Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

Councillor Greg White was delayed and joined the meeting at 10:07am.

The Chair delayed the start of the meeting to 10:10am allow Members to read the late consultation response from Environmental Health Scientific Officer.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 September 2025 were agreed and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

Voting record

5 For

2 Abstentions

In the interests of transparency, the Chair declared that they knew the applicant for Item 5.

In the interests of transparency for Item 4, Councillor Alyson Baker declared that a family member worked for Yorkshire Water.

In the interests of transparency, all Members declared that they had been lobbied on Item 4.

The Head of Development Management sought a view from the Committee on the direction of defence at an appeal for non-determination in relation to an outline planning permission (with all matters reserved except the main points of access) for the construction of up to 200 residential dwellings, open space, landscaping, habitat enhancement, drainage infrastructure and associated works at land off Rainbow Lane, Malton.

The Senior Planning Officer advised Members of recently received correspondence as follows:

·       Local Highway – no objection

·       National Highways – no objection

·       Yorkshire Water - objection as it was considered that the public foul water sewer does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate a development of the size proposed.

·       Environmental Health - the applicant’s Noise Impact Assessment was considered inadequate. Further acoustic detail and acoustic mitigation measures were required.

The officer also confirmed that the soil assessment had not yet been received.

During the debate Members considered:

·       The impact of developments already approved on local infrastructure

·       The lack of information on noise mitigation

·       The lack of capacity in the public foul water sewer

·       Concerns about the impact on local highways

·       Loss of the buffer zone between Malton and Old Malton

·       The planning constraints listed in 4.2 of the officer’s report

·       The cumulative effect of Grampian conditions imposed on other recent applications

Councillor Lindsay Burr proposed and Councillor Nigel Knapton seconded that the application would have been refused for the reasons listed below.

Decision

Members considered that the application would have been refused for the following reasons:

1.     The development resulted in less than substantial harm to the setting of the Conservation Area and to the listed Church.

2.     The development had a harmful impact on the Visually Important Undeveloped Area.

3.     The proposed emergency access onto a single carriageway, unadopted road was considered unacceptable.

4.     Harmful impact of surface water run off and insufficient information on surface water attenuation and management.

5.     Lack of appropriate information with regard to the impact on the amenity of future occupiers of the development resulting from noise.

6.     No information provided by the applicant on Land Classification and as such it was not possible to apply appropriate weight to this issue.

7.     Insufficient capacity of the sewerage system to accept the proposed additional foul flows. Members raised concerns about both the cumulative impact from housing development on sewerage capacity along with concern about the weight to be given to new housing approvals in light of housing land supply and the deliverability of housing sites where Grampian style conditions were used owing to the uncertainty of the timescales for delivery.

Voting record

6 For

1 Abstention

The Head of Development Management sought determination of a retrospective planning application for the change of use of land to allow the siting of 6no. static caravans with associated foul drainage at Willow Farm, Upper Helmsley.

The application was referred to Committee for determination owing to the issues raised.

Members had questions on:

·       The definition of special circumstance. The officer confirmed that workers accommodation in the equestrian industry is not listed as a special circumstance.

·       The officer advised that the applicant’s agent had offered to undertake landscaping if that would mitigate concerns.

·       Would the relocation of the manure store away from the vicinity of the caravans make the proposal more acceptable

Mr O’Meara, the applicant, spoke to the application.

During debate Members were supportive of the provision of accommodation for employees, particularly in the current rental market. They were supportive of those in the racing industry, aware of the challenges and conscious of the other local businesses in the supply chain.

Members discussed alternative options to refusal including consideration of what would be a suitable time period if a temporary consent was granted to allow the applicant to submit a more suitable application.

Councillor Lindsay Burr proposed that a 1-year temporary consent be granted and Councillor Caroline Goodrick proposed and Councillor Michelle Donohue-Moncrieff seconded an amendment that a 2-year temporary consent be granted.

Decision

Members were unanimously minded to GRANT planning permission for a limited period of 2 years.

Members were supportive of the essential need for accommodation to be provided on site to enable the operation of the business but considered that the existing accommodation on site failed to provide an adequate level of amenity. Members considered that a 2-year temporary consent was acceptable to ensure the business was not prejudiced and to allow the applicant to seek to provide more acceptable accommodation.

There were no items of urgent business.

The date of the next meeting was confirmed as 10am on 20 November 2025.

The Chair and Committee members thanked Peter Jones, Development Management Team Manager and Ellie Hardie, Senior Planning Officer, for their help and support as they move on to new opportunities.