Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies.

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.

Councillor Cliff Lunn stated that as the Division Member for Hambleton and Thorpe Willoughby he would be speaking on item numbers 4, 5 and 6 of the agenda.  He confirmed that he would not take part in the debate or decision making and would leave the room once he had spoken on each item.

Councillor Karl Arthur declared an interest in agenda item numbers 4, 7 and 8.  He informed the Committee that he was employed by Network Rail who were statutory consultees on item number 4, however he confirmed that he would speak and vote on the item.  The Councillor highlighted that he had received several representations from Barlby and Osgodby Town Council regarding item number 7, but he confirmed that he had not expressed an opinion on the application and would therefore be taking part.  Finally, Councillor Arthur stated that he had an acquaintance who lived at the Friars Meadow site, and as such he would leave the meeting during consideration of item number 8.

Councillor Mike Jordan declared an interest in item numbers 7 and 8 of the agenda and confirmed that he would be leaving the meeting during consideration of each item; and that depending on the length of the meeting, he may need to leave earlier.

Councillor John Cattanach stated that he had received numerous communications by email on a number of the applications on the agenda.

Councillor Arnold Warneken advised that he had been lobbied on agenda items 3 and 8.

Councillor Bob Packham highlighted that he had also been lobbied on agenda items 3 and 8.

The Chair confirmed that an officer update note had been circulated and added to the North Yorkshire Council website; and advised that he had amended the order of business on the agenda, therefore agenda item number 8, application ZG2022/1444/FULM, land east of Broadacres, Mill Lane, Carlton would be taken as item number 7, with application 2021/0550/FULM, land off Cliffe Road, Osgodby taken as the last item on the agenda.

Planning Applications

The Committee considered reports of the Assistant Director Planning, Community Development Services relating to applications for planning permission.  During the meeting, Officers referred to additional information and representations which had been received.

Except where an alternative condition was contained in the report or an amendment made by the Committee, the condition as set out in the report and the appropriate time limit conditions were to be attached in accordance with the relevant provisions of Section 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

In considering the reports of the Assistant Director Planning, 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 deferred consideration or refused planning permission the reasons for that decision were 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

Report of the Assistant Director – Planning – Community Development Services.

The Assistant Director Planning, Community Development Services sought determination of an outline planning application including access, with all other matters reserved for the erection of up to 32 no. dwellings, amenity space, access road and footways, drainage infrastructure, and other associated works on land at Colton Lane, Appleton Roebuck.

The Principal Planning Officer advised Members that there was an officer update on the application; additional comments had been received from the Parish Council, two additional objections had been received, and there was clarification of the wording at paragraph 10.24 of the report within the agenda pack.

Trevor Costello spoke, objecting to the application.

Councillor Janet Flint M.B.E., spoke on behalf of Appleton Roebuck and Acaster Selby Parish Council objecting to the application.

The agent for the applicant, Steve Grimster, spoke in support of the application.

During consideration of the above application, the Committee discussed the following issues.

Clarification was sought as to whether Appleton Roebuck was a designated        service village (DSV) within the Core Strategy, which was now outdated.

·       References had been made to the fact that the settlement had lost services, and it was queried whether making the village a DSV was still appropriate.

·       Did the application site sit within the Neighbourhood Development Plan as a preferred site.

·       It was highlighted that in their consultation response, Appleton Roebuck and Acaster Selby Parish Council had objected to the application on a number of grounds; one of which was infrastructure capacity and access to services.  Members stated that there was no justification for approving the application, and it was queried why officers considered the village to be sustainable.

Councillor Packham commented that there were a number of complicated issues with the application; the planning history was not straightforward, and the Neighbourhood Plan had been drawn up in a different overall planning context particularly in relation to the NPPF.  In his opinion there would be a high impact on the landscape, it was quite a large site in relation to the scale of the village, and there were very few services.  Balanced against that the Council had a new housing requirement, they no longer had a 5-year housing land supply, and the village was part of the draft allocation in the discontinued Local Plan.  Officers having looked at all these issues within the report had recommended grant, and therefore he could see no justification to refuse the application.

Councillor Warneken stated that he considered the application to be unacceptable in terms of sustainability and that Members should take note of the views and concerns of the Parish Council and local residents.

The officer recommendation was to grant the application; however, this motion did not receive a proposer.  It was subsequently proposed by Councillor Warneken that the application be refused on the grounds of sustainability, in particular with relation to the lack of public transport, and this was seconded by Councillor Jordan.

A lengthy discussion then took place between Members and officers regarding the planning definition of sustainability.

The decision

That planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

Report of the Assistant Director – Planning – Community Development Services.

