Agenda and minutes

Prior to the meeting starting, the Chair acknowledged the sad passing of Judith Chilas, a former Councillor for Selby District Council, and sent condolences to her family and those that knew her.

Apologies were received from Councillors John Cattanach, Mike Jordan, Andrew Lee and Cliff Lunn.

Councillor Davis declared that she is a trustee of ‘Our Space’, an organisation that has received a grant from the Two Ridings Community Foundation. This was not considered to affect the discussion at Item 4.

Councillor Poskitt declared that she is an employee of ‘Tadcaster and Rural’, and organisation that has received a grant from the Two Ridings Community Foundation. This was not considered to affect the discussion at Item 4.

Councillor Arthur declared that he works in the railway industry. This was not considered to affect the discussion at Item 5.

Councillor Davis declared that her partner works for Network Rail. This was not considered to affect the discussion at Item 5.

Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice and supplied the text to Democratic Services (contact details below) by midday on Monday, 3 November 2024. Each speaker should limit themselves to 3 minutes on any item.

Members of the public who have given notice will be invited to speak:

·         at this point in the meeting if their questions/statements relate to matters which are not otherwise on the agenda (subject to an overall time limit of 30 minutes)

·         when the relevant agenda item is being considered if they wish to speak on a matter which is on the agenda for this meeting.

If you are exercising your right to speak at this meeting, but do not wish to be recorded, please inform the Chairman who will instruct anyone who may be taking a recording to cease while you speak.

One public statement was received before the deadline of midday on 3 November 2025.

Councillor Alex Tant-Brown, Sherburn in Elmet Town Council, made the following statement.

We, the members of Sherburn in Elmet Town Council wish to make you aware of major concerns from our Town Council in regards to your planning department. Our full statement is, as of the start of my speaking, being published on our Town Council website. It is unfortunately too long to read out in the limited time I have been afforded. So, I will highlight the salient points.

Over the course of the past year, we have witnessed first hand the very worst of your planning department. To the point where we are left to conclude that consulting parish and town councils has become a glorified box-ticking exercise, rather than an opportunity for local scrutiny. As some Cllrs will know, we were unceremoniously disinvited from a recent planning application site visit, contrary to your own policies, by your officers.

In regards to when we’ve come to the Selby Area planning committee, the officers reports have been at best sub-standard, and at worst, read like long form campaigning leaflets. In regards to “planning balance”, there seems to be none. These reports have overwhelmingly read in favour of why applications should be approved, with no regard for the potential problems of proposed schemes, or the policy-driven evidence in favour of refusal. Serious questions need to be asked as to how planning balance is being applied.

Despite councillors voting to refuse, we have been dragged into two appeals. Both of which we have lost. And why? Well, the first was because your officers decided not to put up a case. Simple as. They appeared that they were not bothered to do so. The second case. Your officers agreed what we believe to be material changes to a planning application with the applicant, without public scrutiny, and then decided to drop all three reasons for refusal.

I’ll say this clearly and plainly. This is undemocratic. It avoids public scrutiny. And it simply invites developers to keep putting in speculative applications, in the hope that they can change them during the appeal process, in order to satisfy policies and not realities.

In essence, and whilst this may be something you have heard many times before, you are inviting development into a town that’s infrastructure is not supportive of the residential and employment population that it needs to support. Our schools do not have capacity for more children, our doctors do not have parking and staffing capacity for current patients, let alone more. Our community groups and town council are struggling to meet the demand that North Yorkshire Council is letting fall by the wayside. These are issues that are not going to be satisfied by Section 106 payments. They need real, and immediate investment. Preferably before our town simply becomes a collection of houses loosely held together by a parish precept.

To make it clear. What we, and our  ...  view the full minutes text for item 175.

Celia McKeon, Chief Executive of Two Ridings Community Foundation, presented the report and provided the following updates.

·        Since the end of the financial year, two further rounds of grants have been awarded. In March, the panel met and awarded organisational development and small grants totalling £46,667. A further round of applications opened in June, with the panel meeting in September to award grants totalling almost £30,000.

·        The fund will reopen for applications in June 2026, with an anticipated application window of 6–8 weeks. During this period, support will be provided to applicants and following due diligence and assessment, the panel will meet in September 2026 to make a decision on the applications received.

Following these updates, the following answers were provided to queries raised by members.

·        It was clarified that while Two Ridings also administers funds covering other parts of North Yorkshire, the Heart of Yorkshire Fund is limited to the former Selby District Council area. Details of all Two Riding funds, including those available to the Ainsty area, are published on their website. As funds open and close throughout the year, the website is the most reliable source for up-to-date information. In response to a query about the Allerton Waste Recovery Fund, it was confirmed that the fund has now closed and that there is no remaining balance.

·        Further information was requested on the grant awarded to ‘Moving the Masses’ and their activities. This information would be provided after the meeting.

·        Concerns were raised about the short application window for grants, with Members noting that while extending the period could increase administrative costs, the current approach may restrict access for some groups who need support but must wait to apply. In response, it was explained that the 6–8 week window is intended to strike a balance between being open long enough for applications and providing quick decisions, as a longer window would delay outcomes. It was highlighted that if sufficient funds are available, additional rounds may be opened during the year. It was also highlighted that groups can apply to other Two Ridings programmes at different times of the year – Two Ridings will signpost groups to the most suitable funding opportunities, and urgent needs outside the main window can often be addressed through alternative funds.

·        It was highlighted that the Fund is promoted on social media, the organisation’s newsletter, and its website, giving groups the maximum opportunity to be informed. Members expressed interest in receiving regular updates on awarded grants in order to support their promotion. In response, it was confirmed that once panels have met and grants have been awarded, a list of successful applications and details of the recipient organisations can be shared with members to help them disseminate the information locally. It was also suggested that letters to successful organisations can include a request for funded groups to inform their local councillors about their activities, to help ensure councillors are aware and engaged.

·        Members asked about outcome reporting for funded projects. In response, it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 176.

Graham North, Rail Strategy and Performance Officer, York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, presented the report and the following points were clarified.

·        It was highlighted that the station usage figures are updated annually, typically at the end of November, and therefore the figures included in the report are based on the previous year’s data and may be out of date.

·        Members highlighted the importance of improving public transport to reduce car usage and encourage greater mobility.

·        Lower usage of Cattal Station was considered likely to result from limited parking availability and Members asked whether any of the £10 million investment on the York–Harrogate line could be directed to provide parking at Cattal. Officers confirmed that the funding is no longer available and that its purpose was solely to increase train frequency. It was noted that the Maltkiln development includes provision for car parking; however, there is currently no funding or opportunity to deliver this ahead of the development. Members emphasised that improvements were required before the development of Maltkiln. Officers advised that previous work had identified potential sites for parking, but costs could be significant due to site constraints. Parking issues at Cattal Station were noted by officers.

·        Members raised concerns about overcrowding on trains from Selby, particularly at peak times, and asked whether additional capacity could be provided. Officers advised that Northern is aware of the issue and has begun adding extra coaches on some services, such as race days, but overall capacity is limited due to a shortage of rolling stock. Some additional stock may become available in about two years, although competition for resources across the UK remains a challenge. Much of Northern’s fleet is old, and while new rolling stock is planned, it is not expected until the early 2030s.

·        Regarding the work at Sherburn in Elmet Station, it was reported that options are being explored to determine the lowest-cost solution. Members welcomed plans to improve Sherburn in Elmet Station, noting the town’s significant growth, the station’s proximity to an employment site, and the need for better infrastructure, including car parking and improved accessibility. They highlighted that overcrowding at Selby is partly due to TransPennine trains not stopping at Sherburn in Elmet but expressed concern that opting for the cheapest improvement option could overlook accessibility requirements. Officers explained that the immediate priority is enabling TransPennine services to stop, which may involve a minimum-cost solution such as platform extension, as full accessibility upgrades could cost around £10 million and are difficult to fund in the current climate. While acknowledging the importance and legal requirement for accessibility, officers advised that funding is not currently available and that delivery will depend on future government funding and prioritisation.

Resolved

a)     That the update is noted.

