Subscribe to trusted local news
If you are accessing this story via Facebook but you are a subscriber then you will be unable to access the story. Facebook wants you to stay and read in the app and your login details are not shared with Facebook. If you experience problems with accessing the news but have subscribed, please contact subscriptions@thestrayferret.co.uk. In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever. By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.
- Subscription costs less than £1 a week with an annual plan.
Already a subscriber? Log in here.
16
Apr
Council facing fresh criticism of planning decisions over motorway services near Boroughbridge
North Yorkshire Council is facing a fresh allegation of unlawful decision-making over plans for a motorway service area (MSA) near Boroughbridge.
Campaign group Kirby Hill Residents Against Motorway Services (RAMS) has written to the council’s monitoring officer, Barry Khan, raising concerns about a new planning application linked to the proposed Vale of York services scheme.
The group claims a recently submitted Section 73 application – often used to vary planning conditions – is being used in an attempt to “rescue” the development after doubts were raised about whether the original outline permission had expired.
RAMS argues that if the original permission has lapsed, it cannot be revived through such an application.
Group chair Gareth Owens said:
This looks like an attempt to fix a fundamentally flawed planning position after the event.
If the outline permission has already expired, it cannot simply be revived or repaired through a later Section 73 application.
Even if the outline permission has not expired, there are strict legal limits on what a Section 73 application can be used for. It cannot fix a defective permission.
The dispute centres on whether a previous application was submitted in time to keep the existing outline planning consent alive.
RAMS maintains the deadline passed in April 2024, meaning there is no valid permission in place.
Mr Owens said.
If that is correct, there is no extant permission to which reserved matters can attach.
That means the application before the council is invalid and cannot lawfully be determined.
The council rejects that view and says it has taken external legal advice.
However, campaigners have questioned the transparency of that advice, claiming local councillors have not been given access to any written legal opinion.
Mr Owens added:
The council says it has taken legal advice, but neither councillors nor the public have been shown the legal reasoning behind its position.
That lack of transparency is increasingly concerning given the seriousness of the legal issues involved.
The row follows the High Court quashing a separate decision by the authority to approve a motorway service area at Catterick, after finding the council had acted unlawfully.
The Boroughbridge scheme, promoted by Welcome Break, would see a large service station built on land near the A1(M).
RAMS has now asked the monitoring officer to consider issuing a formal report on the matter before any decision is taken, warning the council risks repeating past planning errors if it proceeds.
In response, the council’s head of development management, Martin Grainger, said:
This is a live planning application which will be considered by members of our strategic planning committee on a future date.
All views and opinions that have been submitted to us in relation to the application will be taken into consideration before a decision is made.
0