North Yorkshire Council
Harrogate and Knaresborough Area Constituency Committee
Minutes of the meeting held at Harrogate Civic Centre on Friday 5 May 2023 commencing at 10.00am.
Present: Councillor Pat Marsh in the Chair, and Councillors Chris Aldred, Philip Broadbank, Sam Gibbs, Hannah Gostlow, Michael Harrison, Paul Haslam, Peter Lacey, John Mann, Mike Schofield, Monika Slater, Matt Walker and Robert Windass.
In attendance: Councillor Keane Duncan, Executive Member for Highways and Transportation, and Councillor Arnold Warneken
Officers present: Mark Codman, Charles Casey, Karl Battersby, Richard Binks, Barrie Mason, Matt Roberts, Tania Weston,
|
Copies of all documents considered are in the Minute Book
|
|
1 |
Apologies for absence
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. There were no apologies.
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
Declarations of interest
Councillor Michael Harrison declared an interest regarding minute no. 4 on the basis that he was a member of North Yorkshire Council’s Executive which was to be the decision making body. This was not considered a pecuniary interest and therefore he remained in the room for the debate and vote.
Councillor Philip Broadbank declared an interest regarding minute no 4 on the basis that he was a member of the Harrogate Civic Society. This was not considered a pecuniary interest and therefore he remained in the room for the debate and vote.
Councillor Chris Aldred declared an interest regarding minute no 4 on the basis that he was a member of the Harrogate Cycling Forum*. This was not considered a pecuniary interest and therefore he remained in the room for the debate and vote.
* 08.05.23 - Councillor Aldred requested an amendment to reflect he was actually a member of the Harrogate District Cycle Action Group
Councillor Matt Walker declared an interest regarding minute no 4 on the basis that he was a member of Open Country and that he was Vice-Chair of the Harrogate and Knaresborough Liberal Democrat Group. These were not considered pecuniary interests and therefore he remained in the room for the debate and vote.
|
|
3 |
Public Questions and Statements
Thirteen notices had been received of statements and/or questions from members of the public to be put before the committee at the meeting.
The following public statement was read out by Kevin Douglas:
From Harrogate District Cycle Action and Open Country
We ask Councillors to support the Harrogate Station Gateway project for six main reasons which I will now outline.
1) It will improve the town centre as a place for people
The town centre will become a more pleasant place for people, and make them want to stay longer to eat, drink and shop.
2) Harrogate should benefit from the opportunity of this investment not reject it
Harrogate stands to benefit from an investment of £10.9 million. If we reject it now the money will be spent somewhere else – not in Harrogate or the District as a whole.
It will also almost certainly put in doubt the opportunity for future funding bids to be successful, therefore impacting upon the securing of further external funding.
3) Station Gateway will be good for town centre businesses
All the evidence shows that public realm improvements and active travel infrastructure lead to higher spending.
4) Responding to the 2019 Congestion Survey
In 2019, 77% of 15,500 respondents to the Harrogate Congestion Survey asked for better cycling and walking infrastructure. The Station Gateway projects shows a commitment to putting in place a hub on which to build that cycling and walking infrastructure.
5) Station Gateway will improve active travel facilities
66% of people say that it’s too dangerous for them to cycle in traffic. To make cycling an option for all, including children, we need dedicated cycle tracks.
There are planned improvements for those on foot too. Of course people can continue to drive into town if they prefer.
The status quo does not represent a town centre accessible to all; Station Gateway will begin the process of changing that.
6) The Climate
Transport represents 28% of North Yorkshire’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The Routemap to Carbon Negative for the York & North Yorkshire region recognises the need to:
· Reduce vehicle miles and · Increase active travel To do that, we need to enable active travel through better infrastructure. The Station Gateway project is a platform to begin to provide that infrastructure.
Without positive action North Yorkshire will not achieve its climate goals.
Summary
For these six reasons, we ask Councillors to support Harrogate Station Gateway. Please show your commitment to improving our active travel facilities, and to securing the future prosperity of Harrogate and its town centre
The following public question was read out by Sue Savill of Party Fever Ltd:
We’ve been situated on Station Parade since 2011. We are a party supplies shop and we provide a balloon decorating service. Customers either collect balloon orders or we deliver locally. We also provided large installations for corporate clients.
There’s a good mix of other businesses on our street too, offering services to clients who may not be particularly mobile, hairdressers, a long-established shoe shop whose client base is 50+ and a physiotherapist, to name a few.
For the businesses situated on the east side of Lower Station Parade, who have NO access to the rear of their properties how does the council propose, if you take away our vehicular access at the front of our premises by introducing both a bus lane and a cycle lane, we should
The provision of 3 parking spaces/1 disabled on the west side of the street is not enough for the businesses whose customers require ease of access due to convenience or lack of mobility.
And the 2 loading bays on the opposite side are impractical and unsafe.