The Assistant Director Planning, Community Development Services sought determination of an application for an outline planning permission with all matters reserved except for means of access to, but not within, the site for the development of up to 140 dwellings and associated landscaping and infrastructure at land to the north of Leeds Road, Thorpe Willoughby, Selby, North Yorkshire.

The Principal Planning Officer informed Members that there was an officer update on the application since the agenda had been published in relation to three additional objections which had been received by the Council, however none of the objections raised any new issues beyond those already considered within the report.  In addition, the wording at paragraph 11.3 of the report had been amended, but this did not change the officer’s recommendation.

Maria Ferris spoke, objecting to the application.

The Division Councillor, Cliff Lunn, spoke objecting to the application, and then left the room for the remainder of the item.

The agent for the applicant, Becky Richmond, spoke in support of the application.

During consideration of the above application, the Committee discussed the following issues.

·       Members questioned what the reference to reservoir flooding meant and where the reservoir was located in relation to the application site.

·       It was queried to what extent the Committee could take into account when determining each individual application, the cumulative impact upon Thorpe Willoughby with the potential for 400 additional dwellings to be built; and also, if the statutory consultees had been made aware of all three applications and had taken into account any cumulative impacts.

·       If Members were so minded to refuse the application, could reference be made to the other two applications, although they were yet to be determined.

Councillor Arthur expressed concerns around the impact on Brayton Barff, a possible increase in water runoff into the town dyke, which had flooded previously, and increased traffic flow and stated that he felt that the application should be refused.

Councillor Cattanach proposed, and Councillor Packham seconded that the application be granted.

The decision

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to prior completion of a section 106 agreement and the conditions listed at section 12 of the Committee report.

Voting record

A vote was taken with 2 votes for and 2 votes against, at which time the Chair used his casting vote.  The motion to GRANT the application was therefore carried.

Councillor Cliff Lunn returned to the room and sat in the public gallery.

Report of the Assistant Director – Planning – Community Development Services.

The Assistant Director Planning, Community Development Services sought determination of an outline application for up to 145 residential dwellings and associated works, including access from Leeds Road but not access within the site (all other matters reserved) at land south of Leeds Road, Thorpe Willoughby, Selby, North Yorkshire.

The Principal Planning Officer informed Members that three additional objections had been received by the Council since the agenda had been published, however none of the objections had raised any new issues beyond those already considered within the report.

Edward Roberts spoke, objecting to the application.

The Division Councillor, Cliff Lunn, spoke objecting to the application, and then left the room for the remainder of the item.

The agent for the applicant, Nick Pleasant, spoke in support of the application.

During consideration of the above application, the Committee discussed the following issues.

·       Clarification was requested on the comments received from the Councils Ecologist in relation to Brayton Barff, which related to a previous appeal decision.

·       Members queried the acreage of the site.

·       In relation to increased traffic flow, it was queried if the current 30 mile per hour speed limit signs would be re-sited, and what was the intended speed limit for the highway in the approach to the roundabout.

·       Clarity was requested on which parish council, Hambleton or Thorpe Willoughby, would receive the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies.

Councillor Arthur again expressed concerns around the division of the CIL monies over the two parishes, the impact on Brayton Barff, and increased traffic flow and stated that he was minded to refuse the application.

Councillor Cattanach proposed, and Councillor Packham seconded that the application be granted.

The decision

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to prior completion of a section 106 agreement and the conditions listed at section 12 of the Committee report.

Voting record

A vote was taken with 2 votes for and 2 votes against, at which time the Chair used his casting vote.  The motion to GRANT the application was therefore carried.

Councillor Cliff Lunn returned to the room and sat in the public gallery.

Report of the Assistant Director – Planning – Community Development Services.

The Assistant Director Planning, Community Development Services sought determination of an application for outline planning permission including access, with all other matters reserved, for up to 110 residential dwellings at land at Field Lane, Thorpe Willoughby, Selby, North Yorkshire.

The Principal Planning Officer informed Members that one additional objection had been received by the Council since the agenda had been published, however the objection had not raised any new issues beyond those already considered within the report.

Maria Ferris spoke, objecting to the application.

The Division Councillor, Cliff Lunn, spoke objecting to the application, and then left the room for the remainder of the item.

The agent for the applicant, Christopher Dale, spoke in support of the application.

During consideration of the above application, the Committee discussed the following issues.

· Members queried if the entire site was within the parish of Gateforth.

Members expressed their concerns that this application was significantly different from the previous two applications and would have a greater detrimental impact on Brayton Barff.  They considered the application to be unacceptable in terms of the impact on the landscape, as should the hedgerow be retained buildings would still be visible above the hedgerow, and the development boundary was one of the cleanest and clearest.  Finally, Members agreed with the concerns raised by the Council’s landscape architect, and in terms of the structure of the settlement it was felt that the application was on the wrong side of Field Lane.

