Docstoc

Mission Statement

Document Sample
Mission Statement Powered By Docstoc
					                           Mission Statement
                         To Improve the Quality of Life
                  For Those Who Live and Work in The District



11 September 2007

Dear Councillor

You are hereby invited to a meeting of the Planning Committee to be held in
Committee Rooms 1 and 2, Civic Centre, Portholme Road, Selby on 19
September 2007 commencing at 4:00pm.

The agenda is set out below.

1.    Apologies for Absence and Notice of Substitution

      To receive apologies for absence and notification of substitution.

2.    Disclosure of Interest

      To receive any disclosures of interest in matters to be considered at
      the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Section 117 of the
      Local Government Act 1972, and Sections 50, 52 and 81 of the Local
      Government Act 2000 and the Members’ Code of Conduct adopted by
      the Council.

3.    Minutes

      To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the proceedings of the
      meeting of the Planning Committee held on 22 August 2007
      (previously circulated).

4.    Chair’s Address to the Planning Committee

5.    Budget Management to 30 June 2007

      Report of the Head of Service - Planning and Economic Development
      (pages 5 to 11 attached).
6.    Planning Applications Received - Site Visits

             •   2007/0770/FUL – Land South of the Haven, Church Hill,
                 Wistow (pages 12 – 18 attached)
             •   2007/0669/OUT – 4 Doncaster Road, Selby (pages 19 – 28
                 attached)

7.    Planning Applications Received – Non Site Visits

      Report of the Head of Service - Planning and Economic Development
      (pages 29 to 77 attached).

8.    Tree Preservation Orders –Confirmation

      Report of the Head of Service – Legal and Democratic Services
      (pages 78 to 79 attached).

9.    Applications to be Determined by the County Council on
      which the Views of the District Council are Requested

                           Reports for Information

1.    List of Planning Applications Determined Under Delegated
      Powers

      Applications which have been determined by officers under the
      scheme of delegation.

      A copy of this report is available in the Members’ Room




J Lund
Strategic Director
                               Public Speaking

Please note the deadline for registering to speak at Committee is 3.00 pm
Monday 17 September 2007

                 Disclosure of Interest – Guidance Notes:

   (a) Councillors are reminded of the need to consider whether they have any
       personal or prejudicial interests to declare on any item on this agenda,
       and, if so, of the need to explain the reason(s) why they have any personal
       or prejudicial interests when making a declaration.

   (b) The Democratic Services Officer or relevant Committee Administrator will
       be pleased to advise you on interest issues. Ideally their views should be
       sought as soon as possible and preferably prior to the day of the meeting,
       so that time is available to explore adequately any issues that might arise.

          Dates of Future Meetings of the Planning Committee

    Date of Meeting              Deadline Date               Distribution Date
17th October 2007           2nd October 2007             9th October 2007
14th November 2007          30th October 2007            6th November 2007
12th December 2007          27th November 2007           4th December 2007
9th January 2008            19th December 2007           31st December 2007

                 Membership of the Planning Committee
                             18 Members

     Conservative                    Labour                       Independent
J Mackman (Chair)          D Davies                      R Sweeting
J Deans (Vice-Chair)       B Marshall                    Vacancy
J Cattanach                N Martin
I Chilvers                 S Shaw-Wright
K Ellis
D Fagan
W Inness
M Jordan
D Mackay
E Metcalfe
C Pearson
S Ryder

If you have any enquiries relating to this agenda, please contact Carol Baker on:
Tel: 01757 292207
Fax: 01757 292020
Email: cvbaker@selby.gov.uk
                        Items for Planning Committee
                                19th September 2007


                                                       Case
File Number:    Site Address:                          Officer   Page
                                 Site Visits
2007/0770/FUL The Haven, Church Hill, Wistow           CLRI      12
2007/0669/FUL 4 Doncaster Road, Selby                  SAHI      19
                          Applications Received
2007/0384/OUT Barlby Church Hall, Barlby               STCO      29
2007/0906/COU 2 Ingleby Drive, Tadcaster               ELPH      37
2007/0710/FUL Kirkby Grange, Kirkby Wharfe             STNA      46
2007/0567/FUL The Barn, Woodend Farm, Cawood           STNA      61
2007/0173/FUL Glenholme, Kellington Lane, Eggborough   CLRI      72
                                                     Agenda Item No: 5
___________________________________________________________________

Title:                         Budget Management to 30 June 2007

To:                            Planning Committee

Date:                          19 September 2007

Service Area:                  Planning & Economic Development

Author:                        Operational Management Team

Presented by:                  Barry Hill, Head of Planning & Economic
                               Development

__________________________________________________________________

1        Purpose of Report

1.1      To present councillors with details of major variations between budgeted and
         actual expenditure and income for the Committee for the 2007/08 financial
         year to 30 June 2007.


2        Recommendation:

         Councillors endorse the actions of officers and note the contents of the
         report.


3        Executive Summary

3.1      This report provides details of Planning Committee expenditure and income
         variations for the financial year 2007/08, and recommends appropriate action
         where required.

3.2      The total overspend on Planning Committee budgets to the end of June is
         £21,916 and budget officers are predicting that this could increase to
         £32,370 by the end of the financial year. As can be seen from the main body
         of this report, planning fees and charges are a volatile income stream, and in
         addition the Planning Delivery Grant second tranche allocation is a


                                                                                     5
      provisional award. As a result of this uncertainty, it is proposed that the
      budget is not changed to reflect the forecast outturn at this stage. The
      situation will however continue to be monitored. Actual approved changes to
      the budget in the first quarter of 2007/08 are £41,460 and the comments
      from budget officers are shown below.

4     The Report

4.1   As part of the Key Lines of Enquiry (KLOE) use of resources assessments
      and improvements councillors must be kept informed on a regular basis of
      the financial well-being of the budgets for which the Committee is
      responsible.

4.2   Budgetary control is the responsibility of the relevant head of service. Each
      head of service ensures that there is an accountable budget manager or
      budget officer for each item of expenditure and income under their control.

4.3   Accountancy officers liaise with each budget officer and head of service to
      ensure that sufficient information is provided to monitor and manage budgets
      on a regular basis. The information in this report is derived from information
      supplied by budget officers and heads of service.

4.4   The table in Appendix A shows details of all variances within Planning
      Committee budgets for the 2007/08 financial year to 30 June 2007,
      summarised at service level.

4.5   This report will comment on any major variances to date and forecasted
      variances and where necessary recommend a course of action. A major
      variance is one greater than or equal to £5,000 and 10% of profiled budget,
      or less than or equal to -£5,000 and –10% of profiled budget. In addition,
      budget variances exceeding £25,000 and -£25,000 will be discussed if they
      do not meet the +/- 10% criteria, as these are considered material.

4.6   This report has been produced on an exception basis. Any variances that do
      not exceed the criteria in paragraph 4.5 will not be discussed.

      Budget Adjustments

4.7   During the first quarter there have been adjustments to the budget, the value
      of which are summarised in Table 1.




                                                                                      6
4.8    Table 1: Changes to budget to date

                                     Approved     Approved      Approved      Approved
                                     Changes      Changes       Changes       Changes
                                     Quarter 1    Quarter 2     Quarter 3     Quarter 4
                                             £            £             £             £
        Approved Bids                  10,000
        Carry Forward Budgets            9,610
        Supplementary Est.             17,500
        Virements – Permanent          (2,490)
        Contingency D’downs              6,840
        Total Adjustments              41,460

       Budget Variances

4.9    This report has identified several actual and forecasted major variances
       within Planning Committee: -

       Planning Service
       Actual Overspend to Date £21,916 and 3%
       Forecast Overspend £32,370 and 7%

4.10   Although the actual variance in total does not exceed the criteria in
       paragraph 4.5, it is made up of three variances which individually do exceed
       the criteria.

       Development Control Fees & Charges

4.11   The number of planning applications received in the first quarter 2007 (311)
       compares to 374 for the same quarter last year. We are therefore 63
       applications down on this time last year, which has had an effect on fee
       income. Coupled with this, we are in a period of the highest interest rates for
       6 years, and with the FTSE fluctuating this is not a time conducive to new
       development and investment decisions. This will take a little time to feed into
       the building and development industry, so it may signal that it will continue to
       drop before it picks up again. Although it may be possible to predict major
       applications on the horizon, I am not aware of any major applications at the
       moment.

4.12   At the end of the first quarter fee income was £55,631 less than expected,
       and officers were predicting that if this trend did continue it would result in a
       £71,000 underachievement of income by the end of the financial year.
       However at the time of writing this report the situation has improved and the
       fee income is £29,195 less than expected. Officers will continue to monitor
       the level of applications and fee income received, and will ensure that
       councillors are kept up to date with any changes to the projected outturn
       position.




                                                                                           7
       Planning Delivery Grant (PDG) 2007/08

4.13   PDG income is over budget by £42,734 at the end of period 3 due to a
       budget profiling error. It was expected that the grant would be received in
       July, however the first tranche allocation (£42,734) was actually received in
       June. The budget profile has been corrected.

4.14   A condition of the PDG is that 25% of the grant awarded must be spent on
       capital expenditure, and as such £10,683.50 of the above amount received
       has since been moved to capital to be spent on capital projects. This leaves
       £32,050.50 to support the revenue budget.

4.15   The Council has recently received notification that they have been awarded a
       provisional allocation of £108,775 in the second tranche of PDG allocations.
       Confirmation of this award will not be received for some time, however
       should this become the final award the total amount received in PDG for
       2007/08 will be £113,631.75 revenue grant, against a budget of £75,000
       (and a further £37,877.25 to be spent on capital projects).

       Planning Public Access

4.16   CAPS software maintenance is overspent by £6,510 at the end of June. This
       is due to a budget profiling error, which has now been corrected.

       Gershon Efficiencies and Savings

4.17   2007/08 is year three of the Gershon Efficiency initiative by the end of which
       the Council must have achieved gains of £920k. The council has responded
       well to the efficiency challenge and has achieved gains in years one and two
       of £866k and a further £289k is forecast for 2007/08. In addition the Council
       is faced with having to make further cash savings in order to balance its
       budget from 2008/09 onwards.

4.18   Gershon efficiencies can be either cashable or non-cashable, however there
       are no Gershon efficiencies identified for Planning Committee for 2007/08.

4.19   Accountancy Section officers continue to hold regular meetings with all
       budget officers within the Authority to discuss financial performance against
       budget.




                                                                                       8
5     Financial Implications

5.1   The financial implications as a result of this report can be analysed as
      follows: -

                                          2007/08        2008/09         2009/10
                                             £              £               £
       Original Budget                      439,850         554,410           572,420
       Adjustments to date                   41,460            8,170             8,770
       Latest Approved Budget               481,310         562,580           581,190
       Adjustments this Report:
       Total Adjustments this
                                                    0              0                0
       Report
       Revised Net Budget                   481,310         562,580           581,190

6     Conclusions

6.1   Budgets are a financial plan which are affected by external factors, as can be
      seen by the variances explained within this report. Officers are monitoring
      and managing their budgets closely and have plans in place to deal with and
      react to the impact of external factors placed upon them.

6.2   Whilst current projections show that the Planning Committee budget could be
      overspent by £32,370 by the end of the financial year this may still change.
      Planning fees and charges are a volatile income stream, and at the moment
      the Planning Delivery Grant second tranche allocation is a provisional award.
       As a result of this uncertainty it is proposed that the budget is not changed
      to reflect the forecast outturn at this stage. Officers will however continue to
      monitor the situation and an update will be provided in the second quarter
      budget management report.

7     Link to Corporate Plan

7.1   Budget monitoring procedures support all of the Council’s strategic themes.

8     How Does This Report Link to the Council’s Priorities?

8.1   Budget monitoring procedures support all of the Council’s priorities.

9     Impact on Corporate Policies

9.1   Service Improvement                                Impact

      Effective budget monitoring helps to ensure that the Council is aiming for
      continuous improvement as demanded by the principles of Best Value.



                                                                                     9
9.2    Equalities                                        No Impact

9.3    Community Safety and Crime                        No Impact

9.4    Procurement                                       No Impact

9.5    Risk Management                                   Impact

       This report helps to ensure the reduction of risks arising from unexpected
       overspending by enabling early preventative or remedial action to be taken.

9.6    Sustainability                                    No Impact

9.7    Value for Money                                   Impact

       The report itself will not lead to any efficiency savings. Cashable Gershon
       efficiency savings as identified in the Forward Look Annual Efficiency
       Statement for 2007/08, have been included in this report for Councillor
       approval to reduce the relevant budget.

10     Background Papers

10.1   Accountancy budget working papers.




                                                                                     10
                                                                                                                                          Appendix A



                                          Planning Committee Budget Monitoring as at 30 June 2007

                                      Approved     Approved       Latest                     Actual
                           Original    Changes      Gershon    Approved                Expenditure      Actual     Actual   Forecast   Forecast   Forecast
                           Budget     to Budget     Savings      Budget    Budget to    / Income to   Variance   Variance    Outturn   Variance   Variance
                           2007/08       2007/08     2007/08     2007/08    30 June         30 June    30 June    30 June    2007/08    2007/08    2007/08
                               £            £           £           £           £               £          £          %          £          £          %

Planning Service           439,850       41,460         -       481,310      870,561       892,477      21,916         3     513,680     32,370         7

Total Planning Committee   439,850       41,460         -       481,310      870,561       892,477      21,916               513,680     32,370




                                                                                                                                                  11
APPLICATION       8/36/152K/PA           PARISH:              Wistow Parish Council
NUMBER:           2007/0770/FUL

APPLICANT:        Mr M Hird              VALID DATE:          25 July 2007

                                        EXPIRY DATE:        19 September 2007
PROPOSAL:         Resubmission of previously refused application 8/36/152J/PA
                  (2005/0826/FUL) for the erection of a detached dwelling with single
                  integral garage on land south of
LOCATION:         The Haven
                  Church Hill
                  Wistow
                  Selby
                  North Yorkshire
                  YO8 3UU



DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

This is a resubmission of a full application for the erection of a detached dwelling with
single integral garage measuring in total 10.1m in width x 14.2m in length x 8.2m at the
highest point. The dwelling would have a 2-element pitched roof with a third gable on the
'L' shaped projection to the northwest and integral garage projection to the northeast.

This present application does not appear to have changed from the previously refused
application (Reference 8/36/152J/PA). This was refused on the grounds that:

“The proposed development would constitute inappropriate development in relation to the
setting of the listed building, by virtue of its scale and location. Therefore, the proposal
would be contrary to policy ENV 22 of the SDLP”.