Andy Clarke, Public and Community Transport Manager, presented the report and explained that the bus network in the Selby area had remained largely unchanged for most of the year, following substantial changes introduced in January which had bedded in well. He reported that Arriva, the main operator, was pleased with the changes and had seen improvements in punctuality and service reliability, enabling investment in two new buses. Passenger numbers had increased as a result of the changes, although the Government’s national fare cap rising from £2 to £3 at the start of the year had had a dampening effect.

He noted that one area affected by the changes was the Leeds Road section of the route in Selby, which lost its service. Feedback via the local MP highlighted that some residents, particularly those with accessibility issues, were adversely impacted. In response, a low-frequency alternative was introduced recently, operating four journeys between Thorpe Willoughby and Selby Bus Station on weekdays. This service will run for six months before being evaluated. Andy Clarke also confirmed that Coastliner services between Leeds and York via Tadcaster continued to use grant funding to support three journeys per hour, which had been positive overall, despite some traffic-related reliability issues during the summer. He emphasised that the report focused only on services with notable updates and did not cover all routes.

During the discussion, the following points were raised.

·        A member asked why services through the Ainsty part of the area were not mentioned in the report. In response, the officer confirmed that there was nothing specific to update on those services.

·        A member raised concerns that Barlow is almost unserved after 2pm and asked for a later bus. The officer agreed to review options but noted funding constraints, explaining that a longer-term settlement would help and suggested community transport for hospital access.

·        Another member highlighted that North Duffield has a service to York but not Selby and asked about a proposed minibus linking Hemingbrough, Riccall, Osgodby, Barlby, North Duffield, Skipwith, and Thorganby. The officer highlighted funding constraints but confirmed that a countywide review is underway.

·        Further concerns were raised about Hemingbrough and nearby villages being cut off, with parish councils offering funding. The officer welcomed this and noted driver shortages have eased.

·        A member asked about real-time information displays and a hospital bus shelter. The officer confirmed five displays at Selby Bus Station, two in Sherburn, and one in Tadcaster, with more planned. He said funding for the hospital shelter is in place and installation is expected this financial year.

·        The Chair raised the issue of the Under-19 fare cap not covering travel into West Yorkshire. The officer agreed to explore solutions.

Resolved

a)     That the update is noted.

Andrew Rowe, Assistant Director Housing; Lorraine Lorini, Head of Housing Standards; and Carl Doolan, Head of Housing Management & Landlord Services, provided an update on housing and community centres, explaining the context and progress since the introduction of new consumer standards for social housing.

Key points highlighted by officers include the below.

·        The new consumer standards introduced by Government require higher housing quality and management standards.

·        Following a self-assessment, a self-referral was made to the regulator, acknowledging non-compliance and setting out an improvement plan. An improvement board meets monthly, alongside regular engagement with the regulator. Seven workstreams underpin the improvement plan: governance, stock quality, safety and compliance, understanding tenants’ needs, repairs and maintenance, safe neighbourhoods, and fair allocation and tenancy management.

·        Repair numbers have doubled due to higher standards and survey findings.

·        Significant work has been done to harmonise policies following local government reorganisation. IT systems are being consolidated into a single system.

·        A learning and development strategy is in place to meet new qualification requirements for senior managers.

·        A stock condition survey is underway and the aim is to have covered 50% of homes by March 2026 and 100% by September 2026.

·        Safety plans have been approved for the main health and safety risks. Fire risk assessments are now 100% complete and asbestos compliance is ongoing.

·        Financial implications for the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) business plan are being monitored.

·        Service charges remain inconsistent across former districts and will be reviewed.

·        A sheltered housing stock review is ongoing and this will inform future provision.

·        Community centres funded by the HRA are treated as council buildings and this creates cost pressures.

·        Initial safety compliance issues at community centres have been addressed and the stock condition reports have been completed.

·        Usage of community centres varies significantly. Potential options include increasing community use, hosting council services, or considering redevelopment for housing in the long term.

·        Engagement with community centre management committees, parish councils, and stakeholders will continue through November and December, with wider consultation and potential asset transfer discussions from 2026 onwards.

·        No decisions have been taken regarding community centres and proposals will ensure buildings remain safe while in operation.

The following key points were raised in the discussion.

