The Strategic Planning Committee refused permission for the construction of a solar farm at Amplecarr, Husthwaite. The Committee approved the construction of a Motorway Service Area at Pallett Hill Farm, Catterick and the construction of a Motorway Service Area at Barton Motorway Truck Stop, Barton. The Committee also approved an extension to Settrington Quarry, Settrington, an extension of time for the completion of works at Settrington Quarry, and the removal of a condition preventing blasting at Jackdaw Crag Quarry, Sutton.

Amplecarr Solar Farm

The Committee considered an application for the installation of a solar farm at Amplecarr, Husthwaite. This application had been deferred at a previous meeting to allow the applicant to provide further information. The application was for full planning permission and included an Environmental Impact Assessment. The site is 66.56 hectares and the applicant proposed to install a solar farm with a generating capacity of up to 43 MW. The applicant, Woolpots Solar Farm Ltd, argued that the development would generate enough electricity to power approximately 12,000 homes and would have minimal impact on the surrounding area.

The Committee heard representations from Councillor Alyson Baker, the local ward member, Simon Pilcher, a local resident, Chris Nichols, a representative of Husthwaite Parish Council, and Michael Bird, a representative of the applicant, Envams.

Councillor Baker spoke against the application stating that she was not convinced that the land proposed for the development was necessary, given the availability of other lower-grade land in the area. She also raised concerns about the potential impact of the development on the soil and the cumulative impact of solar farms in the area.

Mr Pilcher argued that the noise of electrical equipment would disturb local people and tourists. He was also concerned about the safety precautions in place.

Mr Nichols spoke on behalf of the parish council who were concerned about the impact on local residents and also the further industrialisation of the parish, which would impact the local landscape and its character.

Mr Bird, spoke in favour of the application. He pointed out that the information requested by the Committee at the previous meeting had been provided and that the application would comply with all relevant planning policies. He also argued that there was an urgent need for more solar energy.

The Committee debated the application at length. Members were concerned about the impact of the development on agricultural land, particularly as a significant portion of the site is classed as Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land. BMV land is a national designation for agricultural land of the highest quality. National Planning Policy states that:

Planning policies and decisions should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside… including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land…. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality.

The Committee also considered the potential impact of the development on the landscape. The site is located in open countryside with views to the Howardian Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Ultimately, the Committee decided to refuse the application. They concluded that the applicant had not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the use of BMV agricultural land was necessary and unavoidable, and that alternative lower-grade land should be prioritised.

Land off Lady Lane and Whinney Lane

The committee considered an outline application for a mixed-use development on land off Lady Lane and Whinney Lane in Harrogate. The application included an Environmental Impact Assessment and proposed the demolition of a redundant agricultural building and the construction of:

• Up to 480 dwellings
• Land for employment
• A local retail centre
• Associated Infrastructure
• Public open space
• Landscaping
• A sustainable urban drainage system (SuDS)

The site is approximately 19 hectares and is within a wider ‘urban extension’ for Harrogate as identified in the adopted Harrogate District Local Plan. The application was brought before the Strategic Planning Committee because the site is allocated within a ‘South West Harrogate Parameters Plan’ (a Supplementary Planning Document) which is intended to:

… create an aligned, holistic site approach, addressing matters such as land use, access and movement, provision of community facilities and schools, green and blue infrastructure, public transport, cycling and pedestrian links, and phasing.

Planning officers presented their report on the application, recommending approval, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 agreement.

The Committee heard representations from several local residents, including David Siddans of Harlow and Pannal Ash Residents’ Association, and councillors John Mann and Derek Spence.

Mr Siddans argued that the existing infrastructure in the area could not support the proposed level of development.

Councillor Mann spoke against the application and, in particular, raised concerns about the existing road network and the lack of public transport.

Councillor Spence raised concerns on behalf of Beckwithshaw Parish Council about the lack of adequate road infrastructure and the lack of local GP and secondary school places.

The Committee discussed the application at length and several issues were raised, including affordable housing, access and sustainable travel, energy efficiency and biodiversity. In response to these issues, planning officers confirmed that the affordable housing provision on site would be 40% and would be split between shared ownership and affordable rent. They explained that the highway impact of the development would be mitigated through the proposed conditions and the S106 agreement.

Ultimately, the Committee resolved to grant planning permission for the development, subject to conditions and a S106 agreement. The details of the development will be considered at the reserved matters stage.

Motorway Service Area at Catterick

The committee considered an application for the construction of a Motorway Service Area (MSA) on land at Pallett Hill Farm, Catterick. The applicant was Roadchef Limited and they were requesting full planning permission for the development. The application included an Environmental Statement and the site is approximately 11.27 hectares in area.

