Agenda with Maps and Applications (21Mb) - pdf - Selby District ...

APPENDIX 1
The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction
2009: Planning Application 2007/1199/FUL (Alternative reference
8/67/1AA/PA
For
Erection of a 50 Bed Care Home with Additional 15 Close Care
Apartments
At
Highfield Nursing Home, Scarthingwell Park, Barkston Ash, Selby
Council’s statement of the Material Circumstances, which the Authority considered
to indicate why this Departure Application should be Determined Otherwise than in
Accordance with the Provisions of the Development Pans.
Selby District Council Planning committee noted that the proposal was for a new building
within the West Yorkshire Green Belt and that did not fall into any of the categories of new
buildings defined in paragraph 3.4 of PPG2 as not inappropriate in Green Belts. As such
the Council concluded that the proposal constituted in appropriate development within the
Green Belt.
The Planning Committee also acknowledged the guidance within paragraph 3.2 of PPG2,
which states
‘Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green
Belt. It is for the applicant to show why permission should be
granted. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate
development will not exist unless the harm by reason of
inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by
other considerations’.
As such in coming to a minded decision the Planning Committee undertook a process
whereby it identified the harms arising from the
proposal and weighed these harms against other considerations it identified.
In considering harm the Planning Committee acknowledged that inappropriate
development is harmful by definition and that the Secretary of State will normally attach
substantial harm to this issue. Similarly the Council also attached sustantial weight to the
harm by reason of inappropriateness.
Harm to Openness of the Green Belt and the Purposes of Including Land Within it
In looking at potential harm to the openness of the Green Belt Planning Committee was
mindful that the ground-floor footprint of the proposed building was only 15% greater than
that of the existing building. Furthermore although the existing building is predominantly
single and two storey in form and the proposed new building would in part be three storey,
the overall potential impact on openness was significantly mitigated by the fact that the
three storey element represented only a small part of the building (approx 17%) and that
359