North Yorkshire Council
Richmond (Yorks) Area Planning Committee
Minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 10 April 2025 commencing at 10.00 am.
Councillor David Websterin the Chair. plus Councillors Heather Moorhouse, Kevin Foster, David Hugill, Karin Sedgwick and Steve Watson, and Tom Jones.
In attendance: Councillors Carl Les.
Officers present: Peter Jones - Development Manager, North, Fiona Hunter, Development Management Team Leader, Ian Nesbit, Senior Planning Officer, Christian Brennan, Democratic Services officer and Kate Lavelle, Solicitor Lawyer Planning and Environment.
Apologies: Councillor Angus Thompson.
|
Copies of all documents considered are in the Minute Book
|
|
1 |
Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Angus Thompson (substitute Councillor Tom Jones).
|
|
2 |
Minutes for the Meeting held on 13 March 2025
The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 13 March 2025 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.
|
|
3 |
Declarations of Interests
Councillor Kevin Foster declared a personal, non-pecuniary interest in item four on the agenda – application ZD23/00449/FULL. Councillor Foster had been lobbied on the application.
|
|
4 |
ZD23/00449/FULL - Full Planning Permission for Residential Development of 27 Dwellings and Associated Infrastructure at Field at Bolton Crofts East of Bolton Avenue and Green Howards Road, Richmond on behalf of Langlands Developments
Considered :-
The Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application for the Residential Development of 27 Dwellings and Associated Infrastructure at Field at Bolton Crofts East of Bolton Avenue and Green Howards Road, Richmond on behalf of Langlands Developments.
The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation and summarised the report. While reviewing the reasons for refusal, she added that there was a further determination found in para 213 b) of the NPPF which had been omitted from the report. The grade I castle, she continued, was classified as a scheduled monument and therefore also contrary to paragraphs 4 and 12 of the NPPF.
“NPPF Para 213
Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of:
a) grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional; b) assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional75.”
In addition to the reasons contained within the report, the Officer stated that paragraph 11 i) and ii) had been met.
She concluded that although the area’s housing supply was low, the public good provided by the development was not exceptional nor did it outweigh the adverse impact to the site’s biodiversity and harm to Richmond Conservation Area.
Dr Sarah Gillespie spoke objecting to the application.
Councillor Clive World spoke on behalf of Richmond Town Council objecting to the application.
Councillor Stuart Parson spoke against the application.
During consideration of the above application, the Committee discussed the following issues:- · The access to the site and its suitability in the event of an emergency was inadequate due to the width and steep gradient. · The application was located entirely within a conservation area and therefore be required to be of an exceptional quality prior to any consideration of approval. · The amount of affordable housing was lower than desired. · The mix of housing was poor, such as an absence of one-bedroom properties. · That the biodiversity implications were too significant to ignore.
It was clarified that the application came to committee so that members could determine whether, on balance, the costs of developing the site were outweighed by addressing the low 5-year housing supply which was at 2.8 years.
The Decision :-
That planning permission be REFUSED.
Voting Record
A vote was taken and the motion was carried as follows:-
7 for 0 against
The Committee agreed with the reasons for refusal put forward by the Principal Planning Officer as stated in the report and as set out below, with reference also to the NPPF para 213 detailed above:-[KL1]
The Adopted Development Plan area does not benefit from a 5 year land housing supply and as a housing proposal, paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework is triggered; which advises that planning permission should be granted unless two exceptions are met. It is considered that exceptions 11 (d)(i) and (ii) are met for the reasons below.
(i) The application site is entirely within a designated Conservation Area which is an asset of particular importance, and the loss of this undeveloped land to housing will erode the significance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the Grade I Listed Richmond Castle and Scheduled Monument (another asset of particular importance). This is for several reasons, however, of particular importance is that the site has remained without buildings for centuries, a rare survival. In doing so, it forms an integral part of the settlement’s significance, acknowledged by its inclusion in the designated Conservation Area. The site also forms a component of the Castle's significance which in part is shaped by its setting. Its position at the heart of the town, affording long range views of the rural hinterland, is a purposeful design intent whose original defensive and military function remain discernible. The site can be seen from the castle turret and helps viewers understand the settlements historic past. The change of this site to housing will deplete what is a surviving soft frame for the town.
The proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the character or appearance of the Richmond Conservation Area, and the setting of the Grade I Listed, Scheduled Monument Richmond Castle. The public benefits of the development are the provision of 27 houses and introduction of new walking links.
Whilst 27 houses is an important public benefit, and the new walking links a moderate public benefit, cumulatively these are not considered of sufficient weight for the permeant development of the site, resulting in the degradation of the understanding of the settlement’s history, part of the Conservation Area and Castle’s significance.
