Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies.

In response to a query by Councillor Janet Jefferson about the planning conditions in respect of Minute item 99, the Development Service Manager confirmed that he would send her the decision notice with the approved conditions.

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 December 2024 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record. 

Voting record:

Councillor Janet Jefferson abstained on the vote to approve the minutes.

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 Subash Sharma commented that he had been approached by various parties regarding agenda item 4. ZF24/01950/NMA - Non-material amendment in relation to application 19/01248/OL, but retained an open mind.

Councillor Eric Broadbent declared an interest in agenda item 4. ZF24/01950/NMA - Non-material amendment in relation to application 19/01248/OL, since his sister had a second home on the High Mill development.  The Chair confirmed that this was a Non-Registrable Interest and that in accordance with the Constitution he should withdraw from the meeting for the debate and determination of this item.

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.

Except where an alternative condition was contained in the report or an amendment made by the Committee, the conditions 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 report(s) 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 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. 

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 a non-material amendment in relation to application 19/01248/OL to allow alterations to the wording to condition 18 in relation to the timeframe for delivery of the footpath and cycle route over Scalby Beck, on land at High Mill, Scalby, Scarborough, on behalf of Lovell Partnerships LLP and Cetacea Investments Ltd.

Updating their report, the planning officer advised that Newby and Scalby Town Council had submitted comments in the last 24 hours to the effect that they strongly opposed the application on the grounds that the bridge was a significant and fundamental element of the master plan for the High Mill development as a whole and was included in the original planning application and had long been promised to the buyers of properties in phases 1 and 2.  Connectivity was essential.  The applicant's explanation of reasons for the requested put back of delivery were, in the main, commercial, and were not justified by the failure to deliver what was required in the existing consent.  The town council added that if there was an 18 month time frame for the actual delivery of the bridge from grant of consent, then the developers should be getting on at pace with the legal aspects and the tendering so that construction could start in a timely manner.  There was no guarantee there would not be another request to defer somewhere down the line, citing commercial reasons. 

Local Division and committee member, Councillor Derek Bastiman addressed the committee objecting to the application.

Councillor Bastiman withdrew from the meeting after making his representations against the application as the Division member.

The applicant’s agent, Rachael Martin, then spoke in support of the application.

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

·       The likelihood that the issues identified as delaying the construction of the bridge by the developer would be resolved in the estimated 18 month timeframe (officer response: parallel discussions e.g. regarding the ransom strip were ongoing which were not material to the planning application)

·       The estimated cost of the bridge (£219,000 had already been paid in s106 contributions towards its construction) and whether a further condition could be imposed on the application to set aside a guaranteed sum before the occupation of the first dwelling (officer response: this would be very difficult to agree since the final design of the bridge had not yet been identified nor its final cost.  The proposed amendment to condition 18 was about timing of delivery which required the delivery nonetheless and would be enforceable if not fulfilled)

·       The officers’ recommendations in the report were based on a calculation of the balance of risk to provide as much assurance to the committee as possible that the bridge would be delivered and to minimise the risk that the developer would abandon the project

·       The completion of the bridge was in the developer’s interests since it would make the dwellings in Phase 3  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

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, 13 March 2025 at 2.00pm.

Thursday, 13 March 2025 – Town Hall, Scarborough