Your friends are fundraising. Don't miss out, opt in.

We did it!

Gale Common Action Group raised £1,010 from 24 supporters

or

Start your own crowdfunding page

Closed 04/02/2022

0%
£1,010
raised of £8,000 target by 24 supporters

    Weʼve raised £1,010 to legally challenge Gale Common planning decision NY/2019/0091/ENV by NYCC. This will blight local communities for decades.

    Funded on Friday, 4th February 2022

    Don't have time to donate right now?

    Story

    Are you prepared to pledge £10 or £20 to secure a cleaner, safer environment for your village?

    Why give?

    Why so much money?

    What is there in this for you?

    GALE COMMON JUDICIAL REVIEW

    Our application to the High Court has not, at this stage, been successful.

    Summary of the judgment:

    Ground 1 – Green Belt and development which is not appropriate

    Argument: The development is correctly acknowledged as inappropriate development in the Green Belt, however, the exception at paragraph 145(g) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) should not have been applied as it only relates to ‘the construction of new buildings’.

    Held: All material considerations had been taken into account. The “very special circumstances” requirement in paragraphs 143 and 144 of the NPPF means the overall balance is loaded against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. However, it was held that it made sense for the Officer’s Report to examine the issue of harm arising from the built element of the proposals, by considering whether - in the light of the buildings etc already on the site - that element could be said to have “a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development”.

    Ground 2 – Green Belt and ‘any other harm’

    Argument: That the Officer’s Report failed to recognise that “any other harm” arising from the development should include non-Green Belt harm and, as a conclusion on non-Green Belt harm had been reached at 7.33, before the Officer’s Report had addressed matters such as highways, noise and landscape, these points had not been properly considered in reaching this conclusion.

    Held: A decision can be made on not only what comes before it but also in anticipation of what follows, and the correct test under paragraph 145 of the NPPF was repeated in the report.

    Ground 3 – Failure to take account of policy 7/3(a)

    Argument: This ground was concerned with the reference at 6.19 of the Officer’s Report to the “saved” North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan policy 7/3. It was argued that the fact a development plan policy is inconsistent with national policy does not result in a position that “no weight can be given” to the policy and therefore the planning committee were misled.

    Held: The planning committee can be expected to be aware of the fact that an officer’s report is a recommendation and they can make their own decisions as to what weight they give to such statements.

    Ground 4 – Consideration of alternatives

    Argument: Policy 7/3 raises the issue of alternatives, in that it requires the assessment of Best Practicable Environmental Option.

    Held: Given that it was found that the Officer’s Report was entitled to conclude that no weight fell to be attached to Policy 7/3, Ground 4 largely falls away. And, in any case, the alternatives to be explored to transporting the PFA from the site by road were analysed at paragraphs 7.41 and 7.42 of the Officer’s Report.

    Ground 5 – Incorrect identification of the development plan

    Argument: As the Officer’s Report conflated the development plan policies and those in the emerging joint plan, members of the committee were misled as to what the development plan is and the proposal was not assessed against the correct development plan.

    Held: The error at paragraph 8.3 of the Officer’s Report was not material or major and the development plan is correctly identified at paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2.

    Ground 6 – Failure to take account of breach of Policy SP13

    Argument: In all cases, development should be sustainable and be appropriate in scale and type to its location, not harm the character of the area, and seek a good standard of amenity, as per SP13 of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan. At 7.66 of the Officer’s Report reference is made to the Principal Landscape Architect still considering, in February 2020, that the development would have significant adverse landscape effects which, unless mitigated, offset and reduced, would likely be contrary to landscape policy. The Officer’s Report then failed to take into account the fact that the proposal did not comply with policy SP13.

    Held: The Principal Landscape Architect was not objecting to the application so long and appropriate mitigation was resolved and secured. By the time the recommendation went to the committee, having regard to the terms of the proposed section 106 agreement and the powers of control exercisable through conditions attached to the planning permission , the proposed development did accord with SP13. This was a matter of planning judgement for those responsible for producing the Officer’s report.

    Overall, it was held that, even if all of the grounds were made out, they could have been addressed by minor changed to the Officer’s Report. And, such minor changes would not have altered the views of members of the planning committee one way or the other.

    The full judgement can be viewed here

    www.whitleycommunity.co.uk

    You might think that North Yorkshire County Council would want to promote a greener, more sustainable future, and support the concerns of its residents on environmental issues. But four small parish councils, Cridling Stubbs, Heck, Whitley & Womersley in the Selby area have seen firsthand that the opposite is true.

    We four councils, along with many local residents, numerous other bodies and our MP Nigel Adams, raised serious, well argued objections to the proposals by EPUKI about the unprecedented long term environmental, health, pollution and safety impacts on the Greenbelt and our communities around the Gale Common proposal. All local concerns, along with our pleas for greener, more sustainable extraction and transport options were rejected by NYCC planning. We believe the process and decision making was fundamentally flawed. Our legal position is established and the process of Judicial Review has begun.

    If you live anywhere in North Yorkshire, this may be of concern to you.

    Please support the campaign to hold NYCC planning to account.

    If successful, we have a chance of a safer, cleaner, quieter North Yorkshire. With a council that acknowledges its environmental obligations to its communities. Greenbelt protection. Cleaner air. Safer roads. Less noise pollution. A LOT less HGV traffic from Gale Common through Whitley....

    Fail, and NYCC will, quite possibly, continue to pass 100% mineral planning applications IN FAVOUR OF business interests and AGAINST the well-being of Yorkshire communities and residents, now and for decades to come.

    Updates

    0

    Gale Common Action Group

    Updates appear here

      3 years ago

      Gale Common Action Group started crowdfunding

      Leave a message of support

      Page last updated on: 11/22/2021 15.08

      Supporters

      24

      • Tricia and Bernard Storey

        Tricia and Bernard Storey

        Nov 22, 2021

        £50.00

      • Kirk Smeaton Parish Council

        Kirk Smeaton Parish Council

        Nov 22, 2021

        Good Luck

        £50.00

      • Sandra and John Conway

        Sandra and John Conway

        Nov 21, 2021

        £20.00

      • Colin Beddow

        Colin Beddow

        Nov 1, 2021

        Please do your best

        £50.00

      • Paul White

        Paul White

        Oct 5, 2021

        £30.00

      • Michael Wood

        Michael Wood

        Sep 21, 2021

        £50.00

      • Anonymous

        Anonymous

        Sep 15, 2021

        £10.00

      What is crowdfunding?

      Crowdfunding is a new type of fundraising where you can raise funds for your own personal cause, even if you're not a registered charity.

      The page owner is responsible for the distribution of funds raised.

      Great people make things happen

      Do you know anyone in need or maybe want to help a local community cause?

      Create you own page and donʼt let that cause go unfunded!

      About Crowdfunding
      About the fundraiser
      Gale Common Action Group

      Gale Common Action Group

      https://www.facebook.com/GCAG-100755704767378 cridlingstubbs.org.uk heckparishcouncil.co.uk whitleycommunity.co.uk womersleyparishcouncil.gov.uk

      Report this Page