The application is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policies CP4 and CP12 of the Richmondshire Local Plan 2012-2028 Core Strategy adopted 2014 and Paragraphs 11 (d), 203 (a & c), 205, 206, 208, 212 and 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024.
(ii) It is considered that the adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for securing well[1]designed places as discussed below.
The application under-states the ecological quality of the western field of the site. This field supports grassland of variable quality but including several relatively extensive areas which meet the quality of a Lowland Meadow Priority Habitat. The western field as a whole may be of sufficient quality to be a Site of Importance of Nature Conservation. insufficient information has been submitted to rule either of these out. The proposal is likely to lead to significant harm to biodiversity, which would not be adequately mitigated. The proposal is therefore contrary to Paragraph 193 of the Planning Framework and Policy CP12 of the Richmondshire Local Plan 2012-2028 Core Strategy adopted 2014.
The emergency access is too steep and would not be sufficiently safe to accommodate emergency vehicles. As such the development conflicts with Policy CP3 (c) of the Richmondshire Local Plan 2012-2028 Core Strategy adopted 2014 and National Planning Policy Framework 2024 paragraph 115 (b).
Plots 1 to 9 private gardens would be servery overshadowed by existing off-site mature trees, together with experiencing a sense of enclosure. As such, the development is not considered to offer a high standard of amenity for future residents. As such the development conflicts with Policy CP3 of the Richmondshire Local Plan 2012-2028 Core Strategy adopted 2014 and paragraph 135 (part f) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024.
|
|
5 |
ZD24/00597/FULL - Full planning Permission for Erection of a New Employment Unit (Use Class B2 / B8) with Associated Yard and Site Compound at Western House Business Park, East Road, Melsonby, DL10 5NF by Middle Caves Limited
Considered :-
The Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application for Erection of a New Employment Unit (Use Class B2 / B8) with Associated Yard and Site Compound at Western House Business Park, East Road, Melsonby, DL10 5NF by Middle Caves Limited.
The Principal Planning officer gave a presentation and summarised the report. She added that should Members be minded to control traffic from the site from going through Melsonby, then in addition to conditions already stated in the report, Members were advised to introduce a traffic calming condition. The Officer recommended a traffic management plan which would encourage drivers on the site to use the A66, rather than the village, when navigating to and from the A1.
Nick Appleyard, representing Middle Caves ltd. spoke in support of the application.
During consideration of the above application, the Committee discussed the following issues:- · That there had been concerns around traffic but had been now addressed by the application. · The development to the north was unlikely due to the amount of ground pipes in the area.
The Decision :-
That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions detailed in the Committee report.[KL2]
Voting Record
A vote was taken and the motion was declared carried as follows:-
7 for and
0 against.
|
|
6 |
ZB24/01785/REM- [As Amended] Application for reserved matters approval (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for the erection of 109no. dwellings, drainage infrastructure, landscaping and ancillary works
Considered :-
The Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application for reserved matters approval (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for the erection of 109no. dwellings, drainage infrastructure, landscaping and ancillary works (outline permission 20/01687/OUT granted 20.07.2023) [amended/additional plans & documents received by the Local Planning Authority on 03.10.2024, 15.01.2025 & March 2025].
The Principal Planning officer gave a presentation and summarised the report and update List which had been published onto the Council website as item 6a of the agenda pack. He highlighted the amended and additional plans therein, as well as the change in recommendation which had been updated from ‘Minded to Grant’ to ‘to Grant, Subject to Conditions as per Section 12 of the Officer Report and as updated in the Update List.’
The Committee was updated on a late submission from a member of the public.
During consideration of the above application, the Committee discussed the following issues:- · The quantity of the PV and EV installations. · The reduction in total properties from 145 homes to 127 which allowed for more green space. · The mix of housing which was viewed positively. · What the final state of the west side boundary would take. · The drainage of the site.
regarding drainage, it was clarified that the principal approach had been agreed during the outline stage. Water would drain east to west into the attenuation areas then pumped into a Yorkshire Water sewer at a restricted rate before finally ending in a watercourse to the south. The detail would be agreed in the discharge condition.
The Decision :-
That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions detailed in the Committee report and Update report 6 (a).
Voting Record
A vote was taken and the motion was carried as follows:-
7 for, and
0 against
|
|
6a |
Update Report - ZB24/01785/REM- [As Amended] Application for reserved matters approval (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for the erection of 109no. dwellings, drainage infrastructure, landscaping and ancillary works
|
|
7 |
Any other items
There were no urgent items of business.
|
|
8 |
Date of Next Meeting
Thursday, >enter date< at 10.00am at the Civic Centre, Stone Cross, Northallerton / Mercury House, Richmond.
|
The meeting concluded at 11:50am.