Transcript

[BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Hello, and welcome everyone to this meeting of the Harrogate and Nezbrah Area Constituency Planning Committee. I'm Councillor John Mann and I'm Chair of the Committee. Please can I remind everyone that today's meeting is being live webcast. The officers in attendance today to support this meeting are Nick Turpin, Executive Officer Development Management and Building Control, Katrina Gattrell on my left, legal property planning and environment, Harriet Clark, Senior Democratic Services Officer, and finally Dawn Drorie in front of me, Democratic Services Officer. The first item on the agenda is apologies for absence. Do we have any, please, Dawn? We do indeed, Chair. We've received apologies for absence from Councillors, Goslow and Lacey. Right. Thank you very much. The next agenda item is the minutes. This item is to receive the minutes of the meeting of the committee held on the 7th of May. Do I have a mover and a second, please? Councillor Windes and Councillor Aldred. So we will now move to the vote. We're voting manually by hand, so if you could all raise your hands as appropriate. Will those in favour, please, for anybody against any abstentions? One abstention. So, Dawn, if you wanted to declare, the minutes are accepted as a true and correct record of the previous meeting. Thank you. It takes us to item three, declarations of interest. Does anybody have any interests to declare, please, Councillors? I'll take that as a no. Thank you. Following the full Council meeting on 15 May in North Elton, we have two member changes to the committee. I would like to thank Councillor Paul Haslam for his service and contribution to the committee. And I welcome Councillor Peter Lacey, who is not with us today, but I'd like to record it on this YouTube stream, who unfortunately can't be with us today. I'm also welcome Councillor Mikes Goldfield, who is now fully trained. So welcome, Mike. Thank you. It takes us to a gender item four, which is land comprising a field in Minsky Road, Stavely, North Yorkshire. If I could now ask the case officer Andy Hoff to introduce the report, Andy, over to you. Thanks. Thank you, Chairman. Members have the opportunity to visit the site this afternoon. The application, as Jim has mentioned, is located at Minsky Road, Stavely, and is a full application for the erection of 76 residential dwellings. The application site is located to the northeast of the village, identified by the red edge on the screen in front of you at the moment. Let's give you a bit of context. The site is in the northeast of the village in the approximate position of the the arrow with access taken from Minsky Road. Just to familiarize members with some features of the site, Stavely, Nature Reserve and Car Park is located by the arrow to the northern side of Minsky Road. The railway embankment forms the southeastern edge of the application site, and there is a pond in the southern corner of the application field itself. The low field road is located here, the arrow, and the main body of the village is located to the west of the application site. The village itself is developed around a central green, with the older properties located around the central green, with later properties extending towards the application site. This is Spello Grove with the application site just off of plan. References made by a number of representations regarding the impact on the character of the conservation area. The site is located outside the conservation area. The conservation area map is indicated by the blue line. The application site is located in the approximate area of the arrow. The site does form an allocated site within the Herrick and District Local Plan. It's site allocation SV1 for residential development. The site constraints indicate the areas where development shouldn't take place within the blue areas with a development area indicated by the orange yellow color central within the site. That's to provide retention of the pond to the south of the site, and also to provide a meanestity space around the dwellings to try and alleviate pressure upon the Stavley Nature Reserve. The development is for 76 dwellings. I'm just going to change that because that's the wrong way around compared to the wind showing. That's better. The scheme is for 76 dwellings with main access located on Minskip Road, indicated by the arrow. The cap act to the nature reserves located in the northeast corner opposite the application site indicated by the arrow. A secondary emergency access is proposed along the frontage onto Minskip Road in the position indicated by the arrow. Just to familiarize everybody, the chicane on Minskip Road is located there and is to be retained as part of the scheme. Pedestrian access is also provided to the southern boundary of the site to both a lane indicated by the arrow, which then serves the pedestrian trim trail, which follows the non-developable area of the site around the external fabric of the residential dwellings. The scheme proposes 76 houses, three of which are bungalows. There is a bungalow located to the northeast of the site. This is replicated by two bungalows along the main street, the Minskip Road for outage. Third bungalow is located, approximate position of the arrow. The remaining dwellings are all two-story and provide a mix of one to five bedroom accommodation. There are ten different house types within the scheme itself. This is the landscape plan as submitted showing how landscape details will be incorporated into the site. This is part the northwest part of the site. That's the northeastern part of the site. We do lose some hedgerow along the frontage, but that's a result of the requirement to provide both the main access into the site and the emergency access. Additional planting is proposed within the site itself and along the trim trail at the foot of the railway embankment. There is an area of open space provided within the site itself in addition to the area's devoid of residential development to protect the validity of the pond and the residential properties located to the southwest of the site. I won't go through all ten different house types, but this is a typical one bedroom unit, two bedroom unit, three, four or five. There's four bedroom unit and then that's the five bedroom unit. That's just five of the different house types. There is also a bungalow proposed, house type proposed, which forms part of the affordable housing provision on the site. The affordable housing provision is a policy complaint at 40% provision throughout the site itself. Moving on to the photographs. This is taken from Minskip Road, approximately opposite the entrance into the stably nature reserve. So you can see the application sites to the left forms a fairly flat field with a railway embankment form in the southern boundary and the residential properties on spell or grow indicated by the arrow. The site does have the benefits of an existing field access into the site and frontage by hedgerow and trees. And the chicane is proximal indicated by the arrow within the twenty mile an hour limit for the village itself. There is a pedestrian desire line across the southern boundary of the site in the case of slightly on the photograph indicated by the photograph there. That's where members did walk into the site this morning. There's the chicane that I've previously, previously mentioned. Dwellings situated on spell or grow facing into the site. This area of the site's devoid of development to ensure that a satisfactory meanity space is provided between the proposed dwellings and existing units. This also forms part of the circular walkway route around the site itself. Looking northwards towards the bungalow, so we have Minskip Road on the left, railway embankment and existing dwelling, single story dwelling to the north of the site. This view is taken from low food lane. Looking back into the site, this is where the pedestrian access is formed from the application site to the main body of the village. Our final photograph, second to last photograph, is of the pond in the southwestern corner of the site which is protected from any form of residential development. Our final photograph is taken across the top of the railway embankment, which is used as a trawled I believe for locals in the