Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Steve Watson (substitute Councillor Yvonne Peacock) and Councillor Angus Thompson (substitute Councillor Tom Jones).

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 11 June 2026 as an accurate record.

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 11 June 2026 were confirmed and signed as an accurate 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.

The Chair, Councillor Webster, declared an interest in Agenda Item 6 for reasons of transparency as the applicant, Councillor Angus Thompson, was a fellow member of the Planning Committee and of the same political party. He confirmed there was no relationship or connection that would preclude him from determining the application and that he retained an open mind.  In his speech, the Chair, Councillor Webster stated that Councillor Thompson previously mentioned the application to him and the nature of that conversation did not go beyond acknowledging that the application was due to be considered by this Committee and he did not consider it amounted to lobbying.  He had an open mind and would consider the application on its planning merits.

Councillors Sedgwick, Moorhouse, Jones, Peacock and Hugill made similar declarations in relation to Agenda Item 6, noting that they were members of the same political party as the applicant and had no relationship or connection that would prevent them from considering the application on its planning merits. The Chair, Councillor Webster and Councillor Hugill also stated that they had been referred to the Standards and Governance Committee for a potential breach of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.  No further action was being taken In relation to the Chair and Councillor Hugill was awaiting the outcome. For transparency, Councillor Foster stated that he was not of the same political party as Councillor Angus Thompson but declared he had no relationship or connection that would prevent him from considering the application and would consider the application on its planning merits. Additionally advised that he had received correspondence encouraging opposition to the application but did not regard this as sufficient to prejudice his consideration of the matter.  Councillor Jones also said that Councillor Thompson had mentioned the application to him but only so far as asking him to attend this Committee as substitute.

All Members confirmed they would approach the application with an open mind.

Report of the Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services

Considered :-

The Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application for a drive-thru restaurant, associated access, servicing and landscaping works, together with outline planning permission for an electric vehicle charging facility. Members were reminded that the application had previously been deferred to enable a site visit to take place and additional information had subsequently been provided addressing questions raised by Members regarding highways matters, traffic movements and capacity at the Scotch Corner interchange.

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the proposal and highlighted the site’s location adjacent to the strategic road network, the proposed highway improvements, landscaping measures and biodiversity enhancements. Members were advised that the application would deliver approximately 120 jobs, a dedicated electric vehicle charging hub, extensive landscaping including significant tree planting and a biodiversity net gain substantially in excess of statutory requirements. Officers confirmed that both National Highways and the Local Highway Authority had withdrawn previous concerns and raised no objections, subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement securing highway works, biodiversity net gain measures and travel plan monitoring.

In accordance with the public participation scheme, the following speakers addressed the Committee:

Objecting to the application

Steve Hill – objector.

David Henderson -  on behalf of Middleton Tyas Parish Council.

Supporting the application:

Jonathan Wallace - agent for the applicant and Andrew Mosley, transport consultant for the applicant.

During Members’ debate, discussion focused heavily on pedestrian access, crossing arrangements and the operation of the wider highway network. Several Members referred to observations made during the site visit and acknowledged concerns about crossing the A6055 and navigating the wider junction complex on foot. However, Members also recognised that the application had been subject to detailed scrutiny by National Highways and the Local Highway Authority, both of which had concluded that the proposal was acceptable subject to conditions. Members reflected on the limited planning grounds available to justify a refusal and noted that issues relating to commercial competition and the number of existing food outlets were not material planning considerations.

Councillor Foster proposed that planning permission be granted in accordance with the officer recommendation. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Jones.

The Decision  –
That full planning permission and outline planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the officer’s report and the prior completion of a Section 106 Agreement securing the required highway improvements, biodiversity net gain measures and travel plan monitoring contribution.

Voting Record

A vote was taken and the motion was unanimously declared carried.

Report of the Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services

Considered :-

The Head of Development Management – Community Development Services sought determination of an application for planning permission for the change of use of land to holiday accommodation and the erection of two holiday cabins with associated infrastructure. Members were informed that following a site visit, an update report had since been circulated addressing matters raised during that visit, including parking arrangements, refuse collection, accessibility and archaeological considerations.

The Planning Officer advised that the site lay partly within a Scheduled Monument and that further consultation had been undertaken with Historic England and the Council’s archaeological advisers following the site visit. Members were informed that both organisations were satisfied with the proposal subject to conditions, including archaeological monitoring and controls over the removal of imported material within the proposed parking area. It was emphasised that the cabins would be constructed using no-dig techniques and had been positioned away from the most sensitive archaeological features.

