Agenda item

Formation of additional car parking spaces with associated lighting and security fence to north boundary.[Site Visit] 

[Rawcliffe and Clifton Without Ward]

Members considered a full application by Mr Mark Hanson for the formation of additional car parking spaces with associated lighting and security fence to the north boundary.

Officers advised that they had received two further consultation responses. Public Protection had advised that insufficient information had been submitted regarding the lighting. They stated that information should include a site plan showing the lux levels from the lighting on different planes, ground level and 1.5 metres in height, which also included the location of properties within 100m of site, and that the lighting complied with the Institute of Lighting Professionals guidance on obtrusive lighting.

The Environment Agency noted that a Flood Risk Assessment had not been submitted but advised that they would have no objection to the proposed development  provided there was no raising of ground levels and excess spoil was removed from the site. They also felt that the developer should produce/update a flood evacuation plan and that surface water run-off from the proposed development site should be managed using sustainable drainage techniques to ensure that flood risk was not increased either on-site or elsewhere.

Officers asked Members to note the following corrections to the report:

·        In paragraph 4.9 reference is made to paragraphs 4.17 and 4.18 this should read 4.14 to 4.15.

·        In paragraph 4.16 reference is made to paragraphs 4.33 and 4.37 this should read 4.30 to 4.34.

·        Para 1.1 and 4.13: the number of trees to be removed for the southern most car park would be 5 (Horse Chestnut, Robina, Plane, Sycamore, and Beech) rather than 3.

Officers informed Members of the Court of Appeal’s advice on the approach to be taken in determining applications for development which involved elements which were inappropriate development and elements which were appropriate in the Green Belt and the advice was that the correct approach was to consider and assess the whole of the development as inappropriate development.

It was noted that cars currently parked on the main access road and some members felt that expanding the car park by a small amount would help alleviate this problem and would not cause any harm to the greenbelt.

Councillor Galvin moved and Councillor Richardson seconded a motion to approve the application with the increased need for car parking being considered as very special circumstances, and a condition to protect trees and for the parking surface to be permeable. On being put to the vote this motion fell.

Members noted that the site already met the required standard for the number of parking spaces and that no increase in employment had been shown. They considered that the applicant had only offered very weak reasons for the need for more parking and suggested that a travel plan and analysis of travel to work should be carried out. Members felt that the proposals constituted inappropriate development in the greenbelt and that very special circumstances had not been demonstrated to justify the proposals.

Resolved:

That the application be refused.

Reason:   

 The considerations put forward by the applicant in support of the proposals do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm (harm to visual amenity and character of the area, unsustainable development) 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.

Development of the site would further erode the essential parkland landscape character of the business park and former hospital grounds and would result in visual harm and as such would be contrary to the NPPF  and local plan policies  relating to protection of the landscape  and  quality of the environment.