The site is located in the centre of Wistow village in close proximity to the 13th century
listed village church. The site would be accessed off George Street.

The site area covers approximately 0.0345 Ha, measuring 30 m along the northeast and
southwest boundary, 13m along the northwest boundary and with a 10 m highway frontage
onto George Street. The area comprises an irregular rectangular shape alongside a
proposed access to houses at The Haven and Rosewood (8/36/152G/PA).

The boundary treatment comprises a 1.5 m fence along the southwest and northeast
boundary, with an existing access to the southeast boundary. The site is currently
comprises part the curtilage and driveway to The Haven and Rosewood.

There is a public footpath running along the southwest boundary.

HISTORY:

8/36/152J/PA - Proposed erection of a detached dwelling with single integral garage
(resubmission) south of the Haven - Refused due to the impact on the setting of the Listed
Building - 7 November 2005.

                                                                                         14
8/36/152F/PA Proposed erection of a detached dwelling with detached garage in the
garden area The Haven Church Hill Wistow - Withdrawn 04.07.2005

CONSULTATIONS

CONSERVATION OFFICER: No objections.

NYCC HERITAGE SECTION: No objections subject to one condition requiring the agent to
implement a programme of archaeological work.

INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD: No observations

YORKSHIRE WATER: No comments

PARISH COUNCIL: Objects to the application for the following reasons:

- The dwelling would be forward of the existing properties
- Reduce the views to the church
- Infill an attractive area of the village

NEIGHBOURS: A site notice was posted and consultation letters sent to adjacent
neighbours. Four letters of objection were received from the following properties and the
grounds may be summarised as:

5 Hilltop Close

- The proposed house would be dominant
- Out of keeping with the area
- Destroy the whole character of a street in the heart of our historic village
- Detrimental impact on the form and character of the area

Chalcot
- The proposal would reduce the view of the ancient church

Hollydene

- Close proximity to the church/churchyard
- Development of open areas
- Overused access on narrow one-way street

Councillor Cattanach has requested that the application be heard at planning committee
for the following reason:

'' Originally turned down, this is in a most sensitive part of the village and has been
objected to on the grounds of character and form''. He also suggests a site visit may be in
order.

POLICIES AND ISSUES:

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states "if regard is to be
had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the

                                                                                      15
planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise". The development plan for the Selby District comprises
the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and The Humber (published on 1 December
2004), the North Yorkshire Structure Plan (Alteration No3) (adopted in 1995) and the Selby
District Local Plan (adopted on 8 February 2005).

The relevant issues to be taken into account are:

i) Principle of the development
ii) Character and form
iii) Impact upon adjacent Listed Building
iiii) Impact upon residential amenity

i) Principle of the development

Policy H2A of the Selby District Local Plan states that applications for residential
development will only be acceptable on:

'Previously developed sites and premises within defined Development Limits, subject to
the criteria in Policies H6 and H7.'

Wistow is identified within the Selby District Local Plan as a settlement that is capable of
accommodating additional growth. Therefore, Policy H6 must be considered in determining
this application. In such settlements, proposals utilising previously developed land, which
may include small infilling plots residential or commercial curtilages and the redevelopment
or conversion of existing premises, will be acceptable subject to the criteria in Policy H6'.

The application site comprises the residential curtilage of "The Haven and Rosedale"
located within a predominately residential area of Wistow. Residential curtilage is
considered to constitute previously developed land as defined in Annex B of PPS 3.
Therefore given that the application site is on previously developed land within the defined
the development limits of Wistow, it is concluded that the proposal would not be contrary to
the aims of PPS3 and Policy H2A and therefore is acceptable in principle subject to the
criteria in Policy H6.

IMPACT ON THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA

It is proposed to site a dwelling in the front gardens of the properties 'The Haven' and
'Rosedale', which benefit from long thin gardens.

The dwelling would be sited in front of the existing dwelling 'The Haven'. It is considered
that due to the relationship of the proposed dwelling with the existing dwelling 'The Haven'
the dwelling would appear out of character with the existing dwellings around the site. It is
noted that a new dwelling has recently been constructed next to the site. However, this
dwelling is not located in front of existing dwellings.

The proposed plot is considered to be smaller than adjacent properties surrounding the
site. The proposed dwelling would take up much of the site and the dwelling would have
little garden and private amenity area. Due to this it is considered that the dwelling would
appear cramped in a small plot, which would be a detriment to the character of the area.
The proposal is therefore considered go be unacceptable and contrary to policy ENV1 of
the Selby District Local Plan.

                                                                                           16
IMPACT ON THE ADJACENT LISTED BUILDING

The proposed dwelling would be sited close to the All Saints Church a Grade 1 Listed
Building which makes a substantial contribution to the character of the area.

The setting of a building of historic interest is an essential feature of its character.
Proposals within the locality of a listed building should be sympathetic in scale, proportion,
design and materials. It is considered that due to the proposals scale and location in close
proximity to the listed building the proposed dwelling would have a detrimental effect on
the character and setting of the listed building. The proposal is therefore considered
unacceptable and contrary to policy ENV22 of the Selby District Local Plan.

IMPACT UPON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

The nearest neighbouring property to the site is a recently constructed dwelling. This
dwelling would be situated 3 metres from the proposed dwelling.

The side elevation of this dwelling, which would be adjacent to the proposed dwelling,
contains secondary windows. The 'L' shaped projection of the dwelling appears to contain
bedroom windows. The proposed dwelling would have no first floor windows in the
northeast elevation and patio doors and a small kitchen window in the first floor. It is
considered that due to the orientation of the proposed dwelling and the existing dwelling
the proposal is satisfactory in terms of the residential amenity of both these properties.

Existing properties to the northwest, at The Haven and Rosewood lie 18.5 metres from
nearest elevation of the proposed dwelling, which incorporates a blank gable and 4 small
bedroom and garage windows in another element of the elevation.

It is considered that separation distances and limited fenestration would not significantly
harm the privacy or increase overlooking of the surrounding dwellings, proposed and
existing. Furthermore, the proposed dwelling would be facing the southwest and would not
overlook existing dwellings.

Concerns were raised in relation to the increase of traffic following this proposal. It is
believed that there would be limited impact upon the existing road and would be
acceptable to the Highway Authority with relevant conditions.

CONCLUSION:

The proposed development is considered acceptable in principle. However the proposed
development would constitute inappropriate development in relation to the setting of the
listed building, by virtue of its scale and location. The proposed dwelling would also be out
of character with the surrounding properties due to its positioning and the size of the
proposed plot. It is therefore, considered that the proposal would be unacceptable and
contrary to the aims of policy ENV 22 and H6 of the Selby District Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION:

This application is recommended to be Refused for the following reasons:



                                                                                             17
01.   The proposed development would constitute inappropriate development in relation
      to the setting of the listed building, by virtue of its scale and location. Therefore, the
      proposal would be contrary to policy ENV 22 of the Selby District Local Plan.

02.   The proposed development would result in a development that would not be in
      keeping with the character of the area or the surrounding properties. The proposal
      is therefore considered to be unacceptable and contrary to policies ENV1 and H6 of
      the Selby District Local Plan.




                                                                                           18
APPLICATION       8/19/1674/PA           PARISH:              Selby Town Council
NUMBER:           2007/0669/FUL

APPLICANT:        Mr Paranjit Mander     VALID DATE:          13 June 2007

                                       EXPIRY DATE:        8 August 2007
PROPOSAL:         Conversion of house to create 3 No self-contained apartments

LOCATION:         4 Doncaster Road
                  Selby
                  North Yorkshire
                  YO8 9BY



DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

This application was presented to the Planning Committee in August 2007, and was
deferred to allow Councillors to undertake a site visit prior to the application being
determined.

The application seeks planning permission for the conversion of an existing dwelling to
three self-contained apartments.

The proposal originally sought approval for conversion of the dwelling to five apartments
with single-storey extension to the rear, but, following concerns raised by the Highway
Authority with regard to parking facilities, the number of apartments was reduced.

The site lies within the development limits of Selby, along Doncaster Road which is one of
the main routes into Selby.

The existing dwelling is a mid-terrace two-storey property, which adjoins a dwelling to the
south, and a shop with a flat above.

The proposal would create the following accommodation:
- Ground floor – a two bedroom flat, with bathroom, en-suite bathroom, kitchen-diner and
lounge.
- First floor – a one bedroom flat with combined living area and bathroom.
- First floor/second floor (including creation of mezzanine floor to create second floor) – a
one bedroom flat with kitchen-diner, living room and bathroom.

Three parking spaces would be created to the rear of the property, following the demolition
of the existing garage and the removal of existing fencing.

History:

2007/0053/FUL – Planning permission granted for the conversion of one dwelling to three
apartments – 6, Doncaster Road, Selby.

2006/0795/FUL – Planning permission granted for alterations and extension to store
building to form office accommodation – 2, Doncaster Road, Selby.

                                                                                         20
2006/0794/FUL – Planning permission granted for a single storey rear extension and
proposed attic conversion for additional living accommodation – 2, Doncaster Road, Selby.

CONSULTATIONS ON ORIGINAL PROPOSALS

The responses received towards the original proposal for conversion to five flats, were as
follows:

SELBY TOWN COUNCIL: Object to the application as it considers the proposal to be
overdevelopment of the site. There is already a good deal of traffic using the access and
egress for the shop and post office, including delivery vehicles and passing trade. Parking
for another five cars for one property will only add to the problems.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: A PPG24 (noise) assessment has been carried out on the
adjacent property in respect of noise from all road and rail traffic. This survey determined
the site to be within Noise Exposure Category ‘B’ and conditions are therefore
recommended to ensure future residents are protected from noise from the railway and the
main road.

YEDL: Related to the Doncaster Road South Electricity Distribution Substation located to
the west of no. 4 Doncaster Road. YEDL understand that the applicant is proposing to use
part of the YEDL site for the provision of car parking for the proposed apartments. The
more intensive use of this property as proposed would worsen the already unacceptable
off-street parking problems in the vicinity. The substation serves the network in the
immediate vicinity on both sides of Doncaster Road and as such YEDL personnel require
24/7 vehicular access to their site. Additional vehicles would not be operationally
acceptable.

NETWORK RAIL: No objections in principle, but from a safety point of view require that the
following issues are considered:
- There should be an adequate visibility splay in both directions along Doncaster Road
including to the level crossing for vehicles leaving the parking spaces.
- The developer and owner/tenants of the new apartments should be advised of the
possibility of noise and disturbance arising from the operation of the railway and level
crossing.

INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD: The Board has no observations to make on this
application.

HIGHWAY AUTHORITY: Concerned about the amount of applications for the conversion
of single dwellings into flats within this location. The existing access road is in a
substandard condition, narrow in width and any intensification would interfere with the free
flow of traffic with consequent danger to highway users by virtue of its proximity to existing
junctions.

The application indicates the provision of 5 parking spaces. The submitted drawing does
not meet the minimum NYCC Parking Standard requirement for parking bays and the
width between a parking bay and an adjacent wall/building of 6m. One of the proposed
parking bays also encroaches into the adjoining property.



                                                                                         21
Therefore recommend refusal for reasons relating to that the road leading to the site is not
of a sufficient width to cater for the traffic and that the absence of adequate on-site parking
spaces for the proposed development would result in vehicles being parked outside the
site.

NORTHERN GAS NETWORKS: No objection to the proposals. However there may be
apparatus in the area that may be at risk during construction works. Should the planning
application being approved, we would require the promoter of these works to contact us
directly to discuss our requirements in detail.

YORKSHIRE WATER: Observations by Yorkshire Water are not required.

LOCAL RESIDENTS: A site notice was placed near to the site, and letters sent to
occupants of neighbouring properties. Six letters of objection were received from residents
of 8, 10, 14, and 16, Doncaster Road, Selby, no. 4 Manor Close, Kirk Smeaton, and one
letter did not include an address. The letters raised the following concerns:
- The car park at the shop is too small for the amount of cars and vans that go to the shop.
- Some vehicles park on the footpath and some on the road. If an emergency happened it
would be very dangerous for the other householders in the road.
- The railway gates are very busy and that adds to the traffic problems. A lot of the coal
trains are getting very big.
- We have too many traffic problems already without adding more traffic from the flats.
- The area is too dangerous for more development of any type until the railway stops the
large coal trains through Selby.
- This development will generate extra traffic accessing Doncaster Road. In addition, it will
cause congestion and surface damage to the easement that is shared by adjoining
properties. High-tension cables run under the easement to the substation and these could
be damaged by the increase in traffic.
- There is no turning provision for these vehicles which be parked at the site – The area
will become overcrowded with no limitation set on the number of residents living in the
apartments.
- My car was badly damaged on my way out of the access road after visiting a friend who
lives at a neighbouring property, because too many cars were attempting to park/turn in
such a small area. The conversion will make this worse.
- With recent planning approvals, the increase of traffic to the immediate area is now a
minimum of 10.
- This development will have a direct effect on the immediate properties.
- The turning point on the proposed plans is the land of the YEDL.
- The character of the buildings will be dramatically affected.
- Devaluation of properties.
- The nearby electricity substation is a fire risk.
- The boundaries are not correct and encroach on the communal lane.
- Children using the private back lane are at increased risk or injury.
- Overpopulation of the residential area.
- The increase in traffic is a direct contradiction of the government policy on reducing CO2
emissions into the environment.


The responses received towards the amended/current proposed for conversion to three
flats, are as follows:

SELBY TOWN COUNCIL: No response received within allotted time.

                                                                                         22
YEDL (CE Electric UK): There is known Northern Electric apparatus in the area. Therefore
all cables and overhead lines must be assumed to be live. General advice given with
regards to construction close to underground cables, but no objections raised.

NETWORK RAIL: No response received within allotted time.

INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD: The Board has no observations to make on this
application.

HIGHWAY AUTHORITY: Following receipt of an amended plan, can support this
application. NYCC Parking Standards require two parking bays to be provided in a market
town. The applicant is removing a high wooden fence to provide off-street parking for three
cars.

Conditions requested in relation to the following:
- Details of access, turning and parking.
- Parking spaces to remain available for vehicle parking.
- Parking spaces to be provided prior to occupation.
- On-site parking and on-site storage during development.

NORTHERN GAS NETWORKS: No response received within allotted time.

YORKSHIRE WATER: Observations by Yorkshire Water are not required.

