North Yorkshire Council
Harrogate and Knaresborough Area Planning Committee
Minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, 27 May 2025 commencing at 2.00 pm.
Councillor Haslam in the Chair plus Councillors Philip Broadbank, Robert Windass, Sam Gibbs, Monika Slater and Andrew Timothy
Officers present: Glenn Sharpe - Senior Solicitor, Planning and Environment, Nick Turpin – Development Service Manager, Kate Broadbank – Principal Planning Officer, Edward Maxwell – Senior Democratic Services Officer; and Dawn Drury – Democratic Services Officer
Apologies: Councillors Mann, Aldred, Gostlow and Lacey
|
Copies of all documents considered are in the Minute Book
|
|
35 |
Election of Chair
In the absence of the Chair and Vice Chair the Democratic Services Officer sought nominations for a Chair from the Members present.
It was proposed by Councillor Philip Broadbank and seconded by Councillor Robert Windass that Councillor Paul Haslam by elected as Chair for the meeting. A vote was taken, and the decision was carried unanimously.
Resolved
That Councillor Paul Haslam be duly elected as Chair of the Harrogate and Knaresborough Area Planning Committee for this meeting.
|
|
36 |
Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mann, Aldred, Gostlow and Lacey. Councillors Monika Slater, Andrew Timothy and Sam Gibbs acted as substitutes.
|
|
37 |
Minutes for the Meeting held on 28 January 2025
The minutes of the meeting held on 28 January 2025 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.
|
|
38 |
Declarations of Interests
Councillor Monika Slater declared an interest in item 4 of the agenda, purely for transparency, as until the end of this academic year her son attended Harrogate College. She confirmed that she would keep an open mind, and that this would not affect her decision.
For transparency, Councillor Philip Broadbank stated that he was related, very distantly, to the planning case officer for agenda item 4. He confirmed that he would be keeping an open mind, and that he would speak and vote on the item.
|
|
39 |
ZC23/02990/FULMAJ - Harrogate College, Hornbeam Park Avenue, Harrogate, HG2 8QT
The application had been referred to the Harrogate and Knaresborough Area Planning Committee at the request of the local ward councillor.
The Principal Planning Officer presented the report and highlighted the location and site description; context to the application and the proposals for parking both during the construction period and once operational.
Providing an update to their report, the officer advised Members of the following.
· At paragraph 10.71, the increase in hedgerow units would be 116.45% rather than the 73.41% stated within the report. · Since publication of the agenda pack a further 12 letters of objection to the scheme had been received by the planning authority from local residents, Hornbeam Park Developments and the Oatlands and Pannal Ash Road Safety and Active Travel Campaign. All the comments except for the letter from the Active Travel Campaign group, which had just been received, were available to read on the North Yorkshire Council Public Access pages on the website. The letters raised concerns regarding the lack of off-street parking for staff and students during construction, the lack of operational parking to meet demand, the parking survey was not carried out at an appropriate time, parking disruption during construction and lack of available spaces on site which would lead to inconvenience, safety concerns for local residents and inadequate parking once operational which would have a negative impact on the surrounding residential streets with increased congestion. It was felt that the old building was not suitable for conversion and new facilities were essential for the college’s future development, however, the loss of parking spaces would have a serious impact on traffic flow and that a temporary car park should be created on adjacent land. Potential conflict and potential safety issues for children on their way to and from school. It had been requested that the Committee consider conditions and mitigations during construction and queried if a speed restriction could be imposed. · The applicant had also submitted a further supporting letter which was available to read on NYC Public Access. · The officer confirmed that all the concerns raised in the additional letters had been taken into account during consideration of the application. · With regard to the Flood Risk Sequential Assessment at paragraph 10.67 of the report, for clarification, as this was a demolition and rebuild of new buildings and not an extension that reference to the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) was not considered relevant and there were no sequentially preferrable sites available. · In relation to the Equality Act it had been confirmed that the proposals had ensured that there would be no disadvantage to elderly or disabled persons due to the parking arrangements, as accessible spaces would remain available during the construction and also form part of the new parking arrangements. The development would have a positive effect on persons with protected characteristics through provisions of accessible education facilities and amenity spaces that encouraged interaction between people. · The red line on the location plan within the committee report was slightly incorrect along the northeast boundary and should follow the boundary line of the northeast side of the site. · In relation to the emerging Local Plan, the Issues and Options consultation had commenced and would run until the middle of July 2025, the site also fell within the Harrogate Neighbourhood Plan area, and this area had been approved in January this year. · It was proposed that an amendment to the wording of condition 25 of the report be made to confirm that all eternal facing windows would have laminated glass incorporated to a minimum thickness of 7.5mm, not just ground floor windows.
David Waddington spoke objecting to the application.
Councillor John Mann spoke as the Division Member, objecting to the application, and then left the meeting and did not return.
The applicant, Colin Booth, spoke in support of the application.
During consideration of the application, Members questioned officers on the following issue · It was queried where the request for a temporary car park had originated from.
Councillor Timothy felt that substantial measures had been put in place with regard to parking; the Travel Plan was comprehensive, there were conditions in place at 3 and 4 of the report to ensure that the public highway was made back to an appropriate standard should any damage to the road surface occur as a result of the development; and there were also measures to be implemented for members of the college staff to ensure that parking did not cause an issue locally.
Councillor Gibbs stated that he was supportive of the redevelopment of Harrogate College overall, however, he understood the objectors concerns around parking, particularly in respect of the 15 spaces available during construction; he queried if the Committee voted for a deferral of the application, as had been mentioned by the Ward Member during public speaking, how likely was that to lead to a more appropriate outcome in terms of the parking provision. The Chair reminded Members that should they vote for a deferral that they would need credible reasons for doing so. The officer advised that there was not an alternative parking solution, and that Highways had assessed the site and were satisfied with the measures in place.
Discussion took place between Members and the officer regarding parking with the Chair summarising the issues as: the parking capacity, the safety aspect on local roads, the work being done to achieve a 20 mile an hour speed limit in that area, what form the monitoring report would take, and if issues were to occur how would the public report this to the Council. Finally, the Chair asked officers for reassurance that all the issues had been considered and there would be careful monitoring of the Travel Plan.
The officer explained that in terms of monitoring, there was a condition within the committee report at number 28, this required quarterly monitoring reports to be provided for the full duration of the construction period, and this would assess the targets set out in the Travel Plan and ensure that they were being met. If issues were to occur, the Council’s planning department would be made aware, and they would work with the College and Highways to resolve them. Once operational the Travel Plan would be monitored for a further five years.
With regard to members of the public reporting parking issues, Members heard that they would report them to North Yorkshire Council’s Enforcement Team, who would review any complaints, investigate the problem and then take enforcement action if necessary.
The Chair queried if Members could amend condition 28 to modify the frequency of the monitoring reports, the officer confirmed that this was possible.
Lastly, the Chair asked for examples of recourse the Council would have if the monitoring reports showed more traffic was being displaced than was set out in the targets. The officer advised that the College would be expected to put different measures in place to resolve the problem, and the Enforcement Team had powers to deal with noncompliance of conditions during the construction and build. There were enforcement measures which could prevent building taking place, or put a hold on the build, but it would depend on the situation at that particular time.
The officer highlighted that at condition 28, the final sentence, officers would like to add the additional two words, and implemented, after the Local Planning Authority, therefore the complete sentence would read: Any improvement measures will be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and implemented; and future monitoring reports shall also consider performance against these additional measures.
Councillor Broadbank requested that the monitoring reports be submitted every two months, rather than quarterly, as stated within the committee report.
Councillor Timothy proposed, and Councillor Windass seconded that the application be approved with the amendments to conditions 25 and 28 made, as detailed below.
· At condition 25, all eternal facing windows would have laminated glass incorporated to a minimum thickness of 7.5mm, not just ground floor windows.
· At condition 28, the frequency of submission of the monitoring report be amended to every two months and the additional two words “and implemented” be added to the final sentence.
Decision
That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in section 12 of the committee report, the prior completion of a Section 106 agreement, and the amendments to conditions 25 and 28, in respect of all ground floor windows in the building and the frequency of submission of the Travel Plan Monitoring Reports, as set out above.
Voting record
A vote was taken, and the motion was carried by 5 votes for and 1 abstention.
|
|
40 |
Any other items
There were no other items.
|
|
41 |
Date of Next Meeting
Tuesday 24 June 2025 at 2.00 pm.
|
The meeting concluded at 2.55 pm.