North Yorkshire County Council

Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee

Minutes ofthe meeting held at County Hall, Northallerton on Tuesday 26 July 2022 at 10am.

Present:-

County Councillors Andy Paraskos (Chairman), Eric Broadbent, Andy Brown, Brynn Griffiths, Tim Grogan, Robert Heseltine, George Jabbour (as substitute for Mike Jordan), Andrew Murday (as substitute for Pat Marsh) and Robert Windass (as substitute for Roberta Swiers).

Apologies were received from County Councillors Margaret Atkinson, Mike Jordan, John McCartney, Pat Marsh and Roberta Swiers.

There were 6 members of the public and a representative of the press present.

Copies of all documents considered are in the Minute Book

1. Welcome and Introductions

The Chairman welcomed everyone and Members introduced themselves for the benefit of public attendees, including Members who were attending as substitutes and who they were substituting for.

2. Minutes of the meeting held on 8 March 2022

It was noted that there were insufficient Members present that attended the previous meeting to determine whether these were an accurate reflection of the proceedings.

Resolved -

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 March 2022 be noted and submitted to the next meeting of the Committee allowing them to be confirmed by Members and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

3. Declarations of Interest

There were no declarations of interest.

4. Public Questions or Statements

The representative of the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal and Democratic Services) stated that, other than those that had indicated that they wished to speak in relation to the applications below, there were no questions or statements from members of the public.

5. C4/17/02418/CC - Planning application for the extraction and processing of sand and gravel from a new quarry (11.9 hectares) including the construction of a site access road, internal haul road, mobile processing plant, site office, soil storage bunds, lagoons, stockpile area and restoration to agriculture and lake on land to the west of Raincliffe Grange Farm, Main Street, Seamer

Considered -

The report of the Corporate Director, Business and Environmental Services requesting Members to determine a planning application for the extraction and

processing of sand and gravel from a new quarry (11.9 hectares) including the construction of a site access road, internal haul road, mobile processing plant, site office, soil storage bunds, lagoons, stockpile area and restoration to agriculture and lake on land to the west of Raincliffe Grange Farm, Main Street, Seamer

The application, though subject to representations in support in respect of the benefits of location, amenity, landscape, traffic, economy and ecology, was also subject to objections having been raised by local residents on grounds relating to due process, landscape, need, policy, economy, traffic, vibration, noise and general amenity impacts and was, therefore, reported to this Committee for determination.

The agent for the applicant, Malcolm Ratcliff, addressed the Committee, highlighting the following:-

· He thanked officers for their work involved in producing the report and the recommendation provided.

· He outlined the need for the raw materials, which were of a good quality and for those to be available locally.

· The application was compliant with the appropriate policies

· The applicant would adhere to the conditions set out in the report

The Chief Planner presented the Committee report, highlighting the proposal, the site description, the consultations that have taken place, the advertisement and representations, planning guidance and policy and planning considerations. The report also provided a conclusion and recommendations

Detailed plans, photographs and visual information were presented to complement the report.

Members undertook a discussion of the application and the following issues and points were highlighted during that discussion:-

· A Member sought clarification on the need for the product being extracted. In response it was noted that the details regarding this were outlined in the local plan and related to the provision of a central supply. The Member stated that the plan had only been agreed in February 2022 and wondered how the supply had been determined up to then. In response it was emphasised that the plan had been in draft form for around four years, but had been subject to a lengthy consultation process, so publication and agreement had been delayed in part by the pandemic. It was stated that it was more efficient to provide raw materials locally rather than bring them in from outside of the area. The proposal would create more flexibility for the provision of the raw materials and create a valuable contribution to the supply.

· A Member asked how it was ensured that the conditions related to the application were complied with. In response it was stated that although compliance could not be guaranteed there was a duty for the applicant to abide by the conditions. Inspections are undertaken by officers to ensure that compliance is taking place and enforcement action can be undertaken when this is not happening.

· It was asked whether a financial bond could be required to ensure that the application was undertaken. In response it was stated that financial bonds rarely met the tests to be imposed as part of the regular planning process.

· A local Member outlined his support for the application.

· A Member highlighted his concerns regarding the case for local raw materials and how some archaeological artefacts had been disposed of, but overall considered that the application should be supported.

· Other issues raised included ensuring that the land owner kept the water at an appropriate level to encourage biodiversity following restoration, in line with Condition 38, that there had been no issues raised in respect of the 6.30am start for the development of the site, issues relating to climate change should be highlighted in future reports, ensure that the local plan is not overlooked and ensuring that the correct area is referred to within the report Southern not northern).

Resolved -

That the application be approved for the reasons stated in the report, subject to a Section 106 Legal agreement and in accordance with the conditions outlined.

6. C8/2021/0443/CPO - Planning application for the proposed infilling and restoration of former mineral workings on land adjacent to Eggborough Sandpit on land to the

west of Eggborough Sandpit, Weeland Road, Goole Hensall

Considered -

The report of the Corporate Director - Business and Environmental Services requesting Members to determine a Planning application for the proposed infilling and restoration of former mineral workings on land adjacent to Eggborough Sandpit on land to the

west of Eggborough Sandpit, Weeland Road, Goole Hensall

This application was subject to an objection from Eggborough Parish Council and a

further objection from a local resident having been raised in respect of this

proposal on the grounds of noise, visual impact and delaying the completion of the

Eggborough Sandpit site and is, therefore, reported to the Committee for

determination.

The following statement was submitted by RL and CR Stanley and was read to the Committee by the Clerk:-

“General

Mount Pleasant House is the nearest residential property to the Northwest of the proposed application.

The report states a distance of 80m, however it is actually 40m to the property boundary and 66m to the House from the proposed site.

Vehicle movement is to take place between 8.00am and 5.00pm , however currently diggers, earth movers and lorries commence at 7.30am!

There will be a huge volume of infill to the proposed site 47500 cu meters and 40000 cu meters in the existing quarry (see consequences below).

Proposed development takes 8 years with a further period of reinstatement.

Specific

Noise –

Currently there is a constant noise of Lorry doors banging (when loads tipped), earth movers, grading machines and diggers; the last 3 are continuous.

The proposal will entail some if not all of the above over the 8-year period.

Visual-

From any part of or our property in or outside there is constant movement and our eyes are drawn in the direction, as the development moves closer this will become worse.

Pollution – Dust-

During dry weather especially, because of the nature of the product handled a lot of dust blows in various directions; this will come towards and enter ‘Mount Pleasant’ at times if the proposal is granted ?

Flood –

A significant area of the ‘Grass field’ – planning proposal , and the existing quarrying each have a lake which has constantly been flooded summer and winter.

Mrs CR Stanley and our Son N J Stanley own land to the south of High Eggborough crossing, some 200 meters from the above site which has started to flood in the last 2 years, the concern is if the above areas are infilled, where is the volume of water going, we feel there is only one way.

We feel very strongly against the planning proposal and ask the authority please take this into account when considering the application.

……. I appreciate the opportunity the voice our concerns, a point to note – The current extraction has a mountain of material some 50 feet high approximately, which surely is not allowed according to planning permission, I have photographic evidence.”

A representative of the Chief Planner presented the Committee report, highlighting the proposal, the site description, the consultations that have taken place, the advertisement and representations, planning guidance and policy and planning considerations. The report also provided a conclusion and recommendations

Detailed plans, photographs and visual information were presented to complement the report.

Members undertook a discussion of the application and the following issues and points were highlighted during that discussion:-

· It was clarified that part of the land was unable to be restored as agricultural land due to flooding issues, however, a substantial amount of the land could be used for that purpose.

· It was noted that there had been no response from the local Member in relation to the application.

