Agenda item

Variation of condition 4 of permitted application 19/00078/OUTM (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) to remove limit of 28 nights occupation in any one calendar year [Wheldrake Ward]

Members considered a Full Application from Peter Massie for the variation of condition 4 of permitted application 19/00078/OUTM (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) to remove limit of 28 nights occupation in any one calendar year at North Selby Mine, New Road, Deighton, York. 

The Head of Development Services updated the Committee advising of amended wording for Condition 1 (time) and of further correspondence from Liam Toland (Agent for the Applicant) in response to comments from Councillor Vassie concerning the use of renewable energy at the site. It was confirmed that the additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and recommendation remained unchanged from the published report. A presentation on the site location plan, site parameters plan, and indicative master plan from the approved application was given to Members.

In response to questions from Members, officers clarified that:

·        The application differed from the previous application as it was on previous developed land.

·        The 28 day period was a rolling 28 days and would not fit with the model for the site which was the reason for the submission of the application.

·        The site was different to other sites in York as it was on a larger scale.

·        Appeals for the 28 day period would be made to the Planning Inspectorate.

·        No supplementary information was submitted with the previous application. However, the agent had confirmed that it the site would be a holiday park as the market was moving towards sites similar to those at Hollicars and Allerthorpe Lake.

·        The details of the Escrick Parish Council objection.

·        The application was made under the Town and Planning Act and the options available to the Committee

·        The detail of Condition 4.

·        The national planning guidance on the recommended conditions in terms that the application was for holiday purposes and not as a main place of residence. This would include keeping records of occupants on the site. It was noted that the coxwold policy regarding the length of stay referred to the length of stay, and this was the adopted policy.

·        Hollicars was not in the York boundary and a condition had been added to that site in 2016 regarding the use of the site for holidays.

Public Speakers

Cllr Coulson (Escrick Parish Council) spoke on behalf of Escrick and Deighton Parish Councils in objection to the application. She explained that they wanted to ensure that the site was used for holiday and not for permanent residences. She noted that they had submitted an alternative condition which stated that t the intended use was for holiday use only, and not permanent as residential accommodation. She further suggested that the leasehold was approved by the council’s solicitor. She stated that Escrick and Deighton Parish Councils suggested deferral of the application.

Cllr Vassie (Ward Member) spoke on the application, requesting that if the application was approved he would like a condition committing the applicant to work with the council to enable the potential for renewable energy from the old mine workings to be properly evaluated and, if viable, to be exploited in order to provide district heating to homes in the surrounding villages. He cited the council’s aim to deliver a zero carbon future and an example of a similar site in Neerlen in the Netherlands.

In answer to questions from Members, Cllr Vassie confirmed that:

·        The uses for the site were not incompatible.

·        In terms of some of the mine shafts being capped, there was a project in Tynemouth whereupon new boreholes had created.

·        The University of Leeds would like to look at the renewable energy potential of the site. The University of Newcastle had also expressed an interest.

·        His concerns over the continuing presence of residents in winter were around children going to school, and impact on roads.

Liam Toland (Agent for the Applicant), spoke in support of the application. He acknowledged the concerns regarding the site being used for permanent accommodation and he confirmed that this was not the intention. He explained that the condition concerning this was restrictive and that the current condition made the units unsalable. He explained the difference between the site and the Hollicars park.

In response to questions from Members he explained that:

·        The variation to condition 4 was a condition adopted in national planning guidance.

·        The 28 night limit did not the site viable.

·        The business model being proposed had never changed as the condition was suggested at the Planning Committee at which the previous application was considered.

·        His responses to the points raised by Cllr Vassie

Members then asked further questions to officer to which they responded that:

·        The additional condition was added late under additional information at the Planning Committee at which the previous application was considered.

·        There would need to be clear reasons for deferral.

·        There were no time restrictions on other York sites.

·        The authority was not bound by other authorities’ determinations but could take them into consideration.

Cllr Lomas then moved deferral of the application on the basis of the need to better explore a condition to meet the applicant’s need to develop the site to ensure that the pitches would not be used for permanent occupation. Cllr Warters seconded deferral of the application and asked whether there could be an informative on the geothermal use of the site. He also suggested that the condition put forward by Escrick Parish Council be used a starting point for the condition. The Head of Development Services clarified that an informative on the geothermal use of the site.

In accordance with the revised Standing Orders, a named vote was taken with the following result:

·        Cllrs Craghill, Daubeney, Douglas, Doughty, Fenton, Fisher, Hollyer, Kilbane, Lomas, Myers, Pavlovic, Wann, Warters and Cullwick voted for the motion;

The motion was therefore unanimously carried and it was

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

Reason:     To meet the applicant’s need to develop the site to ensure that the pitches would not be used for permanent occupation.

Members confirmed to the Chair that they had been present and could hear all of the meeting.