I think the bus lane is unnecessary for the number of busses that pass along our road and nothing is to be gained by introducing one. If all these proposed changes are to add nothing but one minute to a typical car journey around town. What difference will a 66-metre stretch of bus lane make to the efficiency of a bus route?
If, despite new laws in favour of cyclists, the cycle lane has to be introduced then reduce the width of the wide pavements on both sides and situate the cycle lane on the West side, where businesses have access to the rear and leave ALL the parking in place.
Rather than restricting vehicular access, I think the aim should be to encourage a move to electric vehicles.
It has been stated that this is a transport project aimed to rebalance travel and promote other transport options.
However, if this goes ahead it will make shopping in Harrogate more difficult and the cost to local businesses will be devastating. It will result in less of a town centre for anyone to visit and the bus lanes and ‘attractive corridors and welcome’ will be pointless and redundant!
Richard Binks confirmed that the project team would work with concerned businesses with regards parking and loading areas. He explained that the assessment had demonstrated that a bus lane was viable but the lane was to be truncated and there would be similar loading and customer parking option, i.e. 30 minute drop off, as there was currently.
The following public question was read out by Andrew Brown for the Harrogate Civic Society:
Harrogate Civic Society has over 300 members and these comments are the result of an open meeting of the members and detailed consideration of the proposal by the Planning and Development sub-group of the Society.
Whilst the Society recognises that some changes could enhance the town centre, the present proposal focus on a relatively small section and there is no indication of these being part of a longer-term, integrated traffic policy. Without long-term planning these changes may, in the future, be seen as having been unnecessary and/or detrimental. In particular, the Society is concerned that reducing the main south-bound route through the town centre to a single lane will result in significant tailbacks, increased pollution, and, potentially, grid-lock.
The proposal appears to have been driven by an imperative to introduce cycle lanes wherever possible (even when they will be of little use) with limited, if any, consideration being given to the way that pedestrians, the users of mobility scooters, and disabled drivers move around the area. The Society considers that the proposed cycle lanes, accelerating traffic after the single carriageway section, and the additional street furniture, will hamper their movement.
The proposals relating to the northern section of Station Parade are welcomed but the suggested cycle lanes along the remainder of Station Parade are fragmented and confusing; as a result, they will not result in safe, attractive routes for cyclists. The Society considers that the previous proposals for extensive cycle lanes along East Parade represent a much better option.
The widening of the pavements along James Street and the introduction of trees is welcomed but the Society would strongly prefer James Street to remain open to vehicular traffic and to provide on-street parking at all times. In relation to the detailed design for James Street, there is concern about the introduction of low-level planting, which will be vulnerable to damage.
The Society is concerned that the detailed design of the proposal will result in a clutter of signs, barriers, and other street furniture, plus a variety of surface treatments, that will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Also, the need for major change to Station Square is questioned. The principal problems with this space relate to inadequate maintenance and poor collection of litter (problems that we suspect will remain however much money is spent on re-design). The proposed introduction of water jets suggests that the designers have failed to understand that for much of the day, the relevant section of the Square is in shadow.
As a result of all the above, the Society considers that the proposals will be detrimental for many users of the town centre and will result in serious damage to the character and appearance of the Harrogate Conservation Area.
The following public question was read out by William Woods of William Woods and Independent Harrogate:
I am William Woods representing 156 businesses called Independent Harrogate. The Station Gateway scheme is very well intentioned to encourage people out of cars to walk or cycle thus reducing congestion and pollution but I strongly believe this is the wrong scheme at the wrong time.
Like most town and city centres Harrogate is struggling to recover from COVID, the impact of Brexit and the challenges of on line shopping. The last thing businesses want now is 12 months or more disruption of the town being turned into a building site. This disruption will be hugely damaging and undoubtedly tip many over the edge.
On September 13th 2021 The Chamber of Commerce, The BID and Independent Harrogate conducted a comprehensive survey of nearly 900 businesses which showed emphatically they were against the scheme.
Those against were: The Chamber of Commerce -The BID -Independent Harrogate -The Harrogate Residents Association ( over 1000 members) The Harrogate Civic Society, Granville Road Residents Group( over 300 members) and finally The British Independent Retail Association, a national organisation, representing over 3000 retailers across the country. You must ask yourselves “can all these important groups be wrong”?
There are two very successful businessmen in Harrogate who have a considerable stake in the town centre. They are prepared to spend over 1/2 million pounds opposing this scheme because they believe it would be hugely damaging to the town and its future. You have to ask if the scheme is such a good idea why would they waste their money and not fully support it.
How many of you have read the Economic assessment report cobbled together to try to justify the scheme and say it would boost the economy - the conclusions are dubious at best. Key businesses in the town do not believe for one moment cycling and walking will increase business by 30%. The vast majority of businesses rely on 60-70% of customers coming from all over the country by car, so they need easy access to the town and easy places to park including on street parking.
Consultation has been poor - zoom meetings are limited especially when you can only ask questions by typing them out. For something that impacts on the town so seriously why has there not been a public meeting so everyone can air their views. The Chamber of Commerce organised an open meeting when Don Mackenzie and others spoke - about 100 attended and a vote produced only 2 in favour.
What upsets us is that all the business groups have made alternative suggestions and amendments to improve the scheme but they have been totally ignored apart from one or two minor adjustments.
If NYCC is serious about reducing congestion and pollution they need to address the queues of traffic coming into Harrogate daily especially on Wetherby Road. The 11 million pounds spent on the Gateway Scheme will do nothing to solve this significant problem.
There has been three consultations and three times people have voted against the scheme. The significant stake holders in the town have shown they are against the scheme but still NYCC is trying to force this harmful scheme upon us - how is that democratic?
It is not WSP, County Councillors scattered across North Yorkshire or their officers that live as far away as Rotherham that will have to live with this detrimental scheme. It is the residents and the business communities who live in the district that will have to suffer the consequences.
I firmly believe you have never had to make a more important decision as Councillors. If you really care about Harrogate and its future wellbeing you must reject this scheme and look at other options.
The following public question was read out by J M d’Arcy Thompson, Chair of the Stray Defence Association:
What this project will create is a road to nowhere, achieving nothing. Not a Gateway but a Portcullis slamming down on the main A road, restricting Harrogate’s centre for emergency vehicles, commerce and those who drive in order to work. Hindering not only Harrogate folk but those from outlying villages.
The scheme is based on the overriding premise of the May 2021 WSP report ‘Transforming Cities fund- Harrogate Gateway’.
Which starts: ‘Need for the proposed scheme POINT 1’ …’Harrogate has no dedicated cycle route which connects with the front of Harrogate Railway Station to the Bus Station, resulting in fewer opportunities for sustainable modal transfer’.
As the walk between them is merely 20 paces, is a cycleway really required? £11. Million + seems very costly for such a distance, even with supposed improvements to the public realm.
Surely people arriving by bus or train will, as always …dissipate and depart to where they want to be, not lingering outside but heading for their Harrogate destination?
Construction itself will create pollution, havoc and significantly increased congestion, creating a narrow corridor, decimating and dividing the town, and blighting it’s centre.
How are less able people on the Western Arc going to access the other side of Harrogate?
Closing roads between West Park and Station Parade means a lengthy, convoluted route will be needed to get from one side of the town to the other.
Many people already choose to walk and cycle when it is possible and conducive to do so. However, this is not Holland but hilly and often chilly Harrogate.
Realistically who is going to walk or cycle at night or in bad weather, to either shop, visit a professional business, go the theatre, cinema or a restaurant?
Gateway will remove freedom and flexibility from residents and others throughout the district whilst discriminating against the elderly and disabled. It will accelerate use of internet shopping, creating a doughnut effect, with accessible companies only on the outskirts, while a large hole, empty of businesses, shops, recreation… is left in the centre.
Harrogate & Knaresborough host the secondary schools and much congestion is created by parents driving children long distances in and out of town and nearby villages. Wouldn’t better use of Government funding be a fleet of electric school minibuses to collect and return children, thereby removing many private cars from rush hour roads?
Harrogate does not have a university, or factory based industry which might warrant extra cycleways. What we do have is a largely intelligent, conscientious population, aware of, and very much engaged with, the need to protect the planet. The integrity of Harrogate’s many excellent green credentials must be safeguarded.
Bordered by the Yorkshire Showground, and Harlow Carr’s gardens, within the town are 18 parks, the largest being the Valley Gardens.
Harrogate has several notable woods. The Pinewoods connect Harlow Carr to the Valley Gardens, providing a much used green corridor to the town. Another, from the Showground to the Stray, is Hookstone Wood.
At the centre of all of this is our wonderful Stray, open grassland with over 2000 mature trees, free for the use of all. Two hundred acres of what is arguably Harrogate’s greatest environmental resource. A much loved, well walked, and run, enormously beneficial green lung wrapped, quite literally, around the very centre of Harrogate.
Gateway would isolate the crucial hub of Harrogate from so many. Please, do not bring down the portcullis and tear the heart out of Harrogate.
N.B. Ref: May 2021 WSP TCF-WSP-NYC-16X-RP-LE-EIASCR-P01 report ‘Transforming Cities fund- Harrogate Gateway’.
The following public statement was read out by Caroline Bayliss:
This project was originally designed in 2016, before Covid and before the vast increase in on-line shopping. The town centre landscape going forward suggests a totally different future.
For the tourism offer in this town shopping is a vital ingredient and its uniqueness is essential to its success. Visitors come for the specialist independent shops, the wonderful ironwork facades, the amazing cafes all set in a sea of greenery which is our Stray and our wonderful Victorian flower beds.
The Gateway Plan though seemingly unobjectionable is bland and could be found in Peterborough, Milton Keynes or Croydon. There is nothing unique about it.
A totally new plan of how the town centre is going to be used for the next twenty years needs working on before £11 million of our money is spent on a scheme that finds little favour with residents, solves so few problems, adds to congestion and does nothing to beautify the town that we love,
Rather it takes away yet more of our distinct character to be replaced by concrete. Please think again?
