North Yorkshire Council
Skipton and Ripon Area Planning Committee
Minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, 1 April 2025 commencing at 1.00 pm.
Councillor Nathan Hull in the Chair plus Councillors Andy Brown, Robert Heseltine, David Ireton and David Noland.
Officers present: Stuart Mills, Development Management Team Manager, Glenn Sharpe, Senior Solicitor, Andy Hough Senior Planning Officer and Vicky Davies, Senior Democratic Services Officer .
Apologies: Barbara Brodigan and Andrew Williams. .
|
Copies of all documents considered are in the Minute Book
|
|
144 |
Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Brodigan and Williams.
|
|
145 |
Minutes for the Meeting held on 4th February 2025
Members were informed of an amendment to the resolution of minute 141 to reflect that the permission is also subject to prior completion of a Section 106 Agreement. The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 4th February 2025 were thereafter confirmed and signed as an accurate record.
|
|
146 |
Declarations of Interests
The Chair, Councillor Hull declared an interest in application ZC24/00578/DVCMAJ as the applicant was known to him. He withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the debate or voting thereon.
Planning Application
The Committee considered a report of the Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services to determine a S.73 planning application for the variation of conditions, the deletion of conditions, revised plans and amended phase 2 proposals.
The conditions as set out in the report, together with additional conditions were to be attached in accordance with the relevant provisions of Section 91 and 92 of the /town and Country Planning Act.
In considering the report of the Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services, regard had been paid to the policies of the relevant development plan, the National Planning Policy Framework and all other material planning considerations.
In granting permission in accordance with the recommendations of the report, this was because the proposals were in accordance with the development plan, the National Planning Policy Framework or other material considerations as set out in the report unless otherwise specified below.
|
|
147 |
ZC24/00578/DVCMAJ: Variation of Condition Numbers: 2, 8, 23 and deletion of conditions 34 and 36 to allow the consideration of revised plans to reflect the 'as built' development within phase 1 (main mill, mechanics shop and pugmill) and to amend the proposals for phase 2 (warehouse, stables, barn and proposed new build units) of planning permission 17/02093/DVCMAJ for Application to vary condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission 17/00922/DVCMAJ to allow alteration to approved mix and layout of residential units within principal mill building from 15 dwellings, 11 apartments and a restaurant, to 19 dwellings, 12 apartments and 2 commercial units (A1/A3). Revised site layout to remove the mechanics store (unit 28), introduce a sub-station and bin store, provide additional amenity space and reconfigure car parking arrangement. Alterations to the internal layout of the pugmill and mechanics shop and changes to the external detailing - Amended Scheme at Glasshouses Mill, Glasshouses.
Considered –
The Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services submitted a report seeking determination of a planning application as set out above.
The Chair, Councillor Nathan Hull, having declared an interest in the application, withdrew and took no part in the debate or voting thereon. The Vice-Chair Councillor Andy Brown took the Chair for the item.
The proposals would allow for the consideration of revised plans to reflect the ‘as built’ development within phase 1 (main mill, mechanics shop and pugmill) and to amend the proposals for phase 2 (warehouse, stables, barn and proposed new build units) (amended scheme) of a residential development at Glasshouses Mill.
The application had been deferred at a meeting of this Committee on 2nd September 2024 so that a financial viability assessment and an energy statement could be submitted. Both had been received. There was also a verbal update to the report regarding the number of car parking spaces.
Mr Andy Totton from the Glasshouses Mill Owners’ Association spoke as an objector.
Councillor Chris Thompson spoke on behalf of Pateley Bridge Town Council.
Councillor Andrew Murday, spoke as North Yorkshire Council Division Member.
Mr Graham Holbeck, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.
During consideration of the application, the Committee discussed the following issues:
- Concern regarding the gravel footpath which was not as stable as a solid surface. - The loss of car parking spaces during the phase 2 construction works. - Disappointed that the scheme was only marginally viable and gave no scope for affordable housing. - Important to ensure that the S.106 developer contributions were made to the Council. The case officer advised that the Council had a dedicated S.106 officer and better mechanisms were in place to ensure compliance. - Because the culvert and flood defences had failed in the past Member wanted reassurance that the recommended conditions in the Assistant Director’s report would prevent any repeat flooding.
The Decision:
That planning permission is GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the Assistant Directors report now submitted and two additional conditions:
1. That a car parking phasing plan to be provided prior to commencement on site. 2. That block paving of the parking area to be undertaken before occupation of the site.
Voting Record:
A vote was taken and the motion was declared carried with 3 voting for approval. Councillor Heseltine asked for it to be recorded that he took no part in the voting.
|
|
148 |
Any other items
The Solicitor to the Committee updated Members with regard to application ZA23/25403/FUL for a residential development at land off Marton Road, Gargrave. The application was considered by Members in June 2024 and determination was deferred pending additional information on the impact on the highways and highways safety issues. The application was brought back to Members with the additional information on 6th August 2024 and the Committee voted to grant planning permission subject to conditions and a S.106 Agreement.
Subsequently, many objections had been received by Councillors, the Chief Executive, the Director and MP. A series of formal complaints from a number of individuals and Gargrave Parish Council had gone through North Yorkshire Council’s multi-stage corporate complaints procedure.
The complaints were essentially two-fold. The Planning policy position which informed the decision started with the lowest tier of the planning policy ladder, that being the Gargrave Neighbourhood Plan which had allocated the site for housing in 2019. This was then approved by the former Craven District Council and put into the Craven Local Plan. However, there had been an apparent discrepancy in the Gargrave Neighbourhood Plan between the version of the plan prepared by the parish and their consultant and that submitted for referendum and the version presented for adoption by the former Craven District Council.
Although both versions allocated the site for housing, specifically the difference was the referendum version had a number of criteria including one relating to the access into the site and it stated that the access should be through the existing Walton Road. The proposal, which came forward for approval by Craven District Council Members had a different access arrangement. What had been suggested to North Yorkshire Council was that because of the discrepancy in the Neighbourhood Plan the Council should be precluded from issuing the planning permission and also that North Yorkshire Council should correct that issue in the Neighbourhood Plan.
The Solicitor stated that the decision notice had not been issued thus far because of the time taken negotiating the S.106 agreement. Relevant officers, planners and legal colleagues concluded that the decision notice could be issued as there was no conflict of interest between the Neighbourhood Local Plan and the Craven Local Plan in that both allocated the site for housing. Moreover, the Craven Local Plan superseded the Neighbourhood Plan, taking priority and the no criteria attached to that in terms of arrangements. The view was, therefore, that the Council should issue the planning permission which it was obliged to do. The second point about correcting the discrepancy in the Neighbourhood Plan and the criteria attached to that allocation, could not be done by North Yorkshire Council. The National Planning Policy guidance provided the mechanisms for changing Neighbourhood Plans and the only party that was able to change or initiate that process was Gargrave Parish Council. North Yorkshire Council could support the parish in that process but could not do it itself.
A second opinion had been sought from a barrister at Kings Chambers, who had confirmed that the Council’s officers’ assessment was correct. Therefore, it was proposed to issue the planning permission as per the recommendation, notwithstanding all the activities that had occurred since. Should Gargrave Parish Council wish to revisit the Neighbourhood Plan for whatever reason, then North Yorkshire Council could help them in doing that.
The Chair asked for clarity in relation to the Craven Local Plan, specifically, was the entrance to the site shown when the land was allocated. The solicitor gave reassurance that no particular route into the site had been specified. Confirmation was also given that Members did not act ultra vires or reached an incorrect decision based on the information before them.
On another planning matter, a member asked for an update on a planning permission granted by the Committee on a site at the Old Saw Mill, Gargrave which had since been referred to the Secretary of State. Officers present at the meeting had no information but agreed to provide an update at the next Chair and Vice-Chairs meeting so they could, in turn, update Members of the Committee.
|
|
149 |
Date of Next Meeting
Tuesday 6th May 2025, venue to be confirmed.
|
The meeting concluded at 2.31 pm.