Agenda item

Councillors requested an update on the Transforming Cities Fund project in Selby, asking whether work has started and why the Railway Club building remains in place.

There was a discussion on the issues highlighted in the public question received earlier in the meeting. The following points were made.

·        Regarding infrastructure and cumulative impact – Concerns were raised that infrastructure improvements are not keeping pace with development and that the cumulative impact of planning applications is not being adequately addressed. Members highlighted issues relating to traffic congestion and noted that Selby records some of the poorest air quality readings in North Yorkshire. Specific reference was made to Sherburn in Elmet, where members expressed concern about the lack of infrastructure and the cumulative effect of ongoing development. Councillor Bob Packham, Division Member, advised that work is underway to press for essential infrastructure improvements and expressed hope for support from North Yorkshire Council.

·        Regarding Planning Committee site visits – Councillor Bob Packham, Vice Chair of the Selby and Ainsty Area Planning Committee, reported that discussions are ongoing with officers to establish a clear protocol for site visits, which will differ from the approach previously taken at Sherburn. Members noted the importance of incorporating local input from parish councils, noting that excluding this information would not support effective decision-making.

·        Regarding officer involvement in planning decisions – Members expressed concern at reports that officers may have overturned planning decisions without consulting elected Members. They agreed that that officers should, at a minimum, notify the Chair of the Planning Committee and provide an explanation for the decision. Members requested confirmation from officers as to whether this had happened.

·        Regarding officer support for appeals – Members felt that officers should attend appeals to support the council’s position, even if their professional view differs. It was noted that officers are employed by the council, and members expect them to make every effort to uphold decisions made by the authority.

·        Regarding views provided by North Yorkshire Highways on planning applications – Members raised concerns about inconsistencies from Highways regarding access points for housing developments. It was stressed that Highways need to provide clear, consistent decisions on access routes to avoid confusion and maintain confidence in the planning process.

·        Regarding delays in the planning process – some Members raised concerns regarding the length of time taken to determine applications, with delays seemingly often linked to responses from internal departments. It was felt that prolonged decision-making is unfair to applicants and local communities.

·        Regarding the handling of public questions at meetings – some Members expressed the view that they should have the opportunity to ask officers questions on responses to public questions and to discuss public questions as part of the meeting.

Following the discussion, Members requested that officers from the Planning and Planning Enforcement teams attend a future meeting to provide clarification on the statement issued in response to the public question and to address the above concerns.

It was also highlighted that a discussion should take place between the Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Selby and Ainsty Area Committee and Area Planning Committee.

Resolved

a)     That the above issues be added to the work programme.