LOCAL RESIDENTS: A site notice was placed near to the site, and letters sent to
occupants of neighbouring properties. Five letters of objection were received from
residents of Wytha Farm, Clitheroe, 10, 14 and 16 Doncaster Road, and one letter did not
include an address. The following concerns were raised:
- The car park at the shop is too small for the amount of cars and vans that go to the shop.
- Some vehicles park on the footpath and some on the road. If an emergency happened it
would be very dangerous for the other householders in the road.
- The railway gates are very busy and that adds to the traffic problems. A lot of the coal
trains are getting very big.
- We have too many traffic problems already without adding more traffic from the flats.
- The area is too dangerous for more development of any type until the railway stops the
large coal trains through Selby.
- There will be direct conflict between pedestrians and the increase in traffic. This is
discouraged by the Local Plan.
- The proposal should consider the fact that planning permission has been given to the
applicant to develop no. 6 Doncaster Road, and also the stores of the no. 2 Doncaster
Road. The applicant already parks his vehicles on the expressway on a daily basis.
- The footpath has been damaged by the applicant illegally unloading on the A19. People
visiting the shop block the neighbours right of way. This proposal will exacerbate the
situation.
- Overpopulation of the residential area.
- The increase in traffic is a direct contradiction of the government policy on reducing Co2
emissions into the environment.
- Visibility onto Doncaster Road to the left is good, but from the right is poor. The increase
of vehicles using the exit/entry will cause an accident.


                                                                                        23
- With recent planning approvals, the increase of traffic to the immediate area is now a
minimum of 10.
- This development will have a direct effect on the immediate properties.
- The turning point on the proposed plans is the land of the YEDL.
- The character of the buildings will be dramatically affected.
- Devaluation of properties.
- The nearby electricity substation is a fire risk.
- The boundaries are not correct and encroach on the communal lane.
- The allocation of parking is not realistic.
- The owner of the shop takes no responsibility for the blocking of the footpath, car park
and lane, making the entry and exit to the houses impossible at certain days of the week
and times of the day.

POLICIES AND ISSUES:
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states "if regard is to be
had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the
Planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise". The Development Plan for the Selby District comprises
the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and Humberside (published on 1 December
2004), the North Yorkshire Structure Plan (Alteration No3) (adopted in 1995) and the Selby
District Local Plan (adopted on 8 February 2005).

The site lies within the development limits of Selby, and would result in a net increase of
two dwellings on the site. The policies relevant to this proposal are therefore considered to
be:

ENV1 – Relates to development in general, and outlines the main considerations when
assessing development proposals.

H2B – Relates to the density of new development, requiring a minimum density of 30
dwellings per hectare.

H6 – Relates to residential development in areas that are capable of accommodating
additional growth, such as market towns.

T2 – Relates to access points for new development, including the intensification of existing
accesses.

VP1 – Relates to parking provision for development proposals.

Taking into account the content of the aforementioned policies, comments made by
objectors, and other material considerations, it is considered necessary to assess the
proposal in respect of the following:

i) Principle of the development
ii) Character and form
iii) Impact on residential amenity
iv) Access and parking
v) Other matters

i) Principle of the development


                                                                                         24
Policy H6 of the Selby District Local Plan refers to Selby, as a market town, as being a
settlement capable of accommodating additional growth in the form of residential
development, and states that residential development will normally be permitted where the
proposal involves the conversion of a building.

The proposal involves the conversion of an existing dwelling into three flats, making use of
an existing brownfield site. The net increase in the number of dwellings on the site would
be two, and the density of residential properties on the site would rise from 48 dwellings
per hectare, to 149 dwellings per hectare. Whilst this is substantially higher than the
density of 30-50 dwellings advised for areas such as Selby, this is mainly due to the fact
that apartments would be created within an existing building, and because Selby is a
market town, this density is considered to be acceptable.

ii) Character and form
The external appearance of the existing dwelling is not proposed to be altered significantly.
The front elevation is to remain the same. The side elevation to the north would have a
window and door replaced with a door. A velux rooflight would be placed in the roof on the
northern elevation towards the rear.

To the rear of the site, an existing garage and fencing would be removed to facilitate the
creation of three parking spaces. A similar arrangement has recently been approved for
the adjacent property, under ref: 2007/0053/FUL.

It is therefore considered that the proposal would not result in a significant impact on the
character or appearance of the surrounding area.

iii) Impact on residential amenity
The proposal would not result in the addition of any additional windows other than one
window at ground floor level on the northern/side elevation. The existing smaller window
that would be replaced currently serves a kitchen. The larger replacement window would
serve a bedroom, and would be 4m from the side elevation of the adjacent property. No
overlooking of the adjacent property would occur, as only a secondary kitchen window
would exist to the rear of that property. At present, a habitable room is already 4m from the
side elevation of the adjacent property. Although the nature of this room would change
(from a kitchen to a bedroom), the impact on a habitable room would remain the same
therefore not increasing the loss of amenity experienced by the application site.

The access road to be used for the site is used by nos 2 – 14 Doncaster Road inclusive.
The proposal would result in a maximum of three additional cars using this access. It is
considered that this proposed increase in vehicular use, in addition to the three additional
cars to be created from the recent approval at no. 6 Doncaster Road would not be
sufficient to result in a substantial loss of amenity to the residents of nos 2, 4, 6 and 8
Doncaster Road. It is unlikely that nos 10, 12 and 14 would experience any additional
problems with vehicular noise or movements as the future residents of no’s 4 and 6 would
have no reason to use the additional part of the access road that runs to the rear of the
remaining properties.

iv) Access and parking
The site currently has a garage to the rear which is accessed via a shared access road
that runs from an access point on Doncaster Road, past no. 2 Doncaster Road and along
the rear of seven properties. The proposal would involve the demolition of the garage, and
the creation of three parking spaces to serve the apartments. This would resemble the

                                                                                         25
parking provision and layout for no. 6 Doncaster Road, which was approved for conversion
to three apartments earlier this year.

Several objections have been raised regarding the excessive use of the proposed access,
the blocking of the access, inadequate visibility, and proposal causing a danger to
pedestrian and vehicle movement through the increase in traffic. The proposal has been
assessed by the Highway Authority, who have raised no objections. Residents parking to
the rear of the site would be able to reverse out of the parking spaces onto the access
road, and pull away in a forward gear. Whilst it is accepted that a number of properties
already use this access road, it is considered unlikely that the proposal would result in a
significant number of vehicle movements over and above that already experienced in the
area.

The current parking standards require three spaces to be made available for a
development of this scale within a market town. Three spaces would be provided to the
rear of the property, which would therefore meet the parking standards. If residents of the
property chose to park to the front of the site, this would not be controlled by the Local
Planning Authority. There are no restrictive parking lines to the front of the site preventing
parking on that section of Doncaster Road.

v) Other matters
An objection has been raised regarding the proximity of the parking area to an electricity
substation. The YEDL have been consulted on the proposal, and have raised no
objections to the amended proposal.

The devaluation of properties as a result of the proposal is not a material planning
consideration, and cannot therefore be taken into account when assessing this application.

Any issues raised regarding the parking area serving the shop at no. 2 Doncaster Road
cannot be taken into account, as the parking area and shop do not form part of this
application.

Any issues relating to damage to the highway or access road as a result of
loading/unloading, or issues of rights of way over the access road are civil matters that
should be dealt with separately to the planning process.

CONCLUSION:
The proposal, by virtue of the minor external alterations proposed to the property, would
not adversely effect the character and form of the surrounding area. The proposal would
not result in a loss of residential amenity through overlooking, overshadowing or noise
from vehicles. The level of parking for the site would be adequate for the scale of
development proposed, and the access is considered to be acceptable to serve the site.
The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable, having had regard to policies
ENV1, H2B, H6, T2 and VP1 of the Selby District Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION:

This application is recommended to be granted

01. The development for which permission is hereby granted shall be begun within a
    period of three years from the date of this permission.


                                                                                         26
    Reason:
    In order to comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory
    Purchase Act 2004.

02. The development shall not be commenced until full details of the proposed vehicular
    access, parking and turning arrangements have been submitted to and been
    approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Those arrangements shall be
    constructed in accordance with the specification so approved before the development
    is first brought into use unless otherwise approved by the Local Planning Authority.
    Once created these areas shall be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained
    for their intended purpose at all times.

    Reason:
    To ensure appropriate on-site vehicle parking facilities with associated access and
    manoeuvring areas, in the interests of highway safety and the general amenity of the
    development, in accordance with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.

03. Notwithstanding the provision of any Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
    Development) Order, or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order, the areas
    shown on the approved plan to be used for the provision of parking spaces, turning
    area and access shall be retained and kept available for those purposes at all times
    and shall not be used for any other purpose.

    Reason:
    To ensure that the approved parking areas are provided and kept available for such
    use, in the interests of highway safety and the general amenity of the development to
    accord with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.

04. The development hereby permitted shall not begin until a written scheme for
    protecting the proposed development from noise has been submitted to and
    approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall ensure that the
    noise level in the garden of the proposed property shall not exceed 50dB LAeq (16
    hours) between 0700 hours and 2300 hours and all works which form part of this
    scheme shall be completed before any part of the development is occupied. The
    works provided as part of the approved scheme shall be permanently retained and
    maintained as such except as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning
    Authority.

    Reason:
    In the interests of amenity having had regard to policy ENV1 of the Selby District
    Local Plan.




                                                                                     27
05. The development hereby permitted shall not begin until a written scheme for
    protecting the internal environment of the dwellings from noise has been submitted to
    and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall ensure
    that the building envelope of each plot is constructed so as to provide sound
    attenuation against external noise. The internal noise levels achieved shall not
    exceed 35dB LAeq (16 hour) inside the dwelling between 0700 and 2300 hours, and
    30dB LAeq (8 hour) in the bedrooms between 2300 and 0700 hours. This standard of
    insulation shall be achieved with adequate ventilation provided. All works which form
    part of the scheme shall be completed before any part of the development is
    occupied. The works provided as part of the approved scheme shall be permanently
    retained and maintained as such except as may be agreed in writing by the Local
    Planning Authority.

     Reason:
     In the interests of amenity having had regard to policy ENV1 of the Selby District
     Local Plan.




                                                                                      28
APPLICATION       8/16/571B/PA           PARISH:              Barlby And Osgodby Parish
NUMBER:           2007/0384/OUT                               Council

APPLICANT:        PCC All Saints         VALID DATE:          29 May 2007
                  Barlby
                                        EXPIRY DATE:       24 July 2007
PROPOSAL:         Outline planning for one detached dwelling, following the demolition of a
                  former Church Hall
LOCATION:         Barlby Church Hall
                  Old School Lane
                  Barlby
                  Selby
                  North Yorkshire




DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

THE PROPOSAL

The applicant seeks outline-planning consent for the erection of 1 dwelling with all other
matters reserved for later consideration. The proposed development would necessitate
the demolition of Barlby Church Hall.

THE PLANNING CONTEXT

The application site is located within the development limits of Barlby as defined by the
proposal map within the adopted Selby District Council (2005). The site abuts an area of
recreational open space.

SITE DESCRIPTION

Barlby Church Hall is an attractive 19th Century brick building. The building is constructed
from traditional orange mottled bricks with a slate roof. The plot is encircled by a low brick
wall.

The building is situated on Old School Lane, which is a single-track highway.

The area is predominately residential in nature, with the form and character of the area
being defined by low-density residential development of varying ages and styles.

PLANNING HISTORY

An outline planning application for the erection of two dwellings following the demolition of
the Church Hall was submitted in July 2006. The application was subsequently withdrawn
following adverse comments from the Highway Authority.

CONSULTATIONS

BARLBY PARISH COUNCIL:

                                                                                        30
The Parish Council objects strongly to the proposed access via Old School Lane. There is
currently no car parking provision at the Church Hall so the Lane is not used as an access
to the site. In addition there is no vision splay at the junction of Old School Lane and
Howden Road, vehicles leaving the Lane would have no view of pedestrians or vehicles on
Howden Road.

Old School Lane is a public right of way and is one of the main pedestrian routes to and
from the local schools. As such the Parish Council feels there is scope for serious conflict
between users should the proposed access be approved.

In addition, the plan showing the site boundary is incorrect. The strip of land marked in
pink belongs to the Parish Council and consists of a public path from Pindars Way to Old
School Lane (shown in green) and as such should be excluded from the plans.

The Parish Council requests that the application is determined by Committee after a site
visit to look at the access.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH:
They recommend that two planning conditions are attached to any consent granted, one in
relation to restricting hours of construction and demolition work and the second to secure a
scheme to mitigate nuisance and disturbance to the neighbouring properties.

HIGHWAY AUTHORITY:
The Highway Officer recommends refusing permission for the proposed development for
the following reasons: -

'The Planning Authority considers that the roads leading to the site are not of a sufficient
width or suitable gradient to cater for the traffic which would be likely to be generated by
this proposal. The existing access, by which vehicles associated with this proposal would
leave and rejoin the County Highway is unsatisfactory since the required visibility of 2.4
metres x 90 metres cannot be achieved at the junction with the County Highway and
therefore, in the opinion of the Planning Authority, the intensification of use which would
result from the proposed development is unacceptable in terms of highway safety.'

YORKSHIRE WATER:
Observations not required.

THE OUSE AND DERWENT INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD:
They recommend that conditions be attached in relation to surface water drainage and
drainage routes.

NEIGHBOURS:
The immediate neighbours were consulted by letter and a site notice was erected on site.

One letter of objection was received from the occupants of The Cedars (a property to the
south of the Church Hall). The letter objected to the proposed development on the
following summarised grounds: -

The plan does not show a public footpath between his property and the Church Hall, which
connects Pindars Way and Old School Lane.



                                                                                       31
The plan does not state that the roof of his property is of Cedar wood shingles (Not tiles).
Old School Lane is a cul de sac and is only 2.8 metres wide. On the few occasions when
the Church Hall is used the traffic used his drive to turn around and on occasions have
turned in his drive completely blocking him in and out.

If Old School Lane is used as an access for building vehicles the position would become
extremely difficult and the traffic would pose a very dangerous hazard to the hundreds of
children who use Old School Lane daily on their way to Barlby High School.

POLICIES AND ISSUES:

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states "if regard is to be
had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the
planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise". The development plan for the Selby District comprises
the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and The Humber (published on 1 December
2004), the North Yorkshire Structure Plan (Alteration No3) (adopted in 1995) and the Selby
District Local Plan (adopted on 8 February 2005).

