Mixed-use industrial development at Former Kellingley Colliery, Kellingley

What was proposed

The application proposed employment and community units, open storage, electric vehicle charging, parking, access roads, infrastructure and landscaping.

“The Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services sought determination of a full planning application for the proposed erection of 15no. units for uses within Class E(g)(iii), B2, B8 and F2 with ancillary offices, erection of up to 5no. units within Class E and F1 with ancillary outdoor amenity space, open storage plot, an EV charging station, parking provision, a new access road from Weeland Road, internal access roads, associated infrastructure and landscaping at the former Kellingley Colliery, Turvers Lane, Kellingley.”

Minutes

The site and application

The proposal concerned the former Kellingley Colliery and was brought to committee because it raised significant planning issues.

“The application had been brought to Planning Committee at the request of the Corporate Director of Community Development as it raised significant planning issues.”

Minutes

Officers’ recommendation

The officer recommendation was to refuse the application.

“The Senior Planning Officer presented the report highlighting the site location and access; context of the site; proposal; and officer recommendation.”

“Members discussed the potential deferral of the application, noting that a number of outstanding issues required addressing. In view of the applicant’s willingness to engage in further negotiations, it was considered appropriate to allow time for the applicant and officers to seek to resolve these matters; however, should this prove unsuccessful, the application would be brought back before Members for determination.”

Minutes

Who spoke

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application, and the agent spoke in support for the applicant.

Members’ questions

Members questioned consultation responses, the Environment Agency, local plan status, rail services, highways improvements and the treatment of mine shafts.

“During consideration of the above application, the Committee discussed the following…”

“It was questioned whether the application had been brought before Members prematurely, given that of the 38 consultations issued, only two organisations had submitted objections, eighteen had indicated either no comments or objections, and twelve had yet to respond. Clarity was also requested on the response received from the Environment Agency.”

Minutes

Why consideration was deferred

Members allowed time for further negotiations because outstanding issues remained and the application was nearing the statutory determination deadline.

“That consideration of the planning application be DEFERRED to allow officers, in the first instance, to secure an extension of time with the applicant, as the application was approaching the expiry of the statutory determination period, and thereafter to facilitate discussions regarding the reasons for refusal and measures to mitigate the identified issues.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

A proposal to defer the application was seconded and carried unanimously, while an earlier refusal proposal fell without a seconder.

“Councillor Cattanach proposed that, as per the officer recommendation, the application be refused, however the motion did not receive a seconder, therefore the motion fell.”

“Councillor Packham proposed, and Councillor Warneken seconded that the application be deferred with an extension of time attached, to enable further discussions between the applicant and officers regarding the reasons for refusal and any matters that may be resolved.”

Minutes