Minutes:
The application had been reported to Committee as it was considered that the application raised significant planning issues such that it was in the public interest for the application to be considered by Committee.
The application had originally been reported
to the Committee on 8 October 2025, when it had been deferred for a
site visit. The site visit had taken
place earlier that morning on the 3 November, prior to the Committee meeting
taking place, to allow Members to consider the site and surrounding highway
network.
The Principal
Planning Officer highlighted that since the committee report had been published
the applicant had submitted a parking survey of Water Lane and Low Eggborough
Road to the Council. The survey had been
conducted between Saturday 18 October and Friday 24 October 2025 and had taken
place at 5.30 am each morning. The
survey showed that there had been between 2 to 4 vehicles on the highway each
day at this time; this did not change the officer recommendation contained
within the report. The officer then went
on to present the report to Members.
Colin White spoke, objecting to
the application.
The Chair of Eggborough Parish
Council, Councillor Martin Spencer, spoke in objection.
The
Division Councillor, John McCartney, spoke objecting to the application.
The agent, Phil Owen, spoke on
behalf of the applicant, in support of the application.
Members asked questions to the
Officer which related to the following.
· It was queried whether, in the
event that two vehicles were parked at the pinch point in the road, the
size of the vehicles and the manner in which they had been parked, could affect
the ability of an emergency vehicle to access the site.
· Requested
clarification on the reason that the parking survey had been carried out at
5.30 am in the morning.
· Would the
proposed road widening necessitate the acquisition of land through a Compulsory
Purchase Order (CPO)
· The principal
access to the site was currently via Low Eggborough Road. A query was raised as to whether an
alternative entrance could be established from the A19.
· In relation to
the Section 106 contributions allocated for bus service enhancements to the
site, a query was raised as to whether this funding would result in an increase
in bus service provision during peak commuter times.
· Clarification was
sought regarding the potential for the land to be reinstated for agricultural
use at some point in the future.
· In terms of the
provision of Affordable Housing, clarification was sought as to whether a
sustainability evaluation of the site had been undertaken, and if so, had the
assessment been commissioned by the Council.
· The previous
Local Plan had indicated a provision of up to 40% Affordable Housing; however,
the site was now designated for either 10% or 20%. Clarification was sought regarding the
rationale behind this change in allocation.
· Whether there was
a planting scheme or landscaping map.
· Clarification was
sought regarding the Council’s intended approach to monitoring both onsite and
offsite Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) delivery, and which authority or body would
be responsible for levying the associated monitoring fees.
· It was queried if
the site represented the second phase of allocation EGG3, did it also encompass
a parcel of land that was not originally included within the designated
allocation.
· Whether
pedestrian access would be provided between the existing housing estate and the
newly proposed development site.
· Members queried
again, if there was scope to increase the Affordable Housing provision.
· It was queried
whether heavy goods vehicles accessing the site would be permitted to use the
emergency access.
Further discussion
took place regarding possible alternative access points to the site, and
whether it would be appropriate to add a condition to the construction
management plan which would allow construction traffic to access the site via
the A19 rather than Low Eggborough Road.
The Senior Solicitor advised that should Members wish to proceed on that basis then the decision would be a minded to grant decision, subject to the conditions set out within the committee report, with the decision delegated to officers to explore the potential for appropriate condition wording that would meet the condition test.
Councillor Crane proposed, and Councillor Packham seconded that the application be granted, as per the committee report.
The decision
That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions detailed at section 12 of the Committee report and the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement.
Voting record
A
vote was taken with 3 votes for and 3 votes against, at which time the Chair
used his casting vote. The motion to grant the application was therefore
carried.
Supporting documents: