Inspector blasts planners decision to refuse Show Peoples’ site

Following the appeal, Aliceann Smith and Donegal Creameries Plc will now be permitted to convert the land for use as workers’ quarters for a travelling fairground.

Members of Selby District Council’s planning committee voted to refuse permission for the scheme when it met to consider the application in July, 2012 – A decision made despite a recommendation by the council’s own planning officers that the application should be approved.

In a report, published at the conclusion of the appeals process, The Planning Inspecorate’s Clive Kirkbride was scathing in his assessment of how the council had reached it’s decision.

Describing the Council’s reasons for refusal as ‘hopelessly imprecise’, the inspector said that the Council had paid ‘scant regard’ to the views of statutory consultees.

The inspector said that the council had instead preferred the views of local residents on matters relating to highway safety, drainage, land contamination and groundwater safety over the professional opinion of officers from the Highway Authority, Environment Agency and Yorkshire Water.

The report said, ‘On the matter of the reasons for refusal these were indeed entirely inadequate; it is clear that they were hastily agreed by Members of the Planning Committee faced with a recommendation for approval by officers but a substantial weight of local opposition.

‘Members are entitled to disagree with their officers but need to show reasonable planning grounds for taking a contrary decision.’

The report was also critical of the way in which the council had represented itself at the hearing.

‘The Council claims that the two Members appearing on its behalf at the inquiry were fully conversant with their officers’ report to Committee on 25 July 2012. That is not the impression given under cross-examination. One Member openly admitted that the views he was giving were his own and not necessarily those of the Council.’

But the matter is also likely to prove costly for the council. In addition to overturning the decision, the inspector awarded full costs to the appellant stating that the council had ‘behaved unreasonably’ and thereby caused them to incur unnecessary expense in having to appeal the decision.

The council's reasons for refusal included the potential implications on highway safety, the threat of contamination to a nearby aquifer and the impact on the countryside.

Selby Online asked Selby District Council to comment on the appeal, none had been received at the time of publication.