North Yorkshire Council

 

Strategic Planning Committee

 

Minutes of the remote meeting held on Tuesday, 9 December 2025 commencing at 10.00 am.

 

Councillor Andy Paraskos in the Chair and Councillors Bob Packham, Andy Brown, Caroline Goodrick, Hannah Gostlow, David Hugill, Tom Jones, Andrew Lee, John McCartney, Yvonne Peacock, Neil Swannick, Roberta Swiers and Andrew Timothy.

 

 

Officers present: Alan Goforth - Principal Planning Officer, Martin Grainger, Head of Development Management, Stephen Loach (Democratic Services), Glenn Sharpe (Legal Services), Amy Taylor (Planning Services) and David Walker (Planning Services).

 

There were 14 members of the public.

 

 

Copies of all documents considered are in the Minute Book

 

 

<AI1>

126

Apologies for absence

 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors John Cattanach, John Mann and Robert Windass

 

 

</AI1>

<AI2>

127

Minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2025

 

That the minutes of the meeting of Strategic Planning Committee, held on 9 September 2025, be confirmed by Members and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

 

 

</AI2>

<AI3>

128

Declarations of interest

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

 

</AI3>

<AI4>

129

21/01115/MOUTE- Hybrid Planning Application comprising: 1) Full planning permission for the erection of 645 no. dwellings comprising of 12 no. one bedroom dwellings, 142 no. two bedroom dwellings, 272 no. three bedroom dwellings, 219 no. four bedroom dwellings with parking and landscaping, new link road from Beverley Road to Hugden Way, open space, surface water drainage basins, infrastructure and site access. 2) Outline planning permission for the erection of a primary school (site area 2.1 ha). (Total site area 31.96 ha) - on land adjacent to Norton Lodge Beverley Road Norton Malton

 

Considered

 

The report of the Assistant Director of Planning – Community Development Services requesting Members to determine a hybrid Planning Application comprising:1) Full

planning permission for the erection of 645 no. dwellings comprising of 12 no. one bedroom dwellings, 142 no. two bedroom dwellings, 272 no. three bedroom dwellings, 219 no.four bedroom dwellings with parking and landscaping, new link road from Beverley Road to Hugden Way, open space, surface water drainage basins, infrastructure and site access. 2) Outline planning permission for the erection of a primary school (site area 2.1 ha). (Total site area 31.96 ha) - on land adjacent to Norton Lodge Beverley Road Norton Malton 

 

The application was reported to the Strategic Planning Committee due this being an application for more than 500 houses accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement where it is intended to recommend approval.

 

The Planning Officer presented the Committee report highlighting the proposal; context to the application; site location, outline and description; details regarding the changes to the conditions; and the planning policy considerations. The Officer recommendation was highlighted.

 

The Planning Officer highlighted a number of updates to the report as follows:-

 

·         A further response from the Environmental Health Officer

·         A response from the meat processing factory in relation to the improvements the application would bring to their facilities.

·         A further technical response from the highways’ consultant working for the meat processing factory

·         Details from a member of the public relating to their concerns of the sewerage capacity in the area and alleged inaccuracies within the published report

·         A response from Yorkshire Water relating to the sewerage capacity concerns and a request for consideration to be given to a Grampian Condition.

 

Councillor Caroline Goodrick declared a non-financial interest in respect of her raising concerns regarding the proposal at a meeting of the local Internal Drainage Board. She emphasised that she had not predetermined the application and would make her decision based on the details provided at today’s meeting.

 

Paul Butler, representing the applicant, addressed the Committee highlighting the following:

 

·         He welcomed the comprehensive report of the Planning Case Officer.

·         He considered that the project would bring significant benefits to the local area.

·         The link road would divert HGVs away from the Town Centres.

·         A new Primary School would be provided.

·         Enhanced drainage and water systems were being considered in conjunction with Yorkshire Water

·         Enhanced healthcare facilities and flood alleviation could be provided through the CIL funding

·         The development would be enhanced with a number of sustainable, carbon reducing elements, which would be further enhanced going forward when new legislation became live.

·         The project was broadly supported by the local Town Council and local residents.

·         There would be benefits for the factory site and the industrial estate.

·         In respect of concerns regarding the proximity of the proposed school site to the factory it was noted that many existing properties were located nearer to the factory with no problems reported. The boundary between the school and the factory would be enhanced and would be of a significant distance.

·         The proposals accorded with the appropriate national and local plans and policies.

·         Affordable housing would be provided with 20% of the site devoted to that, which was a high percentage compared to other developments in the area.

 

Members discussed the application and the following issues were highlighted:

 

·         Clarification was sought in respect of whether the designate rental properties would be affordable rents or social rents. It was stated in response that the rental products would be determined through the Section 106 agreement and ultimately they would be managed by the registered provider and they would determine the rents.