The proposed MSA would include the following facilities:

• An amenity building (approximately 3000m2)
• 100 bedroom hotel
• Drive Thru Costa
• Drive Thru McDonalds
• A Picnic Area
• Parking for 300 cars, 53 HGVs, 12 coaches and 13 caravans
• Fuel filling station
• EV charging points
• Open space
• Surface Water Drainage

The site is situated between the A1(M) to the west and Catterick Racecourse to the east. The site is currently used for grazing and the land is classed as Grade 3b Agricultural Land. It is also located within the Pallett Hill Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC).

The application was brought before the Committee for determination because it is a strategic development that raises significant planning issues and was previously resolved to be granted permission by Richmondshire District Council in July 2022, subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement. The applicant has now secured the off-site compensation land to mitigate biodiversity loss and the committee were being asked to reconsider the application.

In making their recommendation, officers explained the reasons for the need for an MSA in this location, the policy context, and the responses from statutory consultees. The officers recommended that the Committee grant planning permission, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

In particular, the officers explained the need for an MSA in this location. The site is located approximately 6.3 miles from the existing MSA at Leeming Bar, but there is not a signed MSA between the Leeming Bar MSA and the proposed MSA at Durham. National policy states that MSAs on motorways should be spaced at intervals of no more than 28 miles. The proposed MSA at Catterick would be approximately 22 miles south of the existing MSA at Durham.

The Committee heard representations from four local parish councils (Brough with St Giles, Brompton on Swale, Catterick and Hipswell) and the local ward member, Councillor Paul Atkin. All four parish councils objected to the application, arguing that there was no need for an additional MSA in the area. Councillor Atkin also spoke against the application, arguing that it would have a negative impact on the local community.

Several local residents spoke both for and against the application. A petition objecting to the application, signed by 785 people was also presented.

The objectors were concerned about a range of issues, including the loss of natural habitat, increased traffic congestion and the potential impact on the local economy.

The supporters of the application argued that it would provide much-needed jobs and investment in the area, and that the impact on the environment would be mitigated through the proposed conditions and the S106 Agreement.

The committee discussed the application at length. Members acknowledged that the application was unusual and that there were strong arguments both for and against the proposal. Members specifically discussed the issue of need and acknowledged that National Highways had supported both this application and the application at Barton Truck Stop because both would address the need for an MSA south of the A66. They accepted that there was a need for both schemes in the context of predicted future traffic flow growth.

Members also discussed the potential impact of the development on biodiversity. The application site is located within a SINC. The NPPF states that:

Development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest

The Committee considered the mitigation measures that have been agreed with the applicant, including the provision of 16.95 hectares of compensation land at Manor House Farm, East Cowton. The compensation land will be restored and managed to enhance its biodiversity value. The committee also noted that Yorkshire Wildlife Trust continued to object to the application, despite Natural England and the Environment Agency withdrawing their objections.

In addition to biodiversity, the committee considered the other likely impacts of the development, including highways, flood risk, heritage and design. They were satisfied that all of these impacts would be mitigated through the proposed conditions and the S106 agreement.

Ultimately, the committee resolved to grant planning permission for the development, subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement.

Motorway Service Area at Barton

The Committee considered an application for outline planning permission, with access only, for the construction of a Motorway Service Area (MSA) on land at Barton Motorway Truck Stop, Barton. The site is currently used as a truck stop and is approximately 4.65 hectares in area. The applicant, Moto Hospitality Limited, argued that there was a need for a new MSA in this location due to the spacing of facilities along the A1(M). The nearest MSAs to the site are Durham, 20 miles to the north, and Wetherby, 40 miles to the south. They proposed that the MSA would include the following facilities:

• An Amenity Building (indicatively 1193m2)
• A Public Petrol Filling Station
• An HGV Fuel Filling Station
• A Drive Thru Coffee Shop
• Parking for 255 Cars, 12 Coaches, 8 Caravans and 59 HGVs

Access to the site is proposed via a new roundabout on the A6055. The application included details of the proposed access but all other matters were reserved for later consideration. The applicant has previously been granted permission for an MSA on this site (application 1/93/146B/PA/O) which was allowed at appeal on 21 July 1999. Some works were undertaken to implement this permission, but it has not been fully developed. The applicant argues that this permission is no longer capable of being developed out.

The Committee heard representations from Andrew Long of Roadchef, who are the applicants for a separate MSA proposal at Catterick Village, John Bowe of Eddisons, the agent for Moto, and John Smith, a local resident.

Mr Long argued that there was no need for two MSAs in such close proximity to each other. He stated that the Roadchef proposal was a better option and that it would have less of an impact on the environment.

Mr Bowe stated that the application complies with National Policy and that the proposed MSA would be a valuable addition to the local area. He explained that the existing permission was no longer capable of being built out.

