Agenda and draft minutes

An apology for absence was received was Councillor Andrew Williams.  Councillor Nick Brown acted as his substitute.

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 November 2025 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

All Members are invited to declare at this point any interests, including the nature of those interests, or lobbying in respect of any items appearing on this agenda.

HGTZC24/03358/FULMAJ – Councillor Nick Brown declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was the Division Member for Bishop Monkton.  He stated that he would take a balanced view and had not pre-determined the application.

Planning Applications

The Committee considered a report of the Head of Development Management – Community Development Services relating to applications for planning permission. During the meeting, Officers referred to additional information and representations which had been received. In considering the reports of the Head of Development Management – Community Development Services, regard had been paid to the policies of the relevant development plan, the National Planning Policy Framework and all other material planning considerations. Where the Committee refused planning permission the reasons for that decision are as shown in the report or as set out below. Where the Committee granted planning permission in accordance with the recommendation in a report this was because the proposal is in accordance with the development plan, the National Planning Policy Framework or other material considerations as set out in the report unless otherwise specified below.  

Report of Head of Development Management – Community Development Services.

Considered –

The Head of Development Management – Community Development Services submitted a report seeking determination of a planning application for the development of 58 houses on land off Moor Road, Bishop Monkton.  The site was allocated in the Harrogate Local Plan and therefore housing development was considered acceptable.

The proposal had undergone significant revisions in respect of site layout, design, landscaping, biodiversity, highways, flood risk and drainage.

The planning officer in updating her report referred to additional representations received and the supplementary report which had been circulated to the Committee and published on the Council’s website.

David Richold spoke objecting to the application.

Councillor Dean Culshaw, Chair of Bishop Monkton Parish Council spoke objecting to the application.

The applicant’s agent Chris Megson spoke in support of the application.

During consideration of the application, the Committee discussed the following issues:

·       How the appropriate drainage of the site would be secured in order to address the concerns of residents based on the problems they experience and the lack of engagement by Yorkshire Water to deal with flooding and sewage overspill in the village.

·       Members asked who owned the land that method two would need to utilise.  The planning officer responded to say that it was owned by the Parish Council and Kebble Developments Ltd.

·       The two methods of drainage outlined in the application – in noting that the NYC Lead Local Flood Authority had no objections to either method, the second option was preferable to Members. 

·       Members sought clarity on whether Yorkshire Water was a statutory consultee.  The solicitor advised that water companies were statutory undertakers and whilst not a statutory consultee, it was good practice to consult and responses should be considered and treated as a material consideration.

·       Concerns around meeting the deadline for determination of the application.  The planning officer stated that an extension to the 19^th December 2025 had already been agreed with the developer.

·       The scheme had many good points; affordable housing; decent design; and biodiversity.

·       Dissatisfaction that Yorkshire Water could not be compelled to attend Planning Committees to answer questions.

·       In discussing whether a Grampian condition should be included in any permission restricting the commencement of occupation until the sewage capacity was improved, the Solicitor advised Yorkshire Water had not raised any objections with respect to sewage and recommended condition.  Members attention was drawn to the proposed conditions 12 to 15 which included pre-commencement conditions.

The decision –

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions as set out in the report and subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement with terms as detailed in Table 1 of the report (with clarification that the education contributions listed there is £199,395.00 and not £199.395.00).

Voting record –

A vote was taken and the motion was declared carried with 4 for, 2 against and 1 abstention. 

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

Members discussed the general lack of details in Yorkshire Water’s ‘no objection’ response to planning applications on which they are consulted.

A motion was put before the Committee and it was,

Resolved –

“This Committee calls on Yorkshire Water to provide reliable assessments of system capacity when assessing developments in North Yorkshire.  We consider the information available to use as provided by Yorkshire Water as inadequate to enable the Committee to make fully informed and appropriate decisions.”

Furthermore the Committee requested that the Chair send a separate letter to Yorkshire Water seeking details about the sewage infrastructure in Bishop Monkton, particularly in relation to the sewage capacity.  

Tuesday 3 February 2025 at 1pm.

Tuesday 3 February 2026 at 1pm.