Agenda item

Siting of 3 no. grain silos to be converted for use as holiday accommodation. [Wheldrake Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mr Raley for the siting of three grain silos to be converted for use as holiday accommodation.

Officers provided a detailed updated on the proposals. They advised that, since the report had been prepared, a detailed consultation response had been received from the Authority’s ecologist expressing serious concern in respect of the lack of information with the application in relation to impacts upon local ecology and biodiversity arising from the proposal. It was indicated that the surrounding area comprised suitable habitat for both the Great Crested Newt and species of bat whose habitats were protected by law.  Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework indicated that very substantial weight should be afforded to any potential harm to such habitat in these circumstances and that permission should be refused if it could not be demonstrated that the harm could be effectively mitigated. Officers confirmed their recommendation that planning permission should be refused for the additional reason that “Insufficient information had been submitted with the application to enable a substantive assessment of the impact of the proposal upon the habitat of protected species and any necessary mitigation to be undertaken contrary to paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Officers also advised that a detailed letter had been circulated on behalf of the applicant but felt that this did not address the requirements of paragraph 87 and 88 of the National Planning Policy Framework, in terms of demonstrating a case for “very special circumstances” that would outweigh any harm arising from the development by reason of inappropriateness or any other harm. At the same time the requirements of paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework in respect of safeguarding the habitat of protected species had also not been addressed.

Lastly, officers advised that they had just received comments from the council’s highways officers who had indicated that the access, which was quite substantial, did not connect directly to the public highway but instead to a public bridleway. There were implications with regard to the maintenance and usage of the bridleway and how that access would operate which could not be assessed on the basis of the information submitted. They therefore proposed that another reason for refusal would be that there was insufficient information to be able to assess the impact of the proposal on the public highway.

Mr Raley of H Raley and Son, the applicants, addressed the committee in support of the application. He acknowledged the council’s position with regard to Green Belt policy but expressed dismay at how this prevented their attempt to diversify. He informed Members that in the last six months, two family friends has been forced to cease trading and that there had been no objections to the proposals from members of the public who were supportive of them. He stated that he was unaware of the points raised by the planning officer but advised that he had been maintaining the bridleway in question.

Officers advised Members that Highway Network Management, as the responsible authority for public rights of way, had stated that they maintained the bridleway.

Members expressed the view that three silos on that site for agricultural use would not be a cause for concern but suggested that when converted to a holiday home, with potential for cars/bikes to be parked outside, could look very different.

Members felt that the application should be deferred in order that the applicant has the opportunity to comment on the reasons which have been put forward by officers for refusal, especially as some of these had only recently been raised.

Resolved:  That the application be deferred for consideration at a future meeting.

Reason:     In order the that applicant has the opportunity to liaise with planning officers regarding the reasons put forward for the recommendation of refusal, specifically the lack of information available to allow an assessment of the impact of the proposal upon the habitat of protected species and the lack of information available to assess the impact of the proposal on the public highway.