Agenda item

Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice and supplied the text to Democratic Services (contact details below) by midday on Monday, 3 November 2024. Each speaker should limit themselves to 3 minutes on any item.

 

Members of the public who have given notice will be invited to speak:

 

·         at this point in the meeting if their questions/statements relate to matters which are not otherwise on the agenda (subject to an overall time limit of 30 minutes)

 

·         when the relevant agenda item is being considered if they wish to speak on a matter which is on the agenda for this meeting.

 

If you are exercising your right to speak at this meeting, but do not wish to be recorded, please inform the Chairman who will instruct anyone who may be taking a recording to cease while you speak.

 

One public statement was received before the deadline of midday on 3 November 2025.

 

Councillor Alex Tant-Brown, Sherburn in Elmet Town Council, made the following statement.

 

We, the members of Sherburn in Elmet Town Council wish to make you aware of major concerns from our Town Council in regards to your planning department. Our full statement is, as of the start of my speaking, being published on our Town Council website. It is unfortunately too long to read out in the limited time I have been afforded. So, I will highlight the salient points.

 

Over the course of the past year, we have witnessed first hand the very worst of your planning department. To the point where we are left to conclude that consulting parish and town councils has become a glorified box-ticking exercise, rather than an opportunity for local scrutiny. As some Cllrs will know, we were unceremoniously disinvited from a recent planning application site visit, contrary to your own policies, by your officers.

 

In regards to when we’ve come to the Selby Area planning committee, the officers reports have been at best sub-standard, and at worst, read like long form campaigning leaflets. In regards to “planning balance”, there seems to be none. These reports have overwhelmingly read in favour of why applications should be approved, with no regard for the potential problems of proposed schemes, or the policy-driven evidence in favour of refusal. Serious questions need to be asked as to how planning balance is being applied.

 

Despite councillors voting to refuse, we have been dragged into two appeals. Both of which we have lost. And why? Well, the first was because your officers decided not to put up a case. Simple as. They appeared that they were not bothered to do so. The second case. Your officers agreed what we believe to be material changes to a planning application with the applicant, without public scrutiny, and then decided to drop all three reasons for refusal.

 

I’ll say this clearly and plainly. This is undemocratic. It avoids public scrutiny. And it simply invites developers to keep putting in speculative applications, in the hope that they can change them during the appeal process, in order to satisfy policies and not realities.

 

In essence, and whilst this may be something you have heard many times before, you are inviting development into a town that’s infrastructure is not supportive of the residential and employment population that it needs to support. Our schools do not have capacity for more children, our doctors do not have parking and staffing capacity for current patients, let alone more. Our community groups and town council are struggling to meet the demand that North Yorkshire Council is letting fall by the wayside. These are issues that are not going to be satisfied by Section 106 payments. They need real, and immediate investment. Preferably before our town simply becomes a collection of houses loosely held together by a parish precept.

 

To make it clear. What we, and our residents, have experienced over the past twelve months, has been nothing short of shambolic. From your officers conduct at site visits and planning committee meetings, through to the abject failure to represent residents interests at planning appeals. Our residents pay their taxes for you to act in their best interests. Yet you leave residents to believe you are wilfully acting against their interests in planning matters. All we ask are two simple things. 1. Bring forward a strategic allocation of land for new developments, one which does not rely on small residential access roads. 2. Ensure adequate investment in our area.

 

We might be forgettable up at Northallerton. But we will fight for all our residents to ensure they get  the services and infrastructure they need. At the moment, they aren’t. And their interests are not being served by your planning department, and ultimately this council.

 

The relevant officers were unable to attend the meeting so David Smith, Senior Democratic Services Officer, read the following response on behalf of North Yorkshire Council Planning Service.

 

Chair, Members,

 

It is with regret that Sherburn in Elmet Town Council feel dissatisfied with a number of the recommendations made by officers over the past year. We appreciate the Town Council’s continued engagement in the planning process and recognise the time and effort their members dedicate to reviewing applications and submitting local comments.

 

However, I would like to reassure both Members and the public that officer reports are detailed, objective, and evidence-based, providing a balanced assessment of all material considerations.

 

For example, the report for application ZG2/23/0774/FULM – Land South of Bartlett View and Rochester Way, Sherburn in Elmet, considered by this committee in April, ran to around 80 pages, including 17 pages of consultation responses and representations. None of the technical consultees raised objections that could not be mitigated by planning conditions, or by way of inclusion within a Section 106 legal agreement.

 

That report also set out, very clearly, the policy position facing North Yorkshire Council, including the fact that the authority cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply (see paragraph 10.1 of the case officer’s report). As Members will be aware, this triggers the “tilted balance” under paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework, meaning that planning permission should be granted unless adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Officers are duty-bound to apply that test.

 

It is acknowledged that the policy situation is a complex one and that is has changed over the last 12 months.

 

Consultation and engagement

 

The Town Council suggests that consultation with parish and town councils is a “box-ticking exercise.”

 

This is not the case. All local Parish and Town councils, are formally consulted on planning applications and their comments are given due weight. However, for an objection to carry weight in decision-making, it must be based on clear, objective, and technical planning evidence. Decisions must be robust and capable of standing up to scrutiny at appeal. Reliance on unsubstantiated concerns, or the strength of local opposition alone, is not sufficient in law.