The following public statement was read out by Barry Adams of Harrogate Resident's Association Member:
Harrogate is not against change but the meaningless Gateway Project is one that NYC seem determined to champion at all cost. Is this because they secured funding before the idea was thoroughly explored in detail? As with the doomed Otley Road cycleway all for the sake of doing something.
The Highways Executive has a history of ignoring the democratic process; not listening and dismissive of public comment, hiding behind a meaningless excess of words in press releases. A publicity exercise massaged to justify the Project but with a hint of desperation as threats emerge of funding being moved elsewhere. Businesses and residents understand what is at the heart of the town far better than those on the Executive representing disparate constituencies across the new County.
Public consultation has been poor. Wording of surveys steer you in a particular direction. Results can be deceptive. Clearly demonstrated in consultations, even prior to the Gateway Project. It has relied on Consultant’s irrelevant and questionable data relating to much larger towns with a totally different demographic.
It will not solve congestion in Harrogate – a problem generated by ever increasing levels of traffic in and out of as well as through the town. It is not an inclusive vision delivering a balanced and green approach to travel for all road users. No inclusion of high quality sustainable public transport links. What is required is an holistic Masterplan for Harrogate that looks at all factors and influences to form a solid basis for future co-ordinated projects. No ‘Pocket Planning’ which the Gateway Project is.
We do care what the millions are spent on so why all this public realm expenditure if it doesn’t amount to real improvements. It is a vanity project, blinkered and contrived. Unfortunately a Highway Engineer's led solution not capable of celebrating this as an exemplary and attractive Gateway to the town. And I say that as an award winning Architect, albeit now retired.
We need clear leadership on the design side - an experienced Urban Designer capable of bringing together all stakeholders and co-ordinating professional disciplines to deliver a considered solution through a highly motivated Design Team knowledgeable of the town, capable of engaging in original, imaginative but structured thinking. After all, would you go to an eye consultant for brain surgery? Then we need ongoing maintenance – something which has been missing over the last decade or more.
Consider, what has made the town successful in the past. We are getting nothing more than a "desktop" design because of this lack of awareness from those with limited understanding of Harrogate, it’s character and the largely cohesive Conservation Area it sits in The proposals must clearly say "This is Harrogate" - not Leeds, not York or any other place The DNA of these is so different.
The Gateway Project will do far more harm than good. No guarantee of success. Obsessed with "changing travel patterns and behaviours" to the detriment of much broader concerns. Businesses and residents are vehemently against it. We therefore ask you to make the sensible and important decision not to support the Gateway Project.
There is an alternative …………………….
The following public statement was read out by Veronica Adams:
When Malcolm Neesam passed away last year Harrogate lost a brilliant and highly respected citizen of this town. Unfailingly polite, an often reserved person but one who was deeply committed to the idea of civic pride. Knowledgeable on every aspect of Harrogate’s history and heritage, willing to share this through his many books, writings and columns that were published on a regular basis, often using these columns in the local media to express his concerns.
It is only within the last week or so that a good friend of Malcolm’s came across some of his thoughts expressed in writing, not long before he passed away and obviously wished to share. He was clearly not impressed with the direction Harrogate was moving in and in light of the Gateway Project I would like to share his thoughts with you to reflect on.
“At all the peaks of Harrogate’s past successes, the authorities not only had a clear vision for what the town could become, but also managed to fire the community with an understanding of what the vision was and how their enthusiastic support could convert that vision into profitable reality for the benefit of the entire community. Let us, for the moment, discard all the fashionable rubbish about goals, targets, objectives and policy statements, which can be so much verbal fudge for doing nothing, and ask if today’s Harrogate Council really knows what it wants Harrogate to become, and how it intends to invoke the aid of the population. And please, don’t try to tell me that “consultation exercises” with biased questions that lead to pre-approved answers, have anything to do with a genuine council/populace spirit of mutual striving for the improvement of Harrogate. The scale and tone of recent correspondence to the Harrogate Advertiser is ample evidence to show the degree of public concern about the future of our community, so it is not only reasonable to ask the council what – in clear and basic English – is its vision for Harrogate?, but also to demand an answer. If this basic question cannot be answered, then the top leadership and administration should be replaced by one which is in possession of such a vision.
I suggest that Harrogate’s past successes have arisen because the authorities and residents have been united in their efforts to provide the highest standards, the best facilities, and the most attractive amenities for whatever special, niche market they succeeded in attracting to Harrogate. Today, it is irrelevant whether that market is for the spa, exhibitions and conferences, festivals or tourism. It is here that I find the lack of clear vision for the town’s future so alarming. Again, I ask of our council, what is your vision for our community?”
Malcolm concludes “I have written enough, so will end.”
On behalf of Malcolm I would like to thank you for listening.
The following public statement was read out by Jemima Parker:
Good morning. I’d like start with a quiz question for you?
What do Sheffield, Wakefield, Huddersfield, Barnsley, Oxford, Cambridge, Bristol, London Kings Cross, have in common? The answer, if you haven’t guessed already, is that these towns and cities have all invested in multi-million pound projects to improve their gateway for visitors arriving by train, limiting traffic and creating an attractive pedestrian environment. These are in local authorities, like North Yorkshire, that have made public climate emergency declarations, and they are actively striving to shape places that are conducive to low carbon living.
The project which you are being asked to endorse today seeks to add Harrogate to this list of forward-thinking, climate-crisis responsive places. These are places that have grasped the need to invert the transport pyramid and prioritise infrastructure for pedestrians and public transport users ahead of private car drivers.
At 49% of the district’s emissions, carbon from transport in Harrogate and across North Yorkshire are higher than the UK average of 36%, and these are probably the hardest area of emissions to tackle. While this scheme is predicted to bring only modest carbon reductions, it sits at the centre of wider sustainable transport opportunities for the town. The first few key pieces of a bigger jigsaw puzzle.
Of course there are transport elements to the climate change strategy, being developed by North Yorkshire Council at the moment, but you will be aware that there is at present, no budget to support these. The current approach to deliver the Council’s net zero ambition is to bid for government pots of money, such as the Transforming Cities Fund. Whatever imperfections we may see in this Station Gateway scheme, it is a £10 million investment. Decarbonisation funds are not coming from anywhere else in the near future.
Throughout the consultation processes local public opinion has been split pretty much 50/50 for and against the scheme, so you will not please everyone whatever you decide. Can I suggest this leaves you free to take a long view of the best interests of the town, to grasp the vision of a low carbon future where shared and active travel complement a more attractive and less polluted Harrogate?
I urge you to follow the Officers recommendations and endorse the implementation of the scheme and recommend that the Executive approves the making of TROs.
The following public statement was read out by Dame Francine Holroyd JP:
Good morning Councillors, Guests and members of the public.
By way of introduction my name is Francine Holroyd and I am the very proud owner of a large number of properties in Princes Square and the Montpellier Quarter in Harrogate. I am also Chair of Governor's for Harrogate Ladies’ College as well as being both an Adult and Youth Magistrate for over 18 years.
The Gateway Project is not the way forward for Harrogate, it does not deliver what our town needs in any shape, manner or form. For our town to thrive we need excellent infrastructure and yes that means good on-street parking allowing easy access to a good range of independent and chain stores. Walking, cycling, bus and rail services are not able to fully deliver this. The key to Harrogate’s success is that it is unique, it is special and the plans we have seen are generic, soulless, lacking in character and without individuality, in fact it could be any town anywhere in the UK. Cars and taxis are essential for the elderly and disabled to enable them to have a good quality of life and I would say this Project is actively discriminating against them.
Let’s be honest, when someone thinks about going for a day out shopping do they see travelling by bike as the answer? I don’t know about you but getting hot and sticky cycling over Harrogate’s hilly topography, which you must have to agree is unsuited to non-leisure cycling, then trying to try on clothes etc. and subsequently cycling home with a load of parcels just does not work. A lunch out with friends? Again, the same problem.
Yes, I agree we need to encourage more walking and cycling but not at the detriment of making our town centre unusable.
Now let’s talk about the areas of Harrogate that are pedestrianised; Cambridge Street, Oxford Street, Beulah Street - can you honestly say that the pedestrianisation is successful and we can all look at the street scene with pride? You have to agree that the answer is a resounding NO - the street scene is dirty, the paving is damaged with pooling water, the materials used are poor quality and really need replacing, the street furniture is tatty and most of the anti-social behaviour is conducted around these areas. If we continue to pedestrianise will this encourage the use of electric scooters and increase anti-social behaviour? I see the evidence weekly in Harrogate’s Magistrates Court.
If Station Parade was reduced to one lane the traffic would back up all the way back to Ripley, it already backs up to Ripon Road frequently and there are two lanes. People would really think twice about visiting Harrogate at all. The Gateways Scheme also shows cycling both ways on Station Parade, that is just an accident waiting to happen. All of Harrogate’s business groups, who after all represent businesses, have been totally ignored. Is that right?
Councillors, please see sense and reject the Gateway Project in its entirety. You need to work with local businesses and stakeholders on a scheme to enhance Harrogate for the future, I am sure that many business and property owners would be happy to help and I am one of them.
Thank you.
The following public statement was read out by Rachael Inchboard:
Residents are quite horrified after 3 consultation results against this scheme that it is still going ahead- where is democracy?
I have lived in the town centre on Granville Rd since 2001. Residents believe this scheme in its whole entirety, will have many negative impacts on our daily lives. Many who also run small businesses in and around the town which are just recovering them from the lockdowns.
