Minutes:
The Assistant
Director Planning, Community Development Services sought determination of a
reserved matters planning application for an extension to Harrogate Spring Water
bottling facility, pursuant to outline application 16/05254/OUTMAJ, with internal
access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale being the only matters for
consideration, on land at Harlow Moor Road, Harrogate, North Yorkshire, HG2
0QB.
The application had
been reported to the Committee due to there being significant public interest
in the application such that it was appropriate for it to be considered by the
Committee.
The Development Service Manager presented
the report and highlighted the location and site description. The officer
highlighted that outline planning permission had been granted in 2017, and that
this had established the principle of development, site access, drainage, and
tree loss. It was confirmed that these matters were therefore not for
consideration as part of the reserved matters application before Members. The
proposed building layout was confirmed to be in accordance with the parameters
plan approved at outline stage, and both the layout and internal access
arrangements were considered acceptable. Officers also considered the
landscaping proposals, the appearance of the building, and its scale to be
acceptable, with the latter complying with the approved massing and scale
plans.
Providing an update
to their report, officers advised members of the following points.
·
Paragraph
5.3 of the report states that the proposals would create 32 jobs. The applicant
has since clarified that the correct figure is 50 jobs.
·
Paragraph
10.19 refers to the proposed landscaping being maintained in perpetuity by the
applicant. As the applicant is a leaseholder, this should be amended to state
that maintenance will be for the duration of the lease period.
·
It was
highlighted that members had received a letter raising concerns about the
legality of the proposals from legal representatives acting on behalf of an
objector group. Officers explained that they did not agree with the points
raised and did not consider them to prevent the Committee from determining the
application.
·
The
recommendation is subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to
secure the off-site landscaping area. It was confirmed that work on this
agreement was not yet complete and that the draft and final versions of the
agreement will be published before formal approval is granted, in accordance
with the Greenfield legal case decision.
The following
questions were raised by the Committee.
·
Whether
the land being designated as an Asset of Community Value is a material
consideration in the determination of the application and whether this meant
that there will be a period during which others could express interest in
purchasing the land.
·
Whether
the Council had a potential financial or contractual interest in this
application and how that should be handled.
·
Whether
Certificate B had been served by the Applicant on the Council as the landowner.
·
The
Committee asked about the status of the Section 106 agreement and whether it is
usual for such agreements to be completed after a committee resolution.
·
How
changes in circumstances or new evidence, such as ecological impacts from
increased water extraction, are addressed over time.
·
Why
Yorkshire Water had made no comments on the reserved matters application and
whether comments were provided at earlier stages.
·
How the
proposed design meets policy HP3, which requires development to protect and
enhance the area’s spatial qualities and character, particularly given its
proximity to a designated conservation area and special landscape area.
·
How
officers concluded that the development would not cause significant harm to the
landscape.
·
The
Committee asked for clarification on biodiversity net gain, noting that the
ecologist’s report suggested discharge of condition 12 prior to reserved
matters. It was queried whether biodiversity net gain could be addressed
through the Section 106 agreement.
·
Members
queried the size of the proposed extension and whether an extension of this
size is permitted. It was queried whether the size of the proposal could harm
the landscape.
Neil Hind, spoke as
chairperson on behalf of Pinewoods Conservation Group, objecting to the
application.
Division
Councillors Mike Schofield and Arnold Warneken shared the 5
minute limit for speaking, objecting to the application.
Richard Hall,
Managing Director of Harrogate Spring Water spoke in support of the
application.
During
consideration of the application, the Committee discussed the following issues:
·
The
Chair reiterated that the principle of development was established under the
outline permission. The reserved matters before the Committee – internal access,
scale, layout, appearance and landscaping – comply with local and national
policy and have been deemed acceptable by officers. Other issues such as
highways, flood risk, and ecology were assessed at the outline stage.
·
It was
recognised that time has passed since the outline application was approved.
·
Comments
were made regarding the tree replacement scheme and it
was highlighted that the application involved felling 500 trees planted by
schoolchildren and planting a larger number of replacements.
·
Members
highlighted that the application has attracted over 1,000 objections and 11
expressions of support.
·
Members
highlighted that the proposed development is expected to create 50 additional
jobs.
·
Members
remained concerned about the size of the proposed building despite advice that
it was compliant.
·
Members
expressed concern that certain requirements, which would now be essential,
could not be discussed because the original outline permission was granted
before they were required.
· It was suggested
that the proposal conflicts with council priorities.
· Concerns were
raised that Condition 12 had not been discharged were raised and members were
concerned of potential costs being awarded against the Council if a legal
challenge to a decision to grant approval of reserved matters were received.
· A councillor
queried whether the Section 106 agreement could include Biodiversity Net Gain
(BNG) provisions, such as a biodiversity metric, habitat mapping, a statement
showing at least 10% net gain, and a legal mechanism for 30-year habitat
management. Officers clarified that the Committee cannot require specific
Section 106 terms, as these are governed by national policy and strict tests.
It was also clarified that the Section 106 agreement can only address matters
relevant to reserved matters. Officers clarified that BNG cannot be mandated
because the application predates mandatory requirements. But it was highlighted
that the applicant has indicated an intention to achieve 10%.
Councillor Mann
proposed that permission be granted, subject to the listed conditions and
completion of a Section 106 agreement.
Councillor Aldred
proposed an amendment to defer the decision, explaining that due to the
significance of the application and high public interest, members should have
clarity on the contents of the Section 106 agreement and the discharge of
Condition 12 before making a decision. Paragraph 10.33
of the report was noted by members, but they sought further details on the
matters raised in that paragraph. This amendment was seconded by Councillor
Mann.
Councillor
Broadbank proposed refusal of the application, but it was clarified that the
substantive motion, and any amendments must be voted on first.
Decision
That the
application be deferred until information on the contents of the Section 106 agreement
and the discharge of Condition 12 are available to the Committee.
Voting record
A vote was taken,
and the motion was declared carried with three votes in favour, two against and
no abstentions.
Supporting documents: