Transcript

[BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Yes, I agree with that, it's not a material concern for this application. Whilst I understand you have concerns, it's a totally separate matter, the diversion of the public right of way. It's a separate part of legislation and there is a separate process for publicity and for objections from the public. And that is the correct process to go down. I can come back, I take that point, but if I had a public footpath around my house and was put in an extension so that the footpath had to be moved. Surely the footpath would have to be moved before I could get permission for my extension. And what were in danger here, it seemed to me, but I've heard this listed as answer, is giving permission to something which needs a different permission to make it viable or to make it work. It's a totally separate matter. The reason why it's been blocked, the public right of way, was due to a previous planning permission that was given. There is no need to divert a public footpath before planning permission is given, it's put as an informative. So whatever happened in the past, they haven't diverted it when they had this previous permission. I think it was to erect a single story, excuse me, a single story. So that's the whole issue there. In the meantime, they've also put a fence, that's another issue, but this is just a change of use. It doesn't require a diversion of a footpath, and that is what is for you today. So to merge it with this issue of the diversion, it's a material to this application. Any further questions, please? If not, we technically have two speakers, and the first speaker is an objector, Bernard Bigwin. If you'd like to come up to the table with the microphone is please. This is where I mentioned that you will have three minutes in which to address the committee. At two minutes, 30 seconds, the clock will hold up that, and with ten seconds to go, she'll hold up that one. And if you reach three minutes, then I can turn you off. Yeah, thank you, which seems very blunt. Anyway, you've got three minutes, right? Thank you. First of all, I want to say that the questions that have been asked really reflect around a lot of our objections. So I appreciate that that's happened. I want to begin by stating that all the folks raised last time that we came here remain current. Not a single thing has been changed since the last meeting. They are, from the beginning of this process, consistently shown a flagrant disregard for all necessary legislation and a complete disrespect for the local community, particularly penalizing the old and the infirm with the illegal activity. The comments made last time by the committee have been completely ignored. The report to the planning committee clearly states that fences have been erected illegally, but nothing has been done to rectify it. Now months after being told that they would need planning consent for the eyesore of a fence that they have erected near the highway to, sorry, their chores to carry on regardless. Meanwhile, they continue to operate their business with impunity. Our concern is that granting the planning application, while these issues are still outstanding, will be rewarding varying transigents and rubber stamping the flaunting of any legislation that does not suit their whims. All we are asking is for full player. Please, with all the planning consent, until such time that they have demonstrated appropriate sense of responsibility and comply with the requirements of law. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. And we do have something from the applicant which, in fact, Dawn will be reading out. Thank you, Chairman. Yep, I'm timing myself. I have done it twice this morning, but thank you. As a reminder, this planning application will approve the use of a downstairs room for disabled members of the community. To deny approval of this application will be to restrict our facilities to able-bodied clients and will exclude those with mobility issues. The planning application has made no change to the footprint of the building. The property operates as a writing retreat, which essentially offers bed and breakfast and a quiet place for our clients to work. The property, prior to our lease, was used as a public house with late night drinking and music allowed until 1.30 a.m. on Friday and Saturday nights. Whilst our license is not a material consideration on the planning application, we have been extremely respectful to local residents with a minimum of noise over a period of more than 12 months, while this planning application has been considered. There has been and will be no change to the current license and its associated conditions. The Jenny Ren Pub within a three-minute walk regularly offers live music, often starting as late as 9 a.m. and running until after 11.30 p.m., which appears not to be an issue for the build community in terms of noise pollution. The council has confirmed that the issue of path 35.7-5-1 is not a planning concern. It has been handled separately between the landowner and the council. Any reference to this path issue in terms of decision that making for this planning application should therefore not be considered as a material factor in approving or denying approval for the property. The majority of the objections to this planning application were made on the basis of the path issue and not the change of use itself and a bulk of those followed the same template. In fact, the parish council noted that if the original path extinguishment request was removed from the planning application, it would not object to the planning being approved. This statement is recorded. Whilst our retreat supports people from a variety of minority groups and charities, any references to the property being used as an HMO, women's refuge or other uses beyond those stated are false and unfounded. The property remains a local asset that is available for the community of Beel and beyond to book for celebrations in the same way they could under previous ownership, with the added benefit that the property is available for their sole use. The property also offers bed and break first available to locals for visiting family and friends. We also offer free day places to local residents as day guests. I can see no material reason to justify a decision to turn down this planning application. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. So those are the two inputs we have. So we can now move to the debate stage colleagues. And Council Packham is rushing forward to speak. If no one's going to start this debate, I'll start it. Say first of all, I fully understand the frustrations and the objections of local residents. Having been involved in planning for more years and I'd care to think I think this is one of the aspects of planning which does frequently cause issues. And that is that because of the way legislation is written, you can only deal with the application before you and that's the position we're in now. And the application before us is for a change of use of the building. With regard to the other issues, they are being dealt with by the Council and as I said before, that does cause frustrations and always will because it's a drawn out process. So I do accept the officer's explanation as to why this just come back as it was previously because he's in a cleft stick. He can't do anything other than put forward the recommendation he's put forward based on the application that he's got before him. My view is that we probably can't make a different decision to the recommendation for the same reasons. Looking at the report itself and concentrating on the use of the building which is the important issue. It's quite clear that this building isn't still operating under exactly the same license as it was as public house. The same hours, no outdoor music and in that situation we hear that as a result of that we've not had any complaints on that aspect to environmental health. So we're in no different position in terms of environmental health issues from this change of use than we would have been if it continued as a public house. I'm going to have to put my glasses on to read what I wrote now because my eyes aren't that good. There's no external changes to the building, we know that. It's interesting that paragraph 10 to 4 I think is where it actually explains and I think this is quite an important point that the use of the building and as I said before this is the critical issue would be less intensive than the previous use of the public house. And I accept that point, I think that's true. There's no issues with hiding with highways, flooding or drainage either. So the main objection from local residents if we've heard is the footpath of the public right of way which will be dealt with. But I think that the arguments that are put forward in favour of the change of use as such that in terms of the planning balance, this actually is quite strongly in favour of a consent on this site for this particular use because of the fact that it probably has less impact than the pub use. And I've got a favourite pub as well and if that was to change use and it could, I would be disappointed but unfortunately that's planning law. So I think the officer's arguments to paragraph 11 for a perfectly sound. I don't think we should be duplicating any conditions in relation to the license grant, the premises license because that would be contrary to advice. So my view is that as I've said before, it's a straightforward change of use, that's all we can deal with. And the balance is in favour of grant and planning permission. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Packham. Councillor Crane has signified he wishes to speak. I think I probably reluctantly agree with Councillor Packham, but it doesn't sit easily when somebody's flouting other laws with me. That's one of the issues. I've heard the solicitor say that we can't stop it and the applicant quite aggressively in the statement that was read out say that we can't do that. And in fact, don't know why we have planning committees because the applicant seems to think we don't need them and that if they want to apply for something, they can go ahead and do it. What I guess I'm still a bit confused about is last time we made a decision to defer it on the basis that we were hoping there would be some small changes. And here we are nearly four months later, and I'm struggling to see what changes we've seen in the application. Perhaps somebody could enlighten me on that, but I kind of feel that we might be in a class thick here, which I think was a phrase Bob used as well, and we might have to give it permission. Although if I lived in the village, I think I feel like the first speaker. If I can come in there because before the pre meeting, I was looking at what was said and what the minutes said, and it was going on about information. This committee was after extra information with regard to opening hours, and the like, am I right in there? Yes, Chair, our understanding is that the licensing issue and what was controlled through the license and whether the license actually applied to the applicant. And the owner was the information that members were seeking because that wasn't clearly set out in the last report to members. There was also a request to consider in position of conditions, which we've done as a result at reporting back, I'll set out in the report. So that was what we asked for. However, I'm going to thank Bob for what he said. This really is a messy application and Joe and Josephine public a right to not even fully understand what we have to look at as a committee. So what I'm going to say is that we do have to separate the two, and I'm going to take a slightly different tact from Bob. I'll go from the other end and just say, as far as I can see, there are no material reasons for refusing. And that's how I see it. Do we have any other people who wish to come in on the debate? Councillor Jordan, just on this because I can understand why they're doing it the way they are because a lot of applicants do this. They separate it out into all individual little bits so that we end up not objecting. And then they'll come in for a modification later on because clearly they want to do the fences a separate issue. But I agree with the other two on the basis of we've got just a change of use and it's recommended for approval. It's very difficult for us because we count. There isn't a really good concise reason for us to refuse it. We would be laughed out of court, which is it's a sub situation, as you say, because it's complicated. It's a little bit of a little bit of permission will be granted, which will actually come to this committee for us to deal with, which is a shame, but that's what people do. Councillor Packen, you wanted to come back. Yes, please, Chair, sorry. I just wanted to say that I'm sure from the tone of this committee, and I hope officers will pick this up, that we expect the application for the fence and the public right of way diversion to be looked at very in great detail. Sorry, can we just have one meeting, please? I think as a committee, we would expect those to be scrutinized very closely, and we will want, I know we can't influence them without them being before us, but we will expect that when those applications are determined, they are determined in the way that we perfectly normal way, and that if the diversion is unacceptable, it's not allowed. That if the fence is considered as unacceptable, it's not allowed. We want to be absolutely clear that our comments on the change of use have absolutely no implications for those applications. Thank you. Well said, Councillor Packen. Councillor Crane. Yeah, apologies. It was me talking, because I thought it was in Councillor Jordan's world, but we think it's in Councillor Grogan's world. No, it's not. It's John McCartney's with now, so we've gone round three now. And I'm pretty sure it's not mine, Steve. What I was going to say is that the local Councillor can, of course, have any of it to come before this planning committee. And if Councillor McCartney watches this, I hope he hears what I've just said. And, Councillor, as an avid follower, Councillor Jordan, I'll just go on back on that, because there were changes. I don't know whether you're aware of it, but those changes were that as long as the Councillor gets permission from the chair of the planning committee, it can come back to planning. That was a change when North Yorkshire took over. It's not the chair. I think it's the head of planning. And, yeah, in consultation with the chair. You are correct, right? And hold on for reading all that as well. Yeah. Okay. No, appreciate that. If there's no other comments made in the debate stage, we can move on. And the officer recommendation is to grant a subject to the conditions that are set out in the report. Do I have a proposal, please, for that? Councillor Shaw, right, in which case I will second it. I will hesitate to see if anybody wants to say anything else. In which case I didn't think so. In which case can I see all those in favour of granting? All those against? Abstentions? So you got the football score on that, did you? Thank you very much. So the application is granted. In which case we now move on to item number five. And this is the proposed upgrading works to the existing street escape at land to the junction with Woolsey Croft and Low Street in Sherman and Almit. This is page 29 in your paper agenda. And at this juncture, I think two of you will be leaving us. The Councillor Packen can't go home because he's giving somebody a left. It will be amusing if one of these days we have so many disclosures that we end up with two left and go in Coro. So you could have been on the other side of that door listening in. In this case it's Elizabeth to present. Good afternoon everybody. So this application site is within Sherbin Village Centre. The red line boundary extends up to the Swan Public House, which is on the right and down the Woolsey Croft in the middle and Woolsey Parade down to the south. The application is for street upgrades consisting of new surfacing, planting and street furniture. And the reason for the application is due to worn and broken surfaces in Coro District furniture. And it's regeneration project aimed to improve accessibility in the appearance of Low Street, and there is no net loss of parking spaces. I'm sure many of you are familiar with Sherbin, but I've just got a couple of photos. So the proposed plan on your screen is also on page 39. It's quite a detailed plan. So you may find the reports back more easy to use. But as I said, it's for street upgrades, new surfacing, planting, street furniture. The project has been subject to public consultation, including with the town council and local businesses. There's been no objections from residents or council tees, and the scheme is in accordance with national and local planning policy. There are no pre-committee amendments. The recommendation is to approve. We also have a town council at David Buckle, registered to speak. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Any questions for the office, please? Councillor Mournequin. Thank you. Just a real show, actually, because in the picture that you've, on that picture you sent, I know you can't show reality in these sort of pictures, but we're not putting that to a turf down, are we? Hard surfacing, yeah. Hard surfacing, yeah. Well, the grass area here, that green half surfacing then. I see what you're saying, Councillor. No, it's, yeah, it's the grey paving for the parking spaces. Okay. I think that's just an indicative photo that the public has been to. Thank you. Any other questions for the officer? In which case we have one speaker. The aforementioned David Buckle. And just to remind you, David, you have three minutes in which to address the committee. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Planning Committee. First of all, I'd like to just correct the officer. Sherbin's been a town for over a year. You refer to it as a village, but you do refer to our town counts as a town council. Thank you. Yeah, so as I just said, Sherbin is a new town in North Yorkshire just over a year. Already apparently the fastest growing town in North Yorkshire as well. We currently have about 9,500 residents. We have a growth of an average two to 300 people each year. We have over 9,000 jobs and Sherbin industrial estate. This will soon exceed 12,000 with the new Sherbin 42 industrial units coming on the board. Over the last few years, there's many plans being looked at by the former Selba District Council and now obviously North Yorkshire Council for this side of Sherbin. We first looked at removing the parking front of the shops and providing alternative parking for cars, etc. but nothing was found and this, to be honest, ticks the right boxes for the residents, the landlords, the shop owners and even the shoppers. Looks a lot, but it's not. Unlike other towns nearby, example Taccaster, Selby, Castleford and Bonkefort, Sherbin has had no empty shops and this has continued probably for the last five years. With many houses now in Sherbin selling for over 500,000 and it becoming a town. This is a very much needed thing to encourage these new residents to use our shops and businesses. Many have been family businesses for over 20, 30 years. The town council think that the new grade and the look to the east side of the town will help to shape the new vision of Sherbin going forward into the future and keep shops, etc. full for many years. The upgrade of the west side, which you'll see on your plans, was done a few years ago and this was very much welcomed by everybody, landowners, residents, shopkeepers, etc. at the time. Next month, we'll see a new doctor's own in Sherbin. A new upmarket wine bar and restaurant, I believe, passed by this planning committee. Later in the year, a new entrance for Eversley Park, upgrade to white road sports facilities, they have over 1,000 members, that includes new tennis carts, things, you think why I'm talking about this, but this all adds to the vision of Sherbin and why this is so much needed for the centre of the shopping area to reflect on what's happening. A new park at fairways, so please planning committee. Please look at this application and I think it's long overdue. And add to the new vision of Sherbin, a town for our area that is to be proud of. And just before I finish, I can't understand why the two Councillors had to step out of the meeting because they don't really have a financial interest, but maybe rules have changed since I was lost on the council. But thank you very much for your time today. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. I wasn't quite sure if that was an advert from to Sherbin, but well done. We can now move to the debate stage, colleagues. Well, no, I'm going to throw me three panethins because I've got to say that I have found that this has been a very constructive working where people have worked together to come out with, dare I say, what is needed? I'm not quite sure whether I should have disclosed, but of course I used to run Sherbin Library and I do some of my shopping there. So I welcome this completely in Italy and will be happy to back it. Councillor JOHNSTON, I support your proposals and happy to back it. But I have to say I'm disappointed because in 11.10.17 and in the officers summary of 11.2, it's distinct references to EV charging points. And I personally would have liked to have seen that option in this design. Thank you. Thank you for that. Anything else in which case the officer's recommendation is for approval, is to grant subject to the conditions. I'm happy to propose. I'm thinking, Councillor, your right is seconding. Can I see all those in favour? That's unanimous five zero. Thank you very much indeed in which case that is just confirmed that that has been approved. And that is, that's the two applications. Oh my goodness, it's only just gone 20 to three. So once again, I will wish you all safe journey home and see you at the next planning meeting. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. [BLANKAUDIO]