In accordance with public speaking arrangements at planning committees, the following speaker addressed the committee.

Objecting to the application:

John Gentry – representing Moulton Parish Meeting.

In considering the proposal, Members discussed the separation distances between the cabins and neighbouring properties, the effectiveness of landscaping and screening measures and the implications for the Scheduled Monument. Members noted that following further investigation and consultation, no statutory or technical consultee objections remained. Particular weight was given to the advice of Historic England, the Principal Archaeologist and the Highway Authority, all of whom were satisfied that the proposal could proceed subject to appropriate controls.

Members concluded that the proposal represented a modest tourism development which would support the local economy whilst safeguarding the archaeological significance of the site through carefully worded planning conditions. It was noted that the proposal had undergone significant scrutiny following the site visit and that all outstanding concerns had been appropriately addressed.

It was proposed by Councillor Sedgwick and seconded by Councillor Moorhouse that the application be granted as set out in the officer’s report and update report.

The Decision –

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions as listed in the committee report and the additional conditions set out within the update report relating to refuse, and recycling storage and the implementation of the proposed parking and turning area.

Voting Record:
The motion was carried unanimously.

A short comfort break was taken from 11.11am until 11.15am.

After the break Councillor Hugill mentioned his earlier declaration and alluded to the fact that he had been subject to complaint about breaching the Code of Conduct.  He had replied to the Monitoring Officer querying whether he had or hadn’t breached the Code of Conduct which had been due to voting to defer item  ZD25/00383/FULL.  Until he had heard this application he didn’t feel that he could be judged so had made the decision to step out of the room to avoid any further repercussions from that initial Code of Conduct complaint, which was dismissed.  He was still awaiting full written reasons why.  In order  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

Considered –

The Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services sought determination of an application for planning permission for the construction of a self/custom-build dwelling and associated change of use of land. The application was recommended for refusal by officers on the grounds that it represented an isolated dwelling in the countryside and conflicted with local and national planning policy.  In accordance with the Council’s governance procedures, the application had been brought to Committee because the applicant was a North Yorkshire Councillor and also a Member of the Richmond (Yorks) Area Planning Committee.

The Planning Officer presented the application and detailed the additional information that had been submitted following an earlier deferral. Members were advised that further landscape, ecological, arboricultural and sustainability information had been provided and that previous objections from ecological and tree specialists had been withdrawn. The proposed dwelling incorporated a range of sustainable design measures, including renewable energy technologies, electric vehicle charging facilities and accessibility features. However, officers maintained that the site remained outside development limits and did not satisfy policy tests for residential development in the countryside.

In accordance with public speaking arrangements at planning committees, the following speaker addressed the Committee:

Supporting the application:

Beverly Booth – agent for the applicant.

Members engaged in a detailed debate concerning the interpretation of policy, the definition of isolation and the wider planning balance. Some Members expressed concern regarding the officer recommendation and acknowledged the policy conflict identified within the report. Councillor Foster’s stated that he was minded to agree with officer recommendation for refusal, he could not see any exceptional circumstances in order to depart from the polices.  He was looking to see a building that was architecturally outstanding and in his opinion this was not.  Furthermore, it departed from Local Plan policies CP3, CP4 and CP5 as well as national policies.  He did acknowledge, however, that the proposal was for a self-build dwelling which was welcome.   Councillor Foster asked for a definition of ‘open countryside’ and the planning officer explained that it was a simple fact that if it was not within a settlement then it was deemed to be open countryside and that visual aspects such as limited trees and enclosures were also relevant.  However, several Members considered that the site formed part of an established cluster of development and was not genuinely isolated in the way envisaged by national planning guidance. Reference was also made to the Council’s acknowledged shortfall in housing land supply, the self-build nature of the proposal, the lack of technical objections from consultees and the mitigation provided through landscaping and site design.

Legal advice was provided reminding Members of the need to clearly identify material planning considerations should they choose to depart from the officer recommendation. Members were advised that any approval would require a Section 106 obligation securing the self-build nature of the development and that detailed conditions would need to be drafted before permission could be issued.

A motion was proposed by Councillor Peacock and seconded by Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

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

There were no urgent items of business.

10.00am, Thursday, 13 August 2026 (venue to be confirmed)

Thursday, 13 August 2026 at 10.00am at County Hall, Northallerton / Mercury House, Richmond.