local area. In terms of update to the report, I can confirm I've received comments from the council's ecologist who has recommended the addition of two conditions to cover a construction and environmental management plan. And a long-term enhancement plan for the development site, together with suggestion for inclusion within section 106 agreement that the biodiversity enhancement management plan is a living document progresses throughout the lifetime of the application. Two additional letters of objection have been received, which don't raise any of the issues that's already been referred to within the report. Stavely parish council have reiterated their objection to the application. Again, referring to unstable land, highlighting concerns regarding development and potentially suggesting that the land should not have been allocated in the local plan. In terms of the development, there have been a lot of issues that have been addressed and have been addressed. The developers themselves have produced council opinion that the issue of unstable land has been satisfactorily addressed with the provision of policy, and on that I would repeat that they have provided two independent engineers with rip and ground stability experience, including an engineer advisor level, as required by the policy. The recommendation is to defer for delegated approval, subject to conditions and of course, completion, completion, the section 106 agreement to cover the issues within the heads of terms. Sorry, Chairman, if I could interrupt, that's not quite the recommendation that's set out in the papers, perhaps just need to reiterate the recommendation as set out in the papers. Thank you. Yes, sorry, I missed out an important section there that the committee is minding to approve the application subject to conditions, section 106 agreement and delegate the decision to the assistant director of planning, including the finalisation of conditions in the terms of the section 106 to include affordable housing, travel plan, BNG management, education contributions, village hall contributions and open space contributions. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Right. Thank you. So we will now take questions committee from members to officers. So any questions, please, committee. Councillor Winders. Thank you, Chair. Andy, you showed us the pedestrian access at the top of the site, where we actually walked into the site this morning, which runs off from a pavement. Is there going to be access for pedestrians that way? Yes, thank you. Just brought up the location plan. There is a link through there where we walk, where we walk through this morning. Thank you. Indicated by the arrow on me. Thanks, Andy. Any further questions, committee? Councillor Scolfield. Sorry, thank you, Chair. Something I personally missed this morning. The 20 mile an hour zone, how far on that road does it actually go? Does it go, will it go from, does it cover the entire estate, the 25 mile an hour, the 20 mile an hour zone on the main road? The current 20 mile an hour zone is approximately here ahead of the, ahead of the, the chicane. Right. So beyond that, we're on normal traffic speed. Would there be scope to make the 20 mile an hour cover the entire length of that road, where the buildings are, just thinking with the increased population of children being around, and a lot more football going around near the nature reserve and people to and from. Just thinking of the road safety elements, we've been looking at. I understand that, Andy. It's a very good question, and I think in terms of highway safety, I would support that. It's not something, however, that's been put forward by the highway authority. It is something which the highway authority could look at. Is it something as part of the application before us today? Is it something that we should perhaps look at after the committee? Is it, is it part of the report? That's my question. It's not part of the comments from the highway authority, but it's something clearly I would support myself. Yeah, highways would have looked at things like that during the application process, and they would normally liaise with other people as well as part of that process. I think it's something where we could take it back to highways outside the planning process, if the development were to be approved and see if they want to look at that and examine it moving forwards, but I wouldn't suggest that we would look at it today. We haven't got any evidence based to really work to. I think that's the way forward, Councillor, if you agree. Yeah, thank you. Alright, thank you. Only for the questions, Councillors. Councillor Broadbank. Thank you. First of all, on the actual distance from the nature reserve, I know it's roughly feet-wise, please, old-fashioned way. What in feet-wise is the distance from the site to the nature reserve? Literally across the road. It's literally across the road. There's the application site. There's the nature reserve car park. You do walk small section into a gated reserve into the reserve, which probably starts at that point there, so. Right. 24/4. 24/4. Yeah, across the road. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. The carriage wave and a bit of verge. School places. Do we know what the village school availability of places, etc? Do we know what that is as well? Are they full? The Education Authority have requested a contribution towards education places. I'd have to bring up the response from the Education Authority on the—have you got that? I mean, are they full, basically, at the moment? I'm wanting that money to expand up. Are the spaces already, or, you know, what? We're just checking. Don't think it's referred to in the report, so just to both check. [inaudible] [silence] [silence] Sorry, Andy, is it 7.5, Paris 7.5? It says, this is a response from education from the Education Authority. It says, Identify a requirement to provide a contribution of 115,566 pounds towards school expansion places at State of the Community Primary School. Yeah, I saw that. I did see that, but I was just curious as to how many, whether it's full or at the moment. Yeah, thanks. [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] Unfortunately, the response from the Education Department doesn't actually refer to existing places. It's just referring to school expansion places as a consequence of the 70 or 70 dwellings and identifies a commuted figure that would be required to meet those expansion places. So that's what's forming part of the Section 106 agreement. Don't have actual pupil places in front of me. I understand it's a form, isn't it? So they use a fairly precise formula based on a per pupil amount that's needed. So that 115,000 probably equates to, I'm just guessing, 20 or 30. Right, okay. And if they need another classroom, I guess they'll have to extend. Sorry, Nick. Go on, sorry. Nick has just found the figures on the slide. Right. Well done, Nick. Capacity of the school at the moment is 70 spaces. Current number of pupils is 51. Current number, forecast of pupils on the roll in 2026, 27 would be 60. So the deficit in places is 10, number of proposed dwellings from which a commuted sum would be sources 67, estimate that results in estimated number of pupils from the development of 16.75, which is a shortfall of 6.75 spaces which then results in the commuted sum calculation. Okay. Thank you. Did you want to come back? No, just a couple of other things. The types of affordable housing and those 40% is the, what would negotiate on. Have we got an idea of whether some of those would be shared on a ship? And if so, what proportion? And how many for rent? And what was the other thing? Yeah, sorry, on the shared ownership, what sort of proportion would the be for the rent and for co-ownership, shared ownership? Yeah. Good question. Okay. There is normally a split in terms of tenure on the affordable housing, which would be as a result of the registered provider, and it will form part of the section 106 agreement. I wouldn't have to hand without going back to the housing officer's comments what that split would be. But I can confirm that the housing team have no objections to the level of affordable housing provided on site and the type of accommodation that has been provided. So that split then would then form part of the section 106 