Agenda and minutes

Resolved

That subject to the following amendment the minutes of the meeting of Strategic Planning Committee, held on 30 January 2025, be confirmed by Members and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

In the third line of the minutes remove the word “remote” and after “held” add “at Scarborough Town Hall”.

The Committee’s Legal Advisor stated that due to an administrative error those that had previously spoken at Committee on the applications had not been invited to participate at this meeting and, as a result, there had been no registrations to speak. He recommended, therefore, that this item be deferred for consideration at a subsequent meeting to provide an opportunity for interested parties to be invited to register to speak.

Resolved

That the application outlined above be deferred for consideration at a subsequent meeting of this Committee to provide an opportunity for interested parties to be invited to register to speak.

Councillor John McCartney declared a non-pecuniary interest in items 4 and 5 on the agenda - C3/22/01304/CPO - Planning application for Proposed extension to Settrington Quarry with restoration to nature conservation habitat on land at Settrington Quarry, Back Lane, Settrington, Malton and NY/2022/0278/73 - Application to vary condition No. 1 of Planning Permission Ref. C3/19/01386/CPO to allow an extension of time to recover remaining mineral resources on land at Settrington Quarry, Back Lane, Settrington, Malton, North Yorkshire. Having taken advice from the Monitoring Officer he stated that he would leave the meeting during consideration of those items.

Councillor Bob Packham declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to item 3 on the agenda - ZG2023/1179/FULM - Planning application for the installation of a

battery storage facility at Land off Lunn Lane, Kellington in respect of him receiving representations from the Together in Hillam and Monk Fryston Funding Group but would form his opinion based on the evidence provided at the meeting.

Other Members declared that they had received correspondence from either supporters, objectors or both to the applications being considered but, unless otherwise stated below, would form their opinion based on the evidence provided at the meeting.

Considered

The report of the Assistant Director of Planning – Community Development Services requesting Members to determine a planning application for the installation of a battery storage facility at Land off Lunn Lane, Kellington.

The application was reported to this Committee due to the application being defined as a departure from the adopted Development Plan for which the Secretary of State must be consulted and it was intended to recommend approval.

A Member stated that despite reference to the address in the application, the site of the application was not in Kellington and was located in the Parish of Beal. He asked, therefore, whether the correct Parish Council and Divisional Councillor had been consulted. It was clarified that the correct consultations had been undertaken.

A Planning Officer presented the Committee report highlighting the proposal; the site location, viewpoints and description; the context to the application; planning guidance; and policy and planning considerations. The report also provided a conclusion and recommendation.

An update to the report had been published and outlined.

·        Updates to the NPPF made on 7 February 2025 did not alter the assessment and recommendation of the application

·        Details of a further letter of representation

A further update was provided at the meeting providing details of alterations to Condition 5 regarding the landscaping scheme.

Terry Richardson an objector to the application addressed the Committee highlighting the following.

·        Concerns regarding the motive for recommending approval of the proposal.

·        Previous plans for low environmental impact development in the village had been actively discouraged by the Council.

·        Use by the Council of the Local and National guidelines to suit their own purposes.

·        The disillusionment with the Council’s customer service and planning process.

Members discussed the application and the following issues were raised.

·        It was noted that the report stated that alternative non-green belt sites were available for the development and it was asked where these were located. In response it was stated that this was a typographical error in the report which should have stated that no alternative non-green belt sites were available.

·        In terms of the accumulation of similar developments in close proximity it was asked when the planning process would begin to take account of this factor. In response it was stated that this was dependent upon the applications having an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) where cumulative effects were a consideration. This particular application was not subject to an EIA taking account of the relevant regulations. Details of the criteria for an EIA were clarified.

·        It was asked whether the proposals were detrimental to the nearby St Edmunds Church, which was a designated heritage asset. In response it was stated that a Heritage Assessment had been carried out which had concluded that there would be no harm to any heritage assets through the proposed development. However, the Council’s Conservation Officer had identified some harm to the setting of the designated heritage asset through development within its wider agricultural setting. This harm was considered to be less than substantial harm  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

Considered

The report of the Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Service requesting Members to determine applications to extend Settrington Quarry with

restoration to nature conservation habitat on land at Settrington Quarry, Back Lane, Settrington, Malton, YO17 8NX.

The application related to a sizeable quarry operation that was subject to objections raised in respect of a range of material planning issues and was, therefore reported to the Committee for determination.

A Planning Officer presented the report, highlighting the proposals; the site location and description; the context to the application; planning guidance; and policy and planning considerations. The report also provided conclusions and recommendations.

It was noted that the application had been deferred from the meeting of the Committee held in December 2024 to allow further consultation, on the issues raised during consideration of the application, between the applicant and the local community, including elected representatives, to develop a solution that would take account of the health and wellbeing of those in the local area. This had resulted in alterations to some of the conditions in the initial report details of which were reported to Members.

It was outlined that this and the following item were linked, therefore, the registered public speakers had opted to address both items in one statement to the Committee and were provided with 6 minutes in which to do so.

Kenelm Storey a local resident objecting to the proposals addressed the Committee highlighting the following.

