Agenda item

Considered

 

The report of the Head of Development Management – Community Development Service requesting Members to determine an application for full Planning Permission for Motorway Service Area comprising amenity building, (Shops, Restaurants, Lounges, Tourist Information, Gaming Room and Cash Machines, Toilet Facilities, Administration Offices and Staff facilities, Servicing, Storage Areas, and ancillary uses), 100 bedroomed hotel, Drive Thru Costa and McDonald's Restaurants, fuel filling station with shop (total 10,855 sq. m Gross Floorspace), car, lorry, motorbike, cycle, caravan and coach parking, Electric Vehicle Charging facilities, amenity lake and associated landscaping with dog walking facilities and landscaping with access to J52 on the A1(M) (as amended) - Land East of Junction 52 on the A1(M) At Catterick, Pallett Hill Farm, Catterick Village, DL10 7PG

 

The application was referred to the Committee due to the strategic nature of the proposal being a Motorway Service Area (MSA), raising significant material planning considerations that affect more than one area committee geography.

 

A Planning Officer presented the Committee report, highlighting the proposal; the site location and description; the context to the application; planning guidance; and policy and planning considerations. The report also provided a conclusion and recommendations.

 

An update to the report had been published prior to the meeting which corrected a small number of inaccuracies within the original report, provided details of additional representations received since the publication of the original report and an assessment in relation the Scheduled Ancient Monument.

 

Updates to the conditions highlighted the following.

 

Condition 2 Edits

 

Approved Plan Condition (2) updated to delete the following documents, as these are informative rather than aspects needing to be complied with OR they are secured by the S106:

 

-        Statement of Community Involvement

-        Comparative Analysis of MSA Applications by Montagu Evans dated 3rd April 2024

-        East Cowton proposed flood plain grassland nature conservation area. Lower Ure Conservation Trust dated March 2024.

-        ADAS letter Ecological opinion dated 03 April 2024

-        Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment ADAS document dated 23rd January 2024

 

Add:

-        Landscape Masterplan 1836.10J

 

Replace:

218257/01 OVERALL LAYOUT with Overall Layout 218257-D01-P5B

 

Condition 2 and 14 Edit

 

Flood risk assessment changed to refer to approved document: 881624-R1(01)-FRA Flood Risk Assessment & 881624_L01_KJ Flood Risk Addendum

 

Liz Dinsmore of the Campaign to Save Catterick addressed the Committee, highlighting the following.

 

·        There was no evidence of need with a number of similar facilities already in place.

·        There was a mandate from the Government to protect the countryside and the proposals were contrary to this.

·        The site had a large amount of biodiversity, was a nature conservation site, and housed a number of protected species.

·        The data provided with the report was not up-to-date.

·        The area was within the flood plain.

·        A new infrastructure around the facilities would be required adding further development to the area.

 

Jennifer Smith of Smith Jenkins Planning and Heritage (at the discretion of the Chair) addressed the Committee and outlined the following.

 

·        As the facilities at Barton had just been approved there was no need for the provision of this MSA.

·        The close proximity of the two facilities would lead to them not being viable, as they would compete against each other.

·        The local wildlife status of part of the site.

 

Councillor Lin Ryan of Catterick Parish Council addressed the Committee, highlighting the following.

 

·        Local residents and the Parish Council had a strong objection to the application with concerns continually raised.

·        There was real need for this development given the number of similar facilities in the nearby areas, and following the approval of the Barton application.

·        The Yorkshire Wildlife Trust had concerns regarding the development in that area. The proposals went against nature conservation and biodiversity and needed to be protected.

·        There were significant flooding issues in that area which also impacted the motorway.

 

Mark Fox, CEO of Roadchef and Simon Warwick of Roadchef addressed the Committee highlighting the following.

 

·        Supported the recommendation to approve the application. • The basis for the application had previously been approved by the former Richmondshire District Council.

·        The proposals included improvements in comparison to the previously approved application with several offsite mitigation measures to address the loss of the wildlife land.

·        Work was to be carried out with the developers alongside local residents in respect of the mitigating measures.

·        A good and appropriate site had been identified that would attract the displaced wildlife.

·        The application provided an opportunity for the area to be enhanced.

 

Members discussed the application and the following issues were outlined.

 

·        It was clarified that the application site is not within the greenbelt, but falls within the countryside and is a ‘greenfield’ site.

·        It was noted that many migrating birds returned to the same site year on year, and the development of the site could cause displacement, however, it was emphasised that there were many suitable locations within the Swale Valley for birds to resettle.

·        Details of the Richmondshire District Council planning committee resolution July 2022 were set out. The decision notice was never issued as a legal challenge was received from a third party, which included raising the uncertainty that Richmondshire District Council could find and secure suitable biodiversity net gain land using the proposed S106 contribution. Officers consider this point valid and worked with the applicant to agree amended Heads of Terms.

·        The same application is now referred to North Yorkshire Council Strategic Committee with amended Heads of Terms and documentation. It was considered that the application had evolved positively since the initial application and noted that Members should consider the previous resolution, however, are not compelled to make the same decision.

·        It was clarified that there was no minimum distance requirement between MSAs. Need was taken into account and National Highways considered that the Barton facility would be utilised by those travelling north while the Catterick MSA would be used by people travelling south or joining/leaving the road at the A66.

·        It was noted that on the previous consideration the matter had been referred to the Secretary of State, as there was an Environmental Statement, however no comment had been received as a result of this.

·        Disappointment was expressed that there were no solar panels required through conditioning and there appeared to be a probability that the gravel/sand peat bogs would be lost. In response it was stated that the final energy strategy would be agreed via condition. A member emphasised the need to ensure that new developments such as this had solar panels fitted, particularly when green field were now being taken up by these.

·        It was suggested that the original application had a flawed approach in that the S106 was being utilised to find appropriate land and that the proposal now was much better, with biodiversity net gain being achieved. Clarification was also provided as to the reimposition of the S106 agreement with this being utilised to address environmental impacts, given that the application was accompanied with an Environmental Statement.

·        It was noted that the approach to the current application had been fairly similar to the 2022 application, the major differences been the biodiversity mitigation off-site having been identified and improvements in biodiversity net gain.

·        It was again clarified that Members need not make the same resolution as the previous committee, however, they should clearly explain the reasons for any deviation.

·        The need for the facility was discussed including other existing non-MSA motorway services.

·        The development would bring a major boost to the local economy, would reduce the impact on the local road network and existing facilities and had several environmental improvements in comparison to the previous application. The proposal would serve different travellers to those using Barton due to the strategic placement of the two MSAs.

·        There was some disagreement with the application particularly in relation to the loss of countryside land, the impact on the local environment and the loss of local habitat for migrating birds. There was also some empathy with the issues outlined by representatives of the local community. Some of the biodiversity net gain outlined could not be guaranteed as this relied on migrating birds relocating.

 

Resolved

 

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions listed in the report, together with the revised conditions detailed above, and the completion of a S106 agreement with terms as detailed in Table 1 of the report.

 

The voting on this resolution was as follows.

 

For – 9

Against – 4

Abstain – 2

 

There was a break in the meeting at this stage during which Councillors Cattanach, Jones and McCartney left.