· Members questioned the flooding issues on the land and it was stated that the Local Lead Flood Authority had indicated in response to the application, that there was no flood risk coming from the site, nor was there any impact further downstream. .

· A Member suggested that where issues of note were to be demonstrated for the consideration of applications as much evidence as possible was required within the report allowing the Committee to be fully informed when making a decision, with details of the policies supporting the application fully outlined.

· It was noted that the control of materials going into the site would be undertaken under the environmental permit issued by the Environment Agency.

Resolved: -

That the application be approved for the reasons stated in the report and in accordance with the conditions outlined.

7. NY/2020/0162/FUL (C8/2020/1204/CPO) - Planning application for the infilling and restoration of the former Watergarth Quarry with excavated materials, erection of a temporary single storey site cabin, formation of temporary site access, car parking area and associated hardstanding on land at former Watergarth Quarry, Rawfield Lane, Fairburn, Selby

Considered -

The report of the Corporate Director - Business and Environmental Services requesting Members to determine a planning application for the infilling and restoration of the former Watergarth Quarry with excavated materials, erection of a temporary single storey site cabin, formation of temporary site access, car parking area and associated hardstanding on land at former Watergarth Quarry, Rawfield Lane, Fairburn, Selby.

The application is subject to eight objections having been raised from members of

the public in respect of this proposal on the grounds of: highway safety, HGV

movements, impact on residential amenity from noise, dust and pollution, impact on

health and quality of life, impact on biodiversity and type of infill material.

An objection had also been received from Yorkshire Wildlife Trust and concerns

had also been raised by the Fairburn Parish Council. It was, therefore, reported to the

Committee for determination.

Detailed plans, photographs and visual information were presented to complement the report.

She highlighted a number of alterations to the published report, as follows:-

Section 9, Recommendation 9.1 (ii) - where it reads "the proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon the openness or the purposes of including land within the Green Belt and as such it is considered not to be an inappropriate development" This is not relevant as the application boundary has been amended and does not include any Green Belt land and therefore should not be included within the list of reasons.

Condition nos. 22, 23, 25 and 26 - where it reads “Within six months of the date of this permission” in the published Officer Report, it is now proposed to read as follows “Within six months of the commencement of development”

Condition no. 27 - where it reads “Within 12 months of the date of this permission an annual meeting shall be held” in the published Officer Report, it is now proposed to read as follows “Within six months of the commencement of development, a meeting shall be held, and bi-annually thereafter,”

Condition no. 32 - The wording of condition no. 32 in the published Officer Report has been amended and it is now proposed to read as follows “In the event of the cessation of tipping for a period of 6 months prior to the approved restoration having been completed, a revised restoration scheme for the site shall be agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority within 6 months of the date tipping ceased. Any further works required by the agreed revised restoration scheme shall have been completed within 3 months of the written approval of the scheme. All machinery and equipment, any hard standings and structures and temporary access off Rawfield Lane shall be removed from the site once restoration works at the site have been completed.”

Members undertook a discussion of the application and the following issues and points were highlighted during that discussion:-

· A Member noted the Condition relating to an annual meeting between the developer, all interested parties, technical experts and the County Planning Authority to review schemes of working, restoration, landscaping and aftercare issues, and asked what period of time this would continue for. In response it was stated that three meetings would take place, one within six months of commencement of development and thereafter bi-annually. Meetings would end once the development was completed.

· In terms of reference to the appointment of a qualified person to monitor the material going into the site, to ensure that pollution was not created to the watercourse, It was noted that the Environment Agency would be responsible for this. However, if there were reports that this was occurring then the Planning authority would investigate and take enforcement action if necessary.

· The bat survey was queried as a Member expected that the tunnel would house bats.

· It was noted that the local Member was satisfied with the application.

