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.

A presentation on the application was given, detailing the site location plan and site parameters plan.

Officers provided an update noting that the full committee report had been republished that day (including the alternative wording for condition 4). Late correspondence had been received Deighton Parish Council in response to the alternative wording of proposed condition 4. Members were also advised of an Amendment to condition 4 to require development to be carried in full compliance with the approved site management plan. It was noted that the additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and recommendation were unchanged from the published report.

In response to Member questions, officers confirmed that:

·        Proof of residency could include council tax or utility bills to prove primary residence and this could be stipulated to residents.

·        There were two pieces of legislation for the classification of a caravan. Both were detailed to Members.

·        The placement of lodges on the site would depend whether those lodges fell under the definition of a caravan. If the lodge was permanent and had bigger dimensions than a caravan it would need a new planning permission. 

·        It could be clarified within a condition what was meant by caravan to make it clear for future developments on site.

·        There would be a separate areas for static and touring caravans.

·        The  limit for a caravan was a width of 6.2m

·        Notification letters were sent to Deighton Parish Council and Escrick Parish Council on 25 February 2021

·        The Deighton Parish Council response was clarified and read out

·        Condition 4 referred to all caravans on site

·        Geothermal use of the site was not part of the application

[At 16:53 Cllr Barker confirmed that he had heard all of the discussion when his camera was briefly off]

Public Speakers

Chris Brack spoke in objection to the application on behalf of Deighton Parish Council. He explained that the application was inadequate in stopping caravans from becoming permanent dwellings and that keeping a register of addresses was academic if there was no information on their length of stay. He suggested that the site management plan should include a leasehold clause. A Member noted that only caravans could be sited to which he asked if this included motorhomes and it was clarified that if motorhomes fit the definition of a caravan they would be allowed.

Mr Brack then asked a number of questions from Members to which he responded that:

·        The proof of residency could via council tax or utility bills would go some way to towards proof but was not infallible.

·        It was suspected that the caravans would not be used as holiday accommodation as the nearby Hollicars, occupiers used their caravans as permanent residences.

Cllr Vassie, Ward Member spoke in objection to the application. He urged the Committee to reject the amendment to the variation of condition 4. He noted that the council had declared a climate emergency and this application would have been an opportunity to address the climate emergency. In response to a question from a Member, Cllr Vassie confirmed that the applicant had not contacted him and that the previous owners of the site had been aware of the carbon benefits of the site.

Liam Toland (Agent for the Applicant) spoke in support of the application. He explained that the amended condition would ensure that the site would not be used for permanent residences. Members asked him a number of questions which he responded that:

·        In regard to the 6 month occupancy in a 12 month period, the majority of sites on a similar scale had no occupancy restrictions. It was felt that the 6 week period was the best way of promoting the site.

·        The intention was for touring and static caravans on the site.

·        It was felt that the condition put forward was sufficient for the site not to be used for permanent occupancy.

·        The lengths/patterns of stay were generally for long weekends, and pitches would be sold for static caravans and rented for touring caravans.

·        Concerning the issues raised by Cllr Vassie, technical experts said that the shafts were unviable for geothermal heating. He confirmed that he had responded to Cllr before the last meeting at which the application was considered.

·        Prior to the previous application there had been two public consultations with Escrick and a nearby village. Both were well attended.

·        The council felt that the 6 week period was acceptable in planning terms.

·        The applicant would be willing to accept stipulation regarding proof of residency such as council tax and utility bills.

In response to further questions from Members, officers clarified that:

·        They were confident that the management plan condition covered the 6 week period. The Senior Solicitor clarified that the condition could be amended to specify the use classes.

·        Case law has confirmed that motorhomes fall within the category of a caravan.

·        The negotiations with the applicant has been through their agent.

·        The Senior Solicitor advised that with regard to the suggestion from Escrick Parish Council for a leasehold condition, any condition would need to meet the six tests and would need to be necessary and reasonable. She further advised that it was in the gift of the Committee to change the wording of Condition 4.

·        It was not in the gift of the Committee to take into account the geothermal use of the site.

Cllr Warters then moved and Cllr Craghill seconded refusal on the grounds of the Condition 4 being changed from 28 days to 6 weeks.

Following debate, and in accordance with the revised Standing Orders, a named vote was taken with the following result:

·        Cllrs Barker, Craghill, Daubeney, Fisher, Myers and Warters Warters and voted for the motion;

·        Cllrs Ayre, Doughty, Douglas, Fenton, Hollyer, Kilbane, Lomas, Pavlovic and Cullwick voted against the motion.

The motion fell.

Cllr Fenton then moved and Cllr Ayre seconded approval subject to an amendment to condition 4 to the effect that the site would not be occupied for more than 6 months in any calendar year and the wording of this amendment to be delegated to officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair.

Following debate, and in accordance with the revised Standing Orders, a named vote was taken with the following result:

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

·        Cllr Warters abstained from the vote.

The motion was carried and it was

Resolved: That the application be approved with the delegation of the final wording to officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair.

Reasons:

                     i.        The applicant considers the wording of condition 4 previously imposed to be unduly restrictive and, therefore, would not be attractive to the market; it would potentially make the development economically unviable and not on a level playing field with other large holiday sites in neighbouring authorities that the site would compete with.

                    ii.        It is considered that a condition is required to restrict occupancy in order to avoid permanent residential accommodation and, on the basis of the case put forward by the applicant, this could be achieved through similar wording to that suggested by the applicant, but amended with the applicant’s agreement to include a Site Management Plan and closure of the site for 6 weeks. Subject to the retention of an occupancy condition, there would be no further harm identified.

                  iii.        Overall, the changes are not substantial or fundamental in the context of the approved scheme and can therefore be dealt with as a variation to the original approval, and that the wording of the condition should be varied for the reasons set out above.

Members confirmed they were present for the item.

[The meeting adjourned from 18:15 to 18:27 during which time Cllr Myers left the meeting].