The appropriate national government guidance is contained within Planning Policy
Statement 1 (PPS1): - Delivering Sustainable Development (2003), and Planning Policy
Statement 3 (PPS3): - Housing (2006).

The relevant polices within the adopted Selby District Local Plan (2005) are

ENV1 (Control of Development),
H2A (Location of New Housing Development),
H2B (Housing Density),
H6 (Housing Development in Market Towns and Villages that are capable of
accommodating additional growth),
T2 (Access to Roads) and,
VP1 (Vehicle Parking Standards).

Policy ENV1 seeks to ensure that any proposal complies with all the relevant planning
policies in the plan and "a good quality of design is achieved." It also seeks to ensure that
all possible effects of the development are given due consideration and weight.

Policy H2A seeks to concentrate all new housing development within the defined
development limits and on previously developed land.

Policy H2B seeks to ensure that residential developments achieve a minimum density of
30 dwellings per hectare in order to ensure the efficient use of land, unless there is an
overriding need to safeguard the existing form and character of area or other
environmental or physical considerations apply.

Policy H6 sets out the criteria on which to assess the 'appropriateness' and 'acceptability'
of residential development within market towns and villages that are capable of
accommodating additional growth.

Policy T2 seeks to ensure that proposals that would result in the intensification of an
access would not compromise highway safety.


                                                                                          32
In so far as is material here, these policies provide that within development limits,
residential developments are permitted provided that the proposal complies with the
following criteria: -

1) The principle of residential development;

2) The proposal is in keeping with the form and character of the locality;

3) The sustainability of the proposed development;

4) The proposal would provide a satisfactory standard of residential accommodation and
amenity;

5) The proposal would not have a significant adverse effect on the amenity of the
surrounding residents;

6) The proposal would not harm acknowledged nature conservation interests or result in
the loss of open space for recreational or amenity value or which is intrinsically important
to the character of the area; and

7) The proposal would not be to the significant detriment of highway safety.

1) THE PRINCIPLE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

With regards to the principle of residential development on this site, policy and guidance is
provided by PPS3 "Housing" and Policy H2A of the Selby District Local Plan.

Policy H2A states that up to the end of 2006 proposals for residential development will
only be acceptable on 1) previously developed land within defined development limits or,
2) allocated sites within Phase 1 of the Plan.

The site is within development limits and constitutes previously developed land. As such
the proposal complies with the provisions of Policy H2A.

Policy H2B states that residential development should, unless there were material
considerations to the contrary, have a net density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare.
This scheme achieves a density level of 20 dwellings per hectare. However it is
considered that this density level is acceptable in light of the enclosed nature of the site,
and the constraints with regard to the inadequacies of the access.

Barlby Church Hall is not a listed building, and the property is not situated within a
designated Conservation Area. Therefore the building has no statutory protection; and on
this basis the planning authority has no objection in principle to the demolition of the
building.

2) THE IMPACT ON THE FORM AND CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY.

Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) states that design which is inappropriate in its
context, or which fails to take opportunities available for improving the character and
quality of the area and the way it functions should not be acceptable.



                                                                                          33
The area is predominately residential in nature, with the form and character of the area
being defined by low-density residential development of varying ages and styles.

An illustrative layout indicates that the site is of an adequate size to accommodate the
dwelling and that there would be no significant constraints on the type of dwelling that
could be accommodated which could result in any harm to the form and character of the
settlement. The proposed plot size would be in keeping with the existing grain of
development. From the information submitted in the design and access statement, it is
considered that the proposal would preserve the character and form of the locality.

It is at the time of the submission of any reserved matters application that layout, scale,
and appearance would be considered and determined.


3) THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT;

The site is located within the heart of the village, and in close proximity to a number of
local services and public transport links. Therefore given the site identification as
'previously developed land', the proposed development would be sustainable by virtue of
its nature, location, and accessibility by modes of public transport.

4) WOULD PROVIDE A SATISFACTORY STANDARD OF RESIDENTIAL
ACCOMMODATION AND AMENITY.

This would be considered at the time of the reserved matters submission.

5) WOULD NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE AMENITY OF THE
SURROUNDING RESIDENTS.

Layout and design matters have not been included in this application. Therefore, it is not
possible at this stage to assess accurately the impact on neighbouring amenity. However
an illustrative layout indicates that the site is of an adequate size to accommodate one
dwelling without resulting in harm to the residential amenities of the neighbours and
occupants of the proposed dwelling.

From the indicative plans submitted it is considered that the proposal would not have a
significantly detrimental impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties, and that the
proposal would not be contrary to criterion 2 of Policy H6.

6) WOULD NOT HARM ACKNOWLEDGED NATURE CONSERVATION INTERESTS OR
RESULT IN THE LOSS OF OPEN SPACE FOR RECREATIONAL OR AMENITY VALUE
OR WHICH IS INTRINSICALLY IMPORTANT TO THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA.

There are no known nature conservation interests on the site. The site is not designated
as a site of nature conservation importance nor is it known to support any population of
species protected by law or of conservation concern. The development would not result in
the loss of open space of recreational or amenity value.

In this respect it is noted that a survey of bats has not been carried out. However, consent
for the demolition of the village hall does not require the consent of the Local Planning
Authority. It is therefore considered unreasonable to request a bat survey in this instance.
However, it is recommended that an informative is attached to any permission granted

                                                                                         34
informing the developer of the requirements of the 1981 Wildlife & Countryside Act in
relation to bats.

It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with provision 6 of Policy H6 of the
adopted Selby District Local Plan (2005).

7) THE IMPACT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY.

The Highway Authority considers that the roads leading to the site are not of a sufficient
width or suitable gradient to cater for the traffic, which would be generated by this
proposal.

The Authority also states that the existing access, by which vehicles associated with this
proposal would leave and rejoin is unsatisfactory since the required visibility of 2.4 metres
x 90 metres cannot be achieved at the junction with the county highway and therefore, in
the opinion of the Highway Authority, the intensification of use which would result from the
proposed development is unacceptable in terms of highway safety.

However it is considered the rationale behind the Highway Authority's assertion that the
proposed scheme would create an intensification of use is incorrect. Within the buildings
role as a Church Hall, a number of activities could be lawfully run from the Church Hall,
such as a day nursery and youth club without a material change of use taking place.
These activities could potentially generate a significant amount of both domestic and
commercial traffic.

The level of car parking required for the Church Hall provides a strong indication of the
level of vehicle activity, which is likely to be generated by this use. A Church Hall should
provide 1 visitor car park space for every 25 square metres of floorspace, and one car park
space for every 3 members of staff. The Church Hall has a floor area of approximately
120 square metres, which means that the Church Hall should provide at least 5 visitor car
park spaces. This is significantly higher than the recommended 2 car park spaces for a
3/4 bedroom dwelling.

One dwelling would generate, in all likelihood, an additional two traffic movements during
peak hours, which would be significantly less than the Church Hall if it were brought back
into beneficial use. There are thus no defensible reasons for resisting the application on
traffic generation or highway safety grounds given the nature of the existing use.

Therefore it is considered that the proposal complies with criterion 3 of Policy H6 and
Policy T2 of the adopted Selby District Local Plan (2005).

CONCLUSION:

Having had regard to all the consultation responses and local and national policy it is
considered that the proposal complies with policies ENV1, H2A, H2B, H6 and T2 of the
adopted Selby District Council Local Plan (2005).

RECOMMENDATION:

This application is recommended to be Granted subject to the following conditions:



                                                                                          35
01. Applications for the approval of the reserved matters referred to in No.2 herein shall
    be made within a period of three years from the grant of this outline permission and
    the development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later than the
    expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case
    of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be
    approved.

     Reason:
     In order to comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory
     Purchase Act 2004.

02. No development shall take place without the prior written approval of the Local
    Planning Authority of all details of the following matters:

     (i)     The siting, design and external appearance of each building, including a
             schedule of external materials to be used;
     (ii)    The means of access to the site;
     (iii)   The landscaping of the site; and


     Reason:
     To safeguard the rights of control by the Local Planning Authority in respect of the
     reserved matters.

03. All works of development during the construction period shall be carried out only
    between the hours of 8am and 6pm on Mondays to Fridays and between the hours of
    8am and 1pm on Saturdays and at no other time on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

     Reason:
     In order to preserve the amenity of adjacent residential properties having had regard
     to Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.




                                                                                       36
APPLICATION       8/74/336/PA            PARISH:              Tadcaster Town Council
NUMBER:           2007/0906/COU

APPLICANT:        Calcaria Veterinary    VALID DATE:          2 August 2007
                  Practice
                                      EXPIRY DATE:         27 September 2007
PROPOSAL:         Change of use from dwelling to veterinary practice

LOCATION:         2 Ingleby Drive
                  Tadcaster
                  North Yorkshire
                  LS24 8HW


DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

The application site, 2 Ingleby Drive, is a detached bungalow located on the southern side
of Ingleby Drive in Tadcaster with associated garden grounds to the front and rear of the
property. The dwelling is constructed partly in stone and red facing brick, with tiled roof.
The dwelling is situated on a typical residential estate of similar scale properties. The
application site is bounded by residential properties west, east, north, southwest and
southeast. The plot is enclosed by mature hedgerows on 4 sides ranging in height from 1.5
– 2.5m with the front boundary defined by a mature hedge and a gate. The vehicular
access to the property is provided through a gate to the north of the dwelling house
leading from Ingleby Drive.

This application seeks planning permission for a change of use of the existing detached
bungalow (residential use – C3) to form a veterinary surgery (D1). The proposed change
of use involves mainly internal alterations for which planning permission is not needed and
floor plans have been submitted to illustrate how the building would be laid out internally.
No external alterations are proposed.

To the rear of the application site there is a large detached garage. This building would be
retained for use in association with the proposed change of use. There are also two
parking spaces on the forecourt to the front of the building.

The application is accompanied by a supporting statement, which gives details for the
proposal.

History
No planning history on site.


CONSULTATIONS

PARISH COUNCIL
“Only two parking spaces are shown on the plan and it is considered that this would not be
enough for this business, which would require staff and visitor parking, plus some
deliveries. The property is situated just after a small bend in the road after entering Ingleby
Drive and with any increase in on-street parking on this narrow, winding road, this will


                                                                                         38
cause unnecessary hazards for motorists and pedestrians alike. It could cause problems
for the residents opposite the property trying to access their own drives/properties.

There are already problems with motorists cutting through the estate from Wighill Lane to
avoid the traffic lights at the junction on the main road through Tadcaster.

The proposal will not only affect Ingleby Drive but also neighbouring roads such as
Prospect Drive and Manor Road as these will become access routes to the site. The
proposal shows that the kennels will be situated to the front of the property. Potentially this
could cause noise problems for the surrounding residents both during the day and night.

There are concerns about holding drugs on the premises.

There are concerns about how clinical and animal waste would be dealt with.

Members have been informed that the properties have a clause within them that does not
allow them to turn the premises into a business concern.

There are sufficient empty business premises in the Town which could be used for this
purpose rather than taking over residential property.

Also the proposal does not qualify under any of the 4 requirements listed in section H5 –
Retention of the Existing Housing Stock of the Selby District Local Plan”.


NORTH YORKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL- HIGHWAYS
No objections subject to details of access, turning, loading facilities, parking spaces to
remain available for vehicle parking and parking for dwellings where communal parking
may be appropriate conditions.


PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER
No objections subject to Environmental Health conditions.


NEIGHBOURS
The immediate residents were consulted by letter and a site notice was displayed to notify
the wider members of the public. Six letters of representations have been received and
raised the following issues:
    - Inadequate parking spaces
    - Parking during the evenings and weekends makes driving hazardous.
    - Present road surface is in a very poor condition more traffic will make it worse
    - Problem with dog owners not cleaning up their mess have been experienced.
    - A veterinary business would cause an excessive amount of traffic on a small
       residential estate.
    - Parking would be a major problem and potentially dangerous as the drive is narrow,
       winding and unsuitable for roadside parking.
    - Safety implications of increasing traffic flow in a residential drive where there are
       children.
    - Disturbance caused by introducing a business to a residential drive, which has shift
       workers who need to sleep during the day.


                                                                                         39
   -   The safety implications of drugs being stored in a building that will not be occupied
       at night, which could lead to, an increased risk of burglary.
   -   Wighill is a very busy road, this proposal will dramatically increase the number of
       cars turning into/out of Ingleby drive.
   -   Potential of dog mess all over the place.
   -   Ingleby Drive is a residential area, not an industrial estate, retail park or business
       park that would house such a business.
   -    Certain devaluation to properties.
   -   There will be noise from the proposed kennels, which would occur at any time of the
       day or night.
   -   Drugs kept on the premises will be a magnet for potential thieves.
   -   Wighill Meadows, of which Ingleby Drive is a part, is currently a well-kept residential
       area of Tadcaster.
   -   The centre of town is blighted by substantial number of empty or derelict business
       properties lowering the appeal of the town in general.
   -   This proposal would go against the policies set out in Selby District Local Plan
       predominantly “To encourage the retention of existing residential accommodation”
       and “particular attention will be paid to the effects of increased vehicular and
       pedestrian movements and associated car parking”
   -   Loss of privacy
   -   People parking on drive way blocking accesses.
   -   Having animals at the practice, barking etc may well set other animals in the
       neighbourhood to bark resulting in increased noise and annoying people.
   -   Invasion of privacy.
   -   Lack of parking.


POLICIES AND ISSUES:

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states "if regard is to be
had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the
planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise". The development plan for the Selby District comprises
the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and the Humber (published on 1 December
2004), the North Yorkshire Structure Plan (Alteration No3) (adopted in 1995) and the Selby
District Local Plan (adopted on 8 February 2005).

In determining planning applications for a change of use consideration must be given to the
Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order. This document stipulates a number of
categories that different uses fall within. These categories in turn have permitted
development rights to change between certain uses without requiring planning permission.

The existing property has planning permission to operate as a residential dwelling, which is
classified as Class C3 of the Use Classes Order.

The proposed use as veterinary surgery falls within Class D1 of the Use Classes Order,
therefore the proposed change of use requires planning permission.

The site is located within a residential area. Change of use would be acceptable provided the
proposal meet the criteria set in Policy ENV1of the Selby District Local Plan.



                                                                                        40
The policy lists eight categories of issues that should be take into account when the
considering development proposals. Given the nature and scale of the development,
together with the character of the application site and its surroundings it is considered that
categories 3,4, 5, 6 and 7 have no direct bearing on this case. However categories1, 2,
and 8 have some bearing on this case and refer to:

       1) The effect upon the character of the area or the amenity of adjoining occupiers;

       2) The relationship of the proposal to the highway network, the proposed means of
          access, the need for road/junction improvements in the vicinity of the site, and
          the arrangements to be made for car parking;

       8) Any other material considerations

In relation to the impacts of development on highway safety and efficiency policies T1 and
VP1 are relevant.

