Agenda item

Erection of a single storey car showroom and workshop with associated facilities [Rural West York Ward]. [Site Visit]

Members considered a major full application by Mr Robert Bennett for the erection of a single storey car showroom and workshop with associated facilities.

Officers provided an update to Members. They recommended  that, in the interests of visual amenity, an additional condition be added to state that there should be no displaying of vehicles within the frontage landscaping strip, adjacent to the public highway as shown on plan 1605/001H. They advised that paragraph 4.14 should refer to Policy D1, and not D2 as stated. They reported that an additional letter of objection had been received from a neighbouring resident highlighting the impact on residential amenity from the existing Arnold Clark dealership and expressing concern about the additional impact from the proposal. They also advised that, for the purpose of clarification, paragraph 5.4 should be amended to read “Given that acceptable proposals have been put forward to compensate for the loss of the SINC, officers consider on balance that this provides material planning considerations which justify a recommendation other than in accordance with the development plan and that the application should be recommended for approval subject to planning conditions. “

Mr Jackson, a local resident, addressed the committee in objection to the application. He advised that he worked in the care home adjacent to the site. He expressed concerns that the proposed development would restrict the view for residents and questioned whether this area needed any more car dealerships. He stated that residents felt that their views were not being listened to and advised that they were facing ongoing issues with regard to lighting and the playing of music from another car dealership and feared that this could happen with this development.

Mr Ian McGregor, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He advised that both noise and lighting would be controlled by condition and that the applicant was aware of residents’ concerns in relation to this and that there would be no noise audible from outside the premises and that lighting would be directed away from residential properties.

In response to concerns raised about noise disturbance, clarification was sought by Members on the playing of music in relation to condition 6 which stated background music only with no external loudspeaker. Officers advised that this condition could be strengthened to state that any music played inside the building must not be audible outside the building which was supported by Members.

Members acknowledged that the site was designated as green infrastructure in the Upper Poppleton and Nether Poppleton Neighbourhood Plan due to the Site of Local Interest to Nature Conservation (SINC). Some Members accepted that plans were in place to move and relocate the SINC, which would mean that the site would no longer be designated green infrastructure, and that officers felt that this was a material consideration and reason to recommend a decision which is not in accordance with the development plan.

Councillor Carr moved, and Councillor Galvin seconded a motion to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation. On being put to the vote, this motion was lost.

Other Members felt that the decision should be made following national planning law and the development plan for the area. They expressed the view that as the Upper Poppleton and Nether Poppleton Neighbourhood Plan had been recently adopted, it should not be ignored and they felt that moving the SINC to another ward was not good enough reason to set aside the development plan policy.

Councillor Flinders moved, and Councillor Gillies seconded, a motion to refuse the application on the grounds that the site was shown as green infrastructure in the Upper and Nether Poppleton Neighbourhood Plan (the development plan) and Policy PNP2 of the development plan stated that Green Infrastructure would be safeguarded. Approval would therefore represent a departure from the development plan as there felt that were no material considerations to indicate that determination of this application should not be made in accordance with the development plan. On being put to the vote, this motion was carried, and it was:

Resolved:  That the application be refused.

Reason:     The proposed development results in a loss of an area of green infrastructure designated in the Upper and Nether Poppleton Neighbourhood Plan which forms the Development Plan for this area. Section 38a of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Policy PNP2 of the Neighbourhood Plan states that Green Infrastructure will be safeguarded and no satisfactory material considerations to justify the loss of the designated green infrastructure to the local areas have been put forward.

                   [Amended at Committee meeting on 11 January 2018]