·        Members asked about retrofit challenges. Officers confirmed funding is available but contractor capacity is a constraint. Eight principal contractors have been onboarded, and some funding supports skills development for in-house teams. Work prioritisation is based on property condition.

·        Questions were raised about empty homes and lettable standards. Officers explained that all homes will meet EPC C by 2030 and asbestos will be removed. Empty homes fall into three categories: minor hazards, significant hazards, and major capital works. Current void rates are around 4%, with a target of 2.5%. Category 1 voids cost about £15,000 to repair, with Category 2 costing £27,000, and Category 3 costing up to £50,000. It is the aim to improve over 1600 homes by 2028. The ALIGN framework should enable returning 10 properties per week to allocations.

·        Members suggested displaying information  ...  view the full minutes text for item 179.

Daniel Harry, Head of Democratic Services and Scrutiny introduced the report, highlighting that responses had been provided to queries previously raised by Members.

A member questioned why exceptional circumstances were not considered in a specific case. The officer replied that the committee’s role is to check policy compliance and then consider exceptional circumstances – such as distance, safety, transport arrangements, or other factors. He confirmed that ‘other factors’ is open to interpretation and members have discretion.

Resolved

a)     That the report is noted.

The Chair introduced the report, highlighting that written responses had been received from both MPs. No questions or comments were made by Members in relation to the report.

Resolved

a)     That the report is noted.

Councillors requested an update on the Transforming Cities Fund project in Selby, asking whether work has started and why the Railway Club building remains in place.

There was a discussion on the issues highlighted in the public question received earlier in the meeting. The following points were made.

·        Regarding infrastructure and cumulative impact – Concerns were raised that infrastructure improvements are not keeping pace with development and that the cumulative impact of planning applications is not being adequately addressed. Members highlighted issues relating to traffic congestion and noted that Selby records some of the poorest air quality readings in North Yorkshire. Specific reference was made to Sherburn in Elmet, where members expressed concern about the lack of infrastructure and the cumulative effect of ongoing development. Councillor Bob Packham, Division Member, advised that work is underway to press for essential infrastructure improvements and expressed hope for support from North Yorkshire Council.

·        Regarding Planning Committee site visits – Councillor Bob Packham, Vice Chair of the Selby and Ainsty Area Planning Committee, reported that discussions are ongoing with officers to establish a clear protocol for site visits, which will differ from the approach previously taken at Sherburn. Members noted the importance of incorporating local input from parish councils, noting that excluding this information would not support effective decision-making.

·        Regarding officer involvement in planning decisions – Members expressed concern at reports that officers may have overturned planning decisions without consulting elected Members. They agreed that that officers should, at a minimum, notify the Chair of the Planning Committee and provide an explanation for the decision. Members requested confirmation from officers as to whether this had happened.

·        Regarding officer support for appeals – Members felt that officers should attend appeals to support the council’s position, even if their professional view differs. It was noted that officers are employed by the council, and members expect them to make every effort to uphold decisions made by the authority.

·        Regarding views provided by North Yorkshire Highways on planning applications – Members raised concerns about inconsistencies from Highways regarding access points for housing developments. It was stressed that Highways need to provide clear, consistent decisions on access routes to avoid confusion and maintain confidence in the planning process.

·        Regarding delays in the planning process – some Members raised concerns regarding the length of time taken to determine applications, with delays seemingly often linked to responses from internal departments. It was felt that prolonged decision-making is unfair to applicants and local communities.

·        Regarding the handling of public questions at meetings – some Members expressed the view that they should have the opportunity to ask officers questions on responses to public questions and to discuss public questions as part of the meeting.

Following the discussion, Members requested that officers from the Planning and Planning Enforcement teams attend a future meeting to provide clarification on the statement issued in response to the public question and to address the above concerns.

It was also highlighted that a discussion should take place between the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 182.

Any other items which the Chair agrees should be considered as a matter of urgency because of special circumstances.

There were none.

Thursday, 22 January 2026 at 2:00pm – Informal Budget Session

Thursday, 19 March 2026 at 2:00pm – Formal Meeting

Thursday, 19 March 2026 at 2.00pm – Formal Meeting.