agreement subject to discussions with the registered provider. I think, as I understand it, it was 70% rent and 30% shared ownership. That's a normal split. Okay. Councillor WENDERS. Thank you, Chair. I'm just looking at the objections and on page 14, item two, it says unsuitable development site due to unstable ground conditions and the presence of gypsum. Would you please comment on that, Andy? Previous reports and the report produced by the applicant has demonstrated that there is potentially gypsum present at the site. When gypsum is present at the site, we do require reports to be provided and then quantified by a declaration formed by a suit of the qualified ground engineer. And that's what's happened in this particular instance, an engineer with rip and experience, although this site is outside the rip and area, a rip and engineer has examined the two reports, which one has been submitted by the applicants, either by residents. And that's been backed up by sign declaration, a declaration formed by a qualified rogep advisor engineer, and that's what's required by policy NE9 to ensure that the developers provided suitable evidence to demonstrate that the site can be satisfactorily developed. The areas of concern relate to cavities at approximately 48, 50 metres in depth. The developers themselves have avoided developing on these parts of the site by the provision of open space, but to reiterate a rogep engineer at advisor level has viewed the reports and has confirmed mitigation that the development can be satisfactorily developed. If you want a supplementary, it's all, no, okay, fine. Councillor Broadband. So two more. Housing need in the area. Do we have anything from the Council to say how many people in that area are on the waiting list for Council housing or rent it out, social rent it out. And we're talking about here the affordable housing. In the Harrogate suburb area, the residents will populate the affordable housing that's been provided on the site. It's probably a question that you'd better ask the housing team rather than myself. And we just provide the relevant provision. Used to be in the Harrogate area. It would come from that suburb area. But I'm not so sure now with the North Yorkshire, we've now become North Yorkshire. So unsure on how it's allocated. It used to be suburb areas of Harrogate, but the Harrogate area, the Harrogate. Yes. Yes. Last question. The bus service, there is a bus service. And I'll just, how regular is the bus service? I do know a busted leave as we were departing, as we were departing the site. The villages served, obviously, by on the bus route. I don't unfortunately have the timetable available to do it. I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that. Just looking at it, they seem to be every hour and a half, something like that. 7.22am, 9.17am, 10.52am, 12.37pm. That's from just outside Sbello Crescent, according to Google. I'm not sure. I'm sure they do. I just quickly looked at it, just now. I think we've established as a day-time service. Yeah, I think that's the point, isn't it? OK. Yeah, I'll tell you a point that we've established as a day-time service. However, with these increased houses, we're just going for some 40% affordable housing. I don't mean to be very assumptions, but we're assuming that these people have cars, and not require a bus service to get to and from Harrogate, Nesbrough, or whatever, to do their daily chores and work. Because the 7 o'clock in the morning bus, and the 9 o'clock in the morning bus, is not actually beneficial for somebody who wants to work at half past eight. So I'm just thinking of the traffic issues that we're going to have to assume that they're going to have to have cars, which is going to put the increased burden on the roads as the residents are rightly worried about. Sorry, that's all I'm thinking about with the bus service. That's the point. Yeah. OK. All right. OK, any further questions, committee? Can I throw it on, Aldred? My colleagues have actually asked most of mine, but just on the biodiversity. And there's some comments in the objections about the hedge, which goes the length of the road as we saw this morning. I'm writing and saying that this plan's in place. One of the conditions is the biodiversity plan, and the biodiversity is actually going to be enhanced as part of the development. Is that right? In total, obviously, sections of the hedge will have to be lost. Yeah, we've looked at the worst-case scenario in terms of that hedge row, in terms of it potentially all coming out. But the application was submitted prior to the requirements, providing 10% net gain of biodiversity net gain on site, but it has been demonstrated that there will be no net loss as a result of the development. And it's that what we're working to under this particular application due to the timing of its submission. There is, as I mentioned earlier in the update, confirmation from the ecology officer that he's got no objections to the development subject to a live document in terms of continued monitoring of the biodiversity on the site. Yeah, please do. Just having just looked a little bit more at the buses, seems to be 827, 1016, 1156, 141, 321, 606, stavely the green westbound. That is stavely the green eastbound, 723, 918, 1053, 1238, 218, and then 408. That's what I'm coming from the number 21, there's the flaxby, the flaxby stavely, burribid row cliff on that route. That's a detailed answer. Thank you very much. So that doesn't appear to be anything when they finish work, from what the sound of that, I couldn't see. The catch was a nice one, 408. Coming back from heading out. It turns on which direction you're coming from. Well, okay, let's assume the work in Harrogate on there. Let's go eastwards, yeah. What's the last one? It doesn't look like it at the minute on the basis that this is up to date. But again, I suppose that you've got your supply and demand kind of factors, haven't you? More people using the service, they may well justify putting an extra bit on. Yeah. I got the last one down, it's 408. Again, we can discuss this in debate if you want to further. Sorry, we could discuss it further in debate if we want to. Just one final one. The land use plan adopted 2020. Is that a Merite? It is the principle of development. The principle of development was approved when that was adopted and the application. What we're now planning committee can look at is layout, housing types, et cetera. But the principle development, that's already been agreed. Has it a Merite? Well, this is a full planning application, isn't it? It's not an outline, it's a full planning application. I hope that answers your question. All right, committee, have we done with questions? That's anybody who wants to ask a final one. Thank you for that. Moving on to the next stage of the meeting. We've got three speakers for this item. I'd like to call the first, who is Mr John Carter, who will speak for a maximum of three minutes, please. Welcome, sir. I think that's it. Just whenever you're ready. Having promoted the site through the local plan, Barry at home was appointed Lithos to investigate SV-1 in 2017. Lithos concluded that the risk of gypsum dissolution was low, but as the site was considered to lie in area C, recommended a geophysical survey. Phays were appointed and reported to Lithos in December 17. The survey showed two large and several smaller anomalies, at least three of which are indicative of solution features, containing loose material, voids, or both. Barry withdrew from the site. In 2020, Millgrave properties agreed with the NHBC for Lithos to drill three boreholes to test the geophysical findings. The boreholes showed that there was a hollow comprising peat and soft clay, four and a half to six metres deep in the centre of the northernmost anomaly, and the corresponding void of at least two metres in the underlying bedrock. Gypsum was encountered at a depth under the site. It is not a question. Dr Alan Thompson, who was the lead author of the 1996 Dewey Study into Gypsum dissolution in Rippen, commented that the results bore very strong similarities to those in many of the deeper boreholes drilled within Rippen itself, with the zones of limited or no core recovery being strongly indicative of gypsum solution. In my view, there is a very strong likelihood that gypsum