstrated in this case and therefore the proposal is contrary to the guidance in PPG2 and Policies H14 and GB2 of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.6 Impact on the Green Belt, Visual Amenity and Character of the Area
2.6.1 Notwithstanding the above issues in relation to the principle of the development within the Green Belt, Policy GB4 requires development to be of an appropriate scale, location, materials and design so as to ensure the development is not detrimental to the open character and visual amenity of the Green Belt. With Policy ENV1 (1) requiring proposals to ensure that the proposals take account of the effect upon the character of the area and (4) the standard of layout design and materials in relation to the site and surroundings. Policy H14 also introduces three criteria with which to assess the impact of a domestic extension on the character and visual amenity of the countryside.
2.6.2 The proposed first floor extension is relatively small in scale and would be set down in height by a significant distance from the highest part of the original roof to ensure that it appears subordinate, with a limited width which ensures that this element taken on its own relates well to the original property in terms of scale, design and appearance. In relation to the single storey garage, although retained at single storey and being sited partially behind the existing single storey extension, due to the large footprint, its large projection (width) in relation to the original dwelling, its scale, massing and design would result in an unsympathetic addition to the property detracting from its original form and character and would result in a detrimental impact on the open character of the countryside and the character and visual amenity of the Green Belt and this Locally Important Landscape Area contrary to Policies GB4, ENV1, ENV15 and H14 of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.7 Impact on Residential Amenity
58
2.7.1 Policy ENV1 (1) states that proposals should take account of the effect of the development upon the amenity of adjoining occupiers. The proposed extension is situated within the existing farm holding, a considerable distance from any other residential property and as such would not result in a detrimental impact on any other residential property through overlooking or overshadowing. The proposals would therefore accord with Policy ENV1 (1) in terms of the impact of the proposals on residential amenity.
2.8 Highway issues
2.8.1 Policy ENV1 (2) requires development to take account of the impact of the proposal on the existing highway network including the means of access and the arrangements to be made for car parking. Given the size of the existing site it is not considered that the proposals would result in any detrimental impact on the car parking or turning arrangements within the site and it would utilise the existing access point. It is therefore considered that the proposals would not result in a detrimental impact on the existing highway network and would be in accordance with Policy ENV1 (2).
2.9 CONCLUSION:
2.9.1 Having had regard to the development plan, all other relevant local and national policy, consultation responses and all other material planning considerations, it is considered that the proposed extensions by reason of their size, scale, massing, volume and width when viewed against the original dwelling would constitute a disproportionate addition over and above that of the original dwelling and as such would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt, with no special circumstances demonstrated that would outweigh the harm. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Policies PPG2 and H14.
2.9.2 The single storey extension by reason of its large footprint, its projection (width) in relation to the original dwelling along with its scale, massing and design would result in an unsympathetic addition to the property detracting from its original form and character and would result in a detrimental impact on the open character of the countryside and the character and visual amenity of the Green Belt and this Locally Important Landscape Area contrary to Policies GB4, ENV1, ENV15 and H14 of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.9.3 In all other respects the proposed extensions would not result in a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the occupants of neighbouring properties or the existing highway, the application therefore complies with Policies, ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan and PPS25: Development and Flood Risk.
59 2.9.4 This application is recommended to be REFUSED, for following reasons: 1. The proposed extensions due to their size, scale, massing, volume and width when viewed against the original dwelling would constitute a disproportionate addition and as such would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt and therefore should only be allowed in very special circumstances. Such circumstances have not been demonstrated in this case and therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy GB2 of the Selby District Local Plan and national guidance contained in PPG2: Green Belts.
2. The proposed single storey garage due to the large footprint, its large projection (width) in relation to the original dwelling, its scale massing and design would result in an unsympathetic addition to the property detracting from its original form and character and would result in a detrimental impact on the open character of the countryside and the character and visual amenity of the Green Belt and this Locally Important Landscape Area contrary to Policies GB4, ENV1, ENV15 and H14 of the Selby District Local Plan.
3. Legal/Financial Controls and other Policy matters
3.1 Legal Issues 3.1.1 Planning Acts This application has been determined in accordance with the relevant planning acts.
3.1.2 Human Rights Act 1998 It is considered that a decision made in accordance with this recommendation would not result in any breach of convention rights
3.1.3 Equality Act 2010 This application has been determined with regard to the Council’s duties and obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
3.2 Financial Issues
3.2.1 Financial issues are not material to the determination of this application.
4. Conclusion 4.1 As stated in the main body of the report.
5. Background Documents 5.1 Planning application file reference 2011/0303/HPA and associated documents as stated in section 1.3 ‘Planning History’ of the report.
Contact Officer: Richard Sunter (Principal Planning Officer)
60
Appendices: None.
61 E S N W 62
6
2011/0286/HPA Rose Villa, CastleLane,DraxRose Hill Villa,
APPLICATION SITE APPLICATION
Address: This map has been reproduced This from map reproduced has been the Ordnance Survey with the ofmapping permission Her Majesty's stationary office. © copyright.Crown
Item No: Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright Crown may and to infringes reproduction Selby lead or prosecution Districtproceedings. Unauthorised civil 100018656 Council: RECEIVED ! 16/03/2011 ! DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
63
A1
Public Session
Agenda Item No:5.4 ______
To: Planning Committee Date: 8 June 2011 Author: Simon Eades (Planning Officer) Lead Officer: Richard Sunter (Principal Planning Officer) ______
APPLICATION 8/25/80B/PA PARISH: Drax Parish Council NUMBER: 2011/0286/H PA APPLICANT: Dr S Singh VALID DATE: 18 March 2011
EXPIRY 13 May 2011 DATE: PROPOSAL: Erection of a two and a half storey extension to the existing dwelling LOCATION: Rose Villa Castle Hill Lane Drax Selby North Yorkshire YO8 8NP
Summary:
The above application is referred to the Planning Committee for a Decision because the proposal is of local controversy. The development is considered to be unacceptable as the extensions are considered to be not well related to the existing dwelling and the character of the surrounding area by virtue of their unsympathetic design, extended footprint, sheer mass and volume, excessive height and unsympathetic, stark materials. The proposal is considered to have significant detrimental impact by virtue of its overbearing and oppressive nature upon the front elevation (north elevation) windows of 11 Wetherall Road. The proposal therefore fails to accord with Policy ENV1 (1) and (4) of the Selby District Local Plan.
64 The key issues in the consideration of this application are the impact on the visual amenity of the existing building and the character of the surrounding area, residential amenity, flood risk and highway safety.
Both the Parish Council and Highways Officer have objected to the application and eight representations have been received within the statutory period concerning mainly the size of the proposal and the impact on the existing access.
Recommendations:
i. This application is recommended to be REFUSED as detailed in paragraph 2.9 of this report
1. Introduction and background
1.1 The Site
1.1.1 The application site is located within the defined development limits of Drax and within Flood Zone 3 on the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Maps.
1.1.2 The surrounding area is predominately urban in character and consists of two storey dwellings where to the west of the application site they are semi-detached and detached properties and to the east of the site they are terraced properties. In the surrounding area there are varying forms of extensions, although these are subservient to their host properties. The surrounding area around the cul-de-sac of Wetherall Road consists of boundary treatments which include 2 metre high timber fences along the side boundaries and some 1 metre high timber fences to the front. The existing boundary between the application site and 11 Wetherall Road is comprised of a 2 metre high timber fence.
1.2. The Proposal
1.2.1 The applicant is seeking permission for the erection of a two-storey and half extension, single storey glazed link, covered court area, new court wall and car port
1.3 Planning History
1.3.1 An application, reference number CO/1992/0643, for the installation of a 600 kg LPG tank was approved in 1992.
1.4 Consultations
1.4.1 Drax Parish Council:
65 The Parish Council objects to the above application for the following reasons: 1. The access for construction traffic is totally inappropriate by using Providence Place, which is the only access route and is only 2.6m wide. 2. Changing from a four bed to nine bed will also have a significant effect on extra vehicles again using Providence Place as this is the only access route. 3. The size and style of the extension is out of proportion with the surrounding area. 4. Also concerned over the materials suggested for use.
1.4.2 NYCC Highways: The Highway Officer has objected to the proposal for the following reasons:-
1. The road leading to the site is not of a sufficient width and is unacceptable in terms of highway safety and may cause interference with the free flow of traffic. 2. The existing access, by which vehicles associated with this proposal would leave and rejoin the County Highway is unsatisfactory since the required visibility of 2 metres x 43 metres cannot be achieved at the junction with the County Highway and therefore the intensification of use which would result from the proposed development would be a danger to highway users.
1.5 Publicity: Immediate neighbours were consulted by letter and a site notice was posted. Eight representations have been received within the statutory period outlining the following issues: -
• The proposal is not an extension, it is a separate construction or a dwelling. • The extension is taller and wider and dwarfs 11 Wetherall Road. • The extension is taller and wider than the existing property and out of proportion with the existing property. • The building line of the property at 11 Wetherall Road has been moved by the proposal. • The proposal is asking to remove the fence of 11 Wetherwall Road to enable a brick wall to be built. • The only access to Rose Villa is communal owned and is not suitable for large heavy vehicles. Selby District Council have persuaded refuse collection vehicles to not to use the access because the damage done to the water and sewage pipes. • The applicant as assured that all contractors will use the adjacent field to the rear 4 Providence Place but who will supervise the contractors to do this?
66 • Access problems in general and traffic opposite the Primary School on Castle Hill Lane is difficult enough at times. Can delivery times be assured outside times of picking of pupils? • The Applicant has said that they will tarmac the track and 4 Providence Place have not been consulted on this. This will result in digging and levelling of the track. It will have negative impacts including the killing of hedges and run off into neighbouring gardens. • The proposal is not within keeping of the area • The proposal will result in the overshadowing of 11 Wetherall Road. • The proposal will be made from wood, which is close to 11 Wetherall Road and which will be a fire hazard • Will the gym be used for private or commercial purposes. • The proposal will affect water pressure.
2. The Report
2.1 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 and the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and the Humber (adopted 2008).
2.2 Regional Spatial Strategy
2.2.1 In respect of the recent announcement by the Secretary of State in regard to his stated intention to abolish regional spatial strategies and the subsequent challenge by Cala Homes, the courts have ruled that the letters of the Secretary of State are material and that it is up to local planning authorities to determine what weight should be afforded to them. Officers consider that, at this point in time, given the letters merely refer to an intention to abolish regional spatial strategies and that the abolition is dependent on the passage of the Localism Bill through Parliament substantial weight should still be afforded to the Regional Spatial Strategy and that only limited weight should be afforded to the letter from the Secretary of State.
2.3 Relevant Polices:
Selby District Local Plan Policies ENV1: Control of Development
Regional Spatial Strategy No relevant policies
National Policies PPS25: Development and Flood Risk
67
2.4 Key Issues The key issues in the consideration of this application are considered to be:
1) The impact on the visual amenity of the existing building and the character of the surrounding area. 2) The impact on residential amenity of the neighbouring properties. 3) Flood Risk. 4) Highway Safety.
2.5 Visual Amenity and Character.
2.5.1 Policy ENV1 (4) of the Selby District Local Plan requires the Council to take account of " the standard of layout, design and materials in relation to the site and its surroundings". Policy ENV1 (1) of the Selby District Local Plan requires the Council to take account of " the effect [of the proposed development] on the character of the area ...... ".
2.5.2 The surrounding area is predominately urban in character and consists of two storey dwellings where to the west of the application site there are semi-detached and detached properties and to the east of the site there are terraced properties. In the surrounding area there are varying forms of extensions which are subservient to their main dwellings. The surrounding area around the cul-de-sac of Wetherall Road consists of boundary treatments, which comprise 2 metre high timber fences along the side boundaries and some 1 metre high timber fences to front. The existing boundary between the application site and 11 Wetherall Road is a 2 metre high timber fence.
2.5.3 The existing dwelling is two storey with a eaves height of 6.2 metres and a ridge height 9 metres whereas the proposal is two and half storey with a eaves height of 7.3metres and a ridge height of 10.3 metres. There are no other extensions or buildings with the surrounding which are two and half storey in height. The proposal is therefore not in keeping with the existing dwelling and the character and form of the area. As the two and half storey extension is higher than the existing dwelling the proposal by virtue of its height is not subservient to the existing property. The proposal therefore fails to accord with Policy ENV1 (1) and (4) of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.5.4 The extended footprint completely changes character of the existing dwelling rectagonal character to a L shaped footprint which changes the character and form of the dwelling. The proposed extension due to its sheer mass and extended footprint causes it become visually dominant to the existing dwelling and the proposed two and half storey extension now appears to be the main dwelling. In addition to this the proposed two and half storey extension appears as self-contained dwelling rather than an extension to Rose Villa due to its excessive
68 size, design, volume and sheer mass. The proposal therefore fails to accord with Policy ENV1 (1) and (4) of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.5.5 The volume of the existing property with the single storey extension is approximately 696m3 and the volume of the proposed extensions with the existing house is 2018m3 which gives it percentage increase of 202% which clearly shows that the proposal visually dominates the existing dwelling and is no longer subordinate to the existing dwelling due to excessive increase in size. The proposal therefore fails to accord with Policy ENV1 (1) and (4) of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.5.6 The proposed two and half storey extension and single storey glazed link are considered to be unsympathetic in terms of design due to the proposed randomly placed fenestration layout which does not follow the character and form of the existing dwelling which is characterised by a traditional, symmetrical arrangement of windows. The proposal therefore fails to accord with Policy ENV1 (1) and (4) of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.5.7 The proposed extensions would utilise a sedam flat panel roof and vertical timber cladding on the external walls, which contrast sharply and are not in keeping with the traditional character and form of the existing dwelling and its immediate setting. The surrounding area is predominately red brick and the roof varies from red tiles, grey slate or grey concrete tiles. The proposal therefore fails to accord with Policy ENV1 (1) and (4) of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.5.8 The proposed new court wall is 4metres in height at the lowest and 5metres in height at the highest and is in a prominent location in Wetherall Road. The proposed new court wall is considered to be not in keeping with character and form of the surrounding area and would have a significant detrimental impact on the character of the area. The proposal therefore fails to accord with Policy ENV1 (1) and (4) of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.5.9 On the basis of the above the proposed two and half storey extension, single storey glazed link, covered court area, new court wall and car port is considered to be: • not to be well related to the existing dwelling and the character of the surrounding area • visually dominant to the existing dwelling and does not appear subordinate in scale to the main house • of an unsympathetic design, by virtue of its extended footprint, sheer mass and volume, excessive height and contrasting stark materials. The proposal therefore fails to accord with Policy ENV1 (1) and (4) of the Selby District Local Plan.
69 2.6 Residential Amenity
2.6.1 Policy ENV1 (1) of the Selby District Local Plan also requires the Council to take account of " the effect [of the proposed development] on the amenity of adjoining residents".
2.6.2 It is considered that the main issue in this case is whether the proposed extension would materially harm the residential amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of the adjacent properties (particularly 2,3,4,6 and 11 Wetherall Road) either through overlooking, overshadowing or having an overbearing impact.
2.6.3 Overlooking: 2.64 The proposal due to the combination of the orientation of the site and the distance away from 2,3,4 and 6 Wetherall Road is considered not to cause any significant adverse affects of overlooking. The proposed two and half extension does have one window, which faces towards the west elevation 11 Wetherall Road which has a blank elevation, and therefore the proposal does not cause any significant adverse affects of overlooking 11 Wetherall Road.
2.6.5 Overshadowing: 2.6.6 Due to the orientation of the site in relation to the neighbouring properties the proposal is considered not to cause any significant adverse degrees overshadowing to the neighbouring properties of ,3,4,6 and 11 Wetherall Road.
2.6.7 Overbearing: 2.6.8 The application site has an existing single storey extension, which faces towards the front elevation (north elevation) of 11 Wetherall Road. The existing single storey extension has eaves height of 2.5 metres and ridge height of 3.2 metres which is located approximately 5.5 metres away from the front elevation of 11 Wetherall Road.
2.6.9 The proposed two and half storey extension, covered court area and single storey glazed link causes a continual extension up to the front elevation (1metre away) and passes the side elevation of 11 Wetherall Road. The covered court area and the new court wall is located 1metre away from the front elevation 11 Wetherall Road and the height of the covered court area would be 3.2 metres in height and the new court wall would be 4 metres in height at the lowest and 5metres in height at the highest. The two and half storey extension is located approximately 9metres from 11 Wetherall Road and has an eaves height of 7.3metres and a ridge height of 10.3metres.
2.6.10 It is considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact, by virtue of its overbearing and oppressive nature, upon the front elevation (north elevation) windows of 11 Wetherall Road, due to the combination of the continuation of the proposed extensions (covered court area and 2 half storey extension) and the new court wall
70 and due to the sheer mass, volume and excessive height of both the proposed extensions. The proposal therefore fails to accord with Policy ENV1 (1) of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.7 Flood Risk
2.7.1 The application site is located within Flood Zone 3 therefore having, between a 1 in 100 annual probability of river flooding (>1% in Table D1 of PPS 25) or 1 in 200 or greater annual probability of flooding from the sea (>0.5%) in any year. Paragraph D15 of PPS25 states that applicants for minor development and change of use should not be subject to the sequential and exception test but still have to meet the requirements for FRA’s and flood risk reduction measures set out in table D1. Paragraph 20 of PPS25 defines minor development as householder development such as sheds and games rooms, which are within the curtliage of the existing dwelling in addition to physical extensions to the existing dwelling its self.
2.7.2 The proposal is a physical extension to the existing dwelling therefore a sequential and exception test are not required. A FRA was submitted with the proposal providing mitigation measures as appropriate. The FRA is considered to be acceptable. The proposed extensions are therefore in accordance with the advice contained in PPS25.
2.8 Highway Safety
2.8.1 Policy ENV1 (2) of the Selby District Local Plan states that "the relationship of the proposal to the highway network, the proposed means of access, the need for road/junction improvements in the vicinity of the site, and the arrangements to be made for car parking".
2.8.2 The applicant has stated that the shared driveway will be upgrade / repaired and the application form states that the existing materials of the access is constructed of gravel and that the proposed upgraded access would be constructed of gravel. No further details have been submitted. If it was minded to approve the application it is recommended to impose a condition for further details to be submitted for the access road.
2.8.3 The comments of the Highway officer are noted. However, the proposal is for an extension and not for an additional dwelling. Therefore the proposal is considered not to significantly intensify the use of the site. The Highway Officer’s comments are therefore considered to be unreasonable. The proposal is therefore considered not cause detrimental impact upon highway safety. The proposal therefore accords with Policy ENV1 (2) of the Selby District Local Plan.
71 2.9 CONCLUSION:
2.9.1 The proposed two and half storey extension, single storey glazed link, covered court area, new court wall and car port is considered not to be well related to the existing dwelling and the character of the surrounding area by virtue of its unsympathetic design, extended footprint, sheer mass and volume, excessive height and unsympathetic stark materials.. The proposal therefore fails to accord with Policy ENV1 (1) and (4) of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.9.2 The proposal is considered to have significant detrimental impact, by virtue of its overbearing and oppressive nature, upon the front elevation (north elevation) windows of 11 Wetherall and therefore fails to accord with Policy ENV1 (1) of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.9.3 This application is recommended to be REFUSED, for the following reasons:
1. The proposed extensions, by virtue of their unsympathetic design, extended footprint, sheer mass and volume, excessive height and unsympathetic stark materials would not be well related to the existing dwelling and the character of the surrounding area and would form a visually dominant addition to the existing dwelling which would not appear subordinate in scale to the main house, contrary to Policy ENV1 (1) and (4) of the Selby District Local Plan.
2. The proposed extensions and the court wall would have a significant detrimental impact, by virtue of its overbearing and oppressive nature, upon the front elevation windows of 11 Wetherall Road contrary to Policy ENV1 (1) of the Selby District Local Plan.
3. Legal/Financial Controls and other Policy matters
3.1 Legal Issues 3.1.1 Planning Acts This application has been determined in accordance with the relevant planning acts.
3.1.2 Human Rights Act 1998 It is considered that a decision made in accordance with this recommendation would not result in any breach of convention rights
3.1.3 Equality Act 2010 This application has been determined with regard to the Council’s duties and obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
3.2 Financial Issues 3.2.1 Financial issues are not material to the determination of this application.
72 N
W E
S APPLICATION SITE Item No: 2010/1179/FUL Address: 1 Chapel Lane, Riccall 73 This map has been reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty's stationary office. © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Selby District Council: 100018656 5
1
NORTHFIELD
5
10 1 LANE8.4m 2
CHAPEL LANE
TCB 2
57 55
88 53
MAIN STREET
1 Chapel Lane, Riccall, The Planning & Design Partnership YORK, YO19 6QH N PLANNING..ARCHITECTURE..INTERIORS..LANDSCAPE The Chicory Barn Studio, The Old Brickyards, Moor Lane, Stamford Bridge, Location Plan York, The East Riding Of Yorkshire, YO41 1HU. scale 1:1250 @ A4 RIC-223-002 Telephone 01759 373656 Fax 01759 371810 LOCATION PLAN E-mail:[email protected] www.the-pdp.co.uk74
Public Session
Agenda Item No:5.5 ______
To: Planning Committee Date: 8 June 2011 Author: Louise Milnes (Planning Officer) Lead Officer: Richard Sunter (Principal Planning Officer) ______
APPLICATION 8/15/57E/PA PARISH: Riccall Parish Council NUMBER: 2010/1179/FUL
APPLICANT: Mr P White VALID DATE: 29 November 2010
EXPIRY DATE: 24 January 2011 PROPOSAL: Proposed dwellings - amendment to replace those previously approved under 8/15/57C/PA (2005/0458/FUL) for a pair of semi-detached dwellings LOCATION: 1 Chapel Lane Riccall York North Yorkshire YO19 6QH
Summary:
The above application is referred to the Planning Committee for a Decision on the grounds that the application is a departure to the development plan. The key issues are the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the conservation area.
Seven letters of objections have been received from local residents and an objection from Riccall Parish Council.
The application due to the parking spaces and layout with the open frontage, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area contrary to Policies ENV1 and ENV25 of the Selby District Local Plan and national guidance contained in PPS5.
75 Recommendations:
i) This planning application is recommended to be REFUSED.
1. Introduction and background
1.1 The application has been advertised as a departure from the development plan as it is contrary to policy H2A of the Local Plan which requires residential development to be on previously developed land within defined development limits. However revisions to PPS3 have removed residential curtilage from those classes of land which are considered to constitute ‘previously developed land’.
1.2 Despite the application being a departure from the Local Plan, should members wish to approve the application there is no need to refer it to the Government Office as it is only a minor departure.
1.2 The Site
1.2.1 The site consists of an area of land measuring 250 square metres situated to the south west of no. 1 Chapel Lane.
1.2.2 The land currently contains a detached garage and an area of garden space bounded by low brick walling with railings above along the front boundary with a solid panelled wooden fence along the rear boundary.
1.2.3 The properties immediately surrounding the site consist of brick or rendered two storey buildings of a traditional design.
1.2.4 The site is within an established residential area within the defined development limits of the village and within Riccall Conservation Area.
1.3 The Proposal
1.3.1 The proposal is a full application for the erection of two semi-detached dwellings constructed from brick with clay tile roof and timber windows and doors.
1.3.2 The dwellings would each have two off-street parking spaces to the front. 1.3.3 The proposals are submitted as an amended design to a scheme for two semi-detached dwellings previously approved on this site in 2005 which has been partially implemented through the excavation and laying of part of the foundations.
1.3.4 The width, depth and height of the property is the same as that previously approved, however the amended house type incorporates a single storey element to the rear projecting 1.2m with an overall width of 4.9m.
76 1.3.5 Other alterations from the previous approval are:
- provision for 1 additional bedroom within the roofspace increasing the properties from the 2 bedroom to 3 bedroom. - altering the roof design to incorporate an asymmetric roof. - the incorporation of 1no. window on each side gable. - the incorporation of 4 no. rooflights on the rear roof slope. - incorporating 2no. parking spaces to the front of each property rather than having 1no. parking space and garden. - removal of the dwarf hedging approved for the front boundary.
1.4 Planning History
1.4.1 In 1982 an application (reference number: CO/1982/02956) for the erection of an extension to provide a lounge and bedroom was granted.
1.4.2 In 1983 an application (reference number: CO/1983/02957) for the erection of an extension to the existing garage was granted.
1.4.3 In 2005 an application (reference number: 2005/0458/FUL for the erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings on land to the south west of 1 Chapel Lane was granted.
1.4.4 In 2010 an application (reference number: 2010/0826/DPC for the discharge of conditions 1 through to 13 of approval 8/15/57D/PA (2005/0458/FUL) for a pair of semi-detached dwellings was granted.
1.4.5 In 2010 an application (reference number: 2010/1180/HPA) for the erection of a single storey attached garage to no. 1 Chapel Lane following demolition of existing single storey extension and new access was granted.
1.5 Consultations
1.5.1 Riccall Parish Council: Object on the grounds of over-development and restricted access. Since the original permission was granted back in 2005, the surrounding area of Chapel Lane has been significantly developed, causing parking and access problems. This is a very narrow lane with no area to turn around. In addition to this the buildings appear to be two and a half storey, which is contrary to the Riccall Village Design Statement, adopted as supplementary planning guidance by Selby District Council in 2001. The Parish Council have considered amendments to the plans and these do not address any of the Council’s original concerns adequately.
1.5.2 NYCC Highways: No objections subject to conditions. North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) have been asked if they would be willing to accept one parking space per property, however in the previous response from NYCC
77 there were concerns regarding the lack of parking on the site which was resolved by additional on-site parking, therefore this opinion has not altered and NYCC are not willing to lower the recommendation for two parking spaces per property.
1.5.3 The Ouse and Derwent Internal Drainage Board: No response received.
1.5.4 Yorkshire water Services Ltd: No objections subject to conditions.
1.6 Publicity
1.6.1 The application has been advertised by site notice, neighbour notification letter and publicity in the local newspaper resulting in 7 letters of objection being received from local residents. The issues raised can be summarised as follows:
• Chapel Lane is a narrow lane in a small village with parking problems already, which restricts emergency vehicles/refuse collection vehicles. • To add a further two houses as well as the new house on Main Street, splitting the Drovers house into two and building another in the garden, is going to cause parking problems and the risk of more accidents. • The proposals would result in restricted access to each new property, creating vehicular problems and potential danger. • The junction at Main Street and Chapel Lane is already a dangerous one with cars and lorries blocking the view from the left and right as they park to utilise the services of the local shop/Post Office. This will become even more dangerous when there are more cars parked on Main Street because they cannot park down Chapel Lane. • Chapel Lane is a very quiet and tranquil part of Riccall in which to live, this is all about to end and become a busy cluttered lane with too many houses and not enough off-street parking. • The proposals are overdevelopment of a very small garden. • The proposals are undesirable on aesthetic grounds and are increased to three storey accommodation which cannot be considered small, with no other three storey properties in Chapel Lane. • The proposals would impact on the outlook, would result in blocking light and would tower above neighbouring properties. • The building would have a ridge height of 450mm in excess of the immediately neighbouring dwellings and will have an overly dominant effect in relation to the front elevation, forming too prominent an element in the streetscene. • The properties lack basic architectural elements that are a common feature of dwellings in the Conservation Area e.g. front doors on main elevations, chimneys at the junction of the ridge and gable. • The window arrangements on the gable ends are even more unsatisfactory than on the previous schemes resulting in poorly articulated elevations.
78 • The front elevation exhibits a classic unresolved duality which is not appropriate in the Conservation Area. • The asymmetric form will look decidedly odd in this context. • There is a conflict between the need to meet parking requirements and the need to maintain a boundary treatment that is in keeping with the character of the Conservation Area. • The scheme, as amended, proposes significant hard surfaced areas at the front with little scope for relief with planting within the site and no scope for walls/railings on the site frontage which is to remain completely open. • The impact of the parking area on the character of the Conservation Area is important as when fully used the concentration of car parking will be visually incongruous and when empty the space revealed will be out of keeping with the grain of the area and will allow greater views of the dwellings that will further reveal their inadequacies in design terms. • The use of grasscrete for part of the proposed parking areas is considered to be inappropriate in that it lacks the subtlety required in the context of the residential character of this part of the conservation area. Together with the proposed treatment of the front boundaries between properties, it will do little to soften the impact of the proposed parking areas as the boundaries with Chapel Lane remain completely open. • There is a doubt that the parking spaces are easily usable due to the restricted width, with little scope for turning and severely restricted visibility for emerging vehicles. • Selby Council have no thought or consideration to other residents when they pass plans for houses to be built in someone’s garden, blocking what view or light they may have, all they see are the £ signs of how much extra council tax will be received. • Riccall Primary School already has too many children, they have to split classes to meet regulations, the proposals add to over populating what was once a quiet village, which will soon become a small town. • The application states that the proposed scheme meets a core objective of the Selby DLP/PPS3 and aims to ensure an adequate supply of housing, paying no attention to the larger scheme on Station Lane in Riccall which ensures this housing need is met without demolishing part of a 19th century period cottage. • The railings to the front of the three period cottages have Grade II listing, the removal of this removes the existing streetscape and is not in keeping with the current elevations.
2. The Report
2.1 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
79 Plan (adopted on 8 February 2005) saved by the direction of the Secretary of State and the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and the Humber (adopted 2008).
2.2 Selby District Local Plan
ENV1: Control of Development ENV25: Control of Development in Conservation Area H2A: Managing the Release of Housing Land H2B: Housing Density H6: Residential Development T1: Development in Relation to Highway T2: Access to Roads
2.3 Regional Spatial Strategy
In respect of the recent announcement by the Secretary of State in regard to his stated intention to revoke regional spatial strategies and the subsequent challenge by Cala Homes, the courts have ruled that the letters of the Secretary of State are material and that it is up to local planning authorities to determine what weight should be afforded to them. Officers consider that, at this point in time, given the letters merely refer to an intention to revoke regional spatial strategies and that the revocation is dependent on the passage of the Localism Bill through Parliament substantial weight should still be afforded to the Regional Spatial Strategy and that only limited weight should be afforded to the letter from the Secretary of State. The relevant policies in relation to this application are: -
Policy Y1: York Sub Area Policy Policy YH6: Local Service Centres and Rural and Coastal Areas Policy H1: Provision and Distribution of Housing Policy H5: Housing Mix
2.4 National Guidance
PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3: Housing PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment
2.5 Other Relevant Documents
Manual for Streets (DfT 2007) Riccall Village Design Statement (Supplementary Planning Document)
2.6 Key Issues
The key issues in the determination of this application are: -
1) Principle of Development
80 2) Design and Effect Upon the Character of the Conservation Area 3) Impact on Residential Amenity 4) Impact on Highway Safety 5) Comprehensive Development of Land, Backland and Tandem Development 6) Density 7) Drainage 8) Other Issues
2.7 The Principle of the Development
2.7.1 The site is located within the development limits of Riccall. Policy H2A of the Local Plan is relevant to the application and this policy requires that new housing development is located on previously developed land within development limits. Previously developed land is defined in Annex B of PPS3 as ‘that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.’
2.7.2 In June 2010 the Government updated PPS3 to exclude private residential gardens from the definition in order to prevent overdevelopment of neighbourhoods and ‘garden grabbing’. Whilst private residential gardens in built up areas are excluded from this definition, in this case evidence has been provided from the Building Control Inspector to demonstrate that the site contains a part implemented permission (2005/0458/FUL) for the erection of two semi detached dwellings on the site. Therefore whilst the proposals are not in accordance with Policy H2A the existence of this planning permission is a material consideration of substantial weight. Furthermore the Council’s approach to previous applications considered since the revisions to PPS3 have allowed replacement schemes on a like for like basis in terms of the number of properties proposed.
2.7.3 This application would replace an existing part implemented consent for two dwellings with a consent for two dwellings of an amended design. In addition the site is located within the development limits of Riccall which is designated in the Local Plan, under policy H6, as a village which is capable of accommodating additional growth. In light of these factors and given the fallback position in that the applicants could continue to build out the scheme part implemented, the proposals are considered, on balance, to be acceptable in principle.
2.8 Design and Effect Upon the Character of the Conservation Area
2.8.1 The application site is located within Riccall Conservation Area and as such national guidance contained in PPS5 and Policy ENV25 of the Selby District Local Plan are relevant.
81 2.8.2 PPS5 paragraph HE7.5 requires account to be given to the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment. The PPS5 Practice Guide, paragraph 80, states that a successful scheme will be one whose design has taken account of the general character and distinctiveness of local buildings, spaces, public realm and the landscape, the diversity or uniformity in style, construction, materials, detailing, decoration and period of existing buildings and spaces, views into and from the site and its surroundings and green landscaping.
2.8.3 In addition to the above Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to ‘the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance’ of the Conservation Area.
2.8.4 Policy ENV25 states that development within a conservation area will be permitted provided the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. ENV25 (1) requires the scale, form, position, design and materials of new buildings to be appropriate to the historic context, similarly Policies ENV1 and H6 require proposals to take account of the effect upon the character of the area.
2.8.5 In terms of the scale and form, the dwellings would be constructed to the same width, depth and height as the previous approval, however incorporate a small single storey addition to the rear of each property. The small increase by virtue of this single storey element is not considered to have a significant impact on the character of the area beyond that of the previous approval and as such is considered acceptable.
2.8.6 The roof design of the property has been amended to form an asymmetrical roof in order to accommodate an additional bedroom within the roof space, however the overall height would be the same as no. 1 Chapel Lane. Furthermore asymmetrical cat-slide style roofs are not uncommon in properties around the conservation area. Therefore given that the height would be in keeping with existing properties it is considered that this element of the proposal would have a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area.
2.8.7 It is also proposed to add a window at second floor level on the gable of each of the properties and insert 4no. roof lights on the rear roof slope. The previous approval did not remove permitted development rights for the insertion of windows therefore these could be inserted in the approved dwellings without consent. Notwithstanding this it is considered that these alterations would not result in a significant detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area.
2.8.8 In terms of the window layout, design and proportions this remains similar to those previously approved and takes influence from other
82 properties within the conservation area and as such is considered acceptable.
2.8.9 In terms of the materials, these would be in line with the previous approval, being brick with clay roof tiles and timber windows and doors, which are considered appropriate subject to a condition requiring samples to be provided.
2.8.10 PPS5 and ENV25 (2) requires features of townscape importance including open spaces, trees, verges, hedging and paving to be retained. Furthermore ENV25 (4) requires that the proposed use, external site works and boundary treatment are compatible with the character and appearance of the area. In addition the Village Design Statement for Riccall sets out the importance of open spaces and boundaries, stating ‘Parish boundaries are defined largely by hedgerows. Boundaries in the older parts of the village are defined by brick walls with brick on edge toppings, copings and hedges. These give harmonious height variations and a natural linkage between houses.’ In light of these characteristics the Village Design Statement requires all planning decisions to ensure conformity of house boundaries with the local style.
2.8.11 The proposed amended house type would result in the loss of the open space between the dwellings that currently exists, however under the previous approval it was considered that this loss was not detrimental to the conservation area and as such the same view should be taken in this instance.
2.8.12 In terms of the position and layout of the site this remains similar to that previously approved in terms of the amenity space provided to the rear and it would be recommended that permitted development rights be removed for future extensions or outbuildings to ensure that the development remains of an appropriate layout.
2.8.13 The layout to the front now provides two car parking spaces per property, as this is required by the Highways Officer due to the increase in the number of bedrooms from two to three. This results in the loss of part of the amenity space and the loss of the low brick wall and railings along the front boundary. When viewing the layout of the site in context of the character of the conservation area, it is noted that existing properties are predominantly constructed up to the footway or are set back within the site with small garden areas provided to the front which softens the appearance within the streetscene. Where parking provision is within the curtilage it is to the side of the property with low walls, railings or hedging forming the front boundaries.
2.8.14 Despite the layout of the site to the front incorporating a part grasscrete surface, there would be very little space for any grass or planting to the front and no provision for a boundary to the front which the Village Design Statement considers to be a strong characteristic in the
83 conservation area. The previous approval conditioned appropriate boundary treatments (hedging) along the front boundary consistent with the character of the area. The inclusion of this condition demonstrates that this was an important part of the development design in order to ensure consistency with the other properties in the conservation area. As such it is considered that the proposals to provide the parking spaces required would compromise the quality of the layout resulting in an open frontage with four parking spaces, no garden to allow soft landscaping or planting and no front boundaries which would fail to take into account the general character and local distinctiveness and would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area contrary to Policies ENV1 and ENV25 of the Selby District Local Plan and national guidance contained in PPS5.
2.8.15 ENV25 (3) relates to proposals not adversely affecting the setting of the area or significant views into or out of the area. If an appropriate design could be achieved it is not considered that the proposals would adversely affect the setting of the area or significant views.
2.9 Impact on Residential Amenity
2.9.1 Policies ENV1 (1) and H6 (2) require proposals to take account of the impact on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties. The proposals would achieve distances of 23m and 28m from the properties to the rear of the site which is considered an appropriate separation distance to ensure that there would be no significant detrimental impact in terms of overlooking or overshadowing.
2.9.2 A distance of 14m would be achieved from the front elevation to the front of no. 4 Chapel Lane which would achieve a greater separation than the relationship of other properties along this road due to the properties being set further into the site and is the same as that approved on the previous application which established that there would not be a significant impact on the residential amenity of existing occupiers through overlooking. In terms of overshadowing on this property, this will be minimal due to the properties being located to the north of no. 4 and as such it is not considered that the proposals would be unduly detrimental.
2.9.3 The dwellings would achieve a distance of 19m from the side elevation to the rear elevation of no. 2 York Road and 6m from the side gable of the main dwelling at no. 1 Chapel Lane which are considered reasonable separation distances to ensure that there would be no significant impact. In light of these factors it is considered that the properties would achieve adequate separation from neighbouring properties to ensure that there would be no significant detrimental impact on residential amenity in accordance with Policies ENV1 (1) and H6 (2) of the Local Plan.
84 2.10 Impact on Highway Safety
2.10.1 Policies ENV1 (2), H6 (3), T1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan require development to ensure that there is no detrimental impact on the existing highway network or parking arrangements.
2.10.2 The application proposes two car parking spaces to the front of each property with an open frontage for access. The Highways Officer has been made aware of the objections received from residents regarding existing highway problems and he considers that the arrangements for access and parking would be acceptable subject to conditions and should not result in a detrimental impact on the existing highway network in accordance with Policies ENV1 (2), H6 (3), T1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.11 Comprehensive Development of Land, Backland and Tandem Development
2.11.1 Policy H6 (4) states that development should not compromise future comprehensive development of land with Policy H6 (5) stating that development should not constitute an unacceptable form of backland or tandem development. The site, due to its location to the side of the existing property does not restrict comprehensive development of any other land as it is surrounded by existing residential properties and as such would be in accordance with Policy H6 (4).
2.11.2 The site is not a backland site but an infill plot due to its position to the side of the existing dwelling, in between other residential properties therefore the proposal by its very nature would not form backland development in accordance with Policy H6 (5) of Selby District Local Plan.
2.12 Density
2.12.1 Policy H2B states that development will be expected to achieve a minimum net density of 30 dwellings per hectare in order to ensure efficient use of land. This has since been superseded by PPS3 which removes the requirement for minimum densities to allow flexibility for local authorities to suit local needs. Notwithstanding the revision to PPS3 the proposals for two dwellings on this site is considered an acceptable density in terms of the character and form of the area and in relation to residential amenity.
2.13 Drainage
2.13.1 Given the nature of the proposal and the location of the site outside a flood risk area, it is concluded that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of drainage. The application indicates that the disposal of foul sewage would be through the main sewer. Yorkshire Water have requested that conditions be attached to ensure that separate systems
85 of drainage for foul and surface water be provided and that the means of disposal for foul and surface water be submitted to and approved prior to development commencing. The Internal Drainage Board have not provided any comments. However, having had regard to the comments of Yorkshire Water and the extant planning permission it is considered that the proposal, subject to conditions would be acceptable in terms of drainage.
2.14 Other issues
2.14.1 In response to an objection received it should be noted that planning applications are considered against local, national and regional policies not in light of how much council tax would be received.
2.14.2 In terms of Riccall Primary School having too many children, the development does not meet the threshold to require the Council to request a contribution towards education provision in the area.
2.14.3 Comments have been noted in relation to the larger residential scheme on Station Lane which contributes to the housing provision in the area, the considerations relating to the principle of the scheme, which would further contribute to housing in the area are considered above.
2.14.4 In terms of the objection received relating to the existing railings being listed, having checked the Council’s records Officers consider that this is not the case. However the issue of the lack of boundary treatments and the character of the frontage of the site is addressed in detail above.
2.15 Conclusion
2.15.1 The development of this site for two proposed dwellings although not in strict accordance with Policies H2A and H6 of the Selby District Local Plan would be considered, on balance, acceptable in principle due to the existence of a fall back position in terms of a part implemented scheme for two dwellings on this site.
2.15.2 The proposals in terms of the impact on residential amenity, highway safety and drainage would be considered acceptable in accordance with Policies ENV1, H6, T1 and T2 of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.15.3 In terms of the scale, form, design and materials the proposals are considered acceptable, however the proposals to provide the parking spaces required for a three bedroomed property would compromise the quality of the layout resulting in an open frontage with four parking spaces, no garden to allow soft landscaping or planting and no front boundaries. The proposals therefore fail to take into account the general character and local distinctiveness and would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area
86 contrary to Policies ENV1 and ENV25 of the Selby District Local Plan and national guidance contained in PPS5.
2.15.4 This application is recommended to be REFUSED, for the following reason:
1. The proposal, by virtue that it would have to provide the parking spaces required for a three bedroomed property would compromise the quality of the layout resulting in an open frontage with four parking spaces, no garden to allow soft landscaping or planting and no front boundaries. The proposals therefore would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the Riccall Conservation Area contrary to Policies ENV1 and ENV25 of the Selby District Local Plan and national guidance contained in PPS5.
3. Legal/Financial Controls and other Policy matters
3.1 Legal Issues 3.1.1 Planning Acts This application has been determined in accordance with the relevant planning acts.
3.1.2 Human Rights Act 1998 It is considered that a decision made in accordance with this recommendation would not result in any breach of convention rights
3.1.3 Equality Act 2010 This application has been determined with regard to the Council’s duties and obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
3.2 Financial Issues Financial issues are not material to the determination of this application.
4. Conclusion As stated in the main body of the report.
5. Background Documents
Planning Application file reference 2010/1179/FUL and associated documents.
Contact Officer: Richard Sunter (Principal Planning Officer)
Appendices: None
87 N
W E
S APPLICATION SITE Item No: 2011/0253/FUL Address: Selby War Memorial Hospital, Doncaster Road, Selby 88 This map has been reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty's stationary office. © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Selby District Council: 100018656 89
Public Session
Agenda Item No:5.6 ______
To: Planning Committee Date: 8 June 2011 Author: Kevin Robinson (Senior Planning Officer) Lead Officer: Richard Sunter (Principal Planning Officer) ______
APPLICATION 8/19/357Q/PA PARISH: Selby Town Council NUMBER: 2011/0253/FUL
APPLICANT: Ms Janet VALID DATE: 9 March 2011 Probert EXPIRY 4 May 2011 DATE: PROPOSAL: Proposed medical gas cylinder storage cages in service yard
LOCATION: Selby War Memorial Hospital Doncaster Road Selby YO8 9BX
Summary:
The above application is referred to the Planning Committee for a Decision on the grounds that the Council has an interest in the development. The principle of the development is acceptable and the main issues are the impact upon the character of the area and residential amenity.
One letter of representation was received questioning the deliveries to the site and associated noise from deliveries.
The proposal is not considered to be contrary to policy ENV1 and PPS1 ‘Sustainable Development’.
Recommendations:
i. This application is recommended to be APPROVED subject to the conditions detailed at paragraph 2.10.2 of this report.
90
1. Introduction and background
1.1 The Site
1.1.1 The site lies off Doncaster Road, to the south west of the town centre of Selby on one of the arterial roads into the town in an area that is predominantly residential in character. Whilst the building works to provide the new joint Civic centre and War Memorial Hospital are on going the site itself was previously occupied by the Selby War Memorial Hospital building and its associated car parking and grounds
1.1.2 The site is bordered to the south, west and north by existing residential properties on Green Lane, 'The Ruddings', Courtneys and by Worsley Court, which provides a care home service, and the Ambulance Station to the east. Low fencing and a thick trimmed hedge forms the existing boundary of the site along Green Lane, whilst a mixture of low fencing and hedge/tree planting predominantly forms the boundary along Doncaster Road. The boundary of the hospital site between 'The Ruddings' and Courtneys is ramshackle in character being composed of hedging, trees and residential fencing of various heights, material and age.
1.1.3 The proposal is located to the rear of the Civic Centre/ War Memorial Hospital within the service yard. The service yard is bounded by a 2.2 metre high brick wall and has a separation distance ranging between 5 and 8 metres from the boundaries of the neighbouring properties to The Ruddings.
1.2. The Proposal
1.2.1 The proposal is to provide for two medical gas cylinder storage cages within the service yard to the combined Civic Centre and War Memorial Hospital. The storage cages would be located adjacent to one another with the larger of the two housing full cylinders and the smaller housing empty cylinders. The cage for the full cylinders would measure approximately 3.1m by 1.5m with a height of 2.2m. Whilst the cage for empty cylinders would measure approximately 2.1 by 1.5m with a height of 2.2m.
1.3 Planning History
1.3.1 The planning history to the existing War Memorial Hospital is not considered to be of particular relevance. The Planning History to the combined facility comprises Planning approval 2009/0233/FUL for the erection of combined Community Hospital and Civic Centre building, together with, detached single storey stores, construction of roads, car parking and demolition of existing hospital, approved 17 June 2009. Further to this consent an approval was granted under application 2010/0427/FUL for the use of a temporary access from Green Lane to
91 enable the separation of construction traffic and hospital users during construction works.
1.4 Consultations
1.4.1 Selby Town Council: No objections raised.
1.4.2 Environmental Health Manager: Recommend the Health and Safety Executive are consulted on the storage.
1.4.3 The Health and Safety Executive (HSE): Response received stating that the HSE have no comments to make in respect of this proposal.
1.5 Publicity All immediate neighbours were informed by letter and a site notice was erected. One letter of representation was received questioning the deliveries to the site and associated noise from deliveries.
2. The Report
2.1 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 and the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and the Humber (adopted 2008).
2.2 Regional Spatial Strategy
2.2.1 In respect of the recent announcement by the Secretary of State in regard to his stated intention to abolish regional spatial strategies and the subsequent challenge by Cala Homes, the courts have ruled that the letters of the Secretary of State are material and that it is up to local planning authorities to determine what weight should be afforded to them. Officers consider that, at this point in time, given the letters merely refer to an intention to abolish regional spatial strategies and that the abolition is dependent on the passage of the Localism Bill through Parliament substantial weight should still be afforded to the Regional Spatial Strategy and that only limited weight should be afforded to the letter from the Secretary of State.
2.3 Relevant Polices include:
92 Selby District Local Plan ENV1- Control of Development.
Regional Spatial Strategy No relevant policies
National Guidance and Policy PPS1- Sustainable Development. PPS25- Development and Flood Risk.
2.4 Key issues
The key issues in the consideration of this application are considered to be:
1) The Principle of the Development 2) Impact upon the Character of the Area 3) Residential Amenity 4) Other issues
2.5 The Principle of the Development
2.5.1 The proposal is to provide storage facilities for medical gas cylinders within the service yard. The site is located within the defined development limits of Selby and the proposal is ancillary to the main use of the site. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle in accordance with Selby District Local Plan.
2.6 Impact upon the Character of the Area
2.6.1 Policy ENV1 criteria 1 of the Selby District Local Plan requires that the District Council take account of “the effect upon the character of the area” with criteria 4 requires account is taken of “the standard of layout, design and materials in relation to the site and its surroundings and associated landscaping”.
2.6.2 In this respect the proposed medical gas cylinder storage cages are located within an enclosed service yard and would not be readily visible in public views of the site. The proposed materials being of a metal frame with mesh infill is considered to be suitable for this location and is of a type appropriate to its intended use.
2.6.3 The proposal is considered to be acceptable in this respect in accordance with Policy ENV1(1,4) of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.7 Impact on Residential Amenity
2.7.1 Policy ENV1(1) requires that the District Council take account of “the effect upon… the amenity of adjoining occupiers”.
93
2.7.2 The proposed storage would store a maximum of 16 Oxygen cylinders and 2 Nitrous Oxide cylinders in the full store and 10 Oxygen Cylinders and 1 Nitrous Oxide cylinder in the empty store. In the supporting information the applicant states that whilst deliveries would depend upon the number and type of patients at any one time it is expected to be a maximum of 2 to 3 deliveries. In this respect the deliveries to the site are not proposed to alter from the constraints consented under the approval for the combined Civic Centre War Memorial Hospital. The proposed storage is not considered to result in an increase in deliveries or associated noise over and above that previously consented under the consent for the combined Civic Centre Memorial Hospital.
2.7.3 The proposal is considered to be acceptable in this respect with Policy ENV1(1) of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.8 Flood Risk
2.8.1 The application site is located within Flood Zone 2 therefore having between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 annual probability of river flooding. Paragraph D15 of PPS25 states that applications for minor development and changes of use should not be subject to the sequential and exception test but still have to meet the requirements for Flood Risk Assessment’s and flood risk reduction measures set out in table D1. The definition of Minor Development includes industrial / commercial extensions which have a floor area below 250 square metres. As the proposal is for the provision of small medical gas storage cages it is considered that the proposal meets the definition of Minor Development and therefore is not required to be subject to the application of a Sequential Test.
2.8.2 A Flood Risk Assessment was submitted with the proposal providing mitigation measures as appropriate. The FRA is considered to be acceptable. The proposed extensions are therefore in accordance with the advice contained in PPS25.
2.9 Health and Safety
2.9.1 Health Technical Memorandum 2022 sets out the working practices which are to be adhered to in order to ensure that medical gases are stored, transported, maintained and delivered to the point of use in a safe and reliable manner and of the required quality. Included are areas of responsibility, legal and mandatory requirements, functional and design considerations, validation and verification, operational management and good practice.
2.9.2 The proposal is for the storage of medical gasses within the service yard. The storage of medical gases is controlled through both health and safety legislation and through NHS best practise guidance as such
94 the safe and secure storage of the gas cylinders on site is controlled through other legislation and therefore does not require addressing in the determination of this application.
2.10 CONCLUSION:
2.10.1 Having had regard to the development plan, consultation responses and material planning considerations it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in principle and would not result in a detrimental impact upon the character of the area or the amenity of the adjoining occupiers. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in this respect with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.10.2 The following conditions are recommended to be attached to any permission granted: -
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 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans/drawings listed below:
Ref: A(00)GAP108 Rev A – Location Plan Ref: A(00)GAP107 Rev A – Medical Gas Storage Cages Ref: A(00)GAP106 Rev K – Outbuilding General Arrangement
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.
3. Legal/Financial Controls and other Policy matters
3.1 Legal Issues
3.1.1 Planning Acts This application has been determined in accordance with the relevant planning acts.
3.1.2 Human Rights Act 1998 It is considered that a decision made in accordance with this recommendation would not result in any breach of convention rights
3.1.3 Equality Act 2010
95 This application has been determined with regard to the Council’s duties and obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
3.2 Financial Issues
3.2.1 Financial issues are not material to the determination of this application.
4. Conclusion
4.1 As stated in the main body of the report.
5. Background Documents
5.1 Planning Application file reference 2011/0253/FUL and associated documents.
Contact Officer: Richard Sunter (Principal Planning Officer)
Appendices: None.
96 E S N W 97
6
2011/0404/FUL Selby War Selby MemorialHospital,Doncaster Road,Selby
APPLICATION SITE APPLICATION
Address: This map has been reproduced This from map reproduced has been the Ordnance Survey with the ofmapping permission Her Majesty's stationary office. © copyright.Crown
Item No: Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright Crown may and to infringes reproduction Selby lead or prosecution Districtproceedings. Unauthorised civil 100018656 Council: 98
Public Session
Agenda Item No:5.7 ______
To: Planning Committee Date: 8 June 2011 Author: Kevin Robinson (Senior Planning Officer) Lead Officer: Richard Sunter (Principal Planning Officer) ______
APPLICATION 8/19/357R/PA PARISH: Selby Town Council NUMBER: 2011/0404/FUL
APPLICANT: Ms Janet VALID 15 April 2011 Probert DATE: 10 June 2011 EXPIRY DATE: PROPOSAL: Proposed sculpture at central pedestrian island in front of new building LOCATION: Selby War Memorial Hospital Doncaster Road Selby YO8 9BX
Summary:
The above application is referred to the Planning Committee for a Decision on the grounds that the Council has an interest in the development.
The principle of the development is acceptable and the main issues are the impact upon the character of the area and impact on residential amenity of adjoining occupiers.
One letter of comment was received from a neighbour. The letter states that the correspondents are in support of the application if it is a War Memorial Sculpture to those who gave their lives for this Country and is traditional in design. The letter raises objections if the application is for any other purpose especially some ‘modern, expensive monstrosity typical of today’s production’.
99 Questions are also raised over the cost of the sculpture to the NHS Trust and Selby District Council.
The proposal is not considered to be contrary to policy ENV1 and PPS1 ‘Sustainable Development’.
Recommendations:
i. This application is recommended to be APPROVED subject to the conditions detailed at paragraph 2.10.1 of this report.
1. Introduction and background
1.1 The Site
1.1.1 The site lies off Doncaster Road, to the south west of the town centre of Selby on one of the arterial roads into the town in an area that is predominantly residential in character.
1.1.2 The development of the site is a joint project between the North Yorkshire and York NHS Trust and Selby District Council to erect a combined community hospital and civic centre building together with detached single storey stores and a new car park. The combined facility will replace the existing War Memorial Hospital, which will be demolished, and also the existing Selby District Council offices, known as the Civic Centre, which lie on Portholme Road to the north east of the application site in Selby.
1.1.3 The site is bordered to the south, west and north by existing residential properties on Green Lane, 'The Ruddings', Courtneys and by Worsley Court, which provides a care home service, and the Ambulance Station to the north east.
1.2 The proposal
1.2.1 The proposal is for the erection of a parallax sculpture in the central pedestrian island to the front of the combined facility. The parallax sculpture is formed by three pieces of a penny which is seen as a whole piece from one view point upon exiting the building. The proposed sculpture features references to the original War Memorial Hospital as the original subscription was one old penny per month fundraising by the population of Selby. In addition the sculpture features the date the original hospital opened, 1927.
1.3 Planning History
1.3.1 The planning history to the existing War Memorial Hospital is not considered to be of particular relevance. The Planning History to the
100 combined facility comprises Planning approval 2009/0233/FUL for the erection of combined Community Hospital and Civic Centre building, together with, detached single storey stores, construction of roads, car parking and demolition of existing hospital, approved 17 June 2009. Further to this consent an approval was granted under application 2010/0427/FUL for the use of a temporary access from Green Lane to enable the separation of construction traffic and hospital users during construction works.
1.4 Consultations
1.4.1 Selby Town Council: No response received.
1.4.2 North Yorkshire Highways Authority: No objections raised.
1.5 Publicity
1.5.1 All immediate neighbours were informed by letter and a site notice was erected. One letter of neighbour comments was received. The letter states that they are in support of the application if it is a War Memorial Sculpture to those who gave their lives for this Country and is traditional in design. The letter raises objections if the application is for any other purpose especially ‘some modern, expensive monstrosity typical of today’s production’. Questions are also raised over the cost of the sculpture to the NHS Trust and SDC.
2. The Report
2.1 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 and the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and the Humber (adopted 2008).
2.2 Regional Spatial Strategy
2.2.1 In respect of the recent announcement by the Secretary of State in regard to his stated intention to abolish regional spatial strategies and the subsequent challenge by Cala Homes, the courts have ruled that the letters of the Secretary of State are material and that it is up to local planning authorities to determine what weight should be afforded to them. Officers consider that, at this point in time, given the letters merely refer to an intention to abolish regional spatial strategies and that the abolition is dependent on the passage of the Localism Bill
101 through Parliament substantial weight should still be afforded to the Regional Spatial Strategy and that only limited weight should be afforded to the letter from the Secretary of State.
2.3 Relevant Polices include:
Selby District Local Plan ENV1: Control of Development
Regional Spatial Strategy No relevant policies
National Guidance and Policies PPS1: Planning for Sustainable Development PPS25: Planning and Flood Risk
2.4 Key issues
The key issues in the determination of this application are considered to be:
1) The Principle of the Development 2) Impact upon the Character and Form of the Area 3) Highways Safety 4) Residential Amenity 5) Flood Risk
2.5 The Principle of the Development
2.5.1 The proposal is for the erection of a feature piece of art work at the central pedestrian island. The proposal is considered to be ancillary development in connection with the development of the joint Civic Centre/ Hospital development. As such the proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle in accordance with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.6 Impact upon the Character and Form of the Area
2.6.1 Policy ENV1(1) of the Selby District Local Plan requires that the District Council take account of “the effect upon the character of the area. In addition criterion 4 requires account is taken of “the standard of layout, design and materials in relation to the site and its surroundings and associated landscaping”.
2.6.2 In this respect the central pedestrian island as originally approved was laid out to incorporate planting in the form of low level shrubbery. The proposed sculpture would have a height of 3.3 metres. The details of the sculpture, being a penny and having the date of the original hospital are considered to reflect the original use of the site. In addition given the location, centrally within the site adjacent to the entrance to
102 the hospital, it is not considered that the piece would result in a significant impact upon the character of the area.
2.6.3 The proposal is considered to be acceptable in this respect with regard to Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.7 Highways Safety
2.7.1 Policy ENV1(2) of the Selby District Local Plan requires that account is taken of “the relationship of the proposal to the highway network, the proposed means of access, the need for road/junction improvements in the vicinity of the site, and the arrangements to be made for car parking”.
2.7.2 The Highways Authority have been consulted on the proposal and have raised no objections. The proposal is not considered to result in a significant adverse impact upon highways safety and is therefore in accordance with Policy ENV1(2) of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.8 Residential Amenity
2.8.1 Policy ENV1(1) requires that account is taken of “the effect upon… the amenity of adjoining occupiers”.
2.8.2 In this respect the proposal is for the erection of a 3.3 metre high sculpture with a distance of approximately 85 metres to the boundary with the nearest residential property. The proposed Sculpture is not considered to result in a significant impact upon the amenity levels of the surrounding properties. The proposal is considered to be in accordance in this respect with Policy ENV1(1) of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.9 Flood Risk
2.9.1 The application site is located within Flood Zone 2 therefore having between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 annual probability of river flooding. Paragraph D15 of PPS25 states that applicants for minor development and change of use should not be subject to the sequential and exception test but still have to meet the requirements for Flood Risk Assessment’s and flood risk reduction measures set out in table D1. The definition of Minor Development includes industrial / commercial extensions which have a floor area below 250 square metres. As the proposal is for the provision of a sculpture it is considered that the proposal meets the definition of Minor Development and therefore is not required to be subject to the application of a Sequential Test.
2.9.2 A Flood Risk Assessment was submitted with the original application for the site providing mitigation measures as appropriate. The proposal does not significantly impact upon the layout of the site or upon its
103 impact on flood risk. The proposed development is therefore in accordance with the advice contained in PPS25.
2.10 CONCLUSION:
Having had regard to the development plan, all other relevant local and national policy consultation responses and all other material planning considerations, it is considered that the proposed sculpture would not have a detrimental effect on the form and character of the area, or upon highways safety or amenity of the locality. The application is therefore considered not to be contrary to Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
2.10.1 The following conditions are recommended to be attached to any permission granted: -
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. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of the lighting of the sculpture shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with such an approved scheme which shall be retained for the lifetime of the development.
Reason In the interest of residential amenity to accord with the requirements of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.
3. Legal/Financial Controls and other Policy matters
3.1 Legal Issues
3.1.1 Planning Acts This application has been determined in accordance with the relevant planning acts.
3.1.2 Human Rights Act 1998 It is considered that a decision made in accordance with this recommendation would not result in any breach of convention rights
3.1.3 Equality Act 2010
104 This application has been determined with regard to the Council’s duties and obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
3.2 Financial Issues
3.2.1 Financial issues are not material to the determination of this application.
4. Conclusion
4.1 As stated in the main body of the report.
5. Background Documents
5.1 Planning Application file reference 2011/0404/FUL and associated documents.
Contact Officer: Richard Sunter (Principal Planning Officer)
Appendices: None.
105 N
W E
S APPLICATION SITE Item No: 2010/1315/CPO Address: Darrington Quarries, Stubbs Lane, Cridling Stubbs 106 This map has been reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty's stationary office. © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Selby District Council: 100018656 Rev Suffix Date DEC 10 Date EM ENT G KD Check Northing By PM ENT M ANA O Originated Approved 22 December2010 RECEIVED ELECTRONICALLY DEVEL 1:2,500 FINAL Coordinates © SCOTT WILSON LTD 2010 PREPARED AND PROVIDED. WIND FARM PROPOSED Red Line Boundary Wind Turbine and Reference Number 90m Rotor Diameter (45m blade) SITE LAYOUT 107 AH Proposed Site Access Track Overrun Area Required for Turbine Transport Vehicles Proposed Alternative Access Track Indicative Compund Construction Location Proposed Crane Hardstanding Proposed Substation Location T1 1 449587.021 421920.782 2 449914.764 421816.095 3 450345.940 421910.574 4 450173.369 421445.951 5 450615.244 421617.357 6 450230.083 420991.181 7 450747.244 421046.487 8 451168.440 420903.120 FIGURE 5.1B AND ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT WAS ITS CLIENT AND IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THAT bridleway than 200m. 6. Truncated radius so T8 will be no closer to the 5. Constrained by Third Party land. the water pipeline and landfill areas. micrositing of the turbine foundation to avoid 4. Red line boundary at T5 shaped to allow to Stubbs Lane/Leys Lane than shown. after micrositing. 3. Truncated radius so the turbine will be no closer will not be any closer than 140m to the motorway separation distance from the M62, i.e. turbines 2-6 below. 2. Truncated radius to recognise minimum safe unless dictated by site constraints, see notes 1. Redline boundary allows for 35m micrositing, LIMESTONE QUARRY Turbine Easting THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE NOTES ANY USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OTHER THAN BY ITS CLIENT APPOINTMENT. SCOTT WILSON ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY FOR WITH THE SCOPE OF SCOTT WILSON'S APPOINTMENT WITH Waste Recycling Group, 100020587 Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Drawing Number Drawing Status Job Title Drawing Title Stage 1 check Stage 2 check NOTES Copyright Revision Details Scale at A1 Drawn Scott Wilson Ltd The McLaren Building Brimingham, B4 7LR 46 The Priory Queensway Telephone +44 (0)121 212Fax 3035 +44 (0)121 212 1938 www.urs-scottwilson.com
H Pond
1.22m Tk 16.7m
BS LANE B U
ST (Limestone) Darrington Quarry See Note 6 Stone Stone Stone MH T8
Pond
Drain Drain (Limestone) Def Darrington Quarry MP .25
STN STN MP .25 Drain Cell 3 Stone (Limestone) Cell 4
Darrington Quarry CF
Stone Cell 2 tbsLane Stubbs SP See Note 5 Tanks Stone Stone
MP 60 MP 60
Und Def BM 34.03m POST MP 60 MP 60
WB M 62 T7
Drain WB Cell 1
See Note 4 Co Const,CP& Met Dist Bdy Stone Stone
s yor nve
Co
in
a
Dr EK POST See Note 5
T5
Und CF
Cell 5 (South) STUBBS LANE Cell 5 (North)
H
22m R
1.
M62
y
d
B
t
ns
o
oC ro Eu MH 38.4m T3
See Note 2
1.22m RH
f
e D
1.22m1.22m RH
40.0m 40.0m
uoCntBdy Bdy Const Const Euro Euro
CF
M 62
Def
T6 Def Co Const & Met Dist Bdy See Note 5 T4 See Note 3 See Note 3 Quarry (disused) CF Co Const, CP & Met Dist Bdy
CH LEYS LANE f
40.7m
e D BM 42.14m 44.4m
CH 44.6m 39.0m 42.9m 41.7m 41.3m GP Und LeysLEYS LANE Lane 43.5m
Co Const & MetDist Bdy
43.6m
Drain Leys Drain
Const Bdy ef Euro 42.9m D CW Golf Course
d ef Un D Path (um)
Und CF CW t Bdy Met Dis & Co C onst 41.8m (disused)
Def Leys Quarry (disused)
Leys Quarry Bdy Ward T2
M 62 Path (um)
M62 See Note 2 T1
See Note 5
ieah \awp0140 aaeetSrie\04-IfrainSsesD316LmsoeQar idFr\rGSMD\ia esos iue51B-TrieLctoswt ir-iigAllowances.mxd Micro-Siting with Locations Turbine - 5.1.B Figure Versions\ Farm\ArcGIS\MXDs\Final Wind Quarry Limestone Systems\D130126 Information - Services\5004 Management - \\ba-wip-001\4400 Filepath: ae 4hDcme 2010 December 14th Date:
Public Session
Agenda Item No:6 ______
To: Planning Committee Date: 8 June 2011 Author: Richard Sunter (Principal Planning Officer) Lead Officer: Richard Sunter (Principal Planning Officer) ______
APPLICATION 8/40/73/PA PARISH: Kellington Parish NUMBER: 2010/1315/CPO Council
APPLICANT: Mr Chris Ratcliffe VALID DATE: 24 February 2011 EXPIRY DATE: 24 March 2011 PROPOSAL: Erection of 8 wind turbines, creation of new access point from Leys Lane, alterations to existing access points and ancillary development. LOCATION: Darrington Quarries Ltd Stubbs Lane Cridling Stubbs Knottingley West Yorkshire WF11 0AH
Summary:
The above application has been submitted to both Wakefield District Council and North Yorkshire County Council. North Yorkshire County Council has in turn consulted Selby District Council to obtain its views before determining the application.
The purpose of this report is to make Councillors aware of the issues surrounding the application and to seek approval to send the letter of objection outlined in Appendix 1 of this report to North Yorkshire County Council.
108 Officers consider that the proposal, by virtue that it would fail to maintain openness and that it would result in encroachment and therefore conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt would constitute inappropriate development and therefore should only be supported where the applicant has demonstrated very special circumstances.
The proposal is of such a scale and nature that it has required an Environmental Impact Assessment and the applicant has submitted an Environmental Statement in support of the application.
When put in the balance it is considered that the wider environmental and economic benefits arising from applicant’s case do not clearly outweigh the overwhelming harm arising by reason of inappropriateness, harm to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt and to the other harms listed above. As such it is considered that very special circumstances have not been demonstrated to exist.
Recommendations:
i. It is recommended that the attached letter of objection to North Yorkshire County Council is NOTED and APPOVED.
Reasons for recommendation
It is therefore considered that the proposal fails to meet the requirements of Policy GB2, GB4 of the Local Plan and the guidance in PPG2. It is therefore recommended that the Council lodges an objection to the application proposal on the above grounds.
1. Introduction and background
1.1 An application for the erection of 8 wind turbines, creation of new access point from Leys Lane, alterations to existing access points and ancillary development at Darrington Quarries Ltd, Stubbs Lane, Cridling Stubbs has been submitted to both Wakefield District Council and North Yorkshire County Council. North Yorkshire County Council has in turn consulted Selby District Council to obtain its views before determining the application.
1.2 The purpose of this report is to make Councillors aware of the issues surrounding the application and to seek approval to send the letter of objection outlined in Appendix 1 of this report to North Yorkshire County Council.
1.3 The Site
1.3.1 The application site comprises part of the 188 hectare Darrington quarry complex. The application site straddles the administrative boundaries of Selby District and Wakefield Metropolitan District in
109 addition to the North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire boundary. It covers an area of 25 hectares and consists of several parcels of land that vary in composition from restored and capped areas of landfill, operational quarry with silt lagoons and landscaping and screening.
1.3.2 The site lies within the designated West Yorkshire Green Belt and the part of the site that lies within Selby District lies within a Locally Important Landscape Area. To the south of the application lie two Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs), namely- Wake Wood, and Womersley & Cridling Stubbs Quarry. . 1.3.3 The site is situated on the magnesian limestone ridge, which forms a distinctive belt of high ground along the western side of Selby District. The top of the ridge at the application site comprises a flat plateau with an east facing scarp which gently descends towards the flat arable landscape of the Humberhead Levels. Viewed from the east the ridge forms a distinct landscape feature. Although, the immediate area is dominated by Darrington Quarry, the quarry itself, due to extensive screening and woodland planting does form a prominent visible feature within the wider landscape. Therefore the ridge when viewed from the east appears as a wooded slope, particularly from the M62 and Cridling Stubbs and from Kellington.
1.3.4 The site is located on the edge of the West Yorkshire Conurbation at its interface with the more rural hinterland of North Yorkshire. As such landscape quality and characteristics vary considerably around the site. To the north of the site is the M62 across which is the settlement of Knottingley. Views in this direction take in the Ferrybridge Power Station and to the north east Kellingley Colliery, both forming large industrial complexes. To the east is the flat arable landscapes typical of the Humberhead Levels, interrupted by the man made hill at Gale Common, which is formed from the spoil at Kellingley Colliery, a power line supported by pylons and depending on the location from where the view is taken views of the power station at Eggborough. Notwithstanding this much of man made hill at Gale Common, particularly the northern half benefits from extensive mature landscaping so that it reflects its predominantly rural setting.
1.3.5 To the south-east is Womersley beyond which is well-wooded flat arable countryside benefiting from tree belts.
1.3.6 To the south is the landscape of the magnesian limestone ridge, consisting of flat plateau interspersed with gentle rolling valleys.
1.3.7 To the west the magnesian limestone plateau continues across the A1 after which it forms a west facing scarp at Pontefract, around which the landscape becomes increasingly urban, associated with the five towns area of Wakefield District.
110 1.4 The Proposal
1.4.1 The proposal is for the erection of 8 wind turbines, creation of new access point from Leys Lane, alterations to existing access points and ancillary development at Darrington Quarry, Stubbs Lane / Leys Lane, Cridling Stubbs, North Yorkshire.
1.4.2 The turbines would be 80 metres in height to the hub and have a blade radius of 45 metres giving a total height to the tip of the blade of 125 metres. It is proposed that the turbines would be mid grey in colour with a minimum reflective, semi-matt finish coating and fitted with red aviation lighting.
1.4.3 Other associated works include: -
1. excavation and construction of the turbine foundations 2. construction of permanent areas of hardstanding for installation and decommissioning. 3. construction of a permanent substation housing ( 14m x 7.753m x 6.5m to ridge). 4. installation of on-site underground cabling routes connecting the wind turbines to the substation. 5. upgrading and construction of access tracks. 6. alterations to two existing quarry site entrances and creation of a new access point. 7. temporary construction compound for contractor welfare facilities, materials storage and construction plant.
1.4.4 The grid connection for the site is not included within the current application and the applicant has indicated that this will be subject to a separate application for planning permission.
1.4.5 The potential power output for each turbine would be 3 MW giving a total potential power output of 24 MW for the whole Wind Farm.
1.4.6 The proposed development falls under Schedule 2.3 (i) “Energy Industry – Installation for the harnessing of wind power for energy production (wind farms)” of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/293) (as amended 2000, 2006 and 2008) (hereafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’) and the scale and nature of the proposal are such that it constitutes ‘EIA Development’ under the Regulations.
1.4.7 As such the Applicant has undertaken an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and submitted an Environmental Statement (ES) with the planning application.
111 1.5 Consultations
1.5.1 Selby District Council is not the determining authority and therefore has no legal requirement to consult on this application. However in the interests of enabling members of Planning Committee to have regard to issues raised by the local community letters were sent to the affected parish councils inviting them to send their comments to the District.
1.5.2 All other responses outlined below have been taken directly from the North Yorkshire County Council website.
1.5.3 Beal Parish Council: The Parish Council have considered this application and wishes to object to the application.
In the view of the parish council there have been too great a concentration of applications for windfarms within the southern area of Selby district.
1.5.4 Cridling Stubbs Parish Council: There are several reasons that this application should be refused. Many of the individual documents supplied contain incorrect or misleading statements, some of which are shown below. They show the applicant does not know the locality or understand the proposals well enough to make a coherent application. These mistakes give the reader a false impression of the issues under consideration. This obfuscation could result in the application being granted when, if the correct information had been given, it obviously would be refused. It is therefore the opinion of Cridling Stubbs Parish Council that this application should be refused purely on this basis.
The applicant has attempted to give the impression that development on Green Belt is satisfactory if it is to be used to produce green energy. It is the opinion of Cridling Stubbs Parish Council that the benefits from this proposed development are far outweighed by the harm this would do to Green Belt and a Locally Important Landscape Area. This is another reason the application should be refused.
In addition to the above the Cridling Stubbs Parish has provided a list of detailed comments which due to their specific nature cannot be adequately summarised. As such they are given in full in Appendix 2 of this report.
The Parish Council have stated that there may be many more mistakes and misleading statements in this application but due to its size and lack of a hard copy, it has proved impossible to indicate all of them. However, for the reasons stated above, Cridling Stubbs Parish Council requests that this application is refused.
112 1.5.5 Kellington Parish Council: No comments received.
1.5.6 Stapleton Parish : No comments received.
1.5.7 Whitley Parish Council: No comments received.
1.5.8 Womersley Parish Council: Objects for the following reasons: -
The site sits within Green Belt, and two recent decisions against the proposed development of two local wind farms have been rejected on grounds that the site was in Green Belt (Darrington West, and Micklefield).
The applicant proposes situating turbines within close proximity to residential properties, the nearest being Womersley Parish residents living approximately 500- 600 metres away.
The site crosses public rights of way.
The scale of the turbines would be highly intrusive on the rural landscape.
The site has in the past been subject to landfill, and as such contains methane gas, which causes harm to the atmosphere. In addition the presence of methane could cause an additional risk of explosion during construction and operation of the turbines.
Turbines 1 and 2 are sited extremely close to the M62 and pose a distraction, at least to drivers, and may in the case of blade shear be responsible for accidents and fatalities. We note that Highways have objected to the position of a number of turbines.
The construction of the wind farm would cause disruption to local residents.
In addition to the material impacts above, the planning application and associated documents submitted by WRG contain numerous inaccuracies and factual errors which cause concern and raise questions of credibility, for example:
1. Maps showing land ownership for the siting of the turbines within the planning documents give inaccurate information. 2. The noise monitoring undertaken by WRG has been questioned by an independent noise monitoring specialist. 3. The wind speeds in the area of the planning application are borderline for the efficient and effective production of electricity
113 from wind power. We understand that data from the anemometer, which is measuring wind speed is not made available to the public. 4. The area surrounding the proposed development is described as industrial, when it is clearly rural. 5. The report by the County Ecologist for NYCC lodges a holding objection and notes that the study undertaken by WRG does not give an accurate assessment of bird usage on the proposed site, and questions the comprehensiveness of the reptile study undertaken by WRG.
The above are just a few examples of concerns regarding the accuracy and validity of some of the data contained within the planning application and associated documents, which raise concerns for the Parish Council. Other inaccuracies have been noted throughout the planning application and associated documents, which have not included here due to brevity.
The Parish Council fully support the objections of local residents and the Cridling Stubbs and Womersley Wind Farm Action Group (CSWWAG).
1.5.9 Civil Aviation Authority: No objections to the application but gives detailed guidance.
1.5.10 Humberside Airport: No safeguarding objection to the proposal but expresses concern that the cumulative impact of wind turbine generation developments, which are in relatively close proximity, could compromise the safe control of aircraft in this area.
1.5.11 Robinhood Airport: The locations of the proposed turbines could have a significant impact on radar clutter and safeguarding around Robin Hood Airport and therefore object to this proposal.
1.5.12 Leeds and Bradford Airport: On the basis of the details submitted the proposals are unlikely to conflict with aviation interests in regard to Leeds Bradford International Airport.
1.5.13 Ministry of Defence: The MOD has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions.
In the interests of air safety, the MOD requests that the turbines are fitted with aviation lighting. All turbines should be fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration at the highest practicable point. The principal safeguarding concern of the MOD with respect to the development of wind turbines relates to their
114 potential to create a physical obstruction to air traffic movements and cause interference to Air Traffic Control and Air Defence radar installations.
Government guidance on renewable energy developments as set out in Paragraph 25 of Planning Policy Statement 22 stipulates that:
“ …It is the responsibility of developers to address any potential impacts, taking account of Civil Aviation Authority, Ministry of Defence and Department for Transport guidance in relation to radar and aviation, and the legislative requirements on separation distances, before planning applications are submitted. Local Planning Authorities should satisfy themselves that such issues have been addressed before considering planning applications”.
Defence Estates Safeguarding wishes to be consulted and notified of the progression of planning applications and submissions relating to this proposal to verify that it will not adversely affect defence interests.
1.5.14 Natural England: No objections.
Natural England recognises that climate change represents one of the most serious long-term threats to the natural environment and that there is an urgent need to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions if we are to avoid potentially catastrophic impacts on the natural environment. Wind energy developments, combined with other renewable and low carbon energy generation and measures to save energy and use it more efficiently, will play an important role in reducing emissions.
Sustainable wind energy developments should be appropriately designed and sited, and of an appropriate height, form and scale and be guided towards locations that avoid unacceptable impacts on the natural environment.
Landscape The site for this proposed windfarm does not lie within or close to any nationally designated landscape areas.
Natural England believes that the landscape and visual impact assessment in the Environmental Statement (ES) has correctly analysed and described the landscape character of the area and incorporated an acceptable number of representative local viewpoints which can be used to assess the potential effects of the development on the surrounding countryside. Natural England concurs with the assessment which has been made of possible impacts on the landscape.
115 The North Yorkshire Sustainable Energy Planning Guidance 1 categorises this proposed development as a medium scale windfarm and places it in an area of medium to low landscape sensitivity to carefully designed medium scale windfarms in this area, particularly where they can be related to the existing power stations and industrial areas. Due to the intensively farmed nature of this area, and the proximity and relationship with industrial and particularly energy producing areas, the introduction of windfarms may be considered to be suitable. However, windfarms should still be carefully integrated with the scale and pattern of the landscape.
Biodiversity Overall Natural England are content with the range of survey techniques and methodologies employed to gather information about the habitats present within the development area and the presence/absence of key species likely to be affected by the development.
The ES has identified a number of statutory and non-statutory conservation sites within 5km of the proposed windfarm site. Based on the information provided this development will not have any direct impacts on the sites and will not have a significant adverse affect on the features for which the sites have been designated.
Birds The bird surveys undertaken are comprehensive and Natural England’s analysis of them suggest that they are of an acceptable standard to Natural England.
Natural England welcome the inclusion of the collision risk estimates. The use of a 95% avoidance rate as this takes a more precautionary approach to the risk and levels of bird mortality. As such, based on the data, then mortality from collisions over the 25 year life-span of the wind farm is unlikely to have a significant impact on district/local bird populations.
Natural England also welcome the proposal by the applicant to carry out post construction monitoring of birds. Collision mortality data are important to verify any previous predications of collision modelling and the success of mitigation measures. The requirement for the monitoring should be secured through a condition attached to any planning consent, if the application is approved. We also request that the data be made available to Natural England, RSPB and local records centres.
Bats To minimise risk to bat populations our advice is to maintain a 50 m buffer around any feature (trees, hedges) into which no part of the turbine should intrude. The proposed locations for most of the turbines appear to minimise the potential effects on bats. However, for Turbine
116 7, the location is in an area of restored woodland, area G2 in the Arboricultural Survey report.
It is not clear from the application what, if any consideration has been given to ensure that an adequate buffer distance will be maintained between the turbine and the woodland edge while the turbines are operational, based on the guidelines set out in TIN051 - Bats and onshore wind turbines.
Access and Recreation Natural England note and welcome the fact that the location of Turbine 8 has taken into account potential impacts on the bridleway and that a buffer zone of over 200m will be maintained, in line with current British Horse Society (BHS) policy in relation to wind turbines and bridleways.
Protection of Soils In the light of the Government's policy for the protection of the best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land as set out in paragraphs 28 and 29 of Planning Policy Statement 7, "Sustainable Development in Rural Areas,” we do not consider the proposal to be significant in terms of the national agricultural interest. However, we recommend site reinstatement, after decommissioning, back to the previous grade and quality of the land, if practicable.
Soil to be excavated should be done so in accordance with DEFRA guidelines 2 for handling soil and the draft Code of Practice 3 to ensure that damage to soil structure is minimised. All soils should be retained for re-use within the site.
Landscape Enhancements, Habitat Creation and Management The Environmental Statement states that landscape and ecological enhancement for the windfarm development will be linked to, and consistent with, the long term restoration plans for the quarry and landfill site, including the creation of areas of calcareous grassland, planting new areas of woodland and scrub and restoration and improvement of hedgerows. Overall, we welcome this approach.
The Design and Access Statement (paragraph 4.2.9) makes reference to the fact that the proposed wind farm development will not sterilise any active mineral extraction areas or prevent the restoration of the land for agriculture. However, there is no detailed information given to demonstrate how this will be achieved.
The site lies in the Southern Magnesium Limestone Biodiversity Opportunity Area, and we encourage the creation of new habitats that support this and contribute to the targets in the Authorities’ Local Biodiversity Action Plans. Details of the any habitat creation proposals should include information on buffer zones to safeguard birds and bats from being attracted too close to the turbines. Furthermore, the northern extension of the quarry, to the north of the M62, was approved
117 recently after completion of a Section 106 legal agreement that includes provisions for the creation of calcareous grassland on the restored site. If view of this agreement we suggest that the possibility of establishing a planning obligation (Section 106 Agreement) on the quarry areas linked to the wind farm proposal, be explored, in order to secure the creation and long term management of calcareous grassland and other habitats in this area.
Natural England welcome the proposal by the developer to produce an Environment Management Plan (EMP). These will set out proposed mitigation measures and their production should be the subject of a condition attached to any planning consent to ensure that the EMP is agreed and in place before the start of any construction work.
1.5.15 Yorkshire Wildlife Trust: The Trust manages nature reserves at Willow Garth and Brockadale which are 2.8 and 3.8 km from the site respectively.
The Trust has some comments to make on the above application. The red line area appears to be drawn so that the turbine positions are fixed rather than being adjusted depending on evidence from the EIA. Does the drawing of the red line area to only take in the turbine positions and tracks and some land around them mean that some habitat has not been properly assessed?
The ecological surveys and the ecology section in the Environmental Statement appear to be thorough and cover impacts on species and habitats.
The site itself and surroundings have extensive records of wildlife which shows that despite the transport network and industry present the area is important for biodiversity. The proposed development is also in the Magnesian Limestone area and the quarry workings will have potential to be restored to Magnesian Limestone grassland which is a national Biodiversity Action Plan habitat. The Trust would hope that a management plan will be drawn up and conditioned so that grassland habitat can be created, and management can be funded for the lifetime of the development.
The site at present is a working quarry with extensive bare ground. As a result there is little wildlife immediately adjacent to some of the turbine sites. However during the lifetime of the turbines the site will change substantially and may become much more valuable for wildlife. If planning permission is granted the Trust would like to see a monitoring plan in place to ensure that in particular bird and bat populations are not damaged by the development. The monitoring may need to be specifically designed compared to that for normal turbine developments as the baseline data will not be so relevant as the habitat will be changing. Monitoring would also need to be in place for
118 more than the usual 5 years as the habitat in ten or fifteen years may have much greater wildlife interest.
The Trust would recommend that connectivity of the area for wildlife be considered in designing habitat creation and management so that the large numbers of sites which are important for nature conservation in the wider area will be supported. Habitat creation outside the immediate footprint of the development could be very effective in linking sites. The Trust’s Living Landscapes project and the Yorkshire and Humber Biodiversity Forum both provide evidence and suggestions for linking habitat.
The Trust is concerned that the Aboricultural report on page 11 recommends the removal of deadwood and standing deadwood from woodland areas. Deadwood is extremely valuable for a wide variety of organisms and leaving as much deadwood of all types in place as possible will increase the value of the woodland areas for wildlife. More information is available from Forest Enterprise.
1.5.16 English Heritage: The application(s) should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.
1.5.17 County Archaeologist: No objections subject to conditions for recording.
1.5.18 Northern Gas Networks: No objections.
1.5.19 Yorkshire Forward: Yorkshire Forward has stated that they have no comments to make.
1.5.20 Network Rail: No objection in principle to the development but Network Rail has two concerns. Firstly the routes that construction traffic will take to/from the development site during the construction phase with relation to railway bridges or level crossings along the route. Therefore Network Rail request that they are informed of abnormal loads with a minimum of 6 weeks notice. There may also be a requirement for bridge/level crossing protection measures to be put in place at the applicant's expense.
The second concern is the position of the turbines in relation to the railway which should be a minimum of its own height away from the boundary of Network Rails land, which appears to have been achieved. However, if the location of the turbine is moved Network Rail would wish to be consulted again.
119 1.5.21 The Coal Authority: No objections subject to informatives
1.5.22 North Yorkshire Public Rights of Way Public rights of way have no objections to the above proposals.
1.5.23 North Yorkshire Police: No objections but raises issues that Windfarms have been the subject of crime. Detailed recommendations made in respect to the prevention of crime.
1.5.24 Environment Agency: The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposals as submitted, subject to conditions requiring a scheme detailing surface water drainage.
1.5.25 Selby District Council Environmental Health Manager: Sadow Flicker: Environmental Protection Officers are not trained to access the potential impact of shadow flicker from wind turbines and hence this issue has not been assessed as part of this consultation.
Noise, Dust and Vibration from construction Experience has shown that during the construction of wind farms that there will be considerable movement of road traffic to bring aggregates and cement to site for the construction of the wind turbine bases, and extremely long heavy vehicles will need to access the site with the turbine parts. This can lead to disturbance to residents living adjacent to the highways to be used. It has been noted that application has detailed the routes to be used to limit this disturbance. It has also been noted in Section 9.6 of the Environmental Impact Assessment that it is recommended that to mitigate against noise during the construction and decommissioning phases the actions are taken which include the following:
• Restrictions to hours of construction activity to times agreed with the Local Authority; • Publication of construction programme (e.g. in local newspapers, through mailings to local residents, through an on-site information board at the site access, and on the developer’s website), and providing named contacts for daytime and out of hours (if necessary); • Participation with community liaison group(s), comprising representatives from the nearest communities and WRG, that shall meet regularly prior to and during the construction period to facilitate communication between the parties and ensure that opportunities are taken to minimise noise through effective project management; • Requiring contractors to (where practicable) select the quietest item of suitable plant available for all site operations;
120 • Phasing of the work programme to reduce the combined effects arising from several noisy operations; and • Where necessary and practicable, containing noise from fixed plant and equipment within suitable acoustic enclosures or behind acoustic screens.
The EHM would recommend that the above are included within conditions if approval is given to this application. I would also suggest that off highway parking is provided for vehicles that arrive at the site prior to the agreed construction times.
The EHM also recommends that a condition is attached to require wheel-washing of vehicles leaving the site during construction or decommissioning.
Noise from Wind Turbines During Operation. The EHM has reviewed Chapter 9 of the Environmental Impact Assessment: Noise and Vibration and would recommend that the following are included within conditions in relation to noise if approval is given to this application.
1. At the reasonable request of, or following a complaint to Selby District Council, the operator of the development shall measure and assess at its expense, the level of noise emissions from the wind turbine generators following the procedures described in “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU- R-97” published by ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry. Assessment of the emissions from the wind turbine generators shall be carried out by an independent consultant agreed in writing by Selby District Council prior to any work being undertaken. 2. Selby District Council may at any point prior to any noise assessment being undertaken require alteration to the assessment method. The alternative assessment shall be agreed in writing between Selby District Council and the operator.
3. The level of noise emissions from the combined effects of the wind turbine generators when measured at residential properties and in accordance with “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU-R-97” shall not exceed:
(a) 5 dB above the night-time LA90 10 min background noise level between the hours of 2300 and 0700, (b) 5dB above the daytime LA90 10 min background noise level between the hours of 0700 to 2300,
121 at wind speeds not exceeding 12 meters per second as determined within the gardens of the residential properties.
Background noise levels shall be determined at residential properties, when the turbines are not operating, during the assessment carried out under the previous conditions.
4. The noise emissions from the combined effect of the wind turbine generator shall not have a tonal component as perceived by the appropriate officer of Selby District Council and when assessed under the above condition, at residential properties.
5. The operation of the wind turbines shall be controlled by noise reduction management system. The system shall monitor wind speed and direction and be designed to prevent the operation of the wind turbines during conditions when the noise emissions limits in the condition above would be exceeded. The system shall be in operation throughout the use of the wind turbines.
1.5.26 Highways Agency (HA): The Highways Agency has reviewed the application and has issued a TR110 stating that the application should not be determined for a period of 6 months.
The review of the application has revealed that Turbines 1 and 3 do not meet the minimum off-set distances from the M62 as required by the HA. Spatial Planning Advice Note SP12/09 sets out the locational requirements in relation to the Strategic Road Network. Commercial turbines should provide a set back of height to tip + 50 metres from the highway boundary. Turbines 1 and 3 are located 140m from the highway boundary. As the proposed turbines have a maximum height to tip of 125m, an offset of 175m from the highway boundary should be provided. Any adjustment to the red line boundary to allow micro siting should also incorporate this 175m offset.
The HA is in the process of reviewing the Environmental Statement including access, traffic and transport section.
1.5.27 Yorkshire Water: Yorkshire Water have several large diameter strategic water mains crossing the site which, from the evidence submitted on the site layout, could be adversely impacted by the location of the turbines/and or the internal access tracks. Therefore YW considers their presence to be a material consideration in the determination of this application. Note that the mains have the benefit of deeds of easement. The developer has been made aware of the presence of the infrastructure and YW note that note 4 on the proposed site layout (fig. 5.1B) states that turbine 5 will be micro- sited so as to ensure the water main is not affected. However there is no reference to Turbine 1, which also appears to be very close to the pipe. This issue should be clarified prior to
122 determination of the application. The exact line of the main will have to be determined on site under Yorkshire Water Services supervision and if necessary, it may be possible for the main to be diverted under s.185 of the Water Industry Act 1991.
YW would also like to see details of the construction methodology of the turbines particularly regarding any piling that may be required so that we may assess what impact there could be on the integrity of the turbines and if a greater stand-off distance is required.
No objection subject to conditions.
1.5.28 Atkins Limited (on behalf of TAWI) The application has been examined in relation to UHF Radio Scanning Telemetry communications used by our Client in that region and Atkins have no objection.
1.5.29 OFCOM: Ofcom have found that within the assessed fixed link frequency bands the following fixed link end(s) are within or have path(s) that cross a 1000 m radius coordination area for the stated turbine location as given above. This assessment is based on the Ofcom fixed links database status as at 18th March 2011, which may vary before the windfarm project implementation.
The data in the table is "as recorded" by Ofcom on its database, based on the grid reference coordinates and other details provided to Ofcom by Fixed Link operators at the time of their licence application. These details are not verified by Ofcom for accuracy or currency and Ofcom makes no guarantees for the currency or accuracy of information or that they are error free. As such, Ofcom cannot accept liability for any inaccuracies or omissions in the data provided, or its currency however so arising. The data provided is without any representation or endorsement made and without warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, including but not limited to the implied warranties of satisfactory quality, fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement, compatibility, security and accuracy.
1.6 Publicity As a consultee the District Council is not required by law to consult third parties.
2. The Report
2.1 The proposal involves the erection of 8No 125 metre high wind turbines and associated works and would be located within the Green Belt. Within the Green Belt there is a presumption against inappropriate development, which should only be allowed in very special circumstances. Officers consider that the proposal, by virtue that it would fail to maintain openness and that it would result in
123 encroachment and therefore conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt would constitute inappropriate development.
2.2 The proposal is of such a scale and nature that it has required an Environmental Impact Assessment and the applicant has submitted an Environmental Statement in support of the application. Whilst Officers consider that the impacts in relation to highways by virtue of traffic generation, geology and hydrology, groundwater pollution and residential amenity are acceptable, Officers consider that the proposal would result in harm to the rural character of the area, to the setting of the listed Grove Hall and potentially to bats and highway safety by virtue of non-compliance with separation distances set out in national guidance produced by Natural England and the Highway Agency. Officers also consider that harm to the Green Belt would also arise by virtue of the inappropriateness of the development. The proposal would also result in harm to the openness of the Green Belt and to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt
2.3 In terms of the purported benefits of the proposal Officers consider that whilst no weight should be granted to the applicant’s assertion that the proposal would not conflict with the fundamental reasons for including land within the Green Belt substantial weight should be granted to the wider environmental and economic benefits of the proposed windfarm including its contribution towards the District Council meeting or exceeding its renewable energy capacity targets.
2.4 In respect of the issues raised by Robinhood Airport and Humberside Airport it is difficult for Officer’s to allocate weight given the technical nature of the issues and relative lack of detailed information provided by the Airports.
2.5 When put in the balance it is considered that the wider environmental and economic benefits arising from applicant’s case do not clearly outweigh the overwhelming harm arising by reason of inappropriateness, harm to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt and to the other harms listed above. The issues raised by the airports would not alter this overall conclusion. As such it is considered that very special circumstances have not been demonstrated to exist.
2.6 It is therefore considered that the proposal fails to meet the requirements of Policy GB2, GB4 of the Local Plan and the guidance in PPG2. It is therefore recommended that the Council lodges an objection to the application proposal on the above grounds.
2.7 Notwithstanding the fact that this report recommends that Selby District Council should object to the proposal Members are advised that should give some consideration to the possibility that the County Council may approve the application. Members are therefore advised to give consideration to any conditions that they would recommend that the
124 County Council should attach to any approval granted. A list of suggested conditions could be forwarded with the Council’s consultation response on a without prejudice basis.
3. Legal/Financial Controls and other Policy matters
3.1 Legal Issues
3.1.1 Planning Acts This application has been determined in accordance with the relevant planning acts.
3.1.2 Human Rights Act 1998 It is considered that a decision made in accordance with this recommendation would not result in a any breach of convention rights
3.1.3 Equality Act 2010 This application has been determined with regard to the Council’s duties and obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
3.2 Financial Issues Financial issues are not material to the determination of this application.
3.3 Other Issues All relevant issues are dealt with in the main body of this report
4. Conclusion As stated in the main body of the report.
5. Background Documents Planning Application file reference Y/2011/0054/ENV and associated documents .
Contact Officer:
Richard Sunter Planning Services Selby District Council [email protected]
125
Appendices:
Appendix A – Draft letter Outlining Selby District Council’s Response to the County Council
Dear
Planning Application NY/2011/0054/ENV : Erection of 8 wind turbines, creation of new access point from Leys Lane, alterations to existing access points and ancillary development at Darrington Quarries Ltd, Stubbs Lane, Cridling Stubbs, Knottingley, West Yorkshire, WF11 0AH
On behalf of Selby District Council, (hereafter referred to as the ‘Council’) I write in objection to the above mentioned planning application and set out in detail the Council’s representation below.
1. The Principle of the Development within the Green Belt.
The Council notes that 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 not inappropriate, 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.
The Council notes that paragraph 3.2 of PPG2 makes it clear that 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”.
Given the above the Council considers that 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’.
126
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, distils the guidance within paragraphs 3.4 (new buildings), 3.8 (reuse of buildings) and 3.12 (changes of use, engineering and other operations) of PPG2. In doing so policy GB2 identifies 7 categories of development, which the local Plan identifies as ‘acceptable in principle’.
(a) The Nature of the Development
For the purposes of Green Belt policy the Council considers that the proposal can be divided into three components, namely
(i) the erection of the turbines. (ii) the formation and laying out of access roads and the formation and alterations of access points. (iii) the construction of a permanent substation housing.
It is the Council’s opinion that the erection of a turbine(s) and the alteration, formation and laying out of accesses and roads constitute engineering and other operations. This stance is supported by appeal decision APP/L0635/A/07/2047477 (Aston Grange Farm, Runcorn) in which the Inspector stated: -
‘I am however in no doubt that the erection of a commercial wind turbine cannot be accurately described as a ‘building operation’ – which is defined in the same section as work normally undertaken by a builder. In my view the scheme does not therefore fall to be considered against those categories of development listed in paragraph 3.4 of Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 2: Green Belts. This is exclusively concerned with the construction of new buildings. I believe the erection of a turbine is most accurately described as an engineering operation, and it should thus be considered against the contents of paragraph 3.12 of PPG2. The same applies to the proposed cable works, anemometry mast, and access roads.’
In this respect the Council notes that criterion 7 of GB2 of the Local Plan allows for ‘the carrying out of engineering and other operations’ on the proviso that such operations ‘preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it’. Similarly paragraph 3.12 of PPG2 states: -
‘The statutory definition of development includes engineering and other operations, and the making of any material change in the use of land. The carrying out of such operations and the making of material changes in the use of land are inappropriate development unless they maintain openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.’
127 As such the Council asserts that in order to not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt the proposed wind farm should maintain openness and not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.
(b) Impact on Openness
In the Submitted Design and Access Statement, the Applicant states that the proposed development ‘falls to be classed as engineering/operational development which maintains openness and does not conflict with the reasons for including land in the Green Belt and therefore can be considered as ‘appropriate development’ within the Green Belt’. Furthermore the Applicant opines that this approach is supported by the Government’s recent planning policy on renewable energy (National Policy Statement EN1), which at paragraph 5.10.12 states
‘It may be possible for an applicant to show that the physical characteristics of a proposed wind farm are such that it has no adverse effects which conflict with the fundamental purposes of Green Belt designation.’
In response to this argument the Council notes that National Policy EN1 is at the revised draft stage only. As such it is the Council’s firm opinion that only limited weight should be afforded to it. Secondly policy EN1 uses the phrase ‘may’ and refers to wind farms generally. It does not state that it will be possible for all applicants to demonstrate that all wind farms are such that they will have no adverse effects which conflict with the fundamental purposes of Green Belt Designation and that they will not affect openness.
Although for the purposes of Green Belt policy there is no definition of ‘openness’ in PPG2 it is generally accepted that openness means freedom from built development. In this respect the Council considers that the erection of eight number turbines with a height to hub of 80 metres, an overall height to the tip of the blade of 125 metres, and a diameter of 5.6 metres must have an impact on openness. The Coucnil notes that the volume of the shaft of the turbine itself would equate to 1970m3, which would be far in excess of an average sized detached dwelling at around 650m3. Taken together, the turbine shafts alone would have a combined volume of 15,760m3. In addition, the openness of the Green Belt would be further reduced by the blades, which when in operation would have even a greater impact.
Although the turbines would be widely spaced the wind farm would be viewed from many different directions and at widely varying distances. From near view points, such as Leys Lane and Stubbs Lane the turbines would tower over observers and their impact on openness to the viewer would be all too apparent. Furthermore at a distance, for example Kellingley the turbines would be seen collectively where they would combine to reduce the openness. Although, ultimately each case should be judged on its own merits, the above stance is supported by appeal decision APP/X4725/A/09/2101120 for the erection of 5 wind turbines at Westfield
128 Lane, Darrington, whereby the Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector that ‘the proposed development would harm the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and through loss of openness, and that this harm would be significant’. Similarly the Inspector in appeal reference APP/L0635/A/07/2047477, in respect of the erection of four wind turbine generators up to 125m high, stated ‘In my view a large wind turbine which would be visible from an extensive area must have an impact on openness’.
Given the above it is the Council’s firm opinion that the proposed turbines would fail to ‘maintain openness’.
(c) Impacts on the Purposes of Including land within the Green Belt.
In respect of whether the proposal conflicts with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt the Council notes that these purposes are provided in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2, namely: -
(i) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; (ii) to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; (iii) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; (iv) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and (v) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
The Council considers that the erection of structures of this size, together with substantial areas of hard standing must constitute a form of encroachment into the countryside. Again this stance is supported by the appeal decisions at Westfield Lane and at Aston, referred to earlier in this report. As such it is concluded that the proposal conflicts with at least one of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt outlined in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2.
In respect of the proposed construction of a permanent substation housing the case is even more clear-cut. This constitutes a new building within the Green Belt and does not fall into any of the categories of buildings comprising ‘not inappropriate’ development in paragraph 3.4 of PPG2 or considered to be acceptable in principle under policy GB2 of the Selby District Local Plan.
It is therefore concluded that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt.
(d) Impact on the Objectives of the Green Belt
Paragraph 1.4 of PPG2 states that it is ‘The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness. Green Belts can shape patterns of urban development at sub-regional and regional scale, and help to ensure that development occurs in locations allocated in development plans. They help to protect the countryside, be it in agricultural, forestry or other use.
129 They can assist in moving towards more sustainable patterns of urban development.’
Given that it has already been demonstrated that the proposed windfarm will impact on openness, and that the proposal would detract from the open, rural character and visual amenity of this countryside location the Council concludes that the proposal must conflict with the fundamental purpose of Green Belts to ‘keep land permanently open’ and to’ protect the countryside’.
(e) The Applicant’s Case for Very Special Circumstances
The applicant has stated that the proposal does not constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Nevertheless the applicant has stated that should the local planning authority consider otherwise there are very special circumstances in support of the proposal. In this respect the applicant states that ‘PPS22 makes it clear that the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources can itself constitute VSC’ continuing ‘in this respect, the proposals represent precisely such an opportunity for the production of energy from a renewable resource’.
The applicant summarises the very special circumstances in support of the application as follows: -
1. The proposal does not conflict with the fundamental reasons for including land within the Green Belt as indicated by PPG2 and National Policy Statement EN1; 2. The proposal would deliver a small but worthwhile contribution to the national legally binding target of delivering 15% of all electricity supply from renewable sources by 2020; 3. The proposal would assist Selby District Council in further exceeding its indicative minimum target of generating 14MW of operational renewable energy schemes by 2010 and 32MW by 2021 as set out in the RSS; 4. The proposal would enable Wakefield District Council to work towards its indicative minimum target of generating up to 11MW of operational renewable energy schemes (albeit by 2013 and assist in making more advanced progress to reaching 41MW by 2021 as set out in the RSS; 5. The proposal would provide clear environmental benefits through the installation of a renewable energy scheme that offers a clean and sustainable supply of energy. 6. The proposal would contribute towards reducing the burden on energy supply through non-renewable methods, thereby assisting in the reduction of Carbon emissions and Greenhouse gases.
Compliance with Green Belt Policy The applicant has asserted that the proposal does not conflict with the fundamental reasons for including land within the Green Belt as indicated by
130 PPG2 and National Policy Statement EN1. This seems to be directly derived from paragraph 5.10.12 of EN1 which states ‘it may be possible for an applicant to show that the physical characteristics of a proposed wind farm are such that it has no adverse effects which conflict with the fundamental purposes of Green Belt designation.’ However the council notes that National Policy Statement EN1 is in the form of a ‘revised draft’. As such only limited weight should be afforded to it. Secondly the revised draft uses the phrase ‘may’ and refers to wind farms generally. It does not state that it will be possible for applicants to demonstrate that all wind farms, whatever there size and scale will have no adverse effects which conflict with the fundamental purposes of Green Belt Designation and that they will not affect openness. Wind turbines vary enormously in size and the number of turbines in any given windfarm likewise can vary.
This issue is fully discussed in the above sections 1(b) and (c) of this letter where it is concluded that the proposal would detract from the openness of the Green Belt and would constitute encroachment into the countryside and therefore conflicts with purposes of including land in the Green Belt and the fundamental aim of maintaining the openness of the Green Belt. As such it is concluded that little weight should be afforded to this part of the applicant’s case that very special circumstances exist.
Contribution to Renewable Energy Targets Reasons 2, 3 and 4, 5 and 6 relate to the contribution that the proposal would make to the targets set at international, national, regional and local level and the wider benefits of renewable energy and the reduction in CO2 emissions. These issues are closely interlinked and as such will be considered together in this consultation response.
The targets have been set to deal with the issue of climate change, which the Council notes is an issue of great national and international concern. Paragraph 1 of PPS1 Climate Change Supplement outlines the Government’s position on this issue stating ‘There is a compelling scientific consensus that human activity is changing the world’s climate. The evidence that climate change is happening, and that man-made emissions are its main cause, is strong and indisputable. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change highlights that we are already experiencing the effects of climate change and if these changes deepen and intensify, as they will without the right responses locally and globally, we will see even more extreme impacts’.
The Council also notes that the approach to tackling climate change at European and national level is to set targets for the cutting of emissions. PPS 22 states that
‘The Government’s energy policy, including its policy on renewable energy, is set out in the Energy White Paper. This aims to put the UK on a path to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by some 60% by 2050, with real progress by 2020, and to maintain reliable and competitive energy supplies’.
131 The development of renewable energy, alongside improvements in energy efficiency and the development of combined heat and power, will make a vital contribution to these aims. The Government has already set a target to generate 10% of UK electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010. The White Paper set out the Government’s aspiration to double that figure to 20% by 2020, and suggests that still more renewable energy will be needed beyond that date.’
The Council also notes that the Energy White Paper: Our Energy Future: Creating a Low Carbon Economy (2003) outlines the Government’s strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by 2050.
The Governments, emphasis on, and commitment to cutting carbon dioxide emissions through the adoption of renewable energy technologies is reinforced in the Energy White Paper –Meeting the Energy Challenge (2007), the Climate Change Act (2008), the Energy Act (2008), National Infrastructure Plan and in terms of national planning policy PPS 22 and revised draft EN-1.
The Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and the Humber translates national policy into the regional context. Policy YH2 deals specifically with climate change and resource use stating that plans, strategies, investment decisions and programmes should ‘help to meet the target set out in the RES [Renewable Economic Strategy] to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the region in 2016 by 20-25% (compared to 1990 levels) with further reductions thereafter by’ amongst other initiatives ‘increasing renewable energy capacity and carbon capture’.
Policy ENV5 (b) of the RSS states that the Region should ‘maximise renewable energy capacity’ and sets a range of energy targets for each sub region and district for 2010 and 2021. The energy capacity for North Yorkshire is set at 209MW in 2010 rising to 428MW by 2021 and for Selby set at 14MW by 2010 and 32MW by 2021.
In addition to the above the Council notes that the Selby District Council’s Core Strategy Background Paper on Climate Change, published in February 2010 states that Selby District Council has granted planning permission for renewable energy schemes totaling 30MW of grid-connected renewable energy capacity and that there was a series of planning applications for wind turbines with a cumulative capacity of 65MW of wind turbines lodged with the Council but awaiting determination. In addition to the above the Council notes that an application was submitted, on 29 July 2009, to the Department of Climate Change for a 290MW biomass fuelled electricity generating station at Drax.
In respect of the above the Council notes that only one scheme (the one at Rusholme) has been implemented which has a 24MW capacity. As such it is clear that Selby district has far exceeded its 2010 target. Furthermore, in the light of no significant objections from statutory consultees, the Council considers that there is a reasonable prospect that the application to DECC for the 290MW biomass plant at Drax will be approved and therefore that the
132 target of 32MW by 2021 will be far exceeded. Indeed should the Drax biomass application be approved and built it is would represent 68% of North Yorkshire’s target of 428MW by 2021.
Paragraph 3 of PPS 22 and policy ENV5(B) of the RSS make it clear that the targets are minimums and that the fact that a target has been reached should not be used in itself as a reason for refusing planning permission for further renewable energy projects. Whilst the Council accepts this, it also considers that the ability of a local planning authority, to meet, or far exceed such targets, must represent in itself a material consideration of some weight when undertaking the balancing exercise to determine whether very special circumstances exist.
Nevertheless, having had regard to existing renewable energy capacity and the prospect of the Drax Biomass in increasing that capacity the Council still considers that substantial weight should be given to the wider environmental and economic benefits of the proposed windfarm.
(g) Conclusion on Green Belt.
In terms of the purported benefits of the proposal the Council considers that whilst no weight should be granted to the applicant’s assertion that the proposal would not conflict with the fundamental reasons for including land within the Green Belt substantial weight should be granted to the wider environmental and economic benefits of the proposed windfarm including its contribution towards the District Council meeting or exceeding its renewable energy capacity targets.
The harms resulting from the proposal are dealt with under their appropriate headings elsewhere in this letter. However they are summarized here. Firstly the Council considers that, in accordance with para 3.2 of PPG2 substantial harm arises from the fact that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt. In addition the Council considers that the proposal by virtue of the size, scale and location of the turbines and ancillary works would result in significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt and to the purposes of including land within it. In addition it is considered that development, due to the size and scale of the wind turbines and their location on a prominent ridge, would constitute an incongruous, dominant skyline feature. Accordingly significant weight should also be attached to the harm to the character and visual amenities of this rural location within the Green Belt. It is also the Council’s opinion that significant weight should also be attached to the harm to the setting of the nearby listed Grove Hall.
Some limited weight should also be given to the potential harm to highway safety and to bats arising from the failure of the scheme to accord with the required separation distances set within respective guidance notes.
In respect of the issues raised by Robinhood Airport and Humberside Airport it is difficult for the Council to allocate weight given the technical nature of the issues and relative lack of detailed information provided by the Airports.
133
When put in the balance it is the Council’s firm opinion that the wider environmental and economic benefits arising from applicant’s case do not clearly outweigh the substantial harm, by reason of inappropriateness, harm to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt, harm to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, potential harm to bats, highway safety and to the setting of the Grade II listed Grove Hall and therefore very special circumstances do not exist to justify approval of the proposal. The issues raised by the airports would not alter this conclusion.
2. Compliance with Policy ENV6 of the Selby District Local Plan The council notes that in line with Policy ENV6 of the Selby District Local Plan proposals for development for renewable energy should 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. • the proposal would achieve a design, materials and landscaping and • adequate measures are incorporated to safeguard local amenity and highway safety during construction.
(a) Impact on Landscape and Character of the Area.
The Council notes that criterion 1 of Policy ENV6 of the Selby District Local Plan requires that Schemes for renewable energy will not have a significant adverse effect on the immediate and wider landscape. Furthermore policy GB4 of the Local Plan requires that 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’.
Paragraphs 19 to 21 of PPS 22 provides broad guidance in respect to the assessment of the impacts of renewable technologies on landscapes.
Paragraph 19 of PPS 22 states that ‘the landscape and visual effects of particular renewable energy developments will vary on a case by case basis according to the type of development, its location and the landscape setting of the proposed development’ continuing that ‘some of these effects may be minimised through appropriate siting, design and landscaping schemes, depending on the size and type of development proposed’. Of particular relevance paragraph 19 goes onto to state that ‘proposed developments should be assessed using objective descriptive material and analysis wherever possible even though the final decision on the visual and landscape effects will be, to some extent, one made by professional judgement’
The Council also notes that the site is located in a Locally Important Landscape Area as designated in the Selby District Local Plan. However paragraph 15 of PPS22 states that ‘Local landscape and local nature
134 conservation designations should not be used in themselves to refuse planning permission for renewable energy developments. Planning applications for renewable energy developments in such areas should be assessed against criteria based policies set out in local development documents, including any criteria that are specific to the type of area concerned’.
In addition to the above paragraph 20 of PPS 22 recognises that of all renewable technologies wind turbines will have the greatest impact and advises that ‘in assessing planning applications, local authorities should recognise that the impact of turbines on the landscape will vary according to the size and number of turbines and the type of landscape involved, and that these impacts may be temporary if conditions are attached to planning permissions which require the future decommissioning of turbines’; whilst paragraph 21 states that ‘planning authorities should also take into account the cumulative impact of wind generation projects in particular areas’.
The Council notes that the applicant has provided a detailed landscape appraisal and an assessment of impacts arising from the proposal within the Environmental Statement. Section 7.2.7 of the Environmental statement states that ‘in assessing the predicted effects from any likely impacts to the landscape resulting from the proposed development, the following criteria are considered:
i) landscape character; ii) landscape sensitivity; iii) magnitude of likely impacts that may affect the landscape; and iv) significance of landscape effects’.
Notwithstanding the conclusions in the Environmental Statement and the comments of Natural England the Council notes that the turbines would be placed on or near the eastern slope of the magnesian limestone ridge which occupies an elevated position when viewed from the east. At this location the ridge to the south of the M62 appears has a well wooded ridge providing a pleasant skyline. It is true that the area in the immediate vicinity of the proposed windfarm is characterised by extensive quarrying activity, which is in varying stages of working and restoration. However when viewed from close quarters, e.g. Stubbs Lane or from the middle distance from Cridling Stubbs or the M62 between the A19 and Ferrybridge the quarrying activity is not readily discernible due to a mix of bunds and well established plantations.
The applicant has stated that the existing site is within a quarry. However it is a quarry that already benefits from a restoration and landscaping scheme and indeed that part of the quarry to be used as a windfarm will need to be restored to a mixture of agriculture and semi-natural planting before the windfarm can be built.
It is the Council’s firm opinion that the windturbines by virtue of their size and scale would form a dominant incongruous feature on what appears in views from the east as a pleasant well-wooded skyline. In addition the impact would
135 be exacerbated by the position of the wind turbines on the elevated ridge, which would accentuate their overall height. This would have a severe impact on the views from Cridling Stubbs and from the M62 reducing to major/moderate as one moves further away to Knottingley and places such as Kellington.
While it is accepted that there are several existing features within the landscape such as the industrial sites of Eggborough and Ferrybridge Power Stations, Kellingley Colliery and associated power lines and the major roads in the form of the A1 and M62 the Council considers that the negative effects of these elements have been overstated by the applicant. In effect they are widely dispersed and are seen, especially from the south and east as isolated industrial elements in an otherwise rural landscape, rather than transforming the area into an industrial landscape as the applicant asserts. The presence of these elements does not significantly detract from the fact that the combination of the size and scale of the turbines together with their location on a prominent ridge would, when viewed, particularly from the east and south, cause harm to the landscape by introducing incongruous elements into the landscape which would result in unacceptable visual intrusion on a distinctive skyline.
Given the above it is the Council’s opinion that the proposal would be contrary to policies ENV6(1) and GB4 of the Selby District Local Plan and the guidance in paragraph 3.15 of PPG2.
(b) Site Selection – Relationship to Electric Grid or User
Criterion 2 of policy ENV6 of the Local Plan states that schemes should be located in close proximity to the electric grid or user buildings in order to keep new power lines to a minimum. In this respect it is noted that Section 1.0.3 of the Planning Supporting Statement states that ‘the grid connection for the Limestone Quarry Wind Farm will be subject to a separate application for planning permission to the relevant Local Planning Authority (LPA) as necessary, depending on the extent of works required to facilitate a connection to the grid’. No information is provided in respect of the proposed connection to the grid or what form that connection may be.
Notwithstanding the above it is noted that the location of a windfarm is dependant on a number of issues including the wind resource, impacts on landscape, impacts on residential amenity through noise, health and safety implications and electromagnetic interference with telecommunications. Having regard to the above it is considered that wind farms of this size will predominantly be located within more isolated sites and require some degree of connection to local grids. In this instance there is a power line that runs to the east/ southeast of the application site coming within approximately 1.25 kilometre to the location of Turbine 8. This is considered to offer a reasonable connection for the proposed windfarm.
Having had regard to the above issues and the size of the wind farm the Council considers that the site is located reasonably close to the electric grid
136 and in this connection would not be contrary to Criterion 2 of policy ENV6 of the Selby District Local Plan.
(c) Noise, Vibration, Emissions and Electromagnetic Interference
Criterion 3 of Policy ENV6 requires consideration of schemes for renewable energy in terms of potential nuisance by virtue of noise, vehicular movements, emissions and electromagnetic interference. Policy ENV5 of the Regional Spatial Strategy also outlines that there is a need to provide new efficient energy generation and transmission infrastructure, which is in keeping with local amenity and areas of demand. In addition PPS22 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.
(i) Noise and Vibration
The Council notes that noise and vibration has been comprehensively assessed within Environmental Statement which concludes that noise during construction and decommissioning would be controlled through best practice and that during operation, the noise assessment has predicted that noise levels at all properties within the vicinity of the site will be below accepted thresholds. Furthermore the Council notes that the Council’s Environmental Health Manager has not objected to the proposal on noise and vibration issues, resulting from both the construction and operational phases subject to conditions.
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.
As such the Council considers that the proposal is acceptable in terms of the effect of noise and vibration on the occupiers of neighbouring properties and in this respect the proposal is considered to be compliant with Criterion 3 of policy ENV6 of the Selby District Local Plan.
(ii) Electromagnetic Interference and Aviation
Paragraph 25 of PPS22 states that in relation to the impact of wind turbines on airport operation, radar and aircraft ‘it is the responsibility of developers to address any potential impacts, taking account of Civil Aviation Authority, Ministry of Defence and Department for Transport guidance in relation to radar and aviation, and the legislative requirements on separation distances, before planning applications are submitted’ continuing ‘Local Planning Authorities should satisfy themselves that such issues have been addressed before considering planning applications’.
In relation to EMI and aviation, the applicant has stated that a series of mitigation measures have been considered which include: -
137 1. Positioning turbines to avoid impact on fixed microwave links; 2. Re-route or upgrade links that cannot be avoided through re- positioning turbines; 3. Conducting pre and post construction television and radio reception surveys to confirm the level of impact and provide alternative means of receiving the signals where degradation of reception is identified; 4. Micro siting turbines to avoid physical clashes with buried infrastructure; 5. Technical mitigation measures, such as filtering, for radar interference concerns to be agreed and implemented with Robin Hood Airport prior to construction commencing; and 6. Lighting to be installed on the turbines in accordance with CAA and MOD guidelines.
The Council notes that In response to the application the Ministry of Defence and Civil Aviation Authority have stated that they have no objections to the proposal. However it is also noted that Humberside Airport has expressed concerns that ‘the cumulative impact of wind turbine generation developments, which are in relatively close proximity, could compromise the safe control of aircraft in this area’ and that Robinhood Airport has objected to the proposal stating that the locations of the proposed turbines could have a significant impact on radar clutter and safeguarding around Robin Hood Airport.
The comments made by Robinhood and Humberside Airports are cause for concern. However the Council notes that the issues raised are of a highly technical nature and that the details provided by the airports are not detailed. The Council does not have the technical expertise to assess the issues and to provide appropriate analysis to the County Council. In this instance the Council registers its concern to the County Council and requests that the County Council ensures that the issues raised by the airports are fully considered and where appropriate addressed before the application is determined.
If the issues are not addressed the harm to public safety arising from non- compliance with Policy ENV6(3) should be added to the other harms arising from the proposal when the balancing exercise is undertaken to determine whether very special circumstances exist to determine whether this inappropriate development in the Green Belt is justified.
In respect to interference with other radio services the comments made by Atkins Limited (On behalf of TAWI) and Ofcom are noted and it is considered that no harm would arise to these interests as a result of the proposal.
(d) Standard of Design, Materials and Landscaping
Criterion 4 of policy ENV6 of the Selby District local Plan states that proposals for the development of renewable energy will be permitted provided that the proposal would achieve a high standard of design, materials and landscaping.
138
The Supporting Statement accompanying the application states that each of the turbines consists of basic elements that characterise their appearance including the mast as a central supporting structure, the hub and blades. The turbines will be mid grey in colour with a minimum reflective, semi-matt finish coating and red aviation lighting. Direct impacts on landscape features as a result of the construction phase would include the removal of grassland to accommodate the construction of access roads, hardstandings and turbine foundations and the removal of areas of scrub and trees (in particular near to turbine 7.
The council notes that on site planting is proposed in the form of creation of calcareous grassland and the strengthening of existing hedgerows. The Supporting Statement also adds that ‘the existing operational quarry workings at Darrington will continue to be restored in line with the approved restoration plans for the proposed Darrington Quarry Northern Extension and former Darrington Quarry East’.
The Council notes that the proposed turbines are of a standard design commensurate with their function. Furthermore they would be coated in a mid grey colour with a minimum reflective, semi-matt finish coating to reduce reflection and fitted with red aviation lighting in the interests of aviation safety.
Furthermore no specific landscaping is being proposed other than that associated with the restoration of the quarry. However given the overall height of the proposal the Council considers that landscaping on the site would be somewhat inconsequential in screening the turbines.
Leaving aside the issues of the size of the turbines and their impact on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt; their immediate setting and wider landscape; and the setting of heritage assets, the Council considers that in general terms the standard of design, materials and landscaping is acceptable and the proposal is considered to be in accordance with criterion 4 of policy ENV6 of the Selby District Local Plan.
(e) Measures to Safeguard Local Amenity and Highway Safety
Issues in relation to local amenity have been addressed in the section looking at noise and vibration.
In respect of impacts on local public rights of way it is noted that the county Public Rights of Way Officer has no objections to the proposal.
In respect of impacts on highway safety the Council notes that the Highway Agency has stated that Turbines 1 and 3 do not meet the minimum off-set distances from the M62 as required by the agency. It is also noted that Spatial Planning Advice Note SP12/09 (revised 31/01/2009), which sets out the locational requirements in relation to the Strategic Road Network, requires that commercial turbines should provide a set back of height to tip + 50 metres from the highway boundary. Given that Turbines 1 and 3 are located
139 140m from the highway boundary they fail to meet the minimum set back distance of 175m. This is of particular concern given that micro-siting, normally allowed on windfarms could result in the turbine becoming even closer to highway.
The distance of 140 metres equates to the height to the tip of the blade + 10%, however Spatial Planning Advice Note SP12/09 makes it clear that this should only be used for ‘micro and small turbines’.
On the basis of the above assessment the Council considers that the Turbines 1 and 3 present an unacceptable risk to highway safety and in this respect the proposal is contrary to Criterion 5 of policy ENV6 of the Selby District Local Plan.
In respect of shadow flicker and its impact on residential amenity the applicant’s have stated that they have modelled potential impacts and concluded that although it may occur at some houses to the north of the site ‘the occurrence of such incidents is however predicted to be rare, happening only during very specific conditions’. The applicant has gone to state that the effects of flicker can be mitigated through measures such as a programme of switching off the turbine(s) and that such ‘measures would completely negate the potential impacts, so that shadow flicker impacts would be negligible’. Although concern has been expressed by the local community the Council notes that there is no substantial evidence to contradict the applicant’s assertions and to demonstrate that such mitigation measures would not work.
3. Impact of the Proposal on Cultural Heritage
Cultural heritage includes both statutorily designated sites and non designated sites and includes Schedule Ancient Monuments (SAM), Listed Buildings, Registered Parks and Gardens, registered Battlefields, Conservation Areas, World Heritage Sites and locally listed buildings, find spots. The Environmental Impact Assessment took into account all designated sites within 15km from the site boundary and Conservation Areas within 5km of the site boundary. Archaeology on the site was also assessed.
The Environmental Statement states that 55 Scheduled Ancient Monuments, 6 Registered Parks and Gardens and 183 Listed Buildings were identified within 15km of the site with a further 7 Conservation Areas identified within 5km of the site.
The Environmental Impact Assessment has assessed the impact on cultural heritage by assessing the significance and sensitivity of such assets against the magnitude of the impacts on them with regard to the Zone of Theoretical Visibility and the potential for mitigation.
The analysis of effects on cultural heritage is in line with the contents of PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment.
140 Having had regard to the above the Environmental Statement concludes that: -
1. There would be no significant effect on ‘Features of Very High Importance’. 2. In respect of effects on ‘Features of High Importance’ there would be a minor adverse effect on Friarwood Park and Garden, Pontefract and a major adverse effect on the Grade II listed Grove Hall. 3. In respect of effects on ‘Features of Moderate Importance’ there would be a minor adverse effect on Stapleton Park. 4. In respect of effects on ‘Features of Low Importance’, subject to mitigation there would be minor adverse effect on potential archaeological deposits within the site.
Having had regard to the contents of the Environmental Statement and the representations made by English Heritage and the County Archaeologist, the above conclusions on the effects on features of Importance are accepted. It is therefore concluded that the proposal would fail to preserve the setting of various heritage assets and in particular on the setting of the Grade II listed Grove Hall.
In all other respects the Council considers that the proposal would not be contrary to policies ENV16 ‘Historic Parks and Gardens’, ENV17: ‘Historic Battlefields’, ENV25 ‘Conservation Areas’, ENV27 ‘Scheduled Ancient Monuments’ and ENV28 ‘Archaeology’.
4. Impact on Ecology
The Environmental Impact Assessment included ecological baseline surveys to identify habitats and the potential for protected species. Further surveys for birds, bats and reptiles were undertaken. The Environmental Statement concluded that a low level of bat activity was recorded and that several bird species were identified. Notwithstanding that the ES stated that mitigation could include not creating any new water bodies with 300m of the turbines to avoid collision of wading birds and ducks and that a bird monitoring plan be undertaken. Subject to this mitigation the ES concludes that such measures would ensure that the impact on ecological features would not be significant.
Natural England have stated that they are content with the range of survey techniques and methodologies used, consider that the proposal would not have any significant impact on any statutory or non-statutory conservation sites within 5km of the proposed windfarm site and welcome the proposal by the applicant to carry out post construction monitoring of birds. Similarly the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust has stated that the ecological surveys and the ecology section in the Environmental Statement appear to be thorough and cover impacts on species and habitats. Consequently the YWT has no objections to the proposal and has made recommendations in respect of habitat creation.
141 The Council however notes with concern that Natural England have identified that the location of Turbine 7, is in an area of restored woodland (area G2) in the Arboricultural Survey report which is contrary to the guidance in Natural England’s guidance TIN051 ‘Bats and onshore wind turbines’ which requires a 50m buffer. As such it is considered that there is potential for the proposal to affect bat.
All species of which are protected under European legislation translated into British law via the Habitats Regulations 1994. Bats are also protected under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act. The presence of a protected species is a material planning consideration.
The Habitats Regulations 1994 require planning authorities to 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'.
Given that Turbine 7 would be in, or at least within 50m of a woodland block it is considered that it would have the potential to cause harm to bats and hence be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. There appears to be no evidence that other satisfactory alternatives have been explored, such as repositioning or deletion of the turbine so that it meets the guidance in TIN051.
The council therefore concludes that the proposal, by virtue of the position of Turbine 7, does not meet the requirements of the Habitat Regulations and therefore PPS9.
Notwithstanding the above it is concluded that the proposal would not be contrary to policy ENV7 ’International Wildlife Sites’, ENV8 ‘National Wildlife Sites’, ENV9 ‘Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation’ and ENV13 ‘Protection of Ponds’ of the Selby District Local Plan.
5. Geology and Hydrogeology
In terms of the potential impacts on geology and hydrology the applicant has stated ‘the site is located in an area classified as a Principal Aquifer, which is associated with the limestone formation. Quarrying at the site has however removed the effective aquifer in parts’.
As such the proposal has the potential to impact on ground water, particularly if piled foundations are used. Furthermore on of the turbine would be located close to a landfill cell although no turbines would be located on waste. The applicant has stated that any potential harm to groundwater could be
142 adequately mitigated using best practice measures. In response to this the Environment Agency has stated that it has no objection to the proposals, subject to conditions requiring a scheme detailing surface water drainage.
The Council therefore accepts that the proposal is acceptable in terms of geology and impacts on hydrogeology.
6. Highways and Transportation
In respect of the impact on highways and transportation the Environmental Statement concludes that the proposed development will not lead to significant major impact on traffic and transport and that the ‘main impact on the road network as a result of the increased traffic will occur within the 9 month construction phase’. Once operational the windfarm would generate minimal traffic.
The Non-technical Summary accompanying the application states that ‘most construction traffic would access the site via the A1’ however ‘abnormal loads carrying the turbine parts are likely to be routed via the A19’. The Non- technical Summary goes on to state that ‘to accommodate the abnormal loads, temporary road closures, some verge strengthening works and some street furniture relocation on route to the site on exit from the M62 would be required’.
Network Rail has no objection in principle to the proposal. At the time of compiling this report no comments had been made by the Highways Agency in respect of the highways and transportation section of the Environmental Statement. However there are many instances when large pieces of equipment, including turbines, are moved on public highways and there are usually technical solutions to transporting such equipment. On the basis of the available information there is no evidence to suggest that the proposal is otherwise than compliant with Policies T1 ‘Location of Development to the Highway’, T2 ‘Access to highways’, T8 ‘Public rights of way’, and VP1 ’Parking provision’ off the Selby District Local Plan and the guidance in PPG13.
Given the proposed access routes the Council offers no objections on highways and transportation grounds subject to a favourable response from the Highway Agency.
CONCLUSION:
The proposal is located within the Green Belt wherein there is a presumption against inappropriate development, which should only be allowed in very special circumstances. The proposal, by virtue that it would fail to maintain openness and that it would result in encroachment and therefore conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt would constitute inappropriate development.
143 Whilst the Council considers that the impacts in relation to highways by virtue of traffic generation, geology and hydrology, groundwater pollution and residential amenity are acceptable, the Council considers that the proposal would result in harm to the rural character of the area, to the setting of the listed Grove Hall and potentially to bats and highway safety by virtue of non- compliance with the separation distances set out in national guidance produced by Natural England and the Highway Agency. The Council also considers that harm to the Green Belt would arise by virtue of the inappropriateness of the development. In addition the proposal would also result in harm to the openness of the Green Belt and to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt
In terms of the purported benefits of the proposal the Council contends that whilst no weight should be granted to the applicant’s assertion that the proposal would not conflict with the fundamental reasons for including land within the Green Belt substantial weight should be granted to the wider environmental and economic benefits of the proposed windfarm including its contribution towards the District Council meeting or exceeding its renewable energy capacity targets.
The Council further asserts that when put in the balance the wider environmental and economic benefits arising from applicant’s case do not clearly outweigh the overwhelming harm arising by reason of inappropriateness, harm to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt and to the other harms listed above. As such it is the Council’s firm opinion that very special circumstances have not been demonstrated to exist, the proposal is not compliant with Policy GB2, GB4 of the Selby District Local Plan and the guidance in PPG2 and therefore the application should be refused.
The Council therefore respectfully requests North Yorkshire County Council to refuse the application on the grounds outlined above.
Notwithstanding that Selby District Council objects to the application, and without prejudice to the representation made by the Council, it is respectfully requested that should the County Council be minded to approve he application that they consider attaching the following conditions to any approval granted.
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 level of noise emissions from the combined effects of the wind turbine generators when measured at residential properties and in
144 accordance with “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU-R-97” shall not exceed:
(c) 5 dB above the night-time LA90 10 min background noise level between the hours of 2300 and 0700, (d) 5dB above the daytime LA90 10 min background noise level between the hours of 0700 to 2300,
at wind speeds not exceeding 12 metres per second as determined within the gardens of the neighbouring residential properties.
Background noise levels shall be determined at residential properties, when the turbines are not operating.
Reason In the interests of protecting the residential amenity of neighbouring properties in accordance with policy ENV6(3) of the Selby District Local Plan.
3. Before the development hereby approved shall be brought into use a noise reduction management system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The system shall monitor wind speed and direction and be designed to prevent the operation of the wind turbines during conditions when the noise emissions limits in the condition 2 of this permission would be exceeded. The system shall be in operation throughout the use of the wind turbines.
Reason In the interests of protecting the residential amenity of neighbouring properties in accordance with policy ENV6(3) of the Selby District Local Plan.
4. Before the development hereby approved shall be brought into use a shadow flicker reduction management system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The system shall identify when shadow flicker will affect properties and the means of preventing shadow flicker from occurring at those times. The approved system shall be in operation throughout the use of the wind turbines.
Reason In the interests of protecting the residential amenity of neighbouring properties in accordance with policy ENV6(3) of the Selby District Local Plan.
5. In the event that the turbine ceases to function for a continuous period of more than 12 months it shall be dismantled and the site restored to agricultural land.
145
Reason: In the interest of protecting the openness and visual amenity of this rural Green Belt location in accordance with policies ENV6(1) and GB4 of the Selby District Local Plan and the guidance in PPG2.
Yours sincerely
146
Appendix B –Detailed Comments made by Cridling Stubbs Parish Council.
Application Form
Factual inaccuracies and misleading statements
Cridling Stubbs is spelt as “Criddling Stubbs”. This could lead to an internet search (as no hard copy has been forthcoming)
Planning Supporting Statement and Design and Access Statement
Factual inaccuracies and misleading statements
2.2.3 Incorrect – Liaison Meetings take place every 3 months not 2.
2.2.4 Incorrect - Councillor Gillian Ivey is a Selby District Councillor, not North Yorkshire. Darrington Parish Council, one of the local parish councils, is not included. A Ward Councillor from Wakefield Council is not present.
2.2.8 Misleading - WRG has not attended a meeting of Darrington Parish Council.
2.2.12 Incorrect - WRG withdrew from the Community Fund about 18 months ago.
2.2.23 Misleading - Cridling Stubbs and Womersley Parish Councils were told at the liaison meeting that all households in the area would be sent information about the exhibition. These were not sent out (as admitted by WRG).
2.2.25 Misleading – The residents found out about the exhibition from a flyer the parish councils had to produce.
3.0.6 Incorrect - There is no coal mine situated to the south of the site.
3.0.7 Incorrect - Not all of Darrington village is beyond the A1 to the south- west of the site.
3.0.9 Misleading - This does not mention the permissions for landfill which caused major problems in the area.
4.2.2 Incorrect – WRG has not ensured that predicted views of the turbines take account of the characteristics of the local topography.
Misleading – WRG has considered the interests and concerns of residents living in proximity to the site but then ignored them.
147 Possibly incorrect - WRG do not know that the distance from the landfill will ensure that the integrity of the landfill liners would not be compromised. Incorrect – WRG has not ensured that adequate stand-offs are provided between turbines and classified roads because the Highways Agency have objected to the distance between two of the proposed turbines and the M62 motorway.
Misleading - the construction of the turbines would not prevent the excavation of extant mineral reserves within the quarry because there are no reserves left on the site in question.
4.2.5 Misleading – WRG admits to the open character of the Green Belt and the locally important landscape area after giving the impression it is an industrial landscape.
4.2.10 Misleading - The proposed use is not sustainable if it is for only 25 years.
4.2.12 Misleading - The crane hardstanding covers a large area that should, according to previous planning conditions, be restored to agriculture.
4.2.21 Misleading - The soak-away area does not work, leaving standing water which the parish council has objected to over many years.
4.3.5 Misleading - If the area was as industrialised as the application states, these footpaths would not exist.
5.2.4 Comment - The communities have been involved and the majority of residents are against these proposals.
5.2.7 Comment -The land is already used to produce green energy. The term “massing” could be used, a valid reason to object to the planning application.
5.2.17 Comment – The quarrying and landfilling previously given planning permission within the Green Belt have taken place at low levels and do not disturb the visual amenity. The proposed wind turbines, being above ground level, are very much visually intrusive and should not be constructed within the Green Belt.
5.2.28 part vii Comment – WRG met with officers of Selby District Council and Wakefield Council much earlier than with the local communities even though the liaison committee was there to use.
5.2.33 Comment – The effects are not being minimised as the site is one of the highest pieces of ground for miles around.
5.2.34 Comment – The proposals cannot be classed as temporary if alterations to roads and new access points need constructing.
148 6.0.15 Comment – Selby District Council’s LDF has not yet been adopted and so should not be used to decide on a planning application.
6.0.18 Misleading – The turbines will destroy the openness of the Green Belt.
6.0.19 Comment – the land already has an alternative use – to be restored to agriculture as determined by the original planning permissions for the quarrying and landfill.
6.0.20 Comment – Figure 5.4, a plan of the turbine tower, shows a door providing access to inside the tower. Therefore, it is a new building and its construction should not be allowed on Green Belt.
Environmental Statement
Factual inaccuracies and misleading statements
3.3.1 Incorrect - Landfill areas are predominantly to the eastern and southern sections, not western and southern sections of the site.
4.2.1 Misleading – The description of rural countryside is correct but this is not the impression given elsewhere in the document, using descriptions of industrial activities.
4.2.2 Incorrect - Not all of Darrington village is beyond the A1 to the south- west of the site.
6.5.32 Incorrect – A decision cannot be made based on a policy yet to be adopted.
6.7.5 Comment – The developer states that “it is concluded”. Not everyone reaches the same conclusion.
6.7.6 Comment – It may be a “largely previously developed site” but the existing planning consent states it should be returned to agriculture. Construction of a wind farm and its associated infrastructure would largely prevent this. It is irrelevant and misleading to state “The proposed development will not prevent other uses co-existing alongside the wind turbines such as quarrying” as there is no stone left within the site to quarry.
7.1.1 Comment – This must be a different site as it is stated to be 2.0 km from Darrington but elsewhere in the application it is 2.7km and 1.5km.
7.3.18 Misleading – There is no mention of the settlement of Kellingley, part of Beal parish, which lies much nearer than Whitley or Eggborough to the nearest turbine.
7.3.19 Misleading - There is no mention of the village of Stapleton.
149 7.3.28 Incorrect – There are not “numerous mining developments (both active and obsolete)” to the south.
7.3.32 Incorrect – The railway line forms the boundary of the site.
7.3.34 Comment – The proposed wind farm would be sited on top of the ridge which is already at 100m AOD.
7.3.69 Incorrect and misleading – Different views of the proposed turbines exist within a few metres of the identified view points.
7.3.78 Misleading – Restoration of the quarries is not a “trend”, it is a planning obligation.
7.4.15 Misleading – Elsewhere in the application, it states that a new application may be made to erect new turbines.
7.4.17 Misleading – This restoration is supposed to be carried out as part of current planning permissions. It will not restrict views of the wind turbines.
7.5 Comment – The whole of this chapter shows that a large area around the site will suffer a high to moderate adverse change on visual amenity resulting in a moderate significance of effect. However, the developer reaches different conclusions in chapter 7.7.
8.3.2 Comment – The speed of vehicles on the M62 motorway will give drivers the impression the shadow of the blades are moving even faster than they are.
8.4.3 Comment – Residents should not have to sit behind screens, shutters or blinds in their own homes because of these proposals. Residents have suffered in the past due to circumstances at this site where undertakings were not kept.
Table 9.3 Incorrect – Lanswood is situated on Northfield Lane, not Wrights Lane.
10.2.7 Incorrect – WRG has not been involved with the Cridling Stubbs Community Fund for over one year. This was connected to a planning consent for quarrying and WRG withdrew when that section of quarry was exhausted of stone.
10.4.11 Incorrect – The changes in the landscape are not perceived, they are actual.
10.4.14 Comment – The owner of the leasehold land cannot be considered to live local to the site.
11 Comment – The whole chapter seems to state the whole area has been ruined by quarrying and power stations and so the presence of a wind farm
150 will make no difference. This is not the case. The area can endure only a certain amount of alteration and that level has been reached.
11.3.25 Incorrect – The last sentence in section 6 should read St Peter, not St Martin. In section 7, it should state that Kellington Church is on high ground not low.
11.5.1 Incorrect – The wind turbines may be replaced after 25 years (as stated elsewhere in the application) and so cannot be considered temporary.
11.5.5 Comment – If planting can be called intrusive in this open landscape, building wind turbines in the open landscape must also be intrusive.
Table 11.6 Comment - A planning condition outlining the lifespan of the wind farm and a decommissioning date with restoration of the site would be worthless as elsewhere in the application it states that another application may be made in the future to construct new turbines. The site is already covered by a planning condition to ensure it is restored to agriculture.
12 Misleading – There is no mention of the crossroads where Cobcroft Lane and Stubbs Lane join Northfield Lane. A number of near-miss occurrences have taken place here, so many that Highways North Yorkshire have recently improved the signage and placed rumble strips on Northfield Lane in an effort to improve the safety of road-users at this junction.
12.3.6 Misleading – One of the residential properties has direct vehicular access onto Cobcroft Lane.
12.3.7 Incorrect – The “coal mine” is a colliery waste tip.
12.3.11 Incorrect – None of the HGVs accessing the “coal mine” or ash disposal site travel between the site accesses. All HGVs from the “coal mine” turn eastwards to travel along Cobcroft Lane and Sudforth Lane to Kellingley Colliery. The waste deposited at the ash disposal site is pumped underground from Ferrybridge and Eggborough Power Stations. This throws the whole of the results of the traffic survey in to doubt.
12.3.26 Incorrect – There is no bus stop on Northfield Lane. Why would pedestrians walk out of Cridling Stubbs village to a non-existent bus stop when the buses stop at two locations in the village?
12.7.1 Incorrect - Stubbs Lane is not currently used for access to a “coal mine” and ash deposit site.
14.3.18 Incorrect – The de-silting lagoons are no longer in use in connection with active quarry operations. Much more wildlife, especially birds, was present when the lagoons were being used, so much so that the quarry owners constructed a viewing platform for the public to watch them.
151 14.3.51 Incorrect - The de-silting lagoons are no longer in use in connection with active quarry operations. Much more wildlife, especially birds, was present when the lagoons were being used, so much so that the quarry owners constructed a viewing platform for the public to watch them.
14.4.6 Comment – If restoration of the quarried areas took place as it should do, this “compensation planting” would not be needed.
14.4.7 Comment – Rather than pointing out the “opportunities for habitat enhancement” in this application, the developer should have carried this out as part of previous applications.
14.5.6 Comment – This shows that the silt lagoons mentioned elsewhere in the application are no longer used in connection with active quarry operations.
15.4.6 Comment – This was not always the case as can be shown from the number of complaints the company received about the smell emanating from the landfill site. There were also several non-compliance reports issued by the Environment Agency.
15.4.24 Comment – WRG needs to be able to prove that ground-borne vibration will not affect the landfill liner before any planning consent is given. After the turbines are constructed would be too late to find the vibration did affect the liner.
15.4.29 Comment – The silt ponds in this paragraph are classed as “former”, contrary to what is stated elsewhere in the application.
15.4.38 Comment – The phrase “assuming the construction follows environmental best practice” is strange to use in this context. A much more comforting phrase would be “construction will follow environmental best practice”.
17.3.3 Comment – On the date a decision is made on this application, there may be other committed wind farm developments within at least 4 km of the proposed development.
Table 18.1 LV02 Comment – “Continued landscape enhancements on site during operation in order to continue to achieve the long term restoration plan for the quarry” should take place where the wind farm is constructed or not.
Table 18.1 NV01 Comment – Local residents had to endure noise for many months emanating from Darrington East quarry when a pecker was used, contrary to planning consent. By the time the noise problem was solved, the pecker was no longer needed.
Table 18.1 EC05 Comment – “Monitoring for birds should be undertaken for at least five years after construction” will not bring them back, just ascertain they have or have not gone.
152 19.1.2 Misleading – There is not an “urban and industrial nature of the area.” The application states that residents in the surrounding area “with direct views of the proposed development would experience major to moderate adverse impacts on visual amenity”. The application should therefore be refused.
19.2.2 Misleading – The use of the Brownfield site would be maximised by restoring it all to agriculture as per previous planning decisions.
19.2.4 Misleading and comment – As significant adverse impacts are predicted on the immediate local community in terms of visual amenity, which cannot be mitigated, the application should be refused. The moderate to minor impacts which the developer predicts on Green Belt, local landscape character and some heritage features are disputed in their severity. The misleading and incorrect statements may be the reason the developer has reached this conclusion. If the real facts are considered, their impact on the Green Belt, local landscape character and some heritage features is severe.
19.2.5 Comment – Any advantages from the proposed development, which the developer claims to contribute to renewable energy targets that are to be achieved by each Local Authority and helps to achieve targets set out in national planning policy, are far outweighed by the damage that will occur to Green Belt and a Locally Important Landscape Area.
Fig 7.12 Misleading – The view of the proposed turbine nearest to Womersley village is conveniently hidden behind a bush. If the photograph had been taken from just a few metres in either direction, the turbine would be much more prominent.
Fig 7.14 Misleading – The photograph at the top of this diagram is obviously a true reflection of the view from this particular point. The schematic drawing is totally false. Other figures in the application that show less than the eight proposed turbines show them drawn onto a photograph. The figures showing all eight of the proposed turbines have them as a schematic drawing, thus lessening their visual impact. The superimposition of the eight turbines on a coloured photograph would show their true impact.
Fig 7.15 Misleading – The photograph at the top of this diagram is obviously a true reflection of the view from this particular point. The schematic drawing is totally false. Other figures in the application that show less than the eight proposed turbines show them drawn onto a photograph. The figures showing all eight of the proposed turbines have them as a schematic drawing, thus lessening their visual impact. The superimposition of the eight turbines on a coloured photograph would show their true impact.
Fig 7.16 Misleading – The photograph at the top of this diagram is obviously a true reflection of the view from this particular point. The schematic drawing is totally false. Other figures in the application that show less than the eight proposed turbines show them drawn onto a photograph. The figures showing all eight of the proposed turbines have them as a schematic drawing, thus
153 lessening their visual impact. The superimposition of the eight turbines on a coloured photograph would show their true impact.
Fig 7.17 Misleading – The photograph at the top of this diagram is obviously a true reflection of the view from this particular point. The schematic drawing is totally false. Other figures in the application that show less than the eight proposed turbines show them drawn onto a photograph. The figures showing all eight of the proposed turbines have them as a schematic drawing, thus lessening their visual impact. The superimposition of the eight turbines on a coloured photograph would show their true impact.
Fig 7.18 Misleading – The photograph at the top of this diagram is obviously a true reflection of the view from this particular point. The schematic drawing is totally false. Other figures in the application that show less than the eight proposed turbines show them drawn onto a photograph. The figures showing all eight of the proposed turbines have them as a schematic drawing, thus lessening their visual impact. The superimposition of the eight turbines on a coloured photograph would show their true impact.
Fig 7.19 Misleading – The photograph at the top of this diagram is obviously a true reflection of the view from this particular point. The schematic drawing is totally false. Other figures in the application that show less than the eight proposed turbines show them drawn onto a photograph. The figures showing all eight of the proposed turbines have them as a schematic drawing, thus lessening their visual impact. The superimposition of the eight turbines on a coloured photograph would show their true impact.
Fig 7.20 Misleading – The photograph at the top of this diagram is obviously a true reflection of the view from this particular point. The schematic drawing is totally false. Other figures in the application that show less than the eight proposed turbines show them drawn onto a photograph. The figures showing all eight of the proposed turbines have them as a schematic drawing, thus lessening their visual impact. The superimposition of the eight turbines on a coloured photograph would show their true impact.
Ornithological Survey
Executive Summary Incorrect – The survey site is in North Yorkshire.
Incorrect – The proposal is to construct eight turbines, not seven.
Incorrect – The survey site is bisected by Stubbs Lane, not “Stubs Lane”.
Table 2 Misleading – The vantage point surveys were only carried out between the hours of 08.10 and 18.00. The noise from quarrying operations would affect the birds in the area. No survey was carried out in the early morning or
154 evening when the birds could be most prevalent, a major mistake in this report.
4.1 Misleading – Another reason for the unreliability of the survey results is that since the survey was carried out, the lagoons have ceased to be used. This fact negates all the results as the dried up lagoons could be or not be the habitat of different types of birds.
Reptile Survey Report
1.3 Incorrect –The site surveyed is bisected by Stubbs Lane, not Stubs Lane.
3.2 Incorrect - A juvenile grass snake could not be observed during the Phase 1 habitat survey on 8th April 2009 if Baker Consultants was not commissioned until April 2010.
Bat Survey Report
1.3 Incorrect –The site surveyed is bisected by Stubbs Lane, not Stubs Lane.
Non-technical summary
Introduction Incorrect – The site is mainly in North Yorkshire. This document states the site is 2.7km northeast of Darrington but other documents in the application state it is 1.5km away.
The Proposed Development Incorrect – The landfill areas are predominantly to the eastern and southern sections of the site, not western and southern as stated. Incorrect - A standoff distance of at least 175m from the motorway is required by the Highways Agency for safety purposes.
Consultation Incorrect – Residents were not written to by WRG.
Landscape and Visual Effect Misleading – The document fails to state it is a Locally Important Landscape Area.
Noise and Vibration Misleading – The document fails to state that residents have concerns that vibration could affect the integrity of the landfill liners. However, it does state, possibly mistakenly, that ground-borne vibration from turbine operation is not significant.
Community and Socioeconomics Misleading – The document states “The public right of way would not be affected by the proposed development”. The public right of way itself may not be affected but people using it will be.
155
Conclusions Misleading – This development, on its own, would nearly double the Local Authority’s renewable energy targets.
156 Agenda Item 7
Local Authority Ref: 2010/0147/FUL Inspectorate Ref: APP/N2739/A/10/2136838 Site Location: The Bungalow Finkle Street Hemingbrough
Proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling in front garden
Status: Appeal Dismissed
Local Authority Ref: 2010/0590/OUT Inspectorate Ref: APP/N2739/A/10/2139309 Site Location: Land adjacent to 77 Water Lane Hemingbrough
Proposal: Outline application for the proposed erection of detached dwelling with all matters reserved
Status: Appeal Dismissed
Local Authority Ref: 2010/0604/HPA and 2010/0605/HPA Inspectorate Ref: APP/N2739/C/10/2141975 APP/N2739/C/10/2141976 APP/N2739/A/10/2141968 Site Location: 1 and 24 The Haven Selby Proposal: Erection of 1.8m high boundary wall with timber infill panels Status: Appeal allowed and enforcement notice quashed in regards to 24 The Haven Appeal allowed and enforcement notice upheld in regards to 1 The Haven Costs award dismissed for both appeals
*SEE BELOW FOR LINKED
157 APPEALS
Local Authority Ref: 2010/1281/EAP and 2010/1283/EAP Inspectorate Ref: APP/N2739/A/10/2141966 APP/N2739/A/10/2141982 Site Location: 1 and 24 The Haven Selby Proposal: Unauthorised wall at 1 The Haven Selby Unauthorised fence at 24 The Haven, Selby
Status: Appeal allowed and enforcement notice quashed in regards to 24 The Haven Appeal allowed and enforcement notice upheld in regards to 1 The Haven Costs award dismissed for both appeals
Local Authority Ref: 2009/0565/FUL Inspectorate Ref: APP/N2739/A/10/2134309 Site Location: Land to rear of Fennel Farm Church Fenton LS24 9RN Proposal: Erection of 3 blocks of No.7 stables with tack room, erection of indoor area, construction of outdoor riding area and vehicle park and siting of a mobile home Status: Appeal Allowed
Local Authority Ref: 2010/1113/HPA Inspectorate Ref: APP/N2739/A/11/2144268/WF Site Location: Precepetory Farm Main Street Temple Hirst YO8 8QN
Proposal: Revised scheme for erection of car port with granny flat above
Status: Appeal allow but cost award
158 dismissed
159