T1    “Development proposals should be well related to the existing highways network
and will only be permitted where existing roads have adequate capacity and can safely
serve the development, unless appropriate off-site highway improvements are undertaken
by the developer”.

Policy VP1 states,

‘The District Council will support the provision of parking spaces/facilities in new
developments up to the maximum car parking standards as set out in Appendix 4.’

In relation to development, noise and other forms of disamenity, Policy ENV2 states,

‘Proposals for development which would give rise to, or would be affected by,
unacceptable levels of noise, nuisance, contamination or other environmental pollution will
not be permitted unless satisfactory remedial or preventive measures are incorporated as
an integral element in the scheme.’

It is considered that the principal considerations relevant to the determination of this
application are:

   1. The potential impact of the proposed use on residential amenity.

   2. Issues of parking provision and the potential impact on highway and pedestrian
      safety.


THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED USE ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

In terms of the potential impact on residential amenity a number of objections have been
made to the proposed change of use, principally relating to concerns about increased dog
fouling, issues of the storage and disposal of clinical waste and also the noise generated
by animals at the premises overnight. In terms of the potential noise generated by animals
at the premises the applicants have indicated that the “kennels” forms part of the recovery
process after animals have had an operation and is not intended as a long-term boarding
facility. Furthermore the applicants have stated that the only likely overnight stay would be

                                                                                           41
from an emergency operation and when for much of the time animals would be sedated
and unlikely to create noise. It is also stated by the applicant that this “kennels” which is a
recovering room would also be used by other small animals such as cats after an
operation. I understand this to mean that these are small animals would not or are unlikely
to cause noise. However it is considered that any potential noise issue could be overcome
by a condition requiring the insulation of the premises. Given the information received from
the applicant it is therefore considered that proposal would not cause any significant loss
of amenity to the neighbouring properties. Given the comments received from the
Environmental Health Officer it is concluded that the proposal would not cause any noise
pollution or health hazard nuisance to the surrounding area and would therefore be
acceptable in terms of pollution/nuisance and would be in accordance with Policy ENV2A
of the Selby District Local Plan.


In respect of the storage of clinical waste, this is strictly governed under the Environmental
Protection Act (1990). However the applicants have stated that this waste would be stored
internally until collected for disposal. The Environmental Health Officer has not objected to
this proposal and therefore it is considered that there would be no issues of residential
amenity arising from this.

Concern has been expressed by a number of residents at the potential for an increase in
dog fouling in the streets surrounding the application site as a result of the proposed
change of use. There are signs close to the site warning that dog fouling is an offence,
therefore dog fouling is already regulated. However a condition requiring a dog-waste bin
immediately outside the site could be attached to any permission granted. In light of the
above it is considered that there are no reasonable grounds for refusal of this application.
Objections have been received from local residents that the proposals would result in dog
fouling, however no evidence has been received to suggest that the proposed use would
significantly increase the amount of dog fouling in the area. In addition it is noted that the
Environmental Health Officer has no objections to the proposal. Furthermore it is noted
that the Environmental Health Department or the Dog Warden has received no complaints
regarding excessive dog fouling from the previous site. As such it is recommended that
little weight should be given in determining this application.

Whilst it is acknowledged that there would be some intensification of use, no new
crossovers would be created so it is considered that there would be no significant adverse
impact on pedestrians using the pavement.

It is acknowledged that a veterinary surgery could potentially result in an increase in noise
and disturbance in comparison to the existing single residential use. However, suggested
running times for the clinic are as follows:

09:00hrs to 17:45hrs Monday to Friday and 09:00hrs to 12:00hrs Saturdays

This would give rise to a working day of 09.00 –17.45 hours, which is considered to be
acceptable in that no animals would be arriving at the surgery before 09.00 in the morning
or after 17.45 at night, except perhaps in the case of an emergency. A condition should be
attached restricting the surgery to these hours.




                                                                                         42
ISSUES OF PARKING PROVISION AND THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON HIGHWAY AND
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

The Highway Officer’s and neighbours’ comments are noted. In terms of parking provision
the applicants have submitted a plan indicating 2 marked spaces within the application site
for visitors to the surgery with staff using the garage to the rear of the site. The Council’s
parking standards for developments of this type in out- of- centre locations are 1space per
consulting room (which includes a space for the vet). Given that this application proposes
one consulting room the parking standards are more than met. The marked spaces allow
adequate manoeuvring of vehicles into the spaces without leading to conditions prejudicial
to highway safety. Furthermore the applicant has stated that a further 3 spaces could be
allocated within the curtilage of the property.

In terms of the potential impact on the highway network, consultation with the Highways
Officer has raised no objections to the proposal and as noted above, with the provision of
only one consulting room, any increase in traffic would be of insufficient scale to warrant
refusal.

Local residents have raised concerns that the proposal would increase the amount of
traffic visiting the site. However, from the information provided by the applicant, it is
considered that the proposal would not significantly increase or intensify the use of the
road and that it is unlikely that there would be a significant increase in the number of
vehicles visiting the site. It is stated by the applicant that 50% of the customers are
expected to arrive on foot or by public transport. It is considered that there would be few
people visiting the site at any one time. It is considered that the proposed access would
not have any detrimental effect on highway safety and therefore the proposal is compliant
with policies T1 and VP1 of Selby District Local Plan.


OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

The neighbours’ comments about the devaluation of properties as a result of the proposed
change of use are not a material planning issue and therefore has no bearing to the
determination on this application.

With regard to the loss of housing stock it is considered that the change of use of one
dwelling would not significantly affect the housing stock in Tadcaster as there is currently
an over supply of housing stock within the Selby District.


CONCLUSION:

Having had regard to the Development Plan, all other relevant local (Policies ENV1, ENV2
(A), T1 and VP1 of Selby District Local Plan) and national policy, letters of representation,
consultation responses and all other material planning considerations, it is considered that
the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the character or appearance of the
locality or the amenities of adjoining residents. It is considered that the proposal would not
adversely affect highway safety. It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable
and in accordance with Policies ENV1, ENV2 (A), T1 and VP1 of the Selby District Local
Plan.



                                                                                         43
RECOMMENDATION:

This application is recommended to be approved subject to the following conditions:

1    The development for which permission is hereby granted shall be begun within a
     period of three years from the date of this permission.
     REASON:
     In order to comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory
     Purchase Act 2004

2    The veterinary use hereby permitted shall not operate other than between the hours
     of 09.00hours to 17.45 hours Mondays to Fridays (inclusive) and from 09.00 to 12.00
     noon Saturdays and shall not operate at all on Sundays or Bank or National Holidays,
     except in the case of an emergency.

     NOTE:
     Details of all emergencies outside the specified hours shall be recorded and kept
     available for minimum period of 12 months.

     REASON:
     To safeguard the residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, in
     accordance with Policies ENV1 and ENV2 (A) of the Selby District Local Plan

3    The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the scheme for parking
     and manoeuvring has been laid out as indicated on the approved plan (or any
     subsequent amendment agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) and that
     area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose.

     REASON:
     To enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger,
     obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway, in accordance with
     Policies T1 and VP1of the Selby District Local Plan.

4    Prior to the change of use commencing details of insulation scheme should be
     submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved
     scheme shall be implemented prior to the first use of the development hereby
     approved. The approved scheme shall be retained throughout the lifetime of the
     development.

     REASON:
     In the interests of neighbouring residential amenity and in order to comply with
     Policies ENV1 and ENV2 (A) of the Selby District Local Plan.

5    The room designated as kennels shall not be used for accommodating animals
     overnight except where recovery of animal as a result of treatment at the veterinary
     surgery requires such use of the accommodation. The room shall be used for
     treatment and recovery purposes only and shall not be used for boarding kennels or
     any other such activity not associated directly with treatment at the veterinary
     surgery.




                                                                                        44
    NOTE:
    Details of every overnight use shall be recorded and kept available for a minimum of
    12 months.

    REASON:
    In the interests of neighbouring residential amenity and in order to comply with
    Policies ENV1 and ENV2 (A) of the Selby District Local Plan.


6   The development shall not be commenced until full details of facilities for the access,
    parking, turning, manoeuvring, loading and unloading of all vehicles using the site
    have been submitted to and been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
    in consultation with the Local Highway Authority. Such arrangements shall provide
    satisfactory accommodation for the vehicles of staff and visitors. These facilities shall
    be provided, laid out, hard surfaced and drained in accordance with the details so
    approved before the development is first brought into use unless otherwise approved
    by the Local Planning Authority. Once created these areas shall be maintained clear
    of any obstruction and retained for their intended purpose at all times.

    NOTE:
    The parking standards are set out in the North Yorkshire County Council publication
    "Parking Design Guide"

    REASON
    To provide for appropriate on-site vehicle parking facilities with associated access
    and manoeuvring areas, in the interests of highway safety and the general amenity of
    the development.


7   Prior to the change of use commencing a scheme detailing provisions for dog waste
    facility shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The
    approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into
    use and shall be maintained throughout the life of the development.

    REASON:
    In the interests of neighbouring residential amenity and in order to comply with
    Policies ENV1 and ENV2 (A) of the Selby District Local Plan.




                                                                                       45
APPLICATION       2007/0710/FUL          PARISH:           Kirkby Wharfe
NUMBER:

APPLICANT:        Mr J and Mr T          VALID DATE: 05/01/2007
                  Fielden
PROPOSAL:         Change of use of stables to offices, erection of new stables and new
                  agricultural storage unit
LOCATION:         Kirkby Grange
                  Kirkby Wharfe


DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND:

The application site forms part of the Kirkby Grange farmstead, which currently comprises
a working agricultural unit and stabling in connection with a livery and equestrian
business. The site is located in the open countryside set back from the B1223, a
secondary road leading towards Ulleskelf. The site is in a relatively isolated location to the
north of the B1223 with Kirkby Wharfe being the closest settlement. The site has two
access roads, from the south and the east, with three residential properties located
adjacent to the eastern access. The complex itself has a number of 19th century buildings
developed from stone in a number of courtyard arrangements and more modern
agricultural buildings.

The application comprises three separate elements with regard to the existing business
and new developments on the site.

The first element is the conversion of two of the ranges of stone buildings, currently used
as stables, to create office accommodation within the site. The second, the demolition of
agricultural buildings to create parking areas and the development of a new replacement
agricultural storage building. Finally, the change of use of an existing agricultural building
to stables and the development of a new stable block.

The proposed development has been advertised by site notice, newspaper advertisement
and by letter.

PLANNING HISTORY

The site has no relevant previous planning history.

CONSULTATIONS:

PARISH: No objections are raised in principle, however a number of concerns raised by
the local residents are re-iterated in the response.

LOCAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY: No objections subject to conditions.


                                                                                           48
YORKSHIRE WATER: No objections.

DRAINAGE BOARD: No comments received.

CONSERVATION OFFICER: No objections subject to conditions regarding soakaways.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER: No objections subject to conditions regarding
contaminated land.

NORTH YORKSHIRE BAT GROUP: Considered that further detailed surveys would be
required and that the results of this should provide for mitigation.

NEIGHBOURS: Sixteen objection letters have been received from neighbouring
properties.

The main concern being raised is with regard to highways safety and the impact of the
increased traffic on the local highway network. The concerns raised are with regard to
both the new offices and the extra traffic generated and the increase of movements with
regard to horses and their transportation to and from the site. Concerns are raised over
the access onto Raw Lane from both access points and the impact that extra traffic will
have on the adjacent road system in the vicinity.

Concerns are also raised with regard to the conversion of an asbestos sheeting building to
be used as new stabling for the existing horses on site.

Light pollution has been raised as currently there are no street lights in the area or in the
adjacent Kirkby Wharfe. The illumination of the site would be made more prominent on
both the surrounding area and is stated as being potentially detrimental to residential
amenity.

Further to these letters a detailed letter has been received outlining five areas of concern,

   1. Highways safety and the impacts of the increased traffic on the network
   2. The intensity of development permitting large numbers of people to occupy the
      countryside for non agricultural related business.
   3. Light pollution
   4. The increased number of horses using the road structure.
   5. The environmental impacts on the surrounding area.

This letter has been supported by a number of photographs showing the surrounding area
and also the views in and out of the site.

POLICIES AND ISSUES:




                                                                                           49
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states "if regard is to be
had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the
planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless
material considerations indicate otherwise". The development plan for the Selby District
comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and The Humber (published on 1
December 2004), the North Yorkshire Structure Plan (Alteration No3) (adopted in 1995)
and the Selby District Local Plan (adopted on 8 February 2005).

The site is located outside defined development limits within the open countryside. The
main issues to address are the appropriateness of development within the open
countryside, highways safety, the effect on neighbouring properties and sustainability.

Planning Policy Statement 1, together with Policy ENV1 provide the general policy
framework and underlying principles within which the Council should consider
development proposals, stating

ENV1 Proposals for development will be permitted provided a good quality of
     development would be achieved. In considering proposals the district council will
     take account of………

The policy goes on to describe eight categories of issues that should be taken into
account in the determination of development proposals.

The site is located within open countryside, therefore the development should be
considered against Policy DL1 of the Selby District Local Plan.

Policy DL1 is aimed at restricting development in order to safeguard the countryside from
the adverse effects of development, whilst assisting rural development within the district.
The preamble to the Policy states that it will ‘support proposals which provide essential
local services, local jobs and community facilities.’

Policy DL1 states,

‘Development in the countryside, outside the Green Belt and development limits, will only
be permitted where the proposal complies with all other relevant policies and the proposal:

   1)   Would be appropriate in a rural area; or
   2)   Involves the re-use, adaptation or extension of an existing building; or
   3)   Is required to meet the identified social or economic needs of a rural community; or
   4)   Would be of direct benefit to the rural economy including additional small-scale
        employment development and the expansion of existing firms.

The application is for a change of use to offices, the expansion of an existing business
and a new agricultural store, therefore Policies EMP8, EMP9 and EMP13 must be
considered in determining the application. Notwithstanding this, as the application is for
horse related development, further guidance is contained in Policy RT9.