 

Site visit attendance

 

It is unfortunate that a Town Council representative was unable to attend a recent committee site visit. Officers recognise this caused frustration and have since reviewed procedural advice with Legal Services and the Chair of the Planning Committee to ensure clarity and consistency in future. The exclusion was not intentional and has prompted constructive internal review.

 

Appeal decisions and professional conduct

 

Reference has been made to two appeals where Sherburn in Elmet Town Council consider that the Council did not defend its reasons for refusal.

 

It is noted that a detailed response to these issues raised have already been sent to Sherburn in Elmet Town Council, following their letter of complaint, dated 30th September.

 

We responded to concerns raised about the appeal process following the refusal of the planning application for 106 dwellings at Land South Of Bartlett View And Rochester Row, Milford Road. The complaint focused on the Council’s conduct and representation at the appeal hearing.

 

The Council was represented by one of our Development Management Team Managers and a Principal Planning Officer. No legal representation was present, as the appeal was a hearing (not a public inquiry), which does not require cross-examination by legal advocates.

 

The Council attempted to instruct a highway expert to support its case but was unable to secure one, as neither the Local Highway Authority nor external consultants were willing or able to assist. This was also the case for a similar appeal on Garden Lane.

 

The Planning Inspector allowed the appeal, concluding that the proposal would not harm highway safety and complied with planning policy. The Inspector found the Council had acted unreasonably in preventing development and awarded full costs to the appellant.

 

The Council was unable to instruct a highway expert, but the Inspector found the scheme acceptable. The letter concluded that the Council did not act improperly in handling the appeal.

 

With regards to defending the Garden Lane appeal, officers looked to present the views given by members at the planning committee meeting. However, these were referred to by the Planning Inspector in his decision as being, “vague and generalised assertions about the effect of the proposal without their own substantive technical evidence”, which officers could not defend strongly in planning policy terms, at the Hearing.

 

In the Land South of Bartlett View and Rochester Road appeal, officers sought to appoint independent highways consultants to defend a highways-related refusal reason. However, no consultant approached was prepared to do so, as none could identify any technical basis for defending the reason. Given the tight deadlines imposed by the Planning Inspectorate, a pragmatic decision had to be made promptly in consultation with the Council’s Legal Team, who confirmed the approach followed was both lawful and appropriate.

 

It is always preferable for such matters to be discussed transparently at committee, but the timescales dictated by the Inspectorate did not permit this on that occasion.

 

Infrastructure and cumulative impacts

 

Concerns have been raised that Sherburn in Elmet lacks the infrastructure to support additional development. Officers fully appreciate these concerns. However, when assessing a planning application, the Council can only consider the specific harm arising from the development proposed, and ensure that it is mitigated in proportion to that impact.

 

The Section 106 agreement for the Bartlett View application secured contributions towards education, healthcare, open space and highways in line with the evidence provided by statutory consultees. Existing infrastructure deficiencies in the wider town, however pressing, cannot lawfully be addressed through a single planning application.

 

Strategic planning and investment

 

The Town Council has asked that a strategic allocation of land be brought forward for development in Sherburn in Elmet.

 

North Yorkshire Council is actively preparing a new Local Plan to replace the legacy district plans. This will identify strategic growth areas and infrastructure priorities across the county. However, the Local Plan process is necessarily detailed and evidence-based, and will take several years to reach adoption.

 

The second request, for “adequate investment in the area”, is understood and noted. In planning terms, however, investment can only be sought through Section 106 obligations or planning conditions, and only where these meet the legal tests set out in national policy. Broader funding decisions and service investment lie outside the scope of the planning decision-making process, though they may of course be pursued through other Council programmes.

 

Planning balance

 

Finally, with regard to “planning balance”:

 

Each recommendation presented to this committee reflects a careful weighing of identified harms against the social, economic and environmental benefits of the proposal, in accordance with both national and local policy. Officers do not advocate for development but apply the professional and policy framework impartially. The conclusions reached are always open to Member scrutiny and challenge at committee.

 

Conclusion

 

In conclusion, Chair, I would like to reaffirm that planning officers across North Yorkshire Council act with professional integrity, objectivity, and transparency.

 

Their reports are thorough, their recommendations are grounded in evidence and policy, and they remain committed to engaging respectfully with all parish and town councils — including Sherburn in Elmet — to secure the best planning outcomes for local communities.

 

Councillor Alex Tant-Brown was provided the opportunity to make a supplementary statement and the following points were raised.

 

·        It was questioned why the Garden Lane appeal was a hearing and not a public inquiry.

·        Concerns were raised about the objectivity of the complaint process, noting that a complaint was responded to by the planning service that it was about.

·        In terms of the cumulative impact on Sherburn in Elmet, it was suggested that this should be considered as part of the principle of development under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·        Concern was expressed that a date of 2029 for the new Local Plan is too late, given the applications that are forthcoming.

 

Members raised concerns that specific applications had been referred to in the officer response.

 

Members noted the issues raised by the public speaker.