dissolution processes have been active in this location. It would be unwise to discount that possibility. Lithos concluded that the hollow identified in the northernmost anomaly could either be the result of a kettle hole or dissolution, but could offer no certainty. A kettle hole is the result of a block of ice left over from the previous ice age that melts and causes the strata above to collapse. The NHPC declined to provide a warranty cover under any circumstances. Moldrave withdrew from the site. The three lithos boreholes were the last investigations into the possibility of gypsum dissolution at this site. The first opinion submitted by Edlington, supporting the application, stated that for dissolution to have caused a four and a half metre hollow at the surface, there would logically have to be a corresponding hollow in the bedrock below. It concluded that the difference in bedrock level between the boreholes, when taken into account surface level, was only 0.05 metres. Therefore, a kettle hole was the only possible explanation. Worryingly, the difference of 0.05 metres came from the author adding 1+1 and getting 0. Their revised opinion recognises that there is a void of at least two metres below the northernmost anomaly and that this could potentially indicate the presence of ground dissolution. They say it would have been useful for borehole one to achieve greater depth. But conclude that it is too dangerous to investigate further by deep drilling, as this may cause the very problem it is seeking to investigate. No alternative methods of investigation are considered. To conclude, the applicants have carried out no investigations whatsoever into the potential for gypsum dissolution at the site. The opinion relies on incomplete documents that do not form part of the application and cannot be relied by the applicant. These are not just the concerns of local residents. Barrett Holmes, Mulgate Properties Limited and the NHPC all concluded that the risks associated due developing this site are too great. The opinion contradicts the recommendations of the reporter relies on and the opinion of Dr Alan Thompson, who is the leading expert in the field of gypsum dissolution. If members are minded to approve this scheme, I've submitted a draft condition that would at least ensure that proper investigation and analysis of the risks can take place. Mr Khart, you've now taken up three minutes, if there's anything else you'd like to say, if you could just briefly say it. I'll have finished like a chair. Thank you very much. Thank you. I'd now like to call the second speaker who is from the Parrish Council, and that's Mr Graham Boland, please. Welcome, sir. Thank you. When you're ready, please. Thank you. Well, thank you. Thank you, chair. The case officer's report is incorrect, incomplete and misleading, and should not be approved. It is intercorrect in suggesting that ground stability issues have been addressed or could be addressed through conditions. We support Mr Khart as analysis in the opinion of Dr Thompson, expert on the issue. It won't be lost on the committee that their colleagues are today, I believe, hearing application for a further £2 million to rectify gypsum-related issues at the Ripon-Leisure Centre. The report is incorrect in suggesting that statuary consultants' objections have all been dealt with. There are outstanding issues from the Council's own housing, flooding and ecology experts. Yorkshire Wildlife Trust continue to object in principle, and generally take two technical points. First, the landscape. The drawings at the committee and public have been presented with, and we've seen today, show a loss of just 30 metres of hedge. The remainder of hedge screening the development from the roadmarked for trimming. In fact, the report now accepts that there could be a loss of 180 metres of hedge. None of the drawings shows that case officer is now recommending. When SV-1 was originally allocated, one of the key points was the retention of the hedge to Northwest Boundary. The removal of the hedge will have a significant effect on the character of the area. The development will not integrate into the landscape, but instead form an urban environment at the entrance to the village. The drawings submitted are misleading if the public could have seen drawings that more truthfully represented the look and feel of the development, objections would likely have been even greater. Drainage. Surface water flooding and subsequent overloading of the foul sewerage system is a major concern and issue in our village. Contrary to the report, the LLFA have not confirmed that final drainage can be controlled by condition. They identify two major items that need addressing before any permission is granted, as changes required would be material to the site layout. A revised scheme showing all required changes to landscaping and drainage should be submitted so the public can see the true extent of the plans and members may make a properly informed decision. Putting technical issues aside, stave leads to a village of circa 195 dwellings. There's a huge level of community concern with 275 comments and objections, none in support of the development. I ask you to consider these questions. If the Council had known of ground stability issues in 2015, would it have accepted SV1 into the local plan? If the answer to that question is no, why approve an application development now? Why approve an application for development on a site that the country's largest house builder walked away from because of issues of ground stability? Why approve an application for development which the country's top two warranty providers have refused to ensure? Why approve an application for development that is manifestly incomplete and inaccurate? Thank you. I'd now like to call the third speaker. That's Mr Burrell. Welcome, sir. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Chair, members of the Committee. My name is Matt Burrell. I'm here from Preston Baker planning on behalf of the applicant, Thomas Hollings Under Homes. The application was submitted some 15 months ago, and during that time we have engaged in constructive dialogue with officers, demanding they lay out on more than one occasion, and submitting further technical information to address specific matters raised by consultees. I am pleased to confirm that the application now has been given the all clear by technical consultees, and is therefore recommended for approval by your officers. Policy SV1 of the adopted local plan allocates the site for residential use of an indicative yield of 73 dwellings. As a result, the principal development is firmly established, having been through the rigorous process of local planning examination leading up to adoption. The proposals before you indicate 76 dwellings, which is slightly above the indicative capacity, but in line with density requirements prescribed by the development management policies. It should also be noted that we contain the developer layer as shaded in the local plan has been undermeasured to the extent that when applying a typical 30 dwelling per hectare identity, the actual indicative yield should be slightly above the number proposed. The site layout proposed in the mix of house types, including bungalows, terraced, semi-detached, and detached units of no more than two stories in height. The proposed dwellings incorporate simple facades, fenestration, pitched roofs, and reflect the prevailing character of the settlement. Typical of the developer, high quality materials will be used throughout. 40% affordable housing equivalent to 30 units will be delivered on site, and the households housing manager has agreed the location, size, type, and tenure of these units. In real terms, the increase of overall unit numbers that occurred during the course of the application results in two additional affordable housing units. In line with the office's recommendation, the developer is willing to enter into a section 106 agreement to secure the affordable housing, as well as the other obligations set out in the report. Matters related to transport, drainage, and biodiversity net gain have all been dealt with by in-depth technical information. Surface water and foul will be discharged via a pumping station to the existing combined sewer and miniscule road. Yorkshire water have agreed, surface water can be discharged at a controlled rate of 4.75 litres per second. The attenuation in the form of an underground storage tank has been designed accordingly. The lead local flood authority is supportive of the method of surface water control, and its content at the proposal will not lead to increased flood risk. The B&G report indicates that the site is able to deliver around 2% net gain in habitat units and 15% in hedgerow units. This is in line with adopted policy requirements for no loss to occur. The applicant is willing to enter into the section 106 agreement to secure the 30-year maintenance requirement as required by legislation. The area occupied by the pond and woodland in the southwestern corner will remain free of development and sensitively enhanced. A perimeter footpath with play on the way equipment will encircle the development site to offer amenity areas to all new residents. This provision plus the proposed kickabout area will ease potential pressure on the nature reserve, which is on the other side of miniscule road. Trees along the following railway embankment will be retained and protected during development. Mr Burrow, could you sum up now, please? It's a problem. In terms of ground stability, a king's council opinion has been circulated to explain how policy any nine should be properly applied. The developers have gone over above policy requirements by submitting a third party review of the ground reports, which was produced by a roadjet professional level engineer and seconded by a roadjet advisor. The advisor has also found the requisite ground stability declaration form. Mr Burrow, I'm going to have to stop you there. You've found your allocated time three minutes. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So, committee, we're now moving to debate. Chair? Council, do you want to sign? Please, before we go into that, you cut the gentleman off there. When he was just going into a thing which is of great concern to myself and no doubt the residents of Stavley. And that was the ground stabilisation. Can we please have him back and explain that, please? If I do that, I will need to give the other two speakers an opportunity to say something. Are we happy to do that? I'm happy to be flexible. I'm happy to do that, Chair, but I would like to know exactly what is proposed with this ground stabilisation and the reports. Okay, all right. Chairman, I'd like... In terms of fairness, in terms of time to speaking, you've actually had six minutes already from those sort of against the application. So, in my view, you can actually have him back and finding he doesn't speak beyond. All right. All right. All right. That sounds fair. And if there's anything else which the first two speakers want to add, I will give them the opportunity at the end. So, Mr. Borro, if you'd like to come back for just a brief time to finish the section that you were talking about in relation to ground stability. And then I'm happy to have one or both of the previous speakers back just to add a comment if they may. I'm very keen that we are fair. We try to hear the public's concerns and we try to give equal weight to both objectors and supporters of the application. So, I hope that's acceptable. So, Mr. Borro, please continue. That's fine. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Yeah. It was just to say, really, that the applicant has secured a King's Council opinion which summarises the proper way of applying policy any nine, which I think has been circulated to members as well, ahead of this meeting. And in regard to that, the way it should be applied is applications within the rip and high risk area should have to be supported by ground stability report and a declaration form signed by a road trip level advisor. As we know, this site is not within the rip and high risk area, but because there are potentially some similarities with the ground conditions, the developers decided to go over and above that requirement to give ultimate comfort to the council by signing the declaration form. So, having a report produced by a road trip level, professional level engineer, seconded by a road trip advisor level engineer, and then the declaration form itself has then been signed by the road trip advisor level engineer. And that was all on that part of the speech. It's covered the point that you raised. That was a fairly detailed. So, I've timed that at 53 seconds. So, I'm very happy to bring back the speaker number one for, say, half a minute up to a minute max and then speaker two. So, if we'd like to swap over, please, so we can give you a chance to have your say as well. Is there anything you'd like to answer, please, having heard that? Yes. The applicant's opinion is based on the number of reports that aren't theirs, including particularly the phased geophysical report that was never actually concluded. Phays carried out a study on behalf of Barrett's, and immediately concluded the ground was so bad that they recommended to Barrett that they didn't invest in any money in actually completing the report. The completed report may have shown further anomalies, and this was confirmed by Phays. The opinion is dependent on that report. The report is not dependent on the opinion, and it cannot possibly have been looked at because it doesn't exist. Thank you. Sorry. Did you, Mr. Boland, did you want to add anything to what you've said before? He summed it up. Okay, I'm super. Thank you. All right. I think we've got a balance there in terms of the speakers. Does the committee agree? I mean, it's our meeting. Are we happy? Yeah, in terms of the balance and what we've heard. Yeah. All right. Okay. Well, thank you to the speakers, and thank you for the eloquent points that everybody has made in this chamber this afternoon. So we're now in debate, and during the course of the debate, we moved to a recommendation, but do any members of the committee wish to make any points, make any debating points, any comments, please. Over to you. Sorry, we're just beating to it. I've got Councillor Wenders, then Councillor Scofield. Thank you, Chair. As this is within my ward, I am fully aware of the feelings within the village of Stavley regarding this development. I have listened to what they have said. I've listened at meetings in Stavley, but at that time, when the first approached me regarding this, I said that I couldn't comment on the particular site development because of me being on this planning committee. But what I did say right at the outset, that with this field being allocated within the plan, houses would be built there at some time. It's difficult. I understand their feelings. I understand the need for housing. I am satisfied with what has been said today regarding the ground stability. I don't know which way I'm going to vote when it comes to actually to it, but they should have done the largest amount of objecting before this site was actually allocated, because once it was, we know the outcome that houses will be built there. But I am having to thrash it through, in my own mind, of which way I will vote, whether I will support it, or I will vote with the constituents that I represent. That's all I wanted to say. Chair, thank you. Okay, thank you, Councillor. Councillor Scofield, you wanted to say that. Thank you, Chair. As you know, I'm brand new to this. So if this is wrong, then please do forgive me. Listening to our first speaker, with regards to the lack of reports, as they weren't completed, because they didn't feel the need, as there was no reason to complete them, as it baritone, I think you said. They felt that it wasn't financially worth them looking into it any further. Therefore, their reports are not here to be read. If we go by the recommendations of the engineers, if it all goes pear shape, such as it has in ribbon, where does the liability lie? If we approve this, do we have any liability? Well, that's a question I was just saying. We're in debate, Councillors, so I'm very happy to take comments. I'm happy to bring in, if it's a technical question, if you want a technical answer, I'm happy to bring in Nick or Amby. Is that what you want? We can suspend the debate for a second and get a technical answer. If that's okay, please. Can you answer the question from Councillor Scolffing? So, with a lot of professional reports that