Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Alyson Baker and Michelle Donohue-Moncrieff.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 June 2026 were agreed and signed by the Chair 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.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Head of Development Management – Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application for the construction of a detached 2-bedroom bungalow on land at 16 St Marys Walk, Thirsk.

The application was brought to Planning Committee following a written request from a Member of the Council, raising material planning considerations. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, it was confirmed in consultation with the Chair, that the matters raised constituted significant material planning issues warranting determination by Committee.

The Planning Officer drew Members attention to an additional objection received following publication of the agenda and confirmed that the representations made did not alter the conclusions of the officer report.

The officer’s presentation showed the site location and provided further information regarding access.

Mr Peter Wildash spoke to object to the application.

Mr Craig Buchan, representing the applicants, spoke in support of the application.

The Committee considered a number of issues relating to the proposed access arrangements, particularly the relationship between the public footpath, claimed vehicular rights, and the implications of granting planning permission.

·       With regard to the PROW, Members were concerned that granting planning permission would not in itself confer any vehicular rights. Officers confirmed that planning permission could not grant or determine legal access rights. Any dispute regarding the use of the access route would remain a private civil matter to be resolved through the courts.

·       The Solicitor confirmed that it was lawful for a public footpath to coexist with private vehicular rights. While the route in question was recorded as a public footpath, private vehicular rights may also exist.

·       Members were concerned that granting planning permission might inadvertently strengthen one party’s position in any future legal proceedings regarding access rights. Members were advised that prescriptive rights are based on evidence of historic use and that the granting of planning permission would not constitute evidence of such use.

·       The Chair sought clarification regarding pedestrian access. It was confirmed that the public footpath would continue irrespective of the outcome of any dispute regarding vehicular rights. Occupiers would therefore retain pedestrian access to the property.

·       Members also queried whether the proposed planning condition requiring improvements to the access route would effectively authorise works on land outside the applicant’s control. Officers advised that the condition would only require the submission and approval of details demonstrating how the access would be made suitable. Approval of those details would not confer any legal rights to undertake works on third-party land, and any necessary permissions or agreements would need to be secured separately.

Councillor Knapton proposed and Councillor Andrews seconded that the committee was minded to grant permission subject to amendment to Condition 9 – Construction Management Plan and an additional condition to limit the hours of work on construction of the property and the decision be delegated to officers in consultation with the Chair.

Decision

The committee was minded to grant permission subject to amendment to Condition 9 – Construction Management Plan and an additional condition to limit the hours of work on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 238.

The Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services sought determination of a hybrid planning application comprising:

1)    Application for full planning permission for the erection of a commercial building for the immediate expansion of Sylatech (Phase 1), together with the reorganisation of the existing car park, formation of new access from West Lund Lane, parking and landscaping.

2)    Full planning permission for the erection of 67no. dwellings comprising 11no. four bedroom dwellings, 42no. three bedroom dwellings and 14no. two bedroom dwellings, together with new access from West Lund Lane and associated parking, landscaping and drainage works (Phase 1).

3)    Outline planning permission for the extension of the first phase building (Phase 2) with further commercial development to the East of West Lund Lane (Phase 3). Approval sought for access only.

4)    Full planning permission for works to West Lund Lane and the former railway bridge (Phase 1).

The application was referred to the Area Planning Committee for determination because it was considered that significant planning issues had been raised.

The officer drew Members’ attention to an additional representation received after publication of the agenda.

The officer’s presentation outlined the site location which included land allocated for the expansion of the existing business, residential development, access and public open space.

Mr Nigel Croad spoke to object to the application.

Mr Mark Lane, agent, spoke in support of the application.

The officer advised that there were 2no 1 bed bungalows not listed in the application description and advised that, should Members be minded to approve the application, approval be delegated to officers in order to correct the description.

Members questioned the officers on affordable housing; the ownership of and proposed works to the bridge; public open space; noise and visual impact; loss of employment land: highway improvements; lighting and dark skies; construction hours.

·       Officers advised that the application was originally submitted around five years ago and a viability assessment demonstrated that a reduced affordable housing contribution was necessary. The assessment was independently reviewed on behalf of the Council, resulting in a negotiated increase in affordable housing provision. The proposal had since been re-consulted upon and the 14 affordable dwellings remained acceptable to the Housing Team. The reduced provision reflected infrastructure requirements associated with the company’s expansion and the site's viability.

·       It was confirmed that the bridge was managed by the Department for Transport and the Historic Railway Estate. The applicant did not own the bridge but, with the owner's agreement, proposed to infill the arches and strengthen the embankments to mitigate increased maintenance liabilities arising from additional use generated by the development.

·       Officers advised that delivery of the public open space would be secured through the Section 106 agreement, which would also control its delivery and timing. Maintenance arrangements were typically transferred to a management company. The agreement would prescribe management requirements and transfer arrangements, but the Council would not ordinarily be able to stipulate such representation on the management board.

·       Officers confirmed that Environmental Health had assessed the proposals and recommended  ...  view the full minutes text for item 239.

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

There were no items of urgent business.

Thursday 10 August 2026 at 10am.

Thursday, 20 August 2026 at 10.00am.