· The issue of the replacement of trees, removed during the development, was discussed. It was asked whether there would be a “two-for-one” replacement programme in place .It was stated that the replacement of trees would not be “two-for-one” and the exact details had been set out in the presentation., however, it was expected that the replacement trees could be excess of that figure, as the exact details were yet to be clarified. Members suggested that the trees should be replaced at as high a ratio as possible, that they should be replaced with mature trees and that rather than just replacing with native trees, the provision of food bearing trees would be advantageous. It was stated that the condition would need to be reworded and discussed with the Landscape Architect and the applicant to determine whether this was acceptable, if Members wished to change that. Members noted that the area already had fruit trees and it was considered that providing the appropriate species of trees was important. It was noted that semi-mature trees would be used as replacements, which was acceptable to Members, providing any that died were replaced.. It suggested, the necessary amendments to Condition 23 within the report could be delegated to the Chief Planner, to amend in line with Members suggestions,. Should the amendmented condition not be agreed to the matter could return to Members for further consideration.

Resolved: -

That the application be approved for the reasons stated in the report and in accordance with the conditions outlined, subject to the updated the conditions detailed above and subject to the necessary amendments to Condition 23 within the report being delegated to the Chief Planner to undertake, in line with Members suggestions

8. C3/18/00967/CPO - Planning application which seeks retrospective permission for a 2.4 hectare extension to an inert and demolition waste recycling area on land at Whitewall Quarry, Welham Road, Norton-on- Derwent

The report of the Corporate Director - Business and Environmental Services requesting Members to determine a planning application which seeks retrospective permission for a 2.4 hectare extension to an inert and demolition waste recycling area on land at Whitewall Quarry, Welham Road, Norton-on- Derwent.

The application was subject to thirty two representations (including three from the Norton Action Group) objecting to the application and a recommendation from Norton-on-Derwent Town Council that the application be refused. The objections and the recommendation were raised on the grounds of traffic, risk of pollution and associated impacts upon residential amenity, availability of alternative locations, scepticism on the part of residents that the operator will comply with any conditions and sustainability. The planning application was therefore reported to the Committee for determination.

Local resident and business owner, Mr Mark Campion, submitted a statement to be read out by the Clerk. This was attempted within the three minutes permitted, however, the full statement had been circulated to Members, prior to the meeting. The statement outlined the following:-

Mr Campion submitted a standing objection letter dated 8 October 2018 to this

proposal for this retrospective application for a 2.4-hectare extension to an

existing inert & demolition waste recycling area, Whitewall Quarry.

Mr Campion’s objections to this application remain as per his original objection

letter. A copy of this letter was available to view on the Council’ online planning

Notwithstanding those original standing objections Mr Campion wishes to submit

further comments/objections in respect of the report prepared by the Head of

Planning Services to be presented to members of the Planning and Regulatory

Functions Committee at this meeting.

In para 2.2 the report it states “The quarry is actively producing stone and hosts ancillary operations in the form of a concrete batching plant, maintenance building and an inert waste recycling plant”, Mr Campion wonders why no reference is made to the concrete panel building the omission of this ancillary activity thereby renders this report as inaccurate. Mr Campion further notes the reference to the quarry hosting ancillary activities but does not accept the definition that these are ancillary activities but considers these commensurate in planning terms with B2 General Industrial uses as very little material comes directly from the existing quarrying operation as the limestone material is generally unsuitable in the concrete or panel manufacturing process.

Paragraph 2.15 of the report refers to the implementation and commencement of recycling operations in 2005 and that inert waste material is imported and brought to the site by ‘back-haul’ on empty lorries that have been used for the transport of primary materials following delivery elsewhere in the County or beyond. Mr Campion strongly disputes this statement firstly the question of the operator’s reliability in terms of use of ‘back-haul’ was raised during the planning inquiry into a proposed asphalt plant sought by the operators and refused by the Council in February 2015. In his report the planning inspector concluded that relying on a ‘back-haul’ system of transportation to import recyclable material into the quarry may not be robust and not all recyclable materials would arrive by ‘back-haul’ thereby undermining the apparent sustainability of the transport operation. Mr Campion therefore challenges the assertion claimed in the report that this is a sustainable operation as no details to support the ‘back-haul’ statement are provided by the applicant and this has not been challenged or further details sought by planning officers to verify this unsubstantiated claim.