· The scheme proposes to redirect the town centre traffic from the A61, including large vehicles, to go onto residential areas-Cheltenham Mount (which is at the bottom of Granville Rd) and across Mount Parade (which is at the top of Granville Rd, a very narrow small road) or towards Bower Road creating some dangerous junctions near Commercial Street/Bower Rd and Strawberry Dale for pedestrians and vehicle traffic. · Concerns include- reduced parking/ congestion/ noise/ air pollution/ visual intrusion/safety/health & wellbeing/ Construction of the scheme will be over 1 year taking place during the night/ Access to our properties during this construction phase/ Traffic Data Modelling Data and how this was worked out for an increased volume of traffic into the area onto small roads such as Mount Parade. · Residents have all raised individual and collective concerns. Even requesting for a Public Meeting, which was refused. · As a Landscape Architect I requested to see the EIA- Environmental Impact Assessment at the start. I was led to believe there was one- however, we discovered they never undertook this important process. Through a FOI request we found that English Heritage had requested one too. Due to the Conservation Area status of the town and where we live. · An EIA would have identified most of the resident’s concerns at the start, which would have held the scheme drivers to have some form of accountability as to what this project presented. Perhaps this is why it never got done and they kept quiet about this. · We have requested Air quality monitoring to get a baseline reading- this has been ignored and deemed unnecessary. An EIA would have given an air quality baseline to work with. We later found out from the planners that the only place they are conducting air quality monitoring is at the far end of Station Parade, beyond Waitrose. · The Beech Grove LTN, caused a similar redirection of traffic causing congestion on Cold Bath Road area. Weston County Primary School managed to install an air monitor, the findings were worrying- the levels of air pollution were above the acceptable levels. Caused directly from this scheme- of re-directing large volumes of traffic which then caused congestion. Mirroring the proposed redirection of town traffic onto the residential area where we live. · Traffic Orders schedule 1/ Column 2 FOR Cheltenham Mount and LTN 1/20 -Local Transport Notes-provides guidance of traffic management issues for local authorities-when implementing new cycle infrastructure. · Should meet objectives set out the statement of reason-``avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising``, or ‘’ facilitating the passage on the road or any other road of any other class of traffic’’, · Therefore the ‘Traffic Order’ would be likely to increase congestion and cause problems for pedestrians. Both from a safety perspective and air pollution from the higher volumes of traffic (estimated to be an extra 6 cars/per min equivalent to 360 cars per hour. Not to mention weekends, events in Harrogate and holiday periods of increasing traffic) · Pedestrians’ ability to cross any of our local roads could be difficult for any type of pedestrian user. · The crossing of Cheltenham Parade our local pedestrian route into the town, will also prove very difficult with the layout and configuration of the design. With three different lanes to negotiate when crossing- a cycle lane, bus lane and a car lane. Not only is that daunting there will be raised kerb type edging defining each lane. · A few issues to consider in this equation are- the width of the road for three lanes- is this wide enough? What if a cyclist falls from their bike? Will they fall into the pedestrian or the bus lane? · Re-cap Air quality/ congestion/safety/ Access/parking. · Finally, the people who have imposed this scheme on Harrogate- do not live here. The Executive Committee that drove this scheme to go ahead, only one of the people lives in Harrogate.
The following public statement was read out by Martin Mann:
Many thanks for the opportunity to be involved in the discussion around the Harrogate Station Gateway.
· Harrogate District Chamber of Commerce has represented the views of the business in and around the town for over 125 years, and currently has a membership of 124 businesses ranging from sole traders to some of the largest employers in the town representing well over 3000 employees in the town.
· Whilst the Harrogate District Chamber (HDC) is broadly in favour of active travel, we cannot support this Gateway Project as it currently stands. We have received measurable feedback from our membership twice throughout the lifecycle of this proposal, and on both occasions our membership has come back with a resounding No to the project in its current format.
· We believe that although the project is well intentioned, it is badly timed and based upon out of date 2016 data which does not reflect the changes to retail over the last 8 years, nor does it take in to account the precarious position many businesses in town find themselves following Covid.
· A few figures from our members: o Are you in favour of the Station Gateway proposals, taking in to account the recent proposed changes? - 75% against o Will the Station Gateway proposals encourage you or your team to participate in more active travel? - 65% replied No. o How do you think the proposals will affect business in the town centre? - 60% replied ‘Worse’
· Is your business located in Harrogate town centre? 48% replied Yes
· Active Travel projects have been heralded in both Cambridge and abroad in Holland, both flat cities, and both have a far younger demographic. Harrogate has an older population, and attracts an older visitor, very many of whom cannot or will not cycle, and if they feel that Harrogate is a cycle destination then they will spend time and money elsewhere.
· This project should be paused in its current form and brought back to the table once the data has been brought up to date, and a complete town plan has been developed, instead of the piecemeal approach currently being considered. It does nothing to encourage residents or visitors from the outlying villages to visit more, nor does it tackle the congestion on Skipton Road or Wetherby Road. A wider town plan should reconsider the need for Park & Rides – a missed opportunity in my opinion at the Dunlopillo site adjacent to Pannal railway station and the route of the 36 bus. And any future project must start with accessibility and improved safety for all, starting with those who may have limited mobility and work out from there. Similarly, the ‘Northern Relief Road’ was nothing more than a paper project designed to fail by the then NYCC. The Northern and Western Bypasses were identified as necessary in the 1980’s should have been pursued more vehemently at the time, as we are now suffering the result of NYCC’s failure to build infrastructure for the future.
