North Yorkshire Council
Thirsk and Malton Area Planning Committee
Minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 15 May 2025 commencing at 10.00 am.
Councillor Caroline Goodrick in the Chair and Councillors Joy Andrews, Alyson Baker, Lindsay Burr MBE, Sam Cross, Nigel Knapton and Malcolm Taylor.
Officers present: Kelly Dawson, Alan Goforth, Peter Jones - Development Manager, North, Nicki Lishman - Senior Democratic Services Officer and Aisling O'Driscoll - Principal Planning Officer.
|
Copies of all documents considered are in the Minute Book
|
|
176 |
Apologies for absence
There were no apologies for absence.
|
|
177 |
Minutes for the meeting held on 17 April 2025
The minutes of the meeting held on 17 April 2025 were agreed and signed by the Chair as a correct record.
|
|
178 |
Declarations of interests
There were no declarations of interest.
|
|
179 |
23/00001/MOUT- Hybrid planning application comprising: 1) Outline planning application for residential planning permission for up to 50 dwellings with associated open space, all matters reserved; 2) Outline planning application for mixed use development for commercial, industrial and storage uses, all matters reserved on land south of Riccal Drive, Helmsley
The Head of Development Management sought to resolve the position the Council would take at an upcoming appeal against non- determination of a hybrid planning application comprising:
1. Outline planning application for residential planning permission for up to 50 dwellings with associated open space, all matters reserved 2. Outline planning application for mixed use development for commercial, industrial and storage uses, all matters reserved. Total area 3.12ha on land south of Riccal Drive, Helmsley.
Members were advised that the determination of the application now rests with the Planning Inspector and not with the Council, however, Officers sought the opinion of Members of the Planning Committee with regards to the outcome they would have been minded to take, had the decision rested with the Local Planning Authority.
The officers’ presentation detailed the location and proposed layout of the site, the indicative areas of landscaping and public open space, and the site’s relationship to the surrounding residential and commercial properties.
The principle of employment and residential development in the location was supported by the Helmsley Local Plan, which allocated the western part of the site for employment purposes and the eastern part of the site for up to 50 dwellings. It was considered that the proposal aligned with the allocation and the principle of the development was considered to be acceptable.
The officer’s report summarised local concerns and objections, which primarily related to the principle of development, highways safety and capacity and residential amenity.
The conditions and reserve matters would secure appropriate zoning of development. The scale and density parameters required a central buffer between land uses and noise impact assessments and mitigation as the plots for employment land and residential use were brought forward.
The main benefits of the proposal were:
· That the site would provide the bulk of employment land allocated within the Helmsley plan. · It would provide a welcome contribution to housing supply. · It would provide a policy compliant level of affordable housing secured by legal agreement · Provision of up public open space and connections to nearby public rights of way. · Provision of biodiversity net gain · Funding provided through the Community Infrastructure Levy.
There had been no objections raised by technical consultees in relation to highways, drainage, residential amenity or the environment, with the application being made in outline.
The officer stated that there was a degree of risk and uncertainty given the outline and hybrid nature of the application, in relation to concerns raised primarily with regard to highways impact and residential amenity.
Mr M Skehan spoke to object to the application.
Councillor George Jabbour, Division Member, spoke to the application.
Ms K Jukes, Agent, spoke in support of the application.
Officers clarified the process that would be followed during the hearing and confirmed that any third party would be able to make representations to the inspector. If the inspector was to grant permission, the conditions would require detailed assessment to ensure that they were sufficiently robust.
Members queried whether, had the application come before the Committee for decision, they would have been able to grant a partial approval for the residential element of the application. Planning Officers confirmed that would not have been possible, however the inspector would be at liberty to do so.
During the debate Members:
· Were concerned that the existing properties had driveways adjacent to a road that may be used by HGV/LGV vehicles to and from the proposed commercial/industrial units · Considered the changes to the way people work, particularly since Covid and questioned the need for and the viability of such commercial/industrial units in Helmsley
In debate Members raised significant details, which would be assessed and agreed at reserve matters stage.
Officers advised that if Members concerns rested with the safety of the highway, they could look to appoint a third-party technical specialist to assess whether there was an arguable case from a highways’ perspective.
Members made the following comments on the draft proposed conditions: · The strict noise limitations as written in the report were welcomed as, should the inspector decide that commercial use for the site was appropriate, this ensures that residential amenity is not affected by adverse noise. · Compliance with North York Moors National Park Dark Skies Policy · Restrict vehicle movement times between 7:00am to 10:00pm · The drainage should avoid combined systems · Ensuring that the children’s play area is clearly visible · That any residential/commercial units fit the vernacular of buildings within Helmsley
Councillor Burr proposed and Councillor Cross seconded that Members would have been minded that the application be refused on the grounds of highway safety.
Decision
Had the Planning Committee determined the application, its decision would have been that planning permission be REFUSED on the grounds of highway safety.
Voting record 5 For 2 Against
|
|
180 |
ZE24/00588/MOUT - Erection of up to 140no. dwellings and associated infrastructure with all matters reserved except access
The Head of Development Management sought a view from the Committee on the position to be taken at an appeal for non-determination in relation to an outline with access only planning application for up to 140 dwellings on land at Keld Head Farm, Middleton Road, Pickering.
The site was located on the north side of Middleton Road, Pickering and to the west/rear of dwellings fronting Northway. The site was undeveloped and in agricultural use.
The officers’ presentation detailed the location and proposed layout of the site, access points, the indicative areas of landscaping and public open space, the density of dwellings across the site and the surrounding access roads.
Mr J Spouge spoke to object to the application.
Officers explained that the proposal was located outside development limits. In normal circumstances the principle of development would not be accepted due to conflict with Policy SP2, which set the criteria for new housing in the Local Plan area. However, the Council could not demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply for the Ryedale Local Plan Area and therefore paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework was engaged. This meant a balanced decision had to be made weighing the adverse impacts of the development against the benefits, considering sustainability, effective use of land, securing well designed places and providing affordable homes.
Officers explained that without the five year land supply, Members would need to consider the acceptability of the site with regard to the principle of housing development and could then consider the road network and highways issues, questions around drainage, the relationship to the open countryside and the distance between Pickering and Middleton and whether or not this was coalescence and therefore potentially harmful.
During the debate Members considered
· The proximity of the site to Middleton village and whether the development caused coalescence and therefore was potentially harmful · The use of good arable land for development · The demand for housing in the Pickering area · Highway and footway access
Officers requested that Members suggest any proposed conditions that may be required if the inspector approved the application:
Members requested:
· That the properties reflect the consistent vernacular that runs along the A170 from Helmsley through to Thornton le Dale · Environmentally friendly benefits such as ground source/air source heat pumps, solar panels, electric charging points · That the land and its environs should be treated with respect · Protect the remaining parcels of land between Pickering and Middleton · Accommodation for all the waste and recycling bins that will be required · The drainage should avoid combined systems · Compliance with the North York Moors Dark Skies · Consideration of the “cut through” access from the A170 Keld Head to Middleton Road
Councillor Knapton proposed and Councillor Taylor seconded that Members would have been minded that planning permission be granted.
Decision
Had the Planning Committee determined the application, its decision would have been that planning permission be Granted.
Voting record 3 For – carried by the Chair’s casting vote 3 Against 1 Abstention
|
|
181 |
Any other items
There were no items of urgent business.
|
|
182 |
Date of next meeting
The date of the next meeting was confirmed as 19 June 2025.
|