Mr Campion also wishes to raise concern the emphasis in the report is that the inert waste recycling operation is an ancillary activity linked to the primary extraction of minerals from the quarry site. Mr Campion argues the inert waste recycling activity has little if any direct connection with the quarry and is in effect a B2 general industrial process that could be carried out on any suitable industrial area. Mr Campion considers the report before members fails to deal with this issue or recognise or explain why it is essential this inert waste recycling is carried out within the confines of the quarry basin. Mr Campion also does not accept the presence of the inert waste recycling operation has any direct connection to the restoration of the quarry. At present a substantial area of this lower part of the quarry is currently used for the inert waste recycling operation, or occupied by buildings and structures and/or storage related to various other activities being carried out in the quarry basin the presence of which effectively prevents any meaningful restoration of this worked out area of the quarry being implemented at present or in the near future.

On the issue of the inert waste recycling operation Mr Campion also notes the officers report makes no mention of two incidents of unauthorised tipping of inert waste materials by the operator to the south and west beyond the permitted red boundary of the existing quarry site comprising several thousands of tonnes of inert waste material. Mr Campion considers this a serious omission from the report and considers members should be aware of this issue and the failure of planning officers to take enforcement action in either case at the time these breaches of planning occurred.

Mr Campion notes in the report the Head of Planning’s statement in paragraph 2.16 that “Planning permission for the quarrying and recycling operations extends to November 2023 after which all operations must cease and the quarry be restored including the benching of remaining quarry faces with seeding and tree planting to enhance nature conservation interests with soils from the recycling operations contributing to the restoration”. Mr Campion draws members attention to Condition 1 of the conditions set out at the end of the report that contradicts this statement stating as follows: “ The permission hereby granted authorises the inert waste and demolition waste material recycling area until 23 November 2023 or until such date as quarrying operations cease whichever is the sooner after which the development hereby permitted shall then be discontinued and any structures, plant and machinery shall be removed from the site. Mr Campion notes should members approve this report the use of the site for inert waste recycling could be carried on indefinitely in the event the quarrying operation is approved in the future i.e., beyond November 2023 based on the wording of Condition 1. This could lead to a situation whereby due to market demand or conditions the operators seek to mothball the quarry approval of Condition 1 as written would effectively permit the inert waste recycling to continue indefinitely. On this basis Mr Campion considers the wording of Condition 1 is unacceptable and asks members to overturn the Head of Planning’s recommendation and refuse this application or alternatively amend Condition 1 to restrict the temporary inert waste recycling operation up to but not beyond the 23 November 2023.

Furthermore, Mr Campion is of the opinion permission for the temporary inert waste recycling should be granted only until 23 November 2023 when the other activities also expire so these can be considered in their entirety and not in isolation or a piecemeal fashion so members are able to judge the accumulative impacts of renewing any or all of the activities and assess the effects of these on traffic generation, environmental quality, economic need, and other considerations.

Turning to the issue of noise Mr Campion has noted Condition 14 states as follows: “The equivalent continuous noise level due to recycling operations during permitted daytime hours (07:00-1700 Monday – Saturday, 0700 – 1200 Sunday) shall not exceed the background noise level (LA90) by more than 10dB(A) as measured at the nearest sensitive receptor. Measurements shall be hourly LAeq measurements and be corrected for the effects of extraneous noise. In the event that the noise levels are exceeded, those operations at the site causing the excessive noise shall cease immediately and steps taken to attenuate the noise level to ensure compliance with the specified levels”. Mr Campion considers this condition is unenforceable and does not meet the 6 tests for conditions for two reasons firstly, the condition states noise levels shall not exceed background noise level (LA90) by more than 10dB(A) however this condition does not indicate or provide any data to identify an established figure or a mean background noise figure against which noise levels can be accurately measured and therefore identification and enforcement of any breaches of noise level is likely to be difficult for planning officers to implement successfully. Secondly, activities relating the inert waste recycling, the concrete batching plant and the concrete panel plant fall under different noise criteria and regulations to quarry noise and this is not addressed in this condition.