· Harrogate deserves more, and we have been let down by the predecessors of North Yorkshire Council in a variety of ways. HBC and NYCC have failed to deliver on the Otley Road cycleway, only completing 1/3rd of the proposal, and only seeming to improve the junction from Otley Road to Harlow Moor Road and the Harrogate Spring Water site.
· Similarly, the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street and Cambridge Street have not achieved greater footfall, nor fewer shop closures, nor a safer environment throughout the day or night. Should pedestrianisation continue, there needs to be an acceptance by the new NYC that we need to use better quality street furniture, better quality materials, and have better governance over the utility companies that fail to repair the road surface after their works. The Station Gateway Project is by its very nature a ‘low maintenance’ public realm area and does nothing to create an attractive first impression for those few travellers arriving by train.
· It is widely believed that by businesses in the area that the narrow strip of land adjacent to the station carpark will be developed in to a tower block overshadowing Station Parade and the redeveloped public realm. Along with this, there is understood to be a major infrastructure project about to be started by Northern Powergrid which again will cause major disruption in the area. Given the co-ordination between NYC and City Fibre, I suspect the same failure to co-ordinate the works will be the same with this project.
This is not just a 12 month project to redevelop one area, this is the start of possibly 2-3 years of disruption for the benefit of a few and to the detriment to the future of our town, our residents, and our employers. Given the amount of money spent so far by the tax payers throughout North Yorkshire, isn’t it time to stop wasting money on this project and focus on projects that will benefit everyone and not just a few?
The following public question was read out by Austin Leaver:
Can the NYC please categorically state that no financial charges will be brought to private vehicle owners due to the implementation of LTN'S, AQMA'S and CAZ'S in the Harrogate area in the future, with ANPR cameras being used for enforcement?
In response Richard Binks explained that low traffic neighbourhoods Air Quality Management areas and clean air zones our well-established tools so managing the impact of motorized traffic on the local environment and as such the Council may wish to utilize these measures in the future where there was an identified need. Any considerations relating to Associated matters such as Financial charging and Camera enforcement would be considered at that time.
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
Traffic Regulation Orders – Harrogate Transforming Cities Fund:
Considered -
The Report of the Corporate Director – Environment, Traffic Regulations Orders Transforming Cities Fund. Councillor Keane Duncan, Executive Member for Highways and Transportation and officers Richard Binks (Head of Major Projects and Infrastructure), Tania Weston (Transforming Cities Fund Programme Manager), and Matt Roberts (Economic & Regeneration Project Manager) undertook a joint presentation.
Councillor Duncan stated that the Executive was seeking the views of the Committee before making a decision. He explained that Harrogate was facing problems relating to congestion, air quality and road safety. There were challenges for town centre retail and Harrogate could do better on public transport, walking and cycling. The “status quo” was not sustainable and that the Gateway offered an opportunity although not perfect to transform the town centre, improve transport access, revitalise Harrogate as a destination and is a potential step to address the issues facing Harrogate at present and in the future. There are strong views both for and against demonstrated through the consultation and at the meeting with the public split down the middle. He emphasised the importance of the funding that had been secured and the ability to use it and that the council was seeking to find a way forward within the context of strict funding and deadline criteria set by government. There was limited time before the Executive decision on 30 May and this would be used to make a strong case with the benefit of the views from the meeting. There were a number of areas raised by members of the Committee already:
· The Odeon roundabout cycling infrastructure – Full details of the options considered will be provided and the design will be reviewed in advance of the meeting on 30 May. · The wider sustainable and active travel infrastructure – Gateway includes significant public transport, walking and cycling improvements how does Gateway integrate effectively into the wider town? How the Gateway could be a catalyst for further sustainable travel Improvement in the wider town will be set out by 30th of May, if it proceeds · Congestion – The project proposes improvements to signals and Pelican Crossings in the immediate area to ensure better coordination but what about the impact impacts on the wider area. The actual Gateway project is fixed however cannot be looked at isolation. By 30th of May it will be outlined how the review of the Junctions immediately before the Gateway area along the Ripon Road and on King's Road will be undertaken. There will be a commitment of funds from existing budgets to look at feasibility works and a report could be brought forward to the ACC as soon as possible.
Councillor Duncan confirmed that he wanted to work with the Committee prior to the Executive meeting and that all comments from members would be considered prior to the production of the Executive report. The Committee was being requested to endorse the Gateway as a potential solution to address Harrogate's issues and for ongoing input as local councillors.
Richard Binks introduced the Gateway project and the officer team. He stated that the presentation would identify the economic drivers, the Strategic drivers and the scheme itself. This would also include technical considerations such as traffic modelling and the Traffic Regulation Orders.
