Agenda and draft minutes
Venue: Remote Meeting
Contact: Angela Bielby Democracy Officer
Declarations of Interest
At this point in the meeting, Members are asked to declare:
· any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests
· any prejudicial interests or
· any disclosable pecuniary interests
which they may have in respect of business on this agenda.
Members were asked to declare, at this point in the meeting, any personal interests, not included on the Register of Interests, or any prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interests they may have in respect of business on the agenda.
Cllr Barker declared a non predjudicial interest in agenda item 4b [York Microlight Centre Limited, Rufforth Airfield, Rufforth, York YO233NA [20/01448/FUL] as the Ward Councillor for that Ward. There were no further declarations of interest.
To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Planning Committee held on 4 February 2021.
Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 4 February be approved and then signed by the chair as a correct record.
Webcasting of Remote Public Meetings
Please note that, subject to available resources, this remote public meeting will be webcast including any registered public speakers who have given their permission. The remote public meeting can be viewed live and on demand at www.york.gov.uk/webcasts.
During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates (www.york.gov.uk/COVIDDemocracy) for more information on meetings and decisions.
It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme on general matters within the remit of the Planning Committee.
This item invites Members to determine the following planning applications:
Members considered a schedule of reports of the Assistant Director, Planning and Public Protection, relating to the following planning applications, outlining the proposals and relevant policy considerations and setting out the views of consultees and officers.
Variation of condition 4 of permitted application 19/00078/OUTM (redevelopment of the former North Selby Mine site to a leisure development comprising of a range of touring caravan and static caravans with associated facilities) to remove limit of 28 nights occupation in any one calendar year [Wheldrake Ward]
Members considered a full application from Peter Massie for the Variation of condition 4 of permitted application 19/00078/OUTM (redevelopment of the former North Selby Mine site to a leisure development comprising of a range of touring caravan and static caravans with associated facilities) to remove limit of 28 nights occupation in any one calendar year at North Selby Mine, New Road, Deighton, York.
A presentation on the application was given, detailing the site location plan and site parameters plan.
Officers provided an update noting that the full committee report had been republished that day (including the alternative wording for condition 4). Late correspondence had been received Deighton Parish Council in response to the alternative wording of proposed condition 4. Members were also advised of an Amendment to condition 4 to require development to be carried in full compliance with the approved site management plan. It was noted that the additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and recommendation were unchanged from the published report.
In response to Member questions, officers confirmed that:
· Proof of residency could include council tax or utility bills to prove primary residence and this could be stipulated to residents.
· There were two pieces of legislation for the classification of a caravan. Both were detailed to Members.
· The placement of lodges on the site would depend whether those lodges fell under the definition of a caravan. If the lodge was permanent and had bigger dimensions than a caravan it would need a new planning permission.
· It could be clarified within a condition what was meant by caravan to make it clear for future developments on site.
· There would be a separate areas for static and touring caravans.
· The limit for a caravan was a width of 6.2m
· Notification letters were sent to Deighton Parish Council and Escrick Parish Council on 25 February 2021
· The Deighton Parish Council response was clarified and read out
· Condition 4 referred to all caravans on site
· Geothermal use of the site was not part of the application
[At 16:53 Cllr Barker confirmed that he had heard all of the discussion when his camera was briefly off]
Chris Brack spoke in objection to the application on behalf of Deighton Parish Council. He explained that the application was inadequate in stopping caravans from becoming permanent dwellings and that keeping a register of addresses was academic if there was no information on their length of stay. He suggested that the site management plan should include a leasehold clause. A Member noted that only caravans could be sited to which he asked if this included motorhomes and it was clarified that if motorhomes fit the definition of a caravan they would be allowed.
Mr Brack then asked a number of questions from Members to which he responded that:
· The proof of residency could via council tax or utility bills would go some way to towards proof but was not infallible.
· It was suspected that the caravans would not be used as ... view the full minutes text for item 21a
Erection of building to provide training facilities, bike and equipment storage for motorcycle training school and microlight hangar, and erection of extension to hangar [Rural West York Ward]
Before consideration of the application, the Chair advised that Cllr Warters that his comments regarding officers may be in breach of the Member Code of Conduct. Cllr Warters declined an offer from the Chair to apologise for his comments.
Members considered an application from Beckett for the erection of building to provide training facilities, bike and equipment storage for motorcycle training school and microlight hangar, and erection of extension to hangar at York Microlight Centre Limited, Rufforth Airfield, Rufforth, York.
A presentation on the application was given to the Committee. The included the site location plan in context and detail, the existing cluster building, the side elevation to be extended, the existing and proposed site plans and the proposed elevations. Following the presentation officers were asked and confirmed that:
· The motorcycles were currently stored at Tockwith and under the application would be moved to Rufforth. There would also be the addition of an office/classroom area.
[At 18:33 Cllr Hollyer dropped out of and rejoined the meeting].
· Regarding the use class of the buildings on the site, Members were considering the buildings related to this application. Cllr Barker advised that the site was in his Ward and that the buildings were used for light industrial use.
· It was not known whether there would be an increase in employees at the site.
· The airfield had various uses all of which had been granted planning approval. This application related to existing permission for motorcycle training and for a building to continue that operation.
· Concerning other motorcycle activities on the site (Yamaha GT experience) the building was for CBT training and the Yamaha training was unrelated to the application.
· In relation to the Knapton and Rufforth Neighbourhood Plan criteria not supporting new buildings, this application was associated was related to an existing use as set out in paragraph 5.28 of the committee report. It was confirmed that the Knapton and Rufforth Neighbourhood Plan was an adopted plan.
· The classrooms in the application were for mixed use.
· The 1998 planning permission was for the use of a motorcycle training facility.
· The case for very special circumstances was explained.
Cllr Pavlovic then moved and Cllr Barker seconded approval of the application.
Following debate, and in accordance with the revised Standing Orders, a named vote was taken with the following result:
· Cllrs Barker, Daubeney, Douglas, Fenton, Fisher, Kilbane, Pavlovic and Cullwick voted for the motion;
· Cllrs Ayre, Craghill, Doughty, Hollyer, Lomas, and Warters voted against the motion.
The motion was carried and it was:
Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report.
Reason: The proposal represents inappropriate development in the green belt and does conflict to a limited extent with Neighbourhood Plan policy RwK11. However, the proposal does not conflict with the purposes of including the application land in the green belt and only results in a limited loss of openness. The proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions with regard to matters such as contaminated land, drainage and climate change ... view the full minutes text for item 21b