Contrary to the officer’s recommendation to grant the application, it was proposed by Councillor Warneken that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposal would breach a very clear development boundary, in the form of Field Lane, which would harm the settlement structure of Thorpe Willoughby.  Furthermore, the proposal would have an unacceptable negative landscape impact on the area and setting of Brayton Barff with dwellings visible above the site frontage hedgerow even if it was retained, and this was seconded by Councillor Packham.

The decision

That planning permission be REFUSED.

The reason

On the grounds that the proposal would breach a very clear development boundary, in the form of Field Lane, which would harm the settlement structure of Thorpe Willoughby.  Furthermore, the proposal would have an unacceptable negative landscape impact on the area and setting of Brayton Barff with dwellings visible above the site frontage hedgerow even if it was retained

Voting record

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

Councillor Cliff Lunn returned to the room at this point.

As per his earlier declaration, Councillor Karl Arthur left the room at this point.

Report of the Assistant Director – Planning – Community Development Services.

The Assistant Director Planning, Community Development Services sought determination ofa planning application for the change of use from agricultural to sports field F2 (outdoor sports facility) at land off Friars Meadow, Selby.

The application had been previously considered at Planning Committee on 12 March

 2025 where it had been deferred to allow officers to discuss the issues raised by

 Members in relation to the control of the operation and traffic levels, and control of

 floodlighting with the applicant.  Draft conditions had been prepared and agreed with

 the applicant and discussions had taken place with North Yorkshire Highways, and

 now the application had returned to committee for further consideration with the

 supplementary information as requested.

A site visit had been attended by Members on the morning of the Committee.

The Development Service Manager presented the report and highlighted that there had been an update note.  The first update was in relation to an updated consultation response from Highways who had now recommended that the application be refused on the grounds of poor access to the site.  The Council had also received one further objection which had raised the following new concerns; the scarcity of detail submitted in the application, a lack of engagement with local people, no pre-application advice, the financing of construction operations, consideration for residents, cars coming through the access on both sides of the road simultaneously, and finally the step drop in the road surface at the gateway.

Gary Jones spoke on behalf of Friars Meadow Alliance Committee, objecting to the application.

Councillor Melanie Davis spoke as the North Yorkshire Council Division Member for the application.

Dr Ian Martin spoke as the applicant.

Members raised the following key points during the debate.

·       Sought reassurance that officers had made every effort to communicate with the applicant with the aim of addressing some of the issues raised.

·       If a response had been received from the applicant.

·       The change in the highways recommendation to refusal was queried, and Members questioned that if the gatepost was moved, potentially removing the gate itself, to give a wider opening and adding a drop kerb, would highways remove their objections.

·       Members queried whether officers had established what part of the road belonged to North Yorkshire Highways and what was private land.

·       If the access was free flowing, what impact would that have on the refusal reason.

·       Members highlighted the need for a facility such as this in the Selby area but were concerned that this may not be the correct site for it.

·       Members considered that there had to be a solution to overcome the issues and discussed deferring the item again to allow the applicant time to formulate a highways proposal, for the local residents to be consulted on the proposal and for agreement on the proposal from North Yorkshire Highways. 

Councillor Warneken proposed, and Councillor Packham seconded that the application be deferred.

The decision

That the planning application be DEFERRED for the following reason

·       To allow the applicant time to formulate a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

Report of the Assistant Director – Planning – Community Development Services.

The Assistant Director Planning, Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application for the proposed erection of 25 No. dwellings and associated works following the demolition of an existing dwelling and its associated buildings and the demolition of an extension to the village hall to facilitate access at land off Cliffe Road, Osgodby.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report and advised Members that there was an officer update note on the application regarding some minor amendments to condition numbers 2, 8 and 10, contained within the report in the agenda pack.

Krishna Mistry spoke as the applicant, in support of the application.

Members raised the following key points during the debate.

·       It was queried if the dwelling closest to the village hall had had a sound mitigation or screening measures carried out.

·       Whether the applicant would be making a contribution towards the proposed new extension to the Osgodby Institute, to the north of the building.

·       Had consideration been given to moving the access to the development on to Hull Road. 

·       How many car parking spaces the new extension to the north of the Osgodby Institute would remove.

·       What amendments had been made to the scheme in response to local representations.

·       What type of fuel would be used at the dwellings.

Councillor Karl Arthur proposed, and Councillor Cliff Lunn seconded that the application be granted.

The decision

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to prior completion of a Section 106 agreement, and the conditions listed at section 12 of the Committee report, and the officer update note.

Voting record

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

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

There were no other items.

Thursday, 22 May 2025 at 2.00pm.

Thursday 22 May 2025 at 2.00 pm.