                                                                                         50
Policy EMP8 refers to the conversion of rural buildings, stating

‘Proposals for the conversion of rural buildings for commercial, industrial or recreational
uses, including appropriate farm diversification activities, will be permitted, provided:

   1) The building is structurally sound and capable of re-use without substantial
      rebuilding;
   2) The proposed re-use or adaptation will generally take place within the fabric of the
      building and will not require extensive alteration, re-building and/or extension;
   3) Conversion would not damage the fabric and character of a building of architectural
      or historic interest, or a traditional building which makes a positive contribution to
      the character of the countryside;
   4) The form, bulk and general design of the building is in keeping with its
      surroundings;
   5) The conversion of the building and ancillary works, such as the creation of
      incidental outside areas, and the provision of satisfactory access and parking
      arrangements, would not have a significant effect on the character of the area, or
      encroach into open countryside;
   6) The proposal would not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety or which
      would have a significant adverse effect on local amenity.’

With regard to the extension of the stabling, Policy EMP9 provides for the expansion
and/or redevelopment of existing industrial and business uses outside development limits
and established employment areas, as defined on the Proposals Map. Proposals will be
permitted provided:

   1) The proposal would not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety or which
      would have a significant adverse effect on local amenity;
   2) The nature and scale of the proposal would not have a significant adverse effect on
      the character and appearance of the area, or harm acknowledged nature
      conservation interests;
   3) The proposal would achieve a high standard of design, materials and landscaping
      which complement existing buildings, and
   4) Proposals involving expansion onto adjoining land would not result in the loss of
      best and most versatile agricultural land and the site would be well related to
      existing development and well screened and/or landscaped.

The application for stables should also be considered against Policy RT9, which states,

Development proposals involving the erection of stables and other facilities for keeping
horses in the countryside will be permitted provided:

   1) Buildings would not detract from the character and appearance of the rural
      environment and, in the interests of residential amenity, would be sited at a
      reasonable distance from the nearest dwelling;



                                                                                           51
   2) The provision of foul drainage would meet the requirements of the district council
      and the water authorities;
   3) Adequate provision is made for the storage and disposal of soiled bedding material
      and applicants can demonstrate that suitable arrangements are to be made for this
      purpose;
   4) The proposal would not create conditions prejudicial to highways safety or which
      would have a significant adverse effect on local amenity; and
   5) The proposal would not harm acknowledged nature conservation interests.

Part of the application is defined as agricultural, therefore Policy EMP13 must be
considered in determining the application. The Selby District Local Plan states that
proposals for agricultural buildings ‘will be expected to be sited close to existing buildings,
or in a location with minimal visual impact.’ EMP13 states that,

Agricultural Development will be permitted provided the proposal:

   1) Is necessary for agricultural purposes;
   2) Is well related to existing farm buildings or situated on a site which minimises its
      visual impact;
   3) Would not create conditions prejudicial to highways safety or which would have a
      significant adverse effect on local amenity;
   4) Is of a scale and design appropriate to its setting;
   5) Is adequately screened and landscaped; and
   6) Would not harm acknowledged nature conservation interests or a historic park or
      garden.

All species of bat are protected under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act and the
Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 1994. In respect to impacts of
development proposals on protected species planning policy and guidance is provided by
Planning Policy Statement 9 “ Biodiversity and Geological Conservation” and
accompanying ODPM Circular 06/2005 “Biodiversity and Geological Conservation-
Statutory Obligations And Their Impact Within The Planning System”.

Paragraphs 98 of PPS9 states

       “The presence of a protected species is a material planning consideration when a
       planning authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would
       be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat”.

Furthermore Paragraph 99 of PPS9 states

       “It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent
       that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the
       planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material planning
       considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision.”




                                                                                            52
Policy ENV 14 of the Selby District Local Plan is also relevant stating

       “Development and other land use changes which may harm badgers and other
       species protected by Schedules 1, 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act
       1981, as amended, or the EC Habitats Directive will not be permitted.

       To avoid harm to the species the local planning authority may consider the use of
       conditions and planning obligations which seek to :

       1) Facilitate the survival of individual members of the species;
       2) Reduce disturbance to a minimum; and
       3) Provide adequate alternative habitats to sustain at least the current levels of
       population.”

In relation to development and highway safety, Policies T1, T2 and VP1 are relevant.

Policy T1 states,

‘Development proposals should be well related to the existing highways network and will
only be permitted where existing roads have adequate capacity and can safely serve the
development.’

Further to this Policy T2 states,

‘Development proposals which would result in the creation of a new access or the
intensification of use of an existing access will be permitted provided:

   1) There would be no detriment to highway safety; and
   2) The access can be created in a location and to a standard acceptable to the
      highway authority.’

Policy VP1 states,

‘The District Council will support the provision of parking spaces/facilities in new
developments up to the maximum car parking standards as set out in Appendix 4.’

The Highways Officer considers that sufficient car parking is available on the whole site to
accommodate the change of use.

In relation to development, noise and other forms of disamenity, Policy ENV2 states,

‘Proposals for development which would give rise to, or would be affected by,
unacceptable levels of noise, nuisance, contamination or other environmental pollution will
not be permitted unless satisfactory remedial or preventive measures are incorporated as
an integral element in the scheme.’




                                                                                            53
The site is located within a locally important landscape area, therefore Policy ENV15 is
relevant, this states,

‘Within the locally important landscape areas, as defined on the proposals map, priority
will be given to the conservation and enhancement of the character and quality of the
landscape. Particular attention should be paid to the design, layout, landscaping of
development and the use of materials in order to minimise its impact and to enhance the
traditional character of buildings and landscape in the area.’

ASSESSMENT

Policy DL1 permits countryside development providing that it meets one of the four
criteria. Policy DL (1) requires development to be appropriate in a rural area. The Selby
District Local Plan and national policy acknowledge the conversion of rural buildings and
stables as being appropriate in the open countryside. Therefore, the principle is
acknowledged as a potential appropriate development. However in order to meet this
requirement the proposal must accord with Policies EMP8, EMP9 and RT9.

The application is split into three separate elements. An extension to the existing business
incorporating a new stable block; the development of a new agricultural storage building
and a conversion of the existing stables to offices. There are no specific policies
restricting the conversion of an existing property, which will subsequently require a new
property to accommodate the previous use. Therefore the three elements should be dealt
with as three separate schemes and assessed in accordance with the relevant policies
before considering any combined impacts.

NEW STABLING IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXISITNG BUSINESS

The site is currently utilised as a farm and an equestrian business, therefore the new
stabling is considered as an extension to an existing business, therefore Policy EMP9 is
relevant.

HIGHWAYS SAFETY

A number of objections have been raised from local residents with regard to the
implications of the development on highways safety. The site currently has two access
arrangements, one running directly from the B1223 and another from an unnamed access
road leading to Kirkby Wharfe. The B1223 is a long straight road running from the A162
leading to Ulleskelf with good visibility in both directions and no other properties located in
the vicinity. This road is currently used by farm vehicles and a large amount of cars. The
access of this road is 3.5 metres wide with 3 metre verges on either side, visibility is
currently provided of 215 metres in both directions.

The unnamed road leading to Kirkby Wharfe has a junction onto the B1223 and a junction
leading up to the site. The road leading to the site passes three residential properties with
another located opposite the junction to the site. Further down the unnamed road is



                                                                                           54
Kirkby Wharfe, a small residential settlement. This road is 3 metres wide with verges of
1.5 metres and currently used as the main access to the farm, stables and other
associated buildings.

The application proposes to separate the traffic to the two developments by utilising the
access from the B1223 for the office use and retaining the existing access for the farm
and stables. No alterations are included on the existing access to the estate and stabling
area. Consultation with the Highways Officer has raised no objections to the proposed
development. The application is therefore considered acceptable in accordance with
Policy EMP9 (1), RT9 (4) and T1.

VISUAL AMENITY AND IMPACT ON THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA

The proposed new stables are to comprise the change of use of an existing grain dryer and
the creation of a new stable block. The conversion of the grain dryer does not include any
extension with the alterations including a number of new stable doors. This property is
located within the site surrounded by existing properties and therefore has limited public
viewpoints. Further to this, due to the limited alterations it is not considered that the change
of use would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area. The application also
includes a new stable block to accommodate 27 stables with storage or 39 stables with no
storage. The stable block is located closest to neighbouring properties and viewpoints from
the access road to the site. The block is to be 17 metres wide and 60 metres in length with a
height of 5.5 metres to the ridge. The stables have a canopy to the front covering a number
of stable doors and large access doors on the side elevations. The design of the stables are
rural in nature and small scale, screening agricultural properties from view. The design is
considered acceptable in a rural location and as the application site is located away from
neighbouring residential properties with limited public viewpoints it is not considered to have
a detrimental effect on the amenity of the area.

In addition, the site of the stables is not a designated nature conservation area, and is not
known to support any species protected under British or European law, or any other species
or habitat of conservation concern and due to its private status is not considered to be an
important space with amenity value to the local area. The proposed development is therefore
considered acceptable in accordance with Policy EMP9 (2) and (3) and Policy RT9 (1) and
(5).

LANDSCAPING

The application site is currently occupied by land utilised by the livery and equestrian
business and existing buildings, hard standing and landscaping, the agricultural land is
located away from this area. The change of use and new stables would therefore not
have a detrimental effect on any agricultural land.

The applicants have provided a landscaping assessment showing the limited viewpoints of
the site and current tree coverage. However, due to the trees currently having good leaf
coverage at the time of the photographs it is considered that this could change and further



                                                                                           55
landscaping is required to be conditioned. The new stables are therefore considered
acceptable in accordance with Policy EMP9 (4).

As the application is for stabling, Policy RT9 is also relevant to the application, the
relevant sections not covered by other policies are with regard to the drainage details of
the site and the storage of bedding and waste.

Consultation has been made with Yorkshire Water, the Drainage Board and the
Environmental Health Officer. No objections have been raised by any of these consultees
with regard to drainage and the disposal of waste from the site subject to conditions.
Therefore the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with Policy RT9
(2) and (3).

CHANGE OF USE OF AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS TO OFFICES

The second part of the scheme includes a change of use of agricultural buildings to
offices, therefore Policy EMP8 is relevant.

The application includes a structural survey of the buildings to provide evidence of the
suitability of the building. Further to this, the application is to utilise the existing building
and doesn’t require alterations to be made. The application is therefore considered
acceptable in accordance with Policy EMP8 (1) and (2).

IMPACT ON BUILDINGS OF ARCHITECTURAL INTEREST

The application site is part of a large 19th Century model farm with numerous buildings of
architectural interest. Notwithstanding this, none of the buildings are listed and the area is
not located within a conservation area. Despite this, the Council’s Conservation Officer
has confirmed verbally that the alterations would have no detrimental effect on the
character or appearance of the properties. The application is therefore not considered to
have a detrimental effect on the building in accordance with Policy EMP8 (3).

DESIGN

The application is to convert an existing range of buildings, which require internal
alterations, the glazing of the existing openings and the insertion of a number of rooflights.
The proposed development is therefore not considered to have a detrimental effect on the
character or appearance of the area. The application is therefore considered acceptable
in accordance with Policy EMP8 (4).

The development requires a number of car parking spaces to be provided, details of the
surfacing is to be conditioned with a landscaping scheme to ensure the impact is minimal
on the surrounding public viewpoints and the open countryside. The parking is to take
place on an existing area of hardstanding and does not involve the loss of any open land
or any encroachment on the open countryside. Furthermore part of the car parking is to
take place on an area currently occupied by agricultural buildings, therefore increasing the



                                                                                                56
visual amenity of the countryside. The application is therefore considered acceptable in
accordance with Policy EMP8 (5).

HIGHWAYS SAFETY

The application proposes to separate the traffic to the two developments by utilising the
access from the B1223 for the office use and retaining the existing access for the farm
and stables. The application includes the widening of the access onto the B1223 and also
includes the incorporation of passing places along the access road to provide five metre
passing places for a service vehicle and car to pass. The access is to be widened to
enable turning and is to include new kerbs so as to define the access and ensure vehicles
do not have to wait in the highway. Consultation with the Highways Officer has raised no
objections to the proposed development subject to a number of conditions with regard the
access and visibility arrangements. Subject to this no objections are raised and the
application is considered acceptable in accordance with Policy EMP8 (6).

AGRICULTURAL STORAGE BUILDING

The final element of the scheme is a new agricultural storage building to replace the
demolished agricultural buildings.

NECESSARY FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES

The main issue to address is the appropriateness of such a development in a rural area.
The proposed storage building is considered agricultural and therefore necessary for
agricultural purposes in accordance with Policy EMP13 (1).

PROXIMITY TO EXISTING BUILDINGS

The application proposes to build a replacement storage building on the site. The building
is located in close proximity to existing farm buildings and is screened from view from the
access road and neighbouring properties by the new stable block. The proposed
development is therefore considered to be well related to existing buildings in accordance
with Policy EMP 13 (2).

HIGHWAYS SAFETY

The agricultural storage building is to be used in accordance with the existing use on the
farm. Therefore this element is not considered to create an increase in traffic to and from
the site. Consultation with the highways officer raised no objections to the proposed
development. Therefore the proposed development is considered acceptable in
accordance with Policies T1 and EMP13 (3).

SCALE AND DESIGN




                                                                                        57
The proposed development is to replace existing agricultural buildings. The proposed unit
is to be developed to a similar design as the current properties on the site, therefore the
materials and design are considered appropriate to the site in accordance with Policy
EMP13 (4).

LANDSCAPING

The site is located amongst existing farm buildings and is screened from public viewpoints
by landscaping and existing buildings in accordance with Policy EMP 13 (5).

IMPACT ON NATURE CONSERVATION

The site is not in a designated nature conservation area and is not known to support any
species protected under British or European law, or any other species or habitat of
conservation concern and due to its private status is not considered to be an important space
with amenity value to the local area. The proposed development is therefore considered
acceptable in accordance with Policy EMP13 (6).

OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Concerns with regard to light pollution have been raised by local properties. No objections
have been raised by the Environmental Health Officer. However, it is considered a condition
for a lighting scheme can be imposed to ensure that any subsequent lighting is approved
prior to implementation.

A bat survey has demonstrated that bats are located within the buildings and that further
survey work should take place prior to conversion in order to obtain a DEFRA licence. As no
demolition is proposed and the bats are to be protected under a licence it is considered that
no further action is required at this stage.

CONCLUSION

The application comprises three separate elements, all of which are considered against
different Policies. Having had regard to the Development Plan, all other relevant local and
national policy, letters of representation, consultation responses and all other material
planning considerations, it is considered that the proposed development meets all three
main policies EMP8, EMP9, EMP13 and RT9 of the Selby District Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve planning permission subject to conditions for the reasons outlined in the above
report.