we get in front of us, we have to consider the applications in relation to the planning policies. You have to come to your judgements as a planning committee on the information that's before you at the time. The liability wouldn't rest on the basis of you making decision on the professional report that's put forward by professionals. And here, that's what we have. We have a report which has been done in line with the requirements of the policy by the appropriate person from Rhojak, who's at the appropriate level. So, if you're basing your decision based on that report, yes, you would be making a decision on the application course you would. But I don't think the Council would be liable for that because you're basing it on somebody else's evidence base. And that's what you're being asked to do as a planning committee member every time you sit in front of a, you know, and look at a planning application. This just happens to be on ground stability. It could be a highway's report, could be a environmental health report. All of those reports that come through, you know, we're not experts. We have to take our information from our colleagues who often got a lot more expertise in these fields than us. With this particular issue, we don't have a particular ground stability officer as part of the Council. We do have on highways, people who can look at it and give us that kind of information. Here, we've got to take the most up-to-date information. That would be my advice for you today. I'm sure Barrett's did look at things. We've obviously seen the report that's been scrutinized. And we have, we've got something which is more up-to-date, which suggests that there is a way through here. And that's why you've got the recommendation before you today. Does that help? Thank you. Any further debate or comments committed? Anybody else wanting to express a view? Councillor Aldred. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I fully sympathize with Councillor WINDIS and it is very difficult when you're sitting on the committee and it's in your area. Initially, I was quite worried with this application on a number of issues. I think quite a few of them have been addressed. I think the officers have taken time as the applicant said to work with the applicant and develop the scheme. Biodiversity was an issue for me, but I think, Mr. Howe, did say that the figures indicated in the report are the worst possible scenario. And we're probably not going to take all the applicants. It isn't going to take all the hedge out anyway. And the biodiversity condition in the report does take care of that. So, I'm happy with that. I'm happy with the 40% affordable housing. I'm happy with the dogs and cats and they're not going to roam the nature reserve completely unattended. And as Yorkshire wildlife trusts, we're worried about the dog and cat situation there. I think there's actually quite a few positives in the application, not least of which is the education one because I've sat in the chamber in North Alton on four or five occasions recently. And we've been having to listen to reasons why village schools were closing down. And actually, the only way you can protect your village school and other facilities like your pub, like your village hall, like your shop, which isn't there at the moment, has closed down. But if there was another 79 houses there with families, I would have thought some entrepreneurs somewhere would actually open a village shop there. So, you're enhancing your village by actually putting all these amenities there, and certainly the school. I think if we're, I would have thought we're looking at families coming into this settlement here rather than individuals, elderly individuals in some cases. But actually in this site, it's probably family set up and that will actually enhance their village. And in guarantee there is a schooling set in Stavely in the future. And I think that's very, very important actually. I have, however, got a major remaining, having said all that, which is the gypsum, obviously. I'm not an expert and none of us are experts here. And we have to take the advice of experts sometimes, but we seem to have a conflict of experts here. We've got a Casey's opinion, but I think what Mr. Carter is saying is that opinion is not based on any actual digging down into the ground and observation. And you are, you have given us a condition, a proposed condition where that would take place and we could actually see some physical digging there. And I would much prefer that personally to some kind of desktop exercise, which these roger is it, experts seems to have done. I'd actually like to see some kind of excavation into the ground and to see that, you know, it is as the roger experts are telling us. So in an ideal world, I'd like to propose that as an extra condition that we do have some work into the gypsum because it seems to be the biggest concern out there. And because of where the village is at the edge of the ripping area, we know what's happened in ripping. And I think we should give good people of Stavely some kind of comfort that there's not going to be that kind of issue. And indeed the developer because the developer doesn't want to be building houses if they're going to be in a situation like we've seen in ripping. So that would be my observation. And what I want to see happen is some kind of condition there that we do this mitigate, that we do this work and maybe it comes back to committee. I don't know, does it have to come back to committee, can it go to offices? As a specter in the public perception, it would be better if it came back to committee. And we've received those reports and then we can all be happy that it is actually stable ground. And as I said, all the other issues raised by the objections, I think the report does address and I think I don't see any reason. And there's positives for those houses being built in the village but not on unstable ground. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. You made a good point. You've raised a technical query. I'd like to bring Nick back in. Nick, if you could perhaps just remind us what the existing condition says in the report in relation to ground stability and perhaps also remind us what the report says. It's looking at paragraph 10.70, if you could just take us through that and then just give us a technical reply to the point raised by Councillor Aldridge. Thank you. So, we're just having a look back at the report that we've actually got back from the Roshep advisor working for the developer, because normally with these things, they don't necessarily actually recommend doing further investigations down into the ground itself, because that could actually cause more problems rather than causing more help by providing information to go off. So, just trying to have a look back, just the report itself. So, I think probably just read that. So, okay, just read out a bit from the report that we've got. There is a summary of the geotechnical consultancy opinion, independent assessment of the available factual data has been undertaken to acknowledgement of the theoretical potential for gyps and dissolution at the site. On the facts available supported by the contextual understanding revealed by an expanded geological ground model, it is concluded that there is no direct evidence of bedrock dissolution and its related displacement of the superficial coarse grain soils beneath the northern most anomaly. The most likely implausible explanation of the peat-filled depression anomalies identified on the northern site boundary, due to the melting of abandoned/buried ice blocks, detached from retreating glaciers at the end of the last ice age, i.e. a kettle hole. This interpretation is in keeping with the mapped presence of further peat globes across a significant area to the north of the site, which is considered to have formed the location of an esker and glacial lake during the recent geological past. The residual risk of future ground dissolution beneath the site is acknowledged, and it is recommended a degree of structural redundancy is incorporated into future foundations to mitigate this background at local risk. So, on the basis of the report that we've got, it's not suggesting that further investigative work would be undertaken. I think if we were faced where somebody was expecting that that would provide some kind of benefit, they would recommend that. They wouldn't want to say that they're recommending that a degree of structural redundancy is incorporated into future foundations. They'd be saying we need to do further investigative work before you get to that stage. So, I think this is one where we need to look at the evidence before, as we've got a report from somebody who is at the highest level in the country for advising on this. That's the information you've got here. The residents haven't got that level of information. The Barrett scheme was never progressed, and it wasn't based in relation to this scheme. So, I don't see how we can justify going back to the developer, and ask them to do further analysis and work. If you look back at the Casey's opinion, they've gone above and beyond already. When you actually look at what the policy requires, we're going beyond that. So, I think my suggestion would be that you've got all the information that you actually require this afternoon to look at this, and to make an informed decision based on the evidence before you. When you said Casey, Nick, is that King's Council? So, that's the barrister who gave the opinion. Thank you. Councillor, did you want to come back on that? I mean, we're in debate. I mean, we've revisited it. I'm obviously coming from the layman's point of view here, and I'm not in a position to argue with the King's Council. But Mr. Carter did make some very salient points, I think, in his presentation. And when he brought him back, he referred to a report which should have been added, but wasn't added because it didn't exist. And that worries me. And I think, you know, there is some case that we need to, because of where it is, because it is near to the rippling gypsum field. And because there's resident concern about gypsum, and as I said, because, you know, the developer might, I mean, Robert's did walk away from that site for a reason. And it was after they had that initial survey done. It does worry me, and I don't actually think it would be right of us to say, to proceed with this, just going on basically a desk top evidence and a lawyer reviewing that evidence. And they're basically saying, we've followed our procedures. I think I'm saying now, let's go one step further, and we probably need to go legally. And let's give everybody some confidence if we can do that work. That's where I am, I'll let you know. My colleagues may well have different viewpoints. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor WINDERS, you wanted to come back, I think. Are you sure? Sorry, just to play devil advocate on that point, would be actually how much of the village is built on gypsum? Already. Do you know what I mean? So the gypsum field, it doesn't just stop and end in that field, surely. So surely there's gypsum underneath. A lot of those already have built houses and the whole village. Is there not? I'm just saying it can't just stop in that field, can it? That's a good, that's an interesting question. I'd like to bring in Nick, who would like to make a comment, and perhaps Andy, if you wish, would like to address the point to us. So Nick, over to you, please. Thank you, through you, Chair. Again, just coming back to Councillor OLDRID, you're saying that the information that has been considered by looking at the Barrett's application hasn't been looked at by this consultant. They have seen that information. So that was forwarded, I think, by Mr. Carter. It's been put into the, you know, into that wide amount of information that the expert has looked at. So he's not coming into this without that knowledge. He's taken it on board and he's managed to look at forming his own views on things. And that's what he has looked at, and he's signing the ground stability declaration. You know, that's quite a high magnitude of importance. He's not just somebody that's been got off the street, and he's saying that he's confirmed in their opinion the ground stability beneath the subject site remains unchanged. You know, he's had that information gone through it, and it's not changed anything. It's unfortunate that it's a different view, but it's the one that's before you. And say, I don't think we've got any evidence to go against that, and I don't think we've got technical backup really to go and ask them all to be done. I'd say it would be my view there. Into the council's question, Nick, do you have any intelligence about what's happened to the existing houses in the village over the last since they've been built? Has there been any evidence of subsidence or gyps and problems? Have you come across that? We haven't had anything. You haven't been alleged, not to my knowledge. So we're in debate, just to remind people, any further thoughts? Yeah, like Chris, on the several things that I'm still uncertain about. I'm not an expert at this sort of thing, but gypsum is an issue that does what I mean. Drainage schemes, but a lot of conflicting comments in the report. For instance, you've got the parish concerns about the unsustainable development. It would be extremely damaging to the village, and you've got natural England saying it will not have a significant adverse impact on the statutory protected nature conservation side or landscape. Drainage schemes, you've got there's been several incidents there, but you've got Yorkshire water saying they have no objections to the scheme. So it's a difficult one to sort of balance out because of the conflicting statements and the evidence from the different groups in there. I mean, obviously, because it in principle development has been approved, it's going to happen on that site eventually. I think we're going to have to, reluctantly, I would say, go along with the offices. I would probably go along with the offices recommendation, reluctantly, because I think there's so much there. But I think there's some issues there that I feel will probably need to come back to after the negotiations have gone on. I feel that we may have to, the planning officers may have to come back to the committee to explain, you know, what exactly has been agreed and what's gone on. But that's my view. Thank you, Councillor. Just to remind ourselves and remind me also what the recommendation in the report is. I mean, as Katrina said earlier, the recommendation in the report is that the committee indicate they are minded, minded to approve the application, subject to conditions, which would cover things like trainees, which you've mentioned, and a section 106 legal agreement and delegate the decision, the actual decision on the application to the assistant director with responsibility for planning. Who would finalize the conditions after, you know, in terms of what, if they need finalizing. And also the director would sign off the terms of the section 106 agreement. And so our, if we agree with the recommendation, our role is to say it's minded, we are minded to approve, and then delegate the decision to the director, as I've said. So that's what the report says. Okay, well, I would go minded, yes, but I would like, because it's a big application, I would feel happier if the final deal actually came back to the committee for confirmation. And I would move that if we can do that. I need legal guidance on that. Katrina. Thank you, Chair, through you. I mean, the way the recommendations worded at the moment is very much seeking the members, if you like, their approval through a minded to decision. And that decision, as it, as it's set out there, is then delegated down to the officers to make that decision so that wouldn't come back to yourselves. I mean, maybe one way of doing it, not something I've had a chance to obviously discuss with my colleagues or the chairman is you could always have that delegation to the assistant director. It could be in consultation with the chair and the vice chair of the committee, if that would provide some sort of comfort around member involvement in that final decision. Okay, I, yeah, I do feel that, yeah, just vice chair and vice chair. It can be what you prefer. I'm just saying it could be chair and vice chair. Right. Well, as I say, because it is, it's a big for the village. It's a big application. And I do feel we ought to, as members, elected members, we ought to have input into the final decision. So my own view, you