Agenda and draft minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 October 2025 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

The Committee considered reports 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.

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 interests.

Report of the Head of Development Management – Community Development Services

The Head of Development Management – Community Development Services sought determination of an outline planning application for residential development with all matters reserved except access at Land between Resolution Way and Pembroke Way, South of Mayfield Road, Whitby, North Yorkshire on behalf of Terra Green Yorkshire. The committee had deferred consideration of this application pending a committee site visit which had taken place on 10 November. Updating their report, the planning officer advised that the agent had confirmed that there was an error in the flood risk assessment referenced in the report: according to British Geological Survey data, there was a low risk of ground water flooding, not medium risk as stated. This meant that there was no longer a requirement for a flood risk sequential test, and therefore no longer a conflict with flood risk policy. Further, 36 additional objections had been received from local residents. These raised issues already addressed in the report with two exceptions. One objection included a photograph of a hole which they claimed to be a badger sett within the development site and a plan illustrating where they considered setts to be located. These potential sett locations were outside the site of the application. This matter had been discussed with the council’s ecologist who was satisfied that condition 18 as detailed in the report, which required further surveys for such mobile species prior to commencement of development, was sufficient to deal with potential badger setts near the site. Another objection referred to springs on or near the site. It would be possible to engineer a solution should springs be discovered on site. Therefore neither objection altered the recommendations in the report.

Zoe Cottier spoke objecting to the application.

The applicant’s agent, Annabelle Parkinson, spoke in support of the application.

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

• Applicant’s poor cooperation in enabling access to the site for the committee’s site visit
• How the appropriate drainage of the site would be secured to address concerns raised by residents – this was condition 8 in the report which if breached would be for the local planning authority to enforce
• In respect of residents’ request for an independent structural survey of the site, this was covered by condition 5 – the developer would normally commission an engineering firm to undertake the ground investigation on their behalf
• In light of historical landslips, a request was made for the ground investigation to extend to the toe of the slope – this was addressed by condition 5 – the investigation would extend to all the land over which the applicant had control
• The adopted footpath to the boundary of the proposed site and the narrow strip of land between the adopted highway and the application site – the ownership of the strip remained unclear but if it were a ransom strip, this would need to be resolved by the developer
• The importance of the geotechnical survey, the surface water drainage scheme and the viability assessment to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 139.

Report of the Head of Development Management – Community Development Services

The Head of Development Management – Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application for the variation of conditions 1 and 2 in relation to ZF24/00099/FLA, to allow removal of a tree and creation of parking area at former site of 79 Cross Lane, Newby, Scarborough on behalf of Mohamed Gaafar.

During consideration of the above application, the committee discussed the following issues:

• The danger of setting an unhelpful precedent should this application be approved
• The importance of ensuring a semi-mature tree was replanted on the site – subject to the committee’s refusal of the application this would be addressed by the planning enforcement team since the applicant had breached a condition for which there was no right of appeal; there is no right of appeal against a Breach of Condition Notice.
• Whether there was any supporting information to justify the removal of the tree – there was none

The decision:

That planning permission be REFUSED.

Voting record:

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

Reasons:

The committee agreed with the reasons for refusal put forward by the planning officer as set out below:

1. Policy DEC1, part, a i, of the Scarborough Borough Local Plan states, 'All development will be required to meet the following principles of good design by demonstrating that the proposal reflects the local environment and creates an individual sense of place with distinctive character'.

Paragraphs 7.15 and 7.16 of the Council's Residential Guide state, 'With respect to the streetscene, car parking should be provided to the side of dwellings. Spaces between the building frontages and street should not be dominated by the car…excessive use of parking areas in front of principal elevations should be avoided…'

The Scot's Pine tree contributed positively to the appearance of the site and character of the surrounding area. Its removal from site has resulted in significant visual harm to the development, the streetscene and the wider surroundings.

The proposed vehicular access would result in the parking of vehicles to the front of the southernmost dwellinghouse, obscuring the frontage of the host dwelling by vehicles and also the outlook for its occupants; the sum of which would be to result in significant visual harm.

It is therefore considered that the proposal would fail to comply with Policy DEC1, part a i, of the Scarborough Borough Local Plan, the Council's Residential Design Guide and Section 12 of the NPPF, which seek a high regard for good design, and thus, fails to constitute sustainable development.

2. Policy DEC1, part c, of the Local Plan requires new development to provide safe and accessible vehicular parking arrangements.

The Highway Authority has confirmed that the proposal to vary the approved plans and provide an access to the side of the southernmost dwellinghouse would result in an unsafe parking arrangement that lacks the required visibility splay, conflicts with the existing pedestrian crossing on Cross Lane, compromise visibility for vehicles entering the junction from Cross Lane to the side of the site and would increase  ...  view the full minutes text for item 140.

Report of the Head of Development Management – Community Development Services

The Head of Development Management – Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application for erection of a 32-metre high Ferris wheel including supporting structure with decking, ramp access and a ticket office and construction of an 18 hole adventure golf course on a metal deck at former Futurist Theatre, former Futurist buildings, Foreshore Road, Scarborough, North Yorkshire, on behalf of Mr Abbott.

Updating their report, the planning officer advised that officers were recommending a further condition that the disassembled wheel not be stored on site on grounds of visual amenity.

During consideration of the above application, the committee discussed the following issues:

• Whether there was an active planning brief for the regeneration of this significant site – there was not
• Whether this latest in a series of temporary permissions for effectively a fairground use of the site would fetter the longer term regeneration aspirations for the site – the officer’s view was not
• The fairness of the applicant for this temporary permission having to pay for the reinstatement of the tactile pedestrian crossing and refuge opposite the site when a condition of the original consent to demolish the Futurist Theatre was that Scarborough Borough Council pay for the reinstatement of the crossing when the site was redeveloped – the planning condition did not specify who had to cover the cost of the works but this was for the applicant/tenant to agree with the landowner, North Yorkshire Council

The decision:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions detailed in the committee report and the additional condition recommended by officers that the disassembled wheel not be stored on site on grounds of visual amenity.

Voting record:

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

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.

Thursday, 11 December 2025 at 2.00pm

Thursday, 11 December 2025 – Town Hall, Scarborough