1     The development for which permission is hereby granted shall be begun within a
      period of three years from the date of this permission.




                                                                                       58
    Reason:
    In order to comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Planning and
    Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2   Prior to the commencement of development details of the materials to be used in
    the construction of the exterior walls and roof(s) of the development shall be
    submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and only the
    approved materials shall be utilised.

    Reason:
    In the interests of visual amenity and in order to comply with Policy ENV1 of the
    Selby District Local Plan.

3   No development shall take place until details of the proposed means of disposal of
    foul and surface water drainage, including details of any balancing works and off-
    site works, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
    Authority.

    Reason:
    To ensure that the development can be properly drained, having had regard to
    Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.

4   Before any development is commenced the approval of the Local Planning
    Authority is required to a scheme of landscaping and tree planting for the site,
    indicating inter alia the number, species, heights on planting and positions of all
    trees, shrubs and bushes. Such scheme as approved in writing by the Local
    Planning Authority shall be carried out in its entirety within the period of twelve
    months beginning with the date on which development is commenced, or within
    such longer period as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
    All trees, shrubs and bushes shall be adequately maintained for the period of five
    years beginning with the date of completion of the scheme and during that period
    all losses shall be made good as and when necessary.

    Reason:
    To safeguard the rights of control by the Local Planning Authority in the interests of
    amenity having had regard to Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.

5   The use shall not commence until a scheme detailing all external artificial lighting
    has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
    The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the use commencing and shall
    be retained and maintained thereafter throughout the lifetime of the development.

    Reason:
    In the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District
    Local Plan.




                                                                                        59
6   Site clearance and development of the site shall not commence until a scheme
    detailing both a remediation statement and unforeseen contamination strategy have
    been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
    approved scheme shall be implemented prior to development commencing and a
    validation report is submitted and approved in writing as proof of completion for the
    above works.

    Reason:
    In order to ensure no contaminated land is on site.

7   The development shall not be commenced until details of the layout of an access,
    parking and turning space within the site have been submitted to and have been
    approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved access
    arrangements and turning space shall be provided before the development is first
    brought into use. Once created these areas shall be maintained clear of any
    obstruction and retained for their intended purpose at all times.

    Reason:
    To ensure appropriate on-site vehicle parking facilities with associated access and
    manoeuvring areas, in the interests of highway safety and the general amenity of
    the development to accord with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.




                                                                                     60
APPLICATION       8/35/209E/PA          PARISH:              Cawood
NUMBER:           2007/0567/FUL

APPLICANT:        Mr Fenton             VALID DATE:          28 June 2007

                                       EXPIRY DATE:        23 August 2007
PROPOSAL:         Conversion and extension of outbuilding to create 1 No dwelling (to form
                  self-contained annexe to the Barn)
LOCATION:         The Barn At Wood End
                  Bishopdike Road
                  Cawood
                  Selby
                  North Yorkshire
                  YO8 3UB



DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

The application site is a detached outbuilding located at Wood End Farm, Bishopdyke
Road, Cawood. The site is a remotely located area of land adjacent to Bishopdyke Road,
consisting of two residential properties, Wood End Farm, a property to the front of the site
and The Barn, a property located to the rear. The outbuilding to which the application
relates is located to the front of the site adjacent to Wood End Farm. However, it is in the
ownership of the occupants of The Barn, the property to the rear of the site.

The outbuildings are currently in the process of being converted into a residential dwelling,
including an extension to create a first floor within the outbuildings. The current
conversion on site is being undertaken without the benefit of planning permission and a
retrospective application has been refused by Planning Committee in May.

PLANNING HISTORY

The site has a number of previous applications for the conversion of buildings. The
applicant Mr Fenton previously lived in Wood End Farm to the front of the site and in 2001
gained approval for the conversion of redundant farm buildings to create a two-storey
dwelling (now known as 'The Barn') and a single storey granny annexe within the
outbuildings under application reference 8/35/209A/PA. The applicant completed the Barn
and now occupies it.

Wood End Farm, the applicant's original property, was sold and is now in separate
ownership. Condition three of the planning permission for the conversion of the
outbuildings (reference 8/35/209A/PA) included an occupancy condition, which required
the annexe to be used as ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling and reads

‘The granny flat hereby permitted shall be used solely as accommodation ancillary to the
main dwelling and not as a separate dwelling unit.’

Two further applications were made in 2006 for the conversion of the outbuildings to
increase their length to 15 metres and the height to two storeys, measuring 7 metres in
height. At this time the officer's report noted that the previous permission for an annexe

                                                                                       64
could not be occupied by the applicant as he no longer occupied Wood End Farm.
However, the first application was refused due to the close proximity to Wood End Farm
and that, in order to accommodate the proposals, the outbuildings would require
substantial extensions contrary to Policy H12. Further to this it was also considered that
the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the countryside. A resubmission of this
application was made with a slight reduction in size. However, it was still for a two-storey
building, which was refused for all of the same reasons.

Both of these applications included legal agreements limiting the use of the property to
being ancillary to The Barn. However, as this is not the main property affected by the
development the agreement was not considered acceptable.

Conversion and extension of the outbuilding to create the annexe began in 2006. However
the works were not in accordance with the approved plans and included an extension in
height to two storeys and an extension in length of three metres, which was not shown on
the approved plans. As a result of an enforcement complaint, a temporary stop notice was
issued on the property and subsequently a retrospective application received for the
works. Throughout the assessment of the application, work continued on the unauthorised
development, despite the applicant being warned that all unauthorised works were carried
out at their own risk. A retrospective application was made for these works and
subsequently refused by Planning Committee in May 2007; this application is currently
subject to an appeal.

The application for the larger property relied partly upon a fall back position, this being an
alternative that could take place without requiring planning permission which would have a
material equal or greater effect than the current proposals. This fall back position was that
planning application 8/35/209A/PA, a previously approved conversion could be
implemented. However, due to the aforementioned occupancy condition, limited weight
was given to this.

The present application is made under s73 to carry out the works without complying with
condition 3 of that application, to enable the annexe to be occupied as ancillary
accommodation to The Barn.

An application under s73 is an application for planning permission, whereby a successful
application grants a whole new permission, which does not alter or amend the original
consent, which had that original condition on it. An applicant is thus able to choose which
successful application they may implement, provided that this can be done lawfully in
complying with any other or time limiting conditions on the consent. Thus the Local
Planning Authority’s duty is to determine this application in accordance with the
development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

As the application is to carry out works without complying with condition three the whole
application must be reconsidered to assess the suitability of the amendment of occupancy.

CONSULTATIONS

PARISH: Commented that work is still continuing on the site.

LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY: No objections subject to conditions.

YORKSHIRE WATER: No objections.

                                                                                        65
INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD: No objections.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER: No objections subject to conditions.

NEIGHBOURS: One letter of objection was received from the neighbouring property,
Wood End Farm. The letter outlines the relevant background to the application site and
the applications that have subsequently been made on the site. The letter contests that
the application is to regularise a clerical error in that the original application intended the
property to be tied to The Barn, not Wood End Farm. The specific grounds for objection
are with regard to the residential amenity of the occupants of Wood End Farm, specifically
a loss of privacy due to an increase in people using the site and the impact of the increase
in the size of the outbuildings to 4.1 metres.

POLICIES AND ISSUES:

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states "if regard is to be
had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the
planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise". The development plan for the Selby District comprises
the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and The Humber (published on 1 December
2004), the North Yorkshire Structure Plan (Alteration No3) (adopted in 1995) and the Selby
District Local Plan (adopted on 8 February 2005).

The site is located outside defined development limits in the open countryside. The main
issues to address are the implications on the open countryside, highway safety and the
effect on neighbouring properties and sustainability.

Planning Policy Statement 1, together with Policy ENV1 provide the general policy
framework and underlying principles within which the Council should consider
development proposals, stating

‘Proposals for development will be permitted provided a good quality of development
would be achieved. In considering proposals the District Council will take account of…’

The policy goes on to describe eight categories of issues that should be taken into account
in the determination of development proposals.

In respect to development within the open countryside Policy DL1 of the Selby District Plan
provides the overall framework, stating

‘DL1 Development in the countryside, outside the Green Belt and development limits, will
only be permitted where the proposal complies with all relevant policies and the proposal:

1)    Would be appropriate to a rural area.
2)    Involve the reuse, adaptation or extension of an existing building; or
3)    Is required to meet the identified social or economic needs of a rural community; or
4)    Would be of direct benefit to the rural economy including additional small-scale
employment development and the expansion of existing firms.




                                                                                         66
Where development is appropriate, it must be located and designed so as not to have a
significant adverse effect on residential amenity or character and appearance of the area
and must not acknowledged nature conservation interests."

Planning policy and guidance in respect to residential development is provided by
Planning Policy Statement 3 "Housing" and Policies H2A and H12 of the Selby District
Local Plan. Planning Policy Statement 3 aims to promote sustainable forms of urban
development, emphasising the importance of the location of residential development in
relation to centres of employment and services, to decrease the need to travel by private
car. Furthermore PPS3 promotes the use of brownfield sites for residential development.
At local policy level the policy framework is provided by H2A and H12, which are in
accordance with national policy

Guidance on dealing with conversions of rural buildings to new dwellings outside of
defined development limits is provided by Policy H12 of the Selby District Local Plan,
which states,

‘Proposals for the conversion of rural buildings to residential use in the countryside
(outside defined Development Limits) will only be permitted where:

1)      It can be demonstrated that the building, or its location, is unsuited to business use
or that there is no demand for buildings for those purposes in the immediate locality;

2)     The proposal would provide the best reasonable means of conserving a building of
architectural or historic interest and would not damage the fabric and character of the
building;

3)     The building is structurally sound and capable of re-use without substantial
rebuilding;

4)     The proposed re-use or adaptation will generally take place within the fabric of the
building and not require extensive alteration, rebuilding and/or extension;

5)     The conversion of the building and ancillary works, such as the creation of a
residential curtilage and the provision of satisfactory access and parking arrangements,
would not have a significant adverse effect on the character or appearance of the area or
the surrounding countryside;

6)    The building is not in close proximity to intensive livestock units or industrial uses
which would be likely to result in a poor level of amenity for occupiers of the dwelling;

7)    The proposal would not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety or which
would have a significant adverse effect on local amenity; and

8)      In those cases where the proposed residential conversion is part of a scheme for
business use, the residential element is clearly subordinate to the business use. In order to
control future extension and/or alteration to the building, appropriate conditions may be
imposed on any permission granted, including withdrawal of permitted development rights
under the General Development Order, or the restriction of activities within the curtilage of
the site which might be harmful to the character of the area.’

In relation to development and highway safety, Policies T1, T2 and VP1 are relevant.

                                                                                         67
Policy T1 states,

'Development proposals should be well related to the existing highways network and will
only be permitted where existing roads have adequate capacity and can safely serve the
development.'

Further to this Policy T2 states,

'Development proposals which would result in the creation of a new access or the
intensification of use of an existing access will be permitted provided:

1)    There would be no detriment to highway safety; and
2)    The access can be created in a location and to a standard acceptable to the
highway authority.'

Policy VP1 states,

'The District Council will support the provision of parking spaces/facilities in new
developments up to the maximum car parking standards as set out in Appendix 4.'

ASSESSMENT

The proposed development is located in the open countryside and must therefore accord
with Policy DL1 of the Selby District Local Plan. The proposed development is for the
extension and conversion of existing outbuildings at The Barn, Wood End Farm to create a
self-contained residential dwelling to be used as ancillary accommodation to the occupants
of The Barn.

The proposed conversion and extension to create a residential dwelling is considered
appropriate in the countryside in accordance with Policy DL1 (2), provided that it meets the
criteria set out in Policy H12.

No evidence is included with this application to demonstrate that the building, or its
location, is unsuited to business use or that there is no demand for buildings for those
purposes in the immediate locality. Notwithstanding this, as the previous planning
application has been implemented; it is considered that there is a sufficient fall back
position to satisfy Policy H12 (1). This being that the conversion can lawfully take place to
ensure that the physical structure is developed but remain unoccupied due to the
restrictive condition regarding occupancy.

The existing building is not of an architectural or historic interest, therefore Policy H12 (2)
does not apply.

No structural survey is included with the application. However as a larger development
than this has been built it is considered that the building is structurally sound and capable
of the conversion in accordance with Policy H12 (3).

Two previous applications have been made which included extensions in length to the
property and the inclusion of a first floor and pitched roof, both of which were refused
under Policy H12 (4).


                                                                                           68
Therefore, in order to determine this application it should be assessed against the original
outbuildings on the site and determined whether the conversion to the current proposals
constitute extensive alteration and/or rebuilding.

The original outbuildings measured 2.4 metres in height with a mono pitch roof increasing
to a height of 2.7 metres, with a volume of 66 cubic metres. This application is to amend
planning application ref: 8/35/209A/PA which was for an increase in height to 4.1 metres
with no first floor accommodation. This previous application included the conversion of
The Barn, to the rear of the site. Therefore despite the current development at the front of
the site not having the benefit of planning permission, the previous application has been
implemented by the conversion at the back of the site. Therefore the physical mass of the
structure can be built but not occupied. This conversion is therefore considered to take
place within the fabric of the building and does not require extensive alteration, and
extension contrary to Policy H12 (4).

The site currently has planning permission for the conversion of the outbuildings to an
annexe subject to a condition that cannot be complied with. Therefore the fall back
position that this provides, this being that the physical structure can be completed, is
considered satisfactory in assessing the impact of this proposal on the effect on the open
countryside. It is considered that the current proposals would not have an increased
impact on the open character of the countryside to its detriment, in accordance with Policy
H12 (5).

The proposed development is not in close proximity to intensive livestock units and is
therefore considered acceptable in accordance with Policy H12 (6).

The site includes internal parking and turning facilities for vehicles, which ensures that they
can access and egress the site in a forward gear. Consultation with the highways officer
raised no objections to the proposed development and it is therefore considered
acceptable in accordance with Policies H12 (7), T1 and T2.

The application does not form part of a business development and therefore Policy H12 (8)
is not relevant.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

The original approval of the annexe was for purposes ancillary to Wood End Farm, the
appropriate condition relating to this was attached to the property and not to the applicant.
Therefore under the approval it remains that the use should be ancillary to the occupants
of Wood End Farm.

