Agenda item

Report of the Head of Development Management – Community Development Services

 

The Head of Development Management – Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application for approval of reserved matters for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of a Motorway Service Area on land adjacent to the A1(M) between Junctions 48 and 49 near Kirby Hill, Harrogate.

 

The planning officer presented the report as published. He reminded the committee that the principle of development, site access arrangements and diversion of the A168 had already been established through the outline permission and subsequent approvals. The reserved matters application principally sought approval of the detailed design and layout of the motorway service area. Key changes made to this reserved matters application subsequent to its original submission included clarification of sustainable drainage basins and the reinstatement of a roundabout omitted from earlier submitted plans. Turning to updates since publication of the report, the planning officer advised that one additional representation had been received requesting a planning condition relating to archaeology; however, officers considered archaeology was already adequately controlled through conditions attached to the outline permission and was not a matter for this reserved matters application. A correction to the approved drawings was also reported in relation to the alignment of a field access from the diverted A168, which would be reflected through an amended Condition 2 referencing the correct plans.

 

In accordance with public speaking arrangements at planning committee, the following speakers then addressed the committee.

 

Gareth Owens – objector

Councillor Mike Collins MBE Langthorpe Parish Council (and also representing Kirby Hill Parish Council)

Councillor Nick Brown – division councillor

(Councillor Brown left the meeting after he had addressed the committee since he was a substitute member of the committee)

 

Summary of matters raised:

 

·       Concern that the reserved matters application could not lawfully be determined since significant additional information had been submitted after the outline permission expired and the application continued to evolve over a prolonged period

·       Concern that the development had materially changed from that approved at outline stage, including additional infrastructure, increased loss of agricultural land, changes to the bridge, roundabout and drainage arrangements

·       Concern that the cumulative changes did not remain within the environmental envelope assessed through the outline Environmental Statement

·       The proposed removal of trees and treatment of woodland had not been assessed against the Council’s recently adopted Tree and Woodland Policy

·       Concern regarding groundwater impacts and the absence of a completed hydrogeological risk assessment for fuel infrastructure located above a principal aquifer

·       Highway safety concerns regarding the rear access onto the B6265, including visibility standards and the absence of a completed Stage 2 Road Safety Audit.

·       Parish councils’ objections had not been fully addressed and there had been insufficient engagement with parish councils throughout the planning process

·       Concern that the development had become taller, wider and extended further east of the A1(M) than originally anticipated at outline stage

·       Concerns regarding local sewerage infrastructure and Yorkshire Water capacity issues affecting nearby developments.

The agent, Nick Roberts then spoke in support of the application.

 

Summary of matters raised:

 

·       Objections raised to the scheme had been fully addressed within the officer report and that allegations regarding procedural and environmental matters were unfounded

·       The reserved matters application was valid and that there was no requirement for a new Environmental Statement.

·       The building dimensions, bridge heights and roundabout arrangements remained within the parameters approved through the outline permission.

·       The proposed buildings incorporated green roofs and that the Environment Agency considered the location of the fuel facilities acceptable in principle.

·       Yorkshire Water had confirmed sufficient capacity to accommodate foul water flows from the development.

·       The drainage strategy, lagoons and ditch network accorded with the outline permission and would be subject to detailed design controls through planning conditions.

·       The B6265 access arrangement had been accepted by the local highway authority and was considered safe.

·       The proposed lighting scheme would have less impact than the lighting approved at outline stage.

·       Confirmed that archaeological investigations had not identified significant remains that would prevent the development proceeding and that recording works were ongoing.

·       The number of electric vehicle charging spaces had been doubled compared with the outline proposal.

·       National Highways was satisfied with the motorway access arrangements and that there were no outstanding objections from technical consultees.

·       There remained a need for the motorway service area in this location

 

Members then sought clarity on the following range of issues raised by the officer report, presentation and public speakers to which the planning officer responded accordingly.

 

·       Archaeology and heritage assets - The council’s archaeologist had reviewed the site investigations and had identified no significant archaeological concerns requiring further action.

·       Solar panels and renewable energy - the outline permission required green roofs, limiting opportunities for rooftop solar panels. Energy efficiency measures, including potential renewable technologies, would be considered through separate conditions.

·       Extent of development compared with outline permission - the buildings and parking areas were broadly consistent with the outline scheme and the changes mainly related to drainage features and highway layout refinements.

·       Height of eastern roundabout and embankments - the approved roundabout height remained within previously approved parameters and was slightly lower than the maximum height allowed under the Section 73 permission.

·       Tree loss and replacement planting - substantial replacement planting was proposed across the site and that mitigation planting would significantly exceed the number of trees removed.

·       Visibility splays and highway safety – the required highway works would improve visibility and that the Local Highway Authority considered the arrangements acceptable subject to the required works being completed.

·       Groundwater protection and Environment Agency concerns - groundwater matters would be controlled through planning conditions requiring further assessment prior to construction of the filling station, allowing data to be obtained at the most appropriate time.

·       Foul drainage and sewer capacity - drainage was not a reserved matter and was controlled through conditions attached to the outline permission.

·       Stage 2 Road Safety Audit - the audit had not yet been undertaken but remained a requirement of the outline permission and would need to be approved by the Highway Authority before implementation. More generally, the Highway Authority would assess highway safety matters and would require any unresolved issues to be addressed before approval.

·       Tree Preservation Orders - two trees on the western boundary were subject to provisional Tree Preservation Orders.

·       Electric vehicle charging provision - the scheme proposed more charging spaces than conditioned in the outline and additional charging provision could be considered through conditions before the site became operational.

Members then moved to debate the application. Their discussion can be summarised as follows:

·       General acknowledgement of the difficulties associated with determining a reserved matters application where the principle of development had already been established through an outline planning permission granted at appeal and subsequent S.73 application to vary the outline permission granted by the Strategic Planning Committee.

·       Members debated whether changes to the scheme were material in planning terms, with some councillors considering the development had increased in scale, whilst others considered the reserved matters proposals remained broadly consistent with the approved outline scheme.

·       Concerns were raised regarding the loss of agricultural land and the long-term impact of the development on the countryside, nearby heritage assets and rural character of the area.

·       Concern that that the proposed motorway service area included a petrol filling station without visible provision for solar panels or more extensive renewable energy infrastructure.

·       Despite expressing sympathy with the views expressed by local residents it was suggested that refusal of the reserved matters application could lead to further delay and potentially result in a revised submission. The need for consistency within the planning process was also emphasised arguing that the committee should follow the established planning permissions in relation to the principle of development and officer recommendation.

 

It was moved and seconded to approve the recommendations in the officer report with the minor amendment to the listed plans in Condition 2 as explained by the planning officer.

 

Decision:

 

That the reserved matters application be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report with the replacement of the following plans to be listed in Condition 2:

 

(i)             In the listed Axis Soft Landscape drawings:

05 rev E Plan 4 of 6 (received 14/07/26)

(ii)            In the Whittam Cox Architect drawings:

PL005 rev P08 Site Section (received 15/07/26); and

(iii)           Both listed site plans:

PL003 rev P15 (Showing Ground Floor) (received 15/07/26)

PL004 rev P08 (Showing Roof Level) (received 15/07/26)

 

Voting record:

A vote was taken and the motion was declared carried with 9 for, 5 against and one abstention.