He noted the proposed transfer of sand and gravel from Seamer Carr, the application having been approved earlier in the meeting, to the concrete manufacturing process at Whitewall Quarry. He considered that this made the argument, that the concrete batching and panel manufacture were ancillary to the primary use of Whitewall Quarry for limestone extraction, redundant.

The request for permission to commence work at 6.30am contradicted previous permissions at the site, which were from 7am to 5pm, therefore the request to commence work at 6.30am was not accepted. He also suggested that an addendum was required to Condition 7 to prevent empty vehicles returning to the site after 5pm.

The agent for the applicant, Malcolm Ratcliff, addressed the Committee, highlighting the following:-

· He outlined the process being undertaken at the limestone quarry and the need for the 25k tonnes of aggregate that could be produced, although the amount produced was usually lower.

· He outlined the applications compliance with plans and policies.

· He noted that the application only sought to extend the existing practice in the quarry.

· Compliance with the issues raised by objectors had been sought in an attempt to be a “good neighbour”.

· The application period was time limited.

Detailed plans, photographs and visual information were presented to complement the report.

Members undertook a discussion of the application and the following issues and points were highlighted during that discussion:-

· The details in relation to the gapping up of hedgerows were clarified.

· It was noted that the previous application was granted in 2002, and included recycling operations. The permission was scheduled to finish in 2007, and reference to the recycling operations appeared to have disappeared. In response it was clarified that the operations were contained in a large area and were detailed in the retrospective application. The operations of the original application had continued past the 2007 expiry date and were seeking to be extended within the period stated through this application.

Resolved: -

That the retrospective application be approved for the reasons stated in the report and in accordance with the conditions outlined.

9. C6/22/00809/CMA - Planning application for the variation of condition no's 19 & 20 of Planning Permission C6/500/109/F/CMA to enable Asphalt Operations to continue

until 21:00 hours Monday to Friday for a temporary period on land at Pateley

Bridge Quarry (Coldstones), Greenhow Hill, Pateley Bridge, Harrogate

Considered -

The report of the Corporate Director - Business and Environmental Services requesting Members to determine a planning application for the variation of condition no's 19 & 20 of Planning Permission C6/500/109/F/CMA to enable Asphalt Operations to continue

until 21:00 hours Monday to Friday for a temporary period on land at Pateley

Bridge Quarry (Coldstones), Greenhow Hill, Pateley Bridge, Harrogate.

The application was subject to 6 objections having been raised in respect of the

proposal on the grounds of residential amenity and highway impact and was,

therefore, reported to this Committee for determination.

Detailed plans, photographs and visual information were presented to complement the report.

Members undertook a discussion of the application and the following issues and points were highlighted during that discussion:-

· A Member noted that the previous consent, which was identical to the application, had operated until 31 December 2021. In response it was stated that the previous consent had run out, therefore, this was a renewal of that. It was asked whether the application was likely to continue to be submitted on an annual basis and it was clarified that, should this be the case, it would still be determined by officers and Members.

· It was noted that there had been no previous complaints regarding the process.