The applicants of the original application have moved from Wood End Farm and now live
in The Barn, the property to the rear of the site. Under the current approval it is not
considered that the annexe could be accepted as ancillary accommodation by persons in
connection with the Barn, as its occupancy was specifically restricted to be ancillary to
Wood End Farm. The reasoning given on the decision notice for this was in the interests
of protecting residential amenity. The applicants claim a separate legal agreement is in
place between the occupants of Wood End Farm to enable occupancy, however this does
not override the planning conditions.

Under this application the applicants are applying to carry out the development without
complying with this condition and having it amended to restrict occupancy as ancillary to

                                                                                         69
The Barn. As the annexe does not have an immediate relationship to The Barn it is
considered that there would be no requirement to include an occupancy condition as the
main effects are on Wood End Farm. This application should therefore be assessed as a
new application for a separate dwelling and the residential amenity impacts of Wood End
Farm fully assessed.

With regard to impact on residential amenity and accommodation, the proposed new
dwelling must be assessed in terms of its impact on Wood End Farm and its potential to
have a detrimental effect on residential amenity by virtue of overlooking, overshadowing or
being overdominant.

It is considered that the proposed building by virtue of its size, scale and mass would not
result in significant degree of overlooking and would not have an overbearing or over
dominant impact on the amenities of the occupiers of Wood End Farm.

Wood End Farm has a kitchen, playroom and two bedroom windows facing onto the site.
These are located eight metres away from the rear elevation of the proposed new
dwelling, which would have a kitchen and two other ground floor rooms, presumably
including a lounge. However, the only opening in this elevation would be a kitchen door
which would ensure no overlooking, subject to a condition restricting permitted
development rights for further openings in this elevation.

It is therefore considered that the use of the property as an unrestricted residential unit
would not have a detrimental effect on the residential amenity of the occupants of Wood
End Farm and there is therefore no requirement to include an occupancy condition to
either of the properties on the site.

CONCLUSION:

Having had regard to the development plan, all other relevant local and national policy,
letters of representation, consultation responses and all other material planning
considerations, it is considered that the proposed removal of the occupancy condition
would not have a detrimental effect on the residential amenity of the occupants of the
neighbouring property known as Wood End Farm. The proposed development is therefore
considered to be acceptable in accordance with Policies ENV1, DL1 and H12 of the Selby
District Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION:

This application is recommended to be approved subject to conditions for the reasons
outlined in the above report.

1     The development for which permission is hereby granted shall be begun within a
      period of three years from the date of this permission.

      Reason:
      In order to comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory
      Purchase Act 2004.

2     Prior to the commencement of development details of the materials to be used in
      the construction of the exterior walls and roof(s) of the new dwelling shall be


                                                                                        70
    submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and only the
    approved materials shall be utilised.

    Reason:
    In the interests of visual amenity and in order to comply with Policy ENV1 of the
    Selby District Local Plan.

3   Notwithstanding the provisions of Class A and Class E to Schedule 2, Part 1 of the
    Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as
    amended) no extensions, garages, outbuildings or other structures shall be erected,
    nor new windows, doors or other openings shall be inserted, without the prior
    written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

    Reason:
    In order to retain the character of the site in the interest of visual amenity, having
    had regard to Policy ENV1.




                                                                                        71
APPLICATION       8/37/216E/PA          PARISH:              Eggborough Parish Council
NUMBER:           2007/0173/FUL

APPLICANT:        Dr Cross              VALID DATE:          22 February 2007

                                       EXPIRY DATE:         19 April 2007
PROPOSAL:         Erection of a domestic wind turbine on land to the rear of Kellington Lane
                  to service proposed dwelling on land adjacent
LOCATION:         Glenholme
                  Kellington Lane
                  Eggborough
                  Goole
                  North Yorkshire
                  DN14 0LB



DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a domestic wind turbine on land to the
rear of houses on Kellington Lane. The wind turbine would serve a detached dwelling,
which has yet to be constructed, but which was approved on 5 December 2005.

The site lies outside of the curtilage of the dwelling and is outside of the defined
development limits for Eggborough. The site comprises 0.4 ha of land, which contains no
substantial vegetation or physical structures. Boundary treatments on the site consist of a
blockwork wall to the east of the site with vegetation along the north and fencing along the
western and southern boundaries of the site.

The proposed wind turbine would have a tower height of 14.96 meters and a rotor
diameter of 5.5 metres. The tower of the turbine would be constructed in galvanised steel.
The blades would be constructed from wood epoxy and the turbine head would be
polypropylene plastic.


CONSULTATIONS

NEIGHBOURS: A site notice was placed near the site and consultation letters sent to
adjacent neighbours. Four letters of objection were received from residents on Kellington
Lane and raised the following concerns -

- Very concerned with the size, scale and location of the turbine
- Devaluation of property
- Destroy our views of the open countryside
- Overshadowing
- Danger to birds
- Increased and persistent noise levels
- The proposal would cast a moving shadow across all properties on Kellington Lane
- Height of the proposed wind turbine
- Inadequate noise assessment
- Road Safety

                                                                                       73
- Lack of Landscaping
- Additional noise
- The wind turbine would be an eyesore and not in keeping with the surrounding area
- Security
- Effect on a current planning application for a commercial fishing pond. The whirring
sound would deter wildlife, visitors and fishermen from the site of the pond/nature area.


PARISH COUNCIL: The structure will be too high making it an eyesore and it will dominate
the area. Councillors don't agree with applicant’s report - this is a rural area.

NATIONAL EXPOSURE RESEARCH LABORATORY (NERL): “The proposed
development has been examined by NERL's technical and operational safeguarding teams
and although the proposed development is likely to impact on our electronic infrastructure
NERL has no safeguarding objection to the proposal”.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: Originally, recommended the following conditions:

      i) Noise emitted from the domestic wind turbine shall not exceed 35 dB LA at any
      time.

      ii) The noise emitted from the wind turbine as heard at any adjoining dwelling shall
      not be irregular enough to attract attentions, contain distinguishable discrete
      continuous notes or distinct impulses.

Environmental Health later requested a noise assessment for the site, to assess the
impact on neighbouring properties as it was considered unreasonable to apply condition 2,
as it would be unenforceable.

The applicant submitted a noise assessment to the existing background noise levels of the
site against the noise impact of the proposed wind turbine.

This was sent to Environmental Health for assessment and no objections were received.

ROBIN HOOD AIRPORT: No objections

PLANNING POLICY: National, regional and local policies and strategies promote and
encourage the development of renewable energy resources. The proposal should be
considered in the light of Policy ENV6 and ENV1 of the adopted SDLP, the statutory and
emerging Regional Spatial Strategy, PPS22 (and companion guide) as well as other
regional strategies and targets.


POLICIES AND ISSUES:

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states "if regard is to be
had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the
planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise". The development plan for the Selby District comprises
the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and The Humber (published on 1 December
2004), the North Yorkshire Structure Plan (Alteration No3) (adopted in 1995) and the Selby
District Local Plan (adopted on 8 February 2005).

                                                                                       74
The site lies outside the development limits of Eggborough, within the open countryside.
The most relevant policies against which to assess the proposal against are ENV1, DL1
and ENV67 of the Selby District Local Plan.

ENV1 relates generally to development, and gives guidelines as to what matters should be
considered when assessing a proposal.

DL1 relates to development in the open countryside.

ENV6 relates to proposals for renewable energy.

The Government's Energy White Paper, published in February 2003, contains a strong
steer towards a more secure and sustainable supply of energy in the UK. It provides the
basis for a 60% cut in levels of CO2 by 2050 and the provision of 10% of energy from
renewable sources by 2010 and 20% by 2020. The Government also published the 2006
Energy Review (and subsequent revisions).

Planning Policy Statement 22 (August 2004) sets out the Government's policies for
renewable energy. The policies set out in the PPS22 are material to the decision on this
planning application, including the Companion guide to PPS22.

PPS22 refers to the needs that:

Renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout
England in locations where the technology is viable and environmental, economic and
social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily.

It goes on to state that the wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for
renewable energy proposals, whatever their scale, are material planning considerations
that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be granted
planning permission. As such, small-scale projects provide a limited but valuable
contribution to overall outputs of renewable energy and to meeting energy needs both
locally and nationally.

Proposals should demonstrate any environmental, economic and social benefits as well as
how any environmental and social impacts have been minimised through careful
consideration of location, scale, design and other measures

The application conforms to the policies set out above and is in compliance with PPS22
and PPS7. The main concerns lies within the effects of the development on the character
of the area and the amenity enjoyed by local residents.

The main issues to be taken into account when assessing this proposal are: -

   i)     Noise generation
   ii)    Landscape/visual amenity

i) Noise generation

The applicants have stated that the proposed wind turbine would be the latest generation
of wind turbine from a well-established company. The wind turbine would be electronically

                                                                                     75
and aerodynamically efficient and would be constructed with noise emissions in mind.
However the company do state that the noise audible is a gentle 'swooshing' noise of the
blades cutting thought the air.

The applicant has submitted a Noise Emission report with the planning application. This
states that the noise generated from the proposed wind turbine would not exceed the
noise created from a typical high wind background sound pressure level, which is 60
dB(A). This is the maximum noise output at the base of the machine with a wind speed of
20 m/s. The noise output at the base of the mast in light winds 5m/s would be 40 dB(A).
These both included background noise.

The proposed wind turbine would be situated approximately 65 metres away from the
nearest residential property and the blades of the proposed turbine have been designed
with shaped tips which would also reduce the noise generated for the turbine.

After a request from Environmental Health, the applicant carried out a PPG24 Noise
assessment. Assessing these results against the Noise Emission Report, prepared by the
wind turbine manufacturers, the noise assessment demonstrates that existing background
noise levels will be higher than the noise generated by the rotor blades of the wind turbine
when 65 metres away from the neighbouring properties. Following the assessment of all
submitted documents, the Council’s Environmental Health section have not objected to the
proposal.

Therefore it is considered that the noise emission from the wind turbine would not have a
detrimental impact upon the surrounding area and neighbouring properties.

The proposal would therefore be acceptable having had regard to Policy ENV6 of the
Selby District Local Plan.


ii) Landscape/Visual Amenity

The combined maximum height of the tower and blades would be 17.77 metres. The
turbine is considered to be fairly small as it is a domestic wind turbine and not like the ones
seen on large wind farm sites. It is considered that the wind turbine would not have a
significant impact on the landscape due to overhead lines, motorways, industrial
development and associated structures that are within the vicinity of the site.

Therefore the proposed wind turbine, although above the maximum roof height of the
surrounding dwellings, would not substantially detract from the character of the
surrounding area, or the wider landscape.



CONCLUSION:

The proposal conforms to national, regional and local policy objectives to secure more
sustainable supplies of energy and reduce CO2 emissions. The proposed wind turbine
would provide a renewable source of energy and would thus serve to make a contribution
towards sub regional targets for reducing emissions. The wind turbine would be located
within a landscape that is of a relatively low sensitivity and has a relatively large site to
accommodate it. It is considered that the wind turbine would not have a significant impact

                                                                                         76
on the amenity of adjacent residents in terms of noise and visual amenity. The proposal is
therefore considered, on balance, to be acceptable having had regard to policies ENV1,
DL1 and ENV6 of the Selby District Local Plan, PPS22 and PPS7.

RECOMMENDATION:

This application is recommended to be Granted subject to the following conditions:


01. The development for which permission is hereby granted shall be begun within a
    period of three years from the date of this permission.

     Reason:
     In order to comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory
     Purchase Act 2004.

02. Before any development is commenced the approval of the Local Planning Authority
    is required to a scheme of landscaping and tree planting for the site, indicating inter
    alia the number, species, heights on planting and positions of all trees, shrubs and
    bushes. Such scheme as approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be
    carried out in its entirety within the period of twelve months beginning with the date
    on which development is commenced, or within such longer period as may be agreed
    in writing with the Local Planning Authority. All trees, shrubs and bushes shall be
    adequately maintained for the period of five years beginning with the date of
    completion of the scheme and during that period all losses shall be made good as
    and when necessary.

     Reason:
     To safeguard the rights of control by the Local Planning Authority in the interests of
     amenity having had regard to Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.




                                                                                        77
                                                 Agenda Item No: 8
___________________________________________________________________

Title:                    Tree Preservation Orders – Confirmation

To:                       Planning Committee

Date:                     19th September, 2007

Service Area:             Legal and Democratic Services

Author:                   Jenny Barker – Legal Typist

Presented by:     Mike Rice
__________________________________________________________________

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To inform the Committee of a Tree Preservation Order already served and
         ready for confirmation.

2.       Recommendation

2.1        That the under-mentioned Tree Preservation Order be confirmed as an
           unopposed Order:-

           Tree Preservation Order No. 4/2007        4 Oxton Lane, Tadcaster

3.       Executive Summary

3.1      This is contained in the supporting information.

4.       The Report

4.1      In accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
         the above-mentioned Tree Preservation Order has been served. The period for
         objection/representation has expired and none have been received in respect
         of the Order.

5.       Financial Implications

5.1      There are no financial implications.



                                                                                   78
6.    Link to Corporate Plan

6.1   Work in this area ensures the Council fulfils its statutory obligations.

7.    How Does This Report Link to Council’s Priorities?

7.1    Corporate Objective Number 4 – to protect environmental quality and safety by
      promoting green issues.

8.    Impact on Corporate Policies

8.1 Service Improvement                                            No Impact

8.2 Equalities                                                     No Impact

8.3 Community Safety and Crime                                     No Impact

8.4 Procurement                                                    No Impact

8.5 Risk Management                                                No Impact

8.6 Sustainability                                                 No Impact

8.7 Value for Money                                                No Impact

9.    Background Papers

9.1   Correspondence on file 6773 in the Legal Services Section.




                                                                                 79
C LIST          APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY COUNTY


1.       C8/16/140N/PA        Corporate Director, Children & Young People’s Services
         2007/0459/FUL
         BARLBY

         Proposal:            Proposed erection of a classroom extension at Barlby CP
                              School, Hilltop, BARLBY

         District Council’s
         Recommendation:      No objections

         NYCC Decision:       PERMISSION GRANTED CONDITIONALLY


2.       C8/999/33/MR         UK Coal Mining Ltd
         2005/0190/CPO
         BEAL

         Proposal:            Extension of underground workings at Kellingley Colliery,
                              KELLINGLEY

         District Council’s
         Recommendation:      No objections

         NYCC Decision:       PERMISSION GRANTED CONDITIONALLY




                                          1                                            80

				
DOCUMENT INFO