North Yorkshire Council
Scarborough and Whitby Area Planning Committee
Minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 9 July 2026 commencing at 2.00 pm.
Councillor Phil Trumper in the Chair plus Councillors Subash Sharma, Derek Bastiman, Eric Broadbent, Janet Jefferson, Rich Maw and Clive Pearson.
In attendance: Councillor Tom Seston
Officers present: Kelly Dawson (Senior Solicitor Lawyer Planning and Environment), St John Harris (Principal Democratic Services Officer), and David Walker (Development Service Manager)
|
Copies of all documents considered are in the Minute Book
|
|
161 |
Apologies for absence
There were no apologies for absence.
|
|
162 |
Minutes for the meetings held on 14 May and 25 June 2026
The minutes of the meetings held on 14 May and 25 June 2026 were confirmed and signed by the Chair as a correct record.
In relation to the meeting on 25 June 2026 and application reference 26/01288/FUL, Councillor Jefferson advised that the Assistant Director Children and Families had confirmed that her service would address members’ concerns about the state of the garden at the property.
|
|
163 |
Declarations of interests
There were no declarations of interests.
|
|
164 |
SCAZF25/01139/OLA - VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 19 (LINK ROAD & BRIDGE) AND 53 (LINK ROAD & BRIDGE) IN RELATION TO 21/00052/OL (HYBRID PLANNING PERMISSION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT) TO ALLOW FOR DELAY IN PROVISION OF THE LINK-ROAD BRIDGE ON LAND TO THE NORTH OF EASTFIELD, SCARBOROUGH
The Head of Development Management – Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application which sought to vary conditions 19 (Link Road & Bridge) and 53 (Link Road & Bridge) of planning permission 21/00052/OL insofar as they related to the trigger points for the provision of the bridge linking the two halves of the housing development on land to the north of Eastfield, Scarborough.
The planning officer presented the report as published advising that technical evidence submitted by the applicant indicated that retaining the existing trigger point of 640 dwellings could result in construction work being halted part way through an existing phase of development, causing disruption to construction activity and future occupiers. The applicant had originally sought to increase the occupation trigger point from 640 dwellings to 790 dwellings before delivery of the bridge and link road. Officers considered this increase unacceptable and noted that it had attracted objections from both National Highways and the Local Highway Authority. The applicant had subsequently proposed a revised trigger point of 693 dwellings, representing an increase of 53 dwellings above the existing threshold. The committee was advised that National Highways and the Local Highway Authority had been re-consulted on the revised proposal and neither body had raised an objection. Officers considered the revised proposal to represent a reasonable and pragmatic compromise that would allow the current development phase to be completed. In respect of bridge delivery, the committee was informed that council officers were meeting monthly with the developers and that a specialist bridge design company had been appointed to prepare detailed designs. Detailed bridge proposals were expected to be submitted to the council in the near future and officers had been advised that the developers remained committed to delivering the infrastructure.
In accordance with public speaking arrangements at planning committee, the local Division member, Councillor Tom Seston then addressed the committee.
Councillor Seston related his constituents’ longstanding concerns regarding the delayed delivery of infrastructure and a perceived failure by developers to fulfil commitments associated with the wider development. He expressed concern that approving the variation could result in further requests for extensions in the future. The councillor urged the committee to require the developer to fulfil its infrastructure commitments and requested that the application be refused.
Members then discussed the report and presentation.
Summary of issues raised:
· Some Members shared Councillor Seston’s concerns adding that approval of further variations could result in the bridge being delayed indefinitely and that future committees could be asked to approve additional extensions to trigger points. This could risk undermining public confidence in the planning process.
· Clarification was sought regarding previous variations to the trigger point and alternative delivery options that had been considered for crossing the Deepdale gap. Officers advised that an earlier embankment proposal had been withdrawn following concerns regarding impacts on wildlife corridors and public use of the green corridor, and that current work was focused on a bridge solution.
· Some Members felt that refusing the application could unfairly disadvantage a developer that had progressed its part of the development while the bridge remained dependent upon actions by other parties.
· Officers advised that the application sought only a limited increase of 53 dwellings to enable completion of the current development phase and reiterated that refusing the variation would not necessarily accelerate delivery of the bridge.
· Members considered the merits of deferring the application to allow further information on bridge delivery and timescales to be obtained which they felt would provide some reassurance to residents
· Following discussion, a proposal was moved and seconded to defer consideration of the application pending more substantive information regarding the bridge proposal and anticipated delivery programme.
Decision
That consideration of the planning application be DEFERRED pending more substantive information from the developer regarding the bridge proposal and anticipated delivery programme.
Voting record
A vote was taken and the motion was declared carried unanimously.
|
|
165 |
Any other items
There were no urgent items of business.
|
|
166 |
Date of next meeting
Thursday, 13 August 2026
|
The meeting concluded at 2.39 pm.