15 commercial units at Former Kellingley Colliery, Kellingley

15 commercial units on a former colliery site

The application proposed 15 commercial units, up to 5 further units, an EV charging station, a new access road and associated infrastructure at the former Kellingley Colliery.

“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

Who spoke

The agent spoke on behalf of the applicant, in support of the application.

Whether the application was premature

Members questioned whether the application was brought forward too early, noting only two objections out of 38 consultations, with twelve organisations yet to respond.

“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

Deferring to allow further negotiation

Members considered deferring given the applicant's willingness to negotiate further, and officers recommended a definitive time limit given the application had run for two years.

“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

A refusal motion fell, then deferral was agreed

A motion to refuse, in line with the officer recommendation, fell for lack of a seconder; a motion to defer with a time extension was then proposed and seconded.

“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

Why the committee deferred

The committee deferred to allow officers to secure an extension of time with the applicant and to discuss the reasons for refusal and ways to resolve them.

“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.”

“A vote was taken, and the motion was carried unanimously.”

Minutes