Mr Smith raised concerns about the impact of the development on the local area, particularly in relation to increased traffic and noise.

Planning officers presented their report, recommending approval of the application subject to conditions and the completion of a S106 agreement. They explained the reasons for the need for an MSA in this location and responded to the points raised by the objectors. They confirmed that the existing permission was still in place, but that, based on the information provided by the applicant, they had accepted that it was no longer capable of being built out. They explained the reasons why the site is considered a sustainable location for an MSA. In particular, it would regenerate previously developed land, is a brownfield site, strategically fills the gap between the existing MSA’s at Durham and Wetherby, does not impact any heritage assets, is not in Flood Zone 3, and has no environmental designations.

Ultimately, the Committee resolved to grant outline planning permission for the development, subject to conditions and a S106 agreement. The details of the development, including the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping will be considered at the reserved matters stage.

Settrington Quarry

The Committee considered two planning applications in relation to Settrington Quarry, an active Jurassic Limestone quarry near Malton. The first application, NY/2022/0224/FUL, was an application for full planning permission for a 5.2 hectare southern extension to the quarry. The applicant, Fenstone Limited, proposed to extract 1.35 million tonnes of limestone from the extension area over a period of 14 years. The second application, NY/2022/0278/73, was a Section 73 application to vary condition 1 of planning permission C3/19/01386/CPO to allow an extension of time to recover the remaining 20,000 tonnes of mineral from the quarry.

Both applications were presented to the Committee because they are major developments that raise significant planning issues. The main issues discussed were:

• The need for Jurassic limestone
• The impact of the developments on the landscape
• The impact of the development on residential amenity, particularly noise, air quality, vibration, dust and HGV movements
• The impact on local ecology and biodiversity
• Restoration and aftercare

Need

The site is allocated within the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan, which was adopted in February 2022, as allocation MJP08.

The purpose of allocation MJP08 is to provide for an extension to Settrington Quarry to extract 1.35 Mt of Jurassic Limestone, working progressively southwards from the existing quarry.

The Committee discussed the need for Jurassic limestone, particularly as National Planning Policy requires a 10-year landbank of crushed rock. The most recent Local Aggregate Assessment (LAA) concluded that there is currently a 25 year landbank for crushed rock as a whole. Planning officers explained that the landbank for Jurassic Limestone is considerably lower than this, and that the shortfall in supply of Jurassic Limestone is forecast to be 0.3 million tonnes. The Committee accepted that there is a need for the mineral to be extracted to ensure a steady and adequate supply.

Landscape

The quarry is located in a rural area near the village of Settrington and close to the proposed Yorkshire Wolds National Landscape. The committee discussed the impact of the development on the landscape, particularly in terms of the landform of the area, the impact on views to and from the quarry, the character of the surrounding area and the potential impact on the tranquillity of the area.

Planning officers explained that the quarry is well-screened by existing vegetation and that the proposed development would not result in any significant changes to the visual impact of the site. The applicant would be required to carry out progressive restoration of the site to ensure that the long-term impact of the development is minimised.

Amenity

The committee discussed the impact of the development on the amenity of local residents. The main concerns raised were noise and vibration from blasting operations, noise from other quarry operations, dust from blasting, HGV movements and the hours of operation of the quarry.

Noise and vibration

The application site is located near to several residential properties, including Sparrow Hall Farm and Settrington Grange. The committee considered a noise assessment, a blast vibration assessment, and representations from local residents, the parish council, and the environmental health officer. They concluded that blasting operations at the site could be carried out safely and without causing unacceptable levels of noise or vibration. Planning officers confirmed that they would continue to monitor the situation and would take enforcement action if necessary.

Members questioned the Environmental Health Officer on the noise generated from pecking operations at the quarry. The officer confirmed that they had taken into consideration complaints from residents about noise from pecking and that they were satisfied the conditions proposed would adequately mitigate the impact.

Air quality

In considering air quality, the Committee discussed the likely impacts of dust from blasting operations. The applicant will be required to produce and implement a dust management plan to minimise these impacts.

Highways

The Committee considered the impact of HGV movements associated with the quarry on the local highway network, particularly the villages of Settrington and Scagglethorpe. They considered a transport assessment, a highways technical note, representations from local residents and both parish councils, and the response of the highways officer. They concluded that the impact of the development could be mitigated through the proposed conditions and the S106 agreement. In particular, they accepted that the routes identified by the applicant were appropriate and that the number of movements would not increase as a result of the extension. The applicant has agreed to carry out improvement works at Back Lane and in the village of Scagglethorpe to mitigate the impact of HGVs.

Ecology

The committee considered the impact of the proposed development on the local ecology and biodiversity. The applicant has proposed a range of mitigation measures, including the creation of new habitats to achieve Biodiversity Net Gain and the implementation of an ecological management plan. The committee heard from the Council’s ecologist, who explained that the proposed mitigation measures were acceptable and that the application was compliant with policy.

Restoration and aftercare

Planning policy requires quarry operators to submit detailed restoration and aftercare schemes to ensure that quarry sites are restored to an acceptable standard. The committee considered the proposed restoration and aftercare schemes for the site. They heard from the applicant’s agent, who explained that the site would be restored to a mix of agricultural land, woodland and wetland. The committee was satisfied that the proposed schemes were acceptable.

Decisions

Following their discussions, the committee resolved to grant planning permission for the southern extension, subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement. The committee also resolved to grant planning permission for the extension of time to complete works at the quarry, subject to conditions. The conditions relate to the matters discussed above.

Jackdaw Crag Quarry

The Committee considered a Section 73 planning application to allow blasting within the southern extension of Jackdaw Crag Quarry, Sutton. The quarry is operated by Darrington Quarries Ltd and extracts magnesian limestone. The quarry is situated between the A1(M) to the west, and the A64 to the north. The site is also located within the West Yorkshire Green Belt.

The applicant had previously been granted permission for the southern extension (planning permission C8/2009/1066/CPO), but a condition was imposed preventing blasting. The applicant now sought to remove this condition.

In making their recommendation to the committee, planning officers confirmed that the application had been the subject of a screening opinion, and that the Secretary of State had issued a Screening Direction confirming that an Environmental Statement was not required.

The main issues raised by the application were:

• The need for magnesian limestone
• The impact on residential amenity, in particular vibration, air quality and noise from blasting operations
• The impact on the Green Belt
• The impact on the surrounding landscape
• The impact on the ecology of the site
• Potential water contamination
• Impact on the highway network, including the A64 and the A1(M)
• Impact on Heritage Assets

Need

The committee discussed the need for blasting to facilitate the extraction of magnesian limestone. They considered the policy context and concluded that there was no conflict with policy. This is because the site is allocated for the extraction of magnesian limestone in the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan and because the quarry is required to extract the full mineral reserve of 6.9 million tonnes from the allocated site. The applicant argued that it would not be possible to extract the full reserve without blasting.

Amenity

The main amenity concern in relation to the application is the impact of blasting on the closest residential property, Warren Cottage. Warren Cottage is located approximately 25 metres to the south of the Southern Extension Area. The next nearest property is The Old School House, which is approximately 600m to the east of the site.

Vibration

The Committee considered a vibration assessment, prepared by Vibrock Limited, which predicted that blasting operations at the quarry would be unlikely to result in unacceptable levels of vibration.

Predicted vibration levels are less than 6 mm/s PPV at a 95% confidence level at the closest receptor. On this basis, it is not considered that there would be any unacceptable vibration effects to structures or services, including buried infrastructure.

The British Standard for vibration levels (BS 6472-2:2008) sets an acceptable range of 6 to 10 mm/s at a 95% confidence level at a vibration sensitive property. The Committee concluded that the predicted vibration levels would be within acceptable limits.

The Environmental Health Officer confirmed that they did not object to the proposed development, on the basis that the proposed conditions would ensure that blasting operations are carried out safely and that any potential impacts on amenity are mitigated.

Air quality

The committee also considered the impact of air quality, particularly the potential for dust from blasting operations. The quarry operator will be required to comply with their existing Dust Management Plan.

Noise

In considering noise, the Committee discussed the impact of noise from blasting on Warren Cottage and other nearby properties. The Committee discussed conditions proposed to mitigate this impact, including conditions to control the frequency and hours of blasting. In addition, residents and the parish council would be notified in advance of any planned blasting. The Environmental Health Officer did not object to the proposal on the basis that blasting at the quarry would only occur infrequently (once a week at most) and because the noise from each blast would be very short in duration (1 to 2 seconds).

Other matters

The Committee considered the other potential impacts of blasting. In particular, they discussed the impact of blasting on a decommissioned, but still pressurised, high-pressure gas main which runs through the site, and an overhead electricity pylon adjacent to the site. They concluded that both of these impacts could be mitigated through the proposed conditions. National Gas Transmission and Northern Powergrid, the operators of the pipeline and pylon respectively, had both withdrawn their objections to the application.

They also discussed the potential impact of blasting on the landscape, the ecology of the site, the West Yorkshire Green Belt and a heritage asset. They concluded that all of these impacts could be mitigated through the application of appropriate conditions.

Decision

The Committee resolved to grant planning permission for the development, subject to conditions and the prior completion of a Deed of Variation to the S106 Agreement. The conditions relate to the matters discussed above. The Deed of Variation is required to update the reference numbers in the existing S106, which provides for a detailed restoration and management plan and lorry routing agreement.