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

The Limefields, Scoreby Lane, Scoreby, York, YO41 1NR [18/02103/FUL]

Conversion of former agricultural building to a dwelling. [Osbaldwick And Derwent] [Site visit]


Members considered a full application from Mr Ben Smith for the conversion of a former agricultural building to a dwelling.


Mr Mark Newby, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application and highlighted the following points for the committee:

-      That the redundant building would be converted to a dwelling and not a holiday let as suggested by some objectors

-      That the development was appropriate and would not impact the openness of the green belt

-      That there had been no objections from highways officers and no expected increase to the volume of vehicle movements

-      That the design of the property and distance to neighbouring properties was such that there would be no detrimental impact to the local amenity

-      That a new suitably sized treatment plant would be installed to service the proposed dwelling and there had been no objections from the drainage officer.


Mr Graham Cheyne also spoke in support of the application and emphasised that this development was intended as a family home and not a holiday let.


Mr Paul Rowntree spoke in objection to the application and made the following points to the committee:

-      The size of the curtillage is unclear and doesn’t comply with several parts of policy GB3

-      The storage facilities for the property would be lost and it would be inevitable that new structures would be required

-      Current properties have dedicated drains from septic tanks to a distant pond to take waste water away safely. The proposed water treatment solution was alarming due to being on the watershed of the Derwent and Ouse, the drainage report doesn’t address the lack of drainage during wet periods.

-      That the swallow population residing in the barn would be displaced and as there is no alternative solution offered, it would be a loss to the local amenity.

-      That four en-suite bedrooms and open living space resembled a holiday let and the applicant owns a holiday letting company. Residents would welcome another family, however a holiday let would fundamentally damage this unique rural community and set a dangerous precedent.


Cllr Mark Warters also spoke in objection and made the point that as there is no clearly defined curtillage, policy GB3 (points [vi] and [vii]), are not satisfied. Cllr Warters also drew attention to a high court ruling from 2012 in which the residing judge ruled that ‘the use of a dwelling for commercial use or letting amounts to a material change of use and required planning permission’. Cllr Warters believed the committee, if minded to approve the application, should ensure that it is clearly designated as a residential dwelling and not as a commercial holiday let, allowing for future enforcement should this not be the case.


Officers then clarified this point by highlighting that the application does not refer to holiday let use and if the applicant did wish to use it as a holiday let, there would be no requirement for a change of use application as they are both classed as residential dwellings and fall within the same use class .


In response to Member questions, the  Council`s Flood Risk Engineer clarified that as there is no material change to the existing building, the surface water drainage would not be affected. Cllr Richardson asked a number of questions in relation to how the drainage system would operate which were answered by the Flood Risk Engineer


Members questioned whether a condition could be added to restrict the property to C3 use, officers stated that it was possible but specific reasons would need to be provided.


Some Members felt that despite being a similar footprint, it was not clear, under paragraph 4.7 (ii), that the development could be completed ‘without major or complete reconstruction’ and would therefore not be supporting the application.


It was moved and seconded that the application be refused on the grounds of being inappropriate development under policy GB3. The motion fell by 5 votes to 4.


It was then moved by Cllr Gillies and seconded by Cllr Galvin that approval be granted and the motion was passed by 5 votes to 4, it was therefore:


Resolved:  That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report.

Reason:     The conversion of the building would not have a detrimental impact upon the character of the area, on residential amenity or upon the openness of the Green Belt. As such the application accords with the NPPF 2018 paragraphs 143 to 145, policy GB1 of the publication Draft Local Plan2018 and policies GB1, GB3 and GP1 of the Development Control Local Plan 2005.


Supporting documents:


Back to the top of the page