·        The additional consultation on the conditions had not developed as expected or hoped, and the conditions within the altered report remained unacceptable.

·        The Ryedale Local Plan and the Minerals and Waste Plan indicated that the extracted mineral should only be extracted when there were no other sources available but permission had recently been given to further extract this mineral from the nearby Whitewall Quarry.

·        The proposed HGV routing would cause damage to the local highway network and would continue to be detrimental to the neighbouring local communities.

·        The loss of amenity and the right to a peaceful life had not been addressed through the revised conditions.

·        The quarry was close to a number of sensitive areas, including an SSI, and Settrington was a conservation area.

·        The major concerns remained traffic and amenity.

Councillor Dean Wise the acting Chair of Settrington Parish Council addressed the Committee highlighting the following.

·        The Parish Council attempted to engage with the applicant and the local community together but this had not materialised.

·        A meeting had been held, following the deferral of the application, where the concerns of the local community had been outlined.

·        Details of the conditions that would be required to make the application acceptable to the local residents were outlined at that meeting.

·        When the papers for this meeting were published there had been very little change to the conditions considered previously, therefore, no recognition had been given to the issues outlined by the local community by either the applicant or NYC Planners.

Councillor Caroline Goodrick the Divisional Councillor addressed the Committee highlighting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

Considered

The report of the Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Service requesting Members to vary condition No. 1 of Planning Permission Ref. C3/19/01386/CPO to allow an extension of time to recover remaining mineral resources on land at Settrington Quarry, Back Lane, Settrington, Malton, North Yorkshire, YO17 8NX.

The application related to a sizeable quarry operation that was subject to objections raised in respect of a range of material planning issues and was, therefore reported to the Committee for determination.

A Planning Officer presented the report, highlighting the proposals; the site location and description; the context to the application; planning guidance; and policy and planning considerations. The report also provided conclusions and recommendations.

It was noted that the application had been deferred from the meeting of the Committee held in December 2024 to allow further consultation, on the issues raised during consideration of the application, between the applicant and the local community, including elected representatives, to develop a solution that would take account of the health and wellbeing of those in the local area. This had resulted in alterations to some of the conditions in the initial report details of which were reported to Members.

Public representations had been provided during consideration of Minute No. 93, above.

Members noted that following the amendments to the conditions outlined at Minute No. 93 above, this application would align with those, requiring changes to be made to Conditions 6, 7,8 and 18 to reflect that position. As there was no S106 agreement required for this application a revision of the HGV routing would be undertaken to remove route 3.

Resolved

That that the application be GRANTED in accordance with the conditions listed in the report subject to the alterations to Conditions 6, 7, 8 and 18 as outlined at Minute No.93 above and the removal of route 3 from the routing of HGVs to and from the site.

The voting on this resolution was unanimous.

Considered

The report of the Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Service requesting Members to determine an application for the change of use of Gilling Castle and Foals Yard outbuilding to form 10no. one-bed, 10no. two-bed and 1no. three-bed later living rental apartments, erection of 6no. one-bed and 8no. two-bed dwellings following demolition of existing buildings in the grounds together with

leisure and sporting facilities, associated access including temporary removal and subsequent reinstatement of the north and south Grade II Listed piers and attached railings off Main Street, parking, landscaping, infrastructure, sub-station and engineering operations on land at St Martins Ampleforth, The Castle, Main Street, Gilling East

The application represented a departure from the adopted Development Plan and was recommended for approval, therefore, it was reported to the Committee for determination.

A Planning Officer presented the report, highlighting the proposals; the site location and description; the context to the application; planning guidance; and policy and planning considerations. The report also provided conclusions and recommendations.

An update report published after the initial report provided details of removal of condition 16 from the list of conditions and the provision of an additional informative to clarify the operation of Condition 56 and was outlined by the Officer.

Reference was made to further submissions from the applicant and Sports England.

A late objection to the application had been received prior to the meeting in respect of potential drainage issues. The details of this were outlined to the Committee and addressed by the Planning Officer in his presentation.

It was noted that a representative of the local Parish Council had withdrawn from speaking at the meeting but had indicated the support of the Parish Council for the proposals.

David Kemp representing the applicant addressed the Committee highlighting the following.

·        The listed building in the application had fallen into disrepair following the closure of the school that was located there.

·        The proposals provided a long term, sustainable future for the building and had been agreed by Historic England.

·        The sports pitch on the site was not required as it was sub-standard and there were appropriate facilities available at the nearby Ampleforth College.

·        The facilities and additional housing would be aimed at the ‘later living’ (55+) age group.

Members discussed the applications and the following issues were outlined:-

·        It was asked whether the additional housing in the proposal was also aimed at the ‘later living’ age group. In response it was stated that this was expected to be the case, however, there was no planning basis whereby an age restriction could be imposed. The Member had concerns that the facility could become a ‘gated community’ and would be reassured if a condition relating to the age profile could be provided. It was noted that the age profile of those locating to the facilities would be determined by the developer and the aim was to provide ‘later living’ accommodation.

·        A member asked whether the proposed wellness centre would be available for public use. In response it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

There was none.