should come back to committee. But chair and vice chair, both involved, would be the alternative, but I personally, I would like it to come back to committee. So I'd like to move that first. Okay. Well, effectively, you're saying you want the decision to come back to yourselves. Well, then you're looking at what would actually be a deferral today. It wouldn't be what's on. No, it doesn't say defer. So the recommendation is that you're reminded to approve, I mean, on the face of the information that you've got before you and that the, if you like, the terms of the final decision are delegated to officers so it would not come back to you. If what you're proposing is that you want to make the decision, then what you would be looking at today is a deferral and you would have to come up with reasons for that deferral. All right, Joe, did you want to come back, Councillor brought back on that. So are you still putting forward a motion? Is that what you're saying? So I think you've got to, I'll stick with you for a second and bring other members in in a minute. But in making up your mind, I would suggest you've got a choice of either opting for a deferral, which is what Katrina's just stated, and we have to give reasons for that, planning reasons for that, in which case you would come back to committee on a future occasion for sticking with the recommendation, but adding in what you suggested previously, which is that the matter is delegated to officers to decide what I've just described in consultation with the vice chair, Chris, and the chair, myself. So you've got a choice, which one did you want? Go for the chair, vice chair. All right. Okay. All right. So that's your motion. All right. So committee, we've got a motion in front of us, which is that we go with the recommendation in the report. I'll just read it to you again, because it's quite long. The recommendation is that the committee indicate that they are minded to approve the application subject to conditions and a section 1 of agreement and delegate the decision to the assistant director responsible for planning who will take the decision in conjunction with the vice chair and the chair. And that decision will include the finalization of any conditions that need finalizing, such as flooding, and the legal terms of the section 106. So I hope that's a decent rendering of your motion if you agree. So that's the motion before us. You propose it. I'm now looking for a seconder committee. So I've got Councillor Schofield. Okay. So we've got a motion, which is proposed and seconded proposed by Councillor or seconded by Councillor Schofield. So we're in debate on that motion. I'd be happy if it came back to the committee rather than the assistant director chair and vice chair. I'd still like a condition somewhere in there that there should be some geographical geophysical investigation, including rotary bow holes. I'm looking at alternative method methodologies. I'm just not happy at all with the gypsum thing, and I'd like to see some more evidence. I know I've been sent a copy of the let's go report, but I listened very careful to what Mr Curtis said, and I think he's made some really valid points. I believe he is actually unlike me. He knows what he's talking about. And I'd just like further confidence in in the stability elements in it. And yeah, I'd like it to come back to committee rather than, you know, some semi on public gathering in a smoke filled room. Okay. Okay. So, as I say, we've got this motion before us. We've just heard from Councillor Aldred. The motion is, as I read out, proposed by Councillor Broadbank, seconded by Councillor Schofield. Any further debate? I'm just looking at anybody who hasn't spoken. They don't have to speak, but any further comments before we move to the vote on this, please, committee. So, I suppose just by by going with this motion, as Councillor Aldred is vice chair, you'll be able to raise these points along when he's in these meetings with yourself, and you were delegating it too. So you're still going to be able to raise your points about you were at concerns. And in your new interest with that. Yeah, the point is I'd like to be able to do that in the public. I think we owe it to the public to do that in the public forum. I'm not entirely happy with three or four of us making a decision in private, to be honest. I'm here on Jipson. Yeah. Well, I defer everything to come back to us, but I'd add the Jipson thing to it. That would be my proposal. I thought I was. No. Yeah, I'm sorry. I mean, we have to take this now, don't we? We have to take this proposition. If it falls, I'd like to make an alternative proposition, but, you know, we have to take this. Legally speak to the chairman just for confirmations at the moment, you'd be voting on the recommendation in the report. Yeah. And it would be up to any amendments to conditions being agreed with the chair and vice chair. That's right. Once it had been delegated to officers. Okay. Yeah. That's what I'm happy with that. Just verification purposes. That does not include the additional condition. No. So we wouldn't be able to add that in afterwards. Okay. Thank you. On the straight and narrow, are we legally? Okay. I want to do the right thing. Okay. And looking at the committee, Councillor Winters. Before you go to the vote, I'm concerned that I can fully understand where Chris is coming from on this, but at this stage, surely we're not. We can't go back to the developer on any other party and say, we want a full geological report on this, because it would meet them doing it at someone else doing another drilling to find exactly what's being found. Previously, and then it would have to be discussed again. I don't think we can. I'll stand, you know, by what the legal officer says, but I don't think we can start asking for this at this stage. That should have been done a long time ago. Had we thought it necessary. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councillor. I'm going to go to the vote in a second, but this is a last call for any further comments. Please, committee. Just for clarification. So if this proposal from the Councillor, seconded by Councillor Scofield, is approved, it would differ in, but the assumption is it will go through. That's the wording, is it? Can I have a legal officer's? Really? Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Chairman. I think through you, yeah, it's probably just worth repeating it. I mean, the position is that you've got that motion before you as members. You're saying that you are minded to approve it, and then it is delegated. The final decision is that of the officers, but what's proposed and what's on the table at the moment is obviously that would be in consultation with the chairman and with yourself as vice chairman. So it's the motion at the moment is that the committee indicate that they are minded to approve the application subject to conditions in a 106 agreement and delegate the decision to the assistant director planning in consultation with the chair and vice chair, including the finalisation of conditions in the terms of the section 106 to include affordable housing, travel plan, BNG, education contributions, very tall contributions and open space contributions. Thank you, Chairman. Committee. So I think we're ready to vote. Are we not? Please raise your hand if you disagree with that. So if we could move to the vote and use our hands. The technical system is not working. I understand. So it's not being used. So we need to. So if I could ask all those in favour of the motion to raise their hands, please. That's three against please if you could raise your hand if you're against. That's one and any abstentions. That's one. So that means by three to one to one. The motion is therefore carried, which means that we are minded to approve the application as a committee. And we are going to delegate the decision to the director, the assistant director in consultation with the vice chair and chair. So I think we've got there. So thank you for the committee on that. So moving forward. Do we have any other items on the agenda? I don't think we do. So that brings the meeting to a close. The date of the next meeting is due to 25th June at 2pm. And thank you to the committee and to those who took part. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO]