Agenda item

Report of the Head of Development Management – Community Development Services

The Head of Development Management – Community Development Services sought determination of an outline planning application for residential development with all matters reserved except access at Land between Resolution Way and Pembroke Way, South of Mayfield Road, Whitby, North Yorkshire on behalf of Terra Green Yorkshire. The committee had deferred consideration of this application pending a committee site visit which had taken place on 10 November. Updating their report, the planning officer advised that the agent had confirmed that there was an error in the flood risk assessment referenced in the report: according to British Geological Survey data, there was a low risk of ground water flooding, not medium risk as stated. This meant that there was no longer a requirement for a flood risk sequential test, and therefore no longer a conflict with flood risk policy. Further, 36 additional objections had been received from local residents. These raised issues already addressed in the report with two exceptions. One objection included a photograph of a hole which they claimed to be a badger sett within the development site and a plan illustrating where they considered setts to be located. These potential sett locations were outside the site of the application. This matter had been discussed with the council’s ecologist who was satisfied that condition 18 as detailed in the report, which required further surveys for such mobile species prior to commencement of development, was sufficient to deal with potential badger setts near the site. Another objection referred to springs on or near the site. It would be possible to engineer a solution should springs be discovered on site. Therefore neither objection altered the recommendations in the report.

Zoe Cottier spoke objecting to the application.

The applicant’s agent, Annabelle Parkinson, spoke in support of the application.

During consideration of the application, the committee discussed the following issues:

• Applicant’s poor cooperation in enabling access to the site for the committee’s site visit
• How the appropriate drainage of the site would be secured to address concerns raised by residents – this was condition 8 in the report which if breached would be for the local planning authority to enforce
• In respect of residents’ request for an independent structural survey of the site, this was covered by condition 5 – the developer would normally commission an engineering firm to undertake the ground investigation on their behalf
• In light of historical landslips, a request was made for the ground investigation to extend to the toe of the slope – this was addressed by condition 5 – the investigation would extend to all the land over which the applicant had control
• The adopted footpath to the boundary of the proposed site and the narrow strip of land between the adopted highway and the application site – the ownership of the strip remained unclear but if it were a ransom strip, this would need to be resolved by the developer
• The importance of the geotechnical survey, the surface water drainage scheme and the viability assessment to support the 30% affordable housing requirement – all these matters including responses from technical consultees would be addressed in the reserved matters application report to be considered by the committee at a future date
• However, members sought specific reassurance that the results of the ground investigation / geotechnical survey be addressed in the reserved matters application and not afterwards. Therefore an amendment was proposed to condition 5 replacing ‘No development shall take place until…’ with ‘The reserved matters application(s) shall include a ground investigation with mitigation measures if required, which is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.’
• Concerns around the potential creation of a rat run on the site by joining two cul de sacs  - although this would be addressed at reserved matters stage, the committee could add an informative at this outline stage

The decision:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to:

1. prior completion of a section 106 agreement securing the matters listed in the report and the conditions listed in the report with amendments to condition 5 as set out below
2. an informative to address the committee’s concerns about a potential rat run, and
3. a 4 year term for the submission of reserved matters.

Voting record:

A vote was taken and the motion was declared carried with 5 for and 2 against.

Amended condition:

Condition 5:

The reserved matters application(s) shall include a ground investigation with mitigation measures if required, which is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall be based on the principles established in the APR Report reference WHF/07/L2/WW dated 19th May 2025. The investigation shall encompass the full length of the slope suspected of movement plus a buffer zone. It shall comprise boreholes to rock head and laboratory classification testing. A full topographical survey shall be included. A detailed cross section through the slope shall be provided along with analysis using slope stability analysis software. If there is confirmed to be a risk of future slope movement within the lifetime of the development, measures shall be proposed to prevent future movement and enhance stability. Following approval of the investigation and mitigation measures (if required), the mitigation measures shall be completed prior to the commencement of construction of other elements of the development hereby approved other than development that would enable access for such mitigation works to take place within the site. In the event that mitigation measures are required beyond the application site, and those measures require planning permission, no development shall take place until planning permission has been granted by the Local Planning Authority.

An informative note be added to the decision notice expressing the Committee’s preference for a housing layout which avoided a vehicular through route from both access points.