Agenda item

Reserved matters application for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of redevelopment of the former North Selby Mine site to a leisure development comprising of a range of touring caravan and static caravans and associated facilities following the grant of outline permission 19/00078/OUTM [Wheldrake Ward]

Members considered a Major Reserved Matters Application for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of redevelopment of the former North Selby Mine site to a leisure development comprising of a range of touring caravan and static caravans and associated facilities following the grant of outline permission 19/00078/OUTM at North Selby Mine, New Road, Deighton, York.

The Head of Planning and Development Services outlined the application and gave a presentation on it. She noted that the siting of the static and touring caravans was in line with the reserved matters application. She was asked and showed the location of the amenity block, which was shown as welfare facilities on the plans.

The Development Management Officer gave an update on the application noting that corrections to the report included references to chalets in the report should read static caravans. He explained that the applicant indicated that the total number of caravans envisaged would be 92 touring caravans and 231 static caravans which are the numbers conditioned under condition 3 of Outline Permission 19/00078/OUTM and 20/01546/FUL at the approved density. He also noted additional representation from Escrick Parish Council regarding the entertainment/amenity buildings which should be conditioned as necessary. A draft condition was proposed restricting use of any facilities at the site to those resident and regarding permitted development, there was no permitted change within the scope of the Use Classes Order.

Public Speaker

Bruno Hannemann, a local resident (representing himself, his wife and the residents of two other properties), spoke in objection to the application. He noted that the new application brought in new buildings and facilities that were not included in the other application which would impact on noise and introduce noise disturbance. He was also concerned about non residents on site, and he requested that the committee read his letter in full before considering the application.

Bruno Hannemann was asked a number of questions from Members. He was asked how long he had lived there and the Chair noted that this was not a material consideration. The Chair advised that the objection letter could not be considered as officers had considered comments on the application.

Members asked officers further questions to which they responded that:

The reception and wellness building was in the previous application and the existing buildings would be retained for recreational use. There was a noiuse management plan conditioned and public protection had been consulted and were happy with the application.

There was no agreement to take away any other buildings.

[At this point, Cllr Steward noted that his partner’s family owned a caravan site].

There were no day visitors to the park. Condition 6 was noted and it was clarified that the facilities on site could only be used by residents. The Chair noted that the wording of the condition could be tightened if the committee felt it was required.

The recreational strategy and noise management plan were included in the outline planning permission.

Regarding the concerns of Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, there was a site management plan for species of site. There was also a SINC (Site of Interest for Nature Conservation) management plan.

Concerning a condition regarding numbers of cats, it would need to be determined where the cats came from. [At this point the Senior Solicitor advised that conditions imposed could only relate to reserved matters and the Head of Planning and Development Services added that the committee needed to consider reasonableness.

Regarding concerns about the site becoming a permanent site, Members were advised that the outline consent as this was the reserved matters application.

Regarding cat proofing the fencing, the materials for the fencing could be conditioned.

All disabled car parking was level access with two parking spaces in the carparking spaces.

Members debated the application. During debate Members considered the use of a cat proof fence and were advised that a deer proof fence could be used as a cat proof fence. There was detailed debate on the management of visitors to the site. Following debate, Cllr Merrett proposed the officer recommendation to approve the application subject to an amendment to condition 2 with an additional reference to domestic animals, the wording of which delegated to officers in conjunction with the Chair and Vice Chair. This was seconded by Cllr Whitcroft. Following a vote with eight voting in favour and two abstentions, it was:

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to an amendment to condition 2 with an additional reference to domestic animals, the wording of which delegated to officers in conjunction with the Chair and Vice Chair.

Reason:     The principle of the use of the site as a leisure facility based upon caravan stays has previously been established by grant of Outline Permission. The submitted layout details are broadly consistent with that with the proposed entertainment and amenity buildings making use of the disused mine structures. Detailed measures have been indicated at the same time to safeguard the biodiversity value of the adjacent SINC which are felt to be acceptable. With the management plans proposed and the degree of protection afforded by the surrounding landscaping it is felt that the proposal would not unacceptably harm the amenity of neighbouring properties. The proposal is therefore felt to be acceptable in planning terms and approval is recommended.

[The meeting adjourned from 6.39pm to 6.45pm].