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: