A COUNCIL has dismissed claims it has prepared a one-sided report in favour of a controversial proposal to build a BP petrol station, alongside Costa Coffee, M&S and McDonalds outlets on farm fields on the edge of a market town.

Objectors to the plan for the site off the A19 at York Road, Thirsk have claimed the report, which Hambleton District councillors will use to shape their decision next week, does not include some of their main concerns.

Recommending the scheme be approved, the report states the development could create 106 full-time jobs, reduce Thirsk residents’ need to travel further afield and “support social cohesion”, as well as having a “neutral” impact on the environment.

It states: “The proposal represents sustainable development and will specifically support the council’s objectives through promoting Hambleton as a recognised location for business by providing a range of employment opportunities and meeting the needs of new and expanding businesses.”

David Tongue, of Thirsk Friends of the Earth, said the officer’s report needed to be balanced to enable councillors to make an informed decision. He said: “The officer’s report is very favourable to the application. The potential downsides of this plan have been brushed aside.”

Scores of residents lodged objections stating there is no need for the development as there are already three petrol stations in Thirsk, and one just 200m from the proposed BP garage, as well as BP and Shell garages and two Starbucks outlets one junction away on the A168 and a plethora of coffee shops a minute’s drive away in Thirsk town centre. They added there were also several convenience food outlets nearby.

However, they said the planning officer’s report did not refer to the prevalent concern in its summary of public comments and did not address or directly refer to the issue.

The objectors pointed towards Local Government Association guidance on such reports which states: “Reports should be accurate and should include the substance of any objections and other responses received to the consultation.”

A spokesman for the authority said it believed the report included “a fair summary of the objections, but agreed it did not use the word ‘need’”. He said: “The report covered the justification for the scheme. The reason the word ‘need’ was not used is because the report follows the National Planning Policy Framework, which refers to impact rather than need.”

Thirsk councillor Gareth Dadd said he hoped the authority’s planning committee would “take note of the genuine concerns and objections raised before reaching a decision”.

He added the proposed site had not been designated for development in a previous or the emerging Local Plan, and if the scheme was approved it would be hard to argue against rogue applications on other undesignated sites.