Local democracy during coronavirus

During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates for more information on meetings and decisions.

Agenda item

Poppleton Garden Centre, Northfield Lane, Upper Poppleton, York, YO26 6QF (16/00878/FUL)

Part use of car park as mobile storage unit for public use for bulk re sale or recycling of clothing, shoes and clothing accessories (retrospective). [Rural West York Ward]


Members considered a (retrospective) full application by Mr Ian Woods for the part use of the car park as a mobile storage unit for public use for bulk re sale or recycling of clothing, shoes and clothing accessories.


Officers advised the committee that there was an existing car wash and canopy adjacent to the proposed site, which did not have planning permission and was subject to a planning enforcement investigation.


Mr Ian Woods, the applicant, addressed the committee in support of the application. He advised that Smart Recycling allowed members of the public to recycle clothes for a cash reward. Employment would be provided for two people and would benefit York’s economy. He advised that the location was sustainable with the Park and Ride scheme opposite, which in itself was a prominent building, and an established garden centre and car park. He advised members that there had been no pubic objections to the proposals.


Members noted that officers found the proposals to be harmful to the greenbelt and that very special circumstances needed to be demonstrated which outweighed the harm caused to the greenbelt.


Members acknowledged that if the applicant wished to put forward proposals to move the storage unit to a less prominent position in the car park which was further away from the footpath and the A59 then this would need to be considered through a new application.


Members agreed that the proposals constituted inappropriate development in the greenbelt and that very special circumstances had not been shown to justify the proposals. They also agreed that the proposals would be unduly prominent and intrusive and would cause harm  to the visual amenity and open character of the area and the setting of the A59 transport corridor.


Resolved:      That delegated authority be given to the Assistant Director of Development Services, Planning and Regeneration (in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Committee) to refuse the application following the conclusion of the statutory consultation period, subject to no new material planning considerations being raised within any consultation responses during this period, due to end on 16 May 2016


Reason:         The proposal conflicts with the essential characteristics of Green Belts (their openness and their permanence) and the purposes of including land within the Green Belt by resulting in encroachment of development into the countryside, the sprawl, merging and coalescence of development; and is harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. The considerations put forward by the applicant do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm (harm to visual amenity and character of the A59 transport corridor) when substantial weight is given to the harm to the Green Belt. As such very special circumstances do not exist to justify the proposal. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy YH9 of the Yorkshire and Humber Plan and also conflict with Draft Development Control Local Plan (2005) policy GB1: Development in the Green Belt.


In addition the proposed change of use of the land and the

modular unit, by virtue of its location adjacent to a junction on the A59transport corridor, would be unduly prominent and intrusive in the streetscene in addition to creating a cluttered appearance. As such the proposed development would fail to respect the character of the area and cause harm to the visual amenity and open character and therefore would conflict with Policy SP3 and GP1 of the City of York Council Development

Control Local Plan (2005) and contrary to the core principles and part 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Supporting documents:


Back to the top of the page