Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Andy Brown (substitute Councillor Arnold Warneken), Richard Foster (substitute Councillor Caroline Goodrick) and John Mann (substitute Councillor Steve Watson).

That the minutes of the meeting of Strategic Planning Committee, held on 8 April 2025, be confirmed by Members and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

Councillor Arnold Warneken declared that he had been lobbied by a number of Parish Councils opposed to the application. He stated that he had taken account of the information provided but had kept an open mind on the application and would consider his decision based upon the discussion at today’s meeting.

Councillor Bob Packham declared that he had been lobbied by numerous people both for and against the application. He noted that the applicant had also contacted him directly. He stated that he had taken account of the information provided but had kept an open mind on the application and would consider his decision based upon the discussion at today’s meeting.

The remaining Members of the Committee also declared that they had been lobbied by various representatives in relation to the application. They stated that they had taken account of the information provided but had kept an open mind on the application and would consider their decision based upon the discussion at today’s meeting.

Considered

The report of the Assistant Director of Planning – Community Development Services requesting Members to determine a planning application for the erection of an Asphalt Plant, single storey site office cabin, welfare storage area with associated car parking spaces, aggregate storage bays, widening of internal access road, proposed bund / acoustic barrier, lighting, associated hardstanding and removal of trees on land at Allerton Waste Recovery Park, Harrogate.

The application had received 197 objections from local residents, Parish Councils and an MP for Harrogate and Knaresborough Constituency as well as a proforma with 1007 signatories having been raised in respect of the proposal on the grounds of principle of development, noise, odour, air quality, visual impact, groundwater pollution, traffic impacts and Arboricultural impacts and was, therefore, reported to this Committee for determination.

The Planning Officer presented the Committee report highlighting the proposal; context to the application; site location, outline and description; details regarding the changes to the conditions; and the planning policy considerations. The Officer recommendation was highlighted.

The Planning Officer highlighted that the following had been received since the publication of the report and provided an update to take account of these matters, as summarised below:

A series of late representations have been submitted by Communities Against Toxins (CAT), raising concerns across several areas:

Air Quality – A third-party Air Quality Assessment (AQA) questions cumulative impacts, particularly cadmium and PM10 emissions. However, a technical review by Redmore Environmental (the applicant’s air quality consultant) identified several methodological flaws, including

·       Use of outdated or irrelevant guidance and incorrect air quality standards.

·       Lack of transparency in modelling inputs and assumptions.

·       Potential double-counting of emissions from the existing incinerator.

·       Use of an outdated dispersion model version.

The Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) has reviewed the applicant’s AQA, agrees with Redmore’s conclusions, and confirms no significant air quality impacts are expected. Emissions will be controlled through an Environmental Permit and planning conditions.

A further response has been received from the third party, which does not agree with the applicant’s review. However, it does not raise any new material planning considerations. While the EHO has not reviewed this latest submission, the Council remains satisfied with the EHO’s previous review and the proposed condition to mitigate air quality impacts.

Noise – A technical report by dB Technika, commissioned by CAT, challenges the applicant’s review of CAT’s original noise assessment. The Applicant’s noise consultant provided a technical note, they agree with the background noise levels at the objector’s location, note that the differences in ground absorption are negligible, measuring less than 1 dB and challenge the objector’s use of a non-standard method. Historic data shows that background noise levels at South Farm have remained broadly consistent over the past 15 years. Furthermore, the objector’s reliance on outdated policy and standards does not reflect current guidance. The applicant also points out that noise from the A168, not just the A1(M), contributes to the background levels. However, further comments have now been received from the third party, challenging  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

There were none.

Tuesday, 8 July 2025 at a venue to be confirmed.

Tuesday, 8 July 2025 at 10.00am at a venue to be confirmed.