·         In terms of the use of local employment it was noted that the contractors involved predominantly recruited from the local area and this was likely to be the case again.

·         Clarification was provided as to how the new link road would connect to the industrial estate.

·         A Member expressed disappointment that the affordable housing levels set in the local plan had not been adhered to. In response it was stated that the situation had been the subject of extensive negotiations and the position outlined was the best that could be achieved and was in line with national guidance.

·         The repositioning of the school from the original plan was queried, particularly as there had been reservations expressed by CYPS and Environmental Health, relating to the potential for noise and odour from the meat packing factory. In response it was stated that the school would be positioned a significant distance from the factory with an acoustic bund provided in between which would be landscaped. A public open space would be located there also. It was noted that existing properties were situated nearer to the factories and there had been no complaints arising in relation to noise and odour.

·         Concern was raised in respect of the potential impact on the current sewerage and water systems with such a significant residential development in that area. The suggestion of Grampian Conditions in relation to this issue, put forward by Yorkshire Water appeared to be a necessary step in relation to this.

·         Clarification was provided in relation to when the link road would be built and how this would be determined by the Section 106 agreement.

·         It was requested that during the construction phase the routing of HGVs be away from the villages of Settrington and Scagglethorpe. In relation to this it was noted that condition 32 required the details for the construction traffic routing to be determined and this issue would be considered at that time.

·         It was asked whether the access road outside of the school would have the 20mph speed limit that was being sought for all school access roads. It was stated that the speed limits would be determined by the Highways Authority but it was expected that they would take account of the speed restrictions around schools.

·         A member asked why it had been thought better to have the school nearer to the factory rather than residential development. In response it was stated that the factory had a continuous operation, and the school had distinct start and finish times and times when it was closed, cutting down the potential for complaints regarding noise and odour.

·         It was noted that surfacing would be provided to try and ensure surface water drainage was appropriate.

·         In terms of the school it was noted that there were still concerns that had not been addressed from a number of consultees and it was asked how these were to be addressed. In response it was stated that further statements had been submitted in relation to this with consideration of those concerns set to be further examined.

·         A Member referred to the potential CIL funding for improvements to be made to health services in the area as considered by the ICB. He suggested that this would be better included in the Section 106 agreement to guarantee the development. It was noted that the ICB had referred specifically to CIL funding in their response to the consultation and were happy to utilise that.

 

Members debated the proposals and the following issues were highlighted:

 

·         The report not referring to ‘Net Zero’ and failing to highlight the sustainable features within the development proposals and the need for a sustainability statement

·         The limited number of affordable housing proposed

·         The unacceptable relocation of the school site and the need for the proposals to meet the needs of the various representatives that have voiced concerns.

·         The impact of the new housing on the sewerage network and the need for a Grampian Condition

·         The need to ensure that local recruitment takes place for the development

·         Ensure that the construction traffic plan avoids local communities

·         The advantages of the scheme in providing much needed housing, a new school, a link road, affordable housing and diverting traffic away from the various town centres

·         Clarify the funding source for the improvements for health services to come from Section 106 or CIL

 

Following an extensive discussion of the application Members considered that the following issues were required to be addressed through additional conditions or informatives

 

-       A Sustainability Statement agreed between Planning Officers and the applicant

-       A Grampian Condition to take account of the water infrastructure required to take account of the additional residential dwellings provided

-       A plan for the employment of local labour – this could be included as an informative if it is unable to be included in the conditions

-       Ensure that the construction traffic does not pass through Settrington and Scagglethorpe through the development of an appropriate site traffic management plan

-       Include the contribution to the ICBs plans for improvements to health services within the Section 106 agreement rather than the CIL contributions

-       Utilise the Section 106 agreement to provide appropriate TROs and signage for a 20mph Zone outside the school and add as an informative.

           

Resolved

 

That, subject to the following being addressed through additional conditions or informatives

 

-       A Sustainability Statement agreed between Planning Officers and the applicant

-       A Grampian Condition to take account of the water infrastructure required to take account of the additional residential dwellings provided

-       A plan for the employment of local labour – this could be included as an informative if it is unable to be included in the conditions

-       Ensure that the construction traffic does not pass through Settrington and Scagglethorpe through the development of an appropriate site traffic management plan

-       Include the contribution to the ICBs plans for improvements to health services within the Section 106 agreement rather than the CIL contributions

-       Utilise the Section 106 agreement to provide appropriate TROs and signage for a 20mph Zone outside the school and add as an informative.

 

planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions listed in Section 12 of the report and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement with terms as detailed in Table 1 of the report. 

