Agenda item

Outline application for redevelopment of the former North Selby Mine site to a leisure development comprising a range of touring caravan and static caravans with associated facilities (revised scheme).

[13:44 Cllrs Cllr D’Agorne and Widdowson both gave their apologies and left the meeting]

Members considered a Major Outline Application by Harworth Estates Investments Limited for the redevelopment of the former North Selby Mine site to a leisure development comprising of a range of touring caravan and static caravans with associated facilities.

Officers gave a presentation based upon the slides at pages 174-178 of the agenda and provided an update, reporting:

·        a response from a landowner on New Road was not included in the officers report section 4.1. They raised that the road should be done to an adoptable standard and that a path, suitable signage, and speed bumps should be added to New Road;

·        the receipt of 1 additional objection;

·        an amendment to Condition 2 to read as: Fully detailed drawings illustrating all of the following details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the change of the use of land, as well as, building/engineering works, and the development shall be carried out in accordance with such details:

These details shall include: appearance, landscaping of site, layout and scale of the proposed development to be carried out, including a schedule of all external materials to be used.

Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the details of the development and to comply with the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) (England) Order 2006;

·        amendment to Condition 4 to read as: The static and mobile caravans and tents shall be occupied for holiday purposes only and not as a person's sole or main place of residence. The site owners/operators shall maintain an up-to-date register of the names of all owners/occupiers of individual caravans on the site, and of their main home addresses, and shall make this information available at all reasonable times to the Local Planning Authority. The Council’s definition of holiday letting is that the same person, group of persons, or family are not to exceed 28 nights per calendar year and also that no motorhome, caravan, or tent to stay more than 28 nights per calendar year.

Reason: This condition is imposed to ensure that approved holiday accommodation is not used for unauthorised permanent residential occupation;

In response to questions from Members, Officers confirmed that:

·        the junction would not be considered for an upgrade as it was already ‘over designed’ for the level of traffic that would use the junction even with the proposed development;

·        New Road was a privately owned road but that the council would wish to see at the reserved matters stage proposals for how different users of the road could pass each other safely;

·        that there currently no horticultural green houses or anaerobic digestion facilities on the site due to the operator pulling out of that scheme;

·        that there had been no objections raised subject to conditions, in relation to the protection of Willow Tit habitat this would need to be submitted as part of the management plan for the sink which is outlined in the conditions;

·        officers could raise on behalf of the committee to the highway authority in regards to a potential speed limit change in the area.

Public speakers

Anthony Dixon, local resident spoke in objection to the application, raising issues in relation to the speed limit, the lack of proposed dedicated path, and the potential over use of the road as it was proposed making it unsafe for walkers, cyclists, and horse riders.

Escrick Parish Council

Cllr Lilian Coulson raised concerns but was not speaking in objection to the application. She raised concerns about the extra use of New Road due to the proposal and that cycle and pedestrian paths should be added to improve safety for users of the road.

Applicant

Liam Toland the agent of the applicant addressed the Committee, and responded to Members’ questions, it was confirmed that:

·        mitigations had been agreed with planning officers that would allow for the proposal to be carried out in an environmentally acceptable way;

·        the applicant had explored a number of proposed uses for the site and that the proposal was in their opinion the most feasible at present;

·        the proposal should have a financial benefit to York’s economy;

·        the applicant was willing to upgrade the surface of New Road, add passing bays, and introduce speed limiting measures;

·        the applicant would be happy to look at a proposal for an additional path and further electric charging points for vehicles at a reserved matters stage of the application;

·        there had been no further discussions with the University of York since they removed interest in the site in 2011.

Members then debated the proposals, after which Cllr Fenton moved, and Cllr Daubeney seconded, that the application be approved, subject to the conditions listed in the report, with the amendments to conditions identified in the officer update and the additional conditions discussed at the meeting. In accordance with the revised Standing Orders, a named vote was taken. Cllrs Cuthbertson, Daubeney, Fenton, Fisher, Hollyer, and Cullwick voted in favour of this proposal and Cllrs Douglas, Fitzpatick, Kilbane, Lomas, and Pavlovic voted against the proposal, and it was

Resolved: That the application be approved, subject to:

                      i.         Conditions 1-2 and 4-32 as set out in the report updated by officers in the meeting;

                     ii.         The removal of Condition 3 unless otherwise agreed in writing;

                    iii.        Officers raising with the highway authority the Committee’s request to consider the altering of the speed limit to the section of the A19 near the site to reflect the same speed limit in the wider area.

Reason:     Due to the maintenance of the site, the limited other viable options available for the sites current usage, and as the proposal will mainly be constructed on a brownfield site.