· A Member raised concerns in respect of the number of vehicle movements proposed, noting that these would be over 100 days, but with no limits set, in or out. It was noted that the applicant had indicated that there would be 15 vehicle movements per day, however, if Members wished, this could be put into the Conditions. A Member with local knowledge suggested that the extension of time being sought for vehicle movements (18:00 – 21:00) could operate through the junction at Meaghill Lane, rather than Hardisty Hill, as there were no residential properties there and this would provide some respite from the traffic for local residents.. It was also noted that Condition 6 was the most appropriate to be altered to encompass the wishes of Members, and it was suggested that delegated authority br givento the Chief Planner, to agree an appropriate amendment with the agent to take account of Members requests in relation to vehicle movements and routing. If these were not accepted the application would be resubmitted to Members for further consideration.

Resolved: -

That the application be approved for the reasons stated in the report and in accordance with the conditions outlined subject to a Deed of Variation to the Section 106 legal agreement to bind this consent and subject to the necessary amendments to Condition 6 within the report being delegated to the Chief Planner in respect of vehicle movements limited 15 per day and vehicle routing along Meaghill Lane between the hours of 18:00 and 21:00, in line with Members suggestions,

10. C6/21/05464/CMA - Planning application for the variation condition no. 1 of planning permission ref. no. C6/27/19/E/CMA to allow for the continuation of tipping and restoration on land at Asenby Quarry Tip, Leckby Palace Farm, Asenby

Considered -

The report of the Corporate Director - Business and Environmental Services requesting Members to determine a planning application for the variation condition no. 1 of planning permission ref. no. C6/27/19/E/CMA to allow for the continuation of tipping and restoration on land at Asenby Quarry Tip, Leckby Palace Farm, Asenby.

The application was subject to one objection having been raised in respect of this

proposal on the grounds of residential amenity due to movement of HGVs and was,

therefore, reported to the Committee for determination.

Detailed plans, photographs and visual information were presented to complement the report.

Members undertook a discussion of the application and the following issues and points were highlighted during that discussion:-

· It was clarified that the objection was submitted anonymously.

Resolved: -

That the application be approved for the reasons stated in the report and in accordance with the conditions outlined.

11. Items dealt with under the Scheme of Delegation – 11 May 2022 to 29 June 2022, inclusive.

Considered –

A report by the Corporate Director, Business and Environmental Services, which listed Items dealt with under the Scheme of Delegation. The Items had been determined during the period 11 May 2022 to 29 June 2022, inclusive.

Resolved –

That the report be noted

12. Publication by Local Authorities of Information about the handling of Planning Applications – 1 January to 31 March 2022 – Quarter 4

Considered –

A report by the Corporate Director, Business and Environmental Services, which outlined the County Council’s performance in the handling of “County matter” and County Council development planning applications for Quarter 4 (the period 1 January to 31 March 2022).

Resolved –

That the report be noted.

13. Appointment of Planning and Regulatory Functions Sub-Committee

Considered –

A report of the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal and Democratic Services) requesting Members to appoint a Sub-Committee of the Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee, from its Membership, to carry out the functions outlined in the report. It was noted that the Sub-Committee would consist of 7 Members, would be politically proportionate and would be current Members of the main Committee.

To reflect proportionality the Sub-Committee will be divided as follows:-

4 Conservative Members

1 Labour Member

1 Lib Dem/Liberal Member

1 NY Independent Member

Should any Members from the Labour, Lid Dem/Liberal or NY Independent Groups not wish to have a place on the Sub-Committee, this can then be offered to representatives of the Green Group or an unaffiliated Independent Member.

Previously the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the main Committee have been Members of the Sub-Committee.

Resolved –

That the following be appointed to the Planning and Regulatory Functions Sub- Committee:-

4 Conservative Members – The Chairman (County Councillor Andy Paraskos – the other three appointments to be referred to the Group Leader for nomination)

1 Labour Member – The Vice-Chairman (County Councillor Bob Packham)

1 Lib Dem/Liberal Member – County Councillor Pat Marsh

1 NY Independent Member - to be referred to the Group Leader for nomination

Any subsequent vacancies to be offered to representatives of the Green Group or an unaffiliated Independent Member.

The meeting concluded at 12.50 pm