 

Voting record

 

12 for

1 abstention

 

 

</AI4>

<AI5>

130

NY/2024/0081/ENV - Planning application for extraction of sand and gravel from a new quarry and restoration of the site to agriculture and nature conservation using imported infill materials, together with the construction of a new site access road, site offices and weighbridge on land at Broach Road, Hensall

 

Considered

 

The report of the Assistant Director of Planning – Community Development Services requesting Members to determine a planning application for extraction of sand and gravel from a new quarry and restoration of the site to agriculture and nature conservation using imported infill materials, together with the construction of a new site access road, site offices and weighbridge on land at Broach Road, Hensall.

 

The application was subject to two objections, with a third added and circulated to Members just prior to the meeting, having been raised in respect of the proposal on the grounds of a number of amenity and environmental concerns and was, therefore, reported to this Committee for determination.

 

The Planning Officer presented the Committee report highlighting the proposal; context to the application; site location, outline and description; details regarding the changes to the conditions; and the planning policy considerations. The Officer recommendation was highlighted.

 

Richard Kendall, a local resident objecting to the application, addressed the Committee highlighting the following:

 

  • There had been 3 objections to the proposals from nearby properties
  • He had bought the property in 1992 but his enjoyment of this had been affected by the quarrying adjacent
  • He struggled to get in and out of the entrance to his property due to HGVs accessing the quarry
  • The spoil heap created next to his property was affecting his amenity as the dwelling was located 2 metres below this, in a dip, and the natural light was diminished.
  • Dust blew down from the spoil heap and affected his property and health.
  • He enjoyed watching the wildlife in the area but this was being prevented by the adjacent works
  • He required a dropped kerb putting in place on the opposite side of the property to ease the access problems he was encountering.

 

Sam Thistlethwaite representing the applicant, addressed the Committee highlighting the following:

 

  • The sand and gravel to be extracted from the quarry were vital minerals for building in the area
  • Land restoration would be undertaken in a phased scheme and would be sympathetic to the issues raised by the objectors
  • It was considered that there were no unacceptable impacts on amenity from the proposals with planning conditions taking account of these.
  • The conditions ensured that impacts upon on the surrounding area would be mitigated
  • The shallow extraction process would limit the physical and hydrological impacts
  • The process had been taking place previously and was clearly defined and closely monitored.
  • Local employment would be supported through the application.

 

Members discussed the application and the following issues were highlighted:

 

  • A Member asked whether the applicant was willing to address the issues raised by the objector during his address to the Committee. In response it was noted that moving the bund to a location further away from the property could affect the noise levels and be detrimental. It was also noted that the matter of undertaking work for an objector was not a matter for the Committee to consider but was an issue to be resolved personally between the objector and the applicant, as this had no bearing on the determination of the application.
  • It was clarified that access routes to and from the quarry did not impact on nearby local communities.
  • Further clarification was provided in relation to the proximity of the bund to the objector’s property and the location of the entrance driveway to that property.
  • It was further emphasised that the issues raised by the objector were outside the consideration of the Committee, however, a number of Members disagreed as they considered that the residential amenity of the neighbour affected by the proposal was a planning consideration.
  • An offer was submitted by the applicant to assist the objector with the provision of an alternative driveway by way of financial contribution but it was stated that this could not be included as part of the planning decision. It was emphasised that should Members wish to give further consideration to the issue of local amenity then deferral of the application would be the most appropriate course of action.

 

Resolved

 

That the application be DEFERRED for consideration at a subsequent meeting to allow further consideration to be given to local amenity issues.

 

Voting record

 

12 votes for.

1 against

 

 

</AI5>

<AI6>

131

Such other business as, in the opinion of the Chairman should, by reason of special circumstances, be considered as a matter of urgency

 

There were no other issues to consider.

 

 

</AI6>

<AI7>

132

Date of next meeting

 

Tuesday, 13 January 2026 at 10.00am at a venue to be confirmed.

 

 

</AI7>

<TRAILER_SECTION>

The meeting concluded at 2.05 pm.

</TRAILER_SECTION>

 

Formatting for Agenda ITEMS:

 

<LAYOUT_SECTION>

</LAYOUT_SECTION>

 

<TITLE_ONLY_LAYOUT_SECTION>

</TITLE_ONLY_LAYOUT_SECTION>

 

 

Formatting for COMMENTS:

 

<HEADING_LAYOUT_SECTION>

</HEADING_LAYOUT_SECTION>

 

<TITLED_COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>

</TITLED_COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>

 

<COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>

</COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>

 

 

Formatting for Sub numbered items:

 

<SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>

</SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>

 

<TITLE_ONLY_SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>

</TITLE_ONLY_SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>