Matt Roberts introduced the first part of a presentation to the Committee. He confirmed that this would be the first real investment in 30 years and would seek to address what was the current reception to visitors of Harrogate in terms of railings, dual carriageways and tired public realm. The following was identified:
· The project was supported/incorporated within local strategies, the local plan, the Town Centre Master Plan, the economic growth strategy, local transport plans including Harrogate transport Improvement package and emerging climate change strategies. It was also well established government policy. · The intention was to seek a balanced approach to travel around the town with a genuine choice of options supported by infrastructure · In 2019 the biggest response ever to a consultation was received with 77% responding that cycling and walking facilities should be improved and 75% stating that smarter choices should be encouraged · The local cycling walking investment plan identified that the average Journey length in Harrogate town was 2.6 kilometres and that currently 0.5% of people access Harrogate station by bike. This was in the context of around one and a half million entries and exits to the busiest station in North Yorkshire. · It was reported that 79 000 people live within 20 minutes of the station · Over a five-year period to 2019 CO2 emissions on the district's A roads reduced by four percent that was below both sub-regional and regional levels. It was also reported that more residents in Harrogate compared to similar authorities cycled with nearly two percent of residents cycling at least three times a week in 2020 · Hosting major cycling events has meant the town is recognized for championing cycling, demonstrated by a strong cycling retail sector · People wanting to cycle is growing. Recent survey suggests that of office workers who do not currently cycle would consider it as part of their commute there were safer cycling routes · The Harrogate district is worth four billion pounds in economic value and there are over six million Leisure visitors. Sustainable economic growth is being suppressed by local transport property and demographic conditions. Six of the lower super output areas within the project area boundary rank among the third most deprived areas in the country. The aim is to link some of these areas to the town centre and onwards to major employment centres and education centres in a sustainable and affordable way. If access to the town is not improved for those traveling other than Private Car the growth diversity and subsequent resilience of Harrogate's economy will be severely impacted · It is forecast that between 2021 and 2031 there will be a six percent decrease in the traditional working age population, there is an outward of migration of the younger people potentially as a result of a lack of an environment that supports a sustainable workforce · Driving licenses amongst younger people peaked in 1994 and there is a changing workforce, by 2025 between three and four workers will use the car less · There was a 12% decline in the number of retail units in the town between 2013 and 2021 this trend may increase with the use of permitted development rights · Town centres are changing and people want a more rounded experience when visiting therefore adaptation and diversification to support the visitor economy is required. The view is that the status quo is not sustainable, a recent report by KPMG suggests that 16% of jobs in Harrogate are expected to continue being done from home post Covid and that accelerated online retail adoption could result in the loss of 28% of total retail offering · There are studies that highlight the value of better public realm and people who walk and cycle to the High Street tend to make more visits and spend more. In 21 other areas where similar town centre changes have taken place such as Stratford upon Avon, Bath and Bury St Edmunds evidence suggests that proposals will support a sustainable future for the town
Tania Weston explained that this is a national capital funding program so the funding must be spent on physical infrastructure and cannot be spent on things such as improving bus services. It comes from the Department for Transport and administered by the West Yorkshire Combined Authority. It was considered that the aims aligned with those of the former Harrogate Borough Council and North Yorkshire County Council in terms of the overarching vision for the town and connecting people to economic and education opportunities through affordable sustainable transport.
The Harrogate TCF is not just a cycling scheme it's very much about accessibility. It is also not about preventing people from driving it's about giving people wider options. It aims to reduce the dominance in the use of cars, to lower traffic speeds and to provide safer spaces for the most vulnerable users. This means those who are walking or cycling and particularly looking at improving accessibility for those with disabilities. Some of the design takes that into account improving public spaces as well as improving sustainability. It creates spaces that promote social interaction and encourages people to stay and provides space for events.
The funding requires projects to fit within a proximity to station hubs so there is a geographical constraint in terms of what the council can and can't use the funding for. Cycle infrastructure must meet the current government guidelines in terms of public realm.
The Station Parade part of the project reallocates space rather than stopping the road completely. There have been three rounds of consultation undertaken, it is recognized that some of the consultations did take place during Covid in lockdown conditions but there were face-to-face sessions and drop-in days as well as online. Over the three rounds of public consultation there were increased numbers of responses. In the final consultation 45% of people felt negative about the proposals however positive and neutral comments accounted for 54% of responses.
There are concerns around potential business impacts and there will be construction impact as well. If the scheme were to go ahead the council would work with the contractors to minimize disruption.
Richard Binks explained that a component of this project is focused upon the allocation of road space on station parade and it goes from a dual casual to a single carriageway. A substantive desktop study in terms of computer modelling has been commissioned with at least 15 live count surveys with an extended period over a number of years indeed:
· The study suggests that the proposals are accurate and validated particularly as the worst case scenario has been chosen to model against, that being the 2018 survey results that was pre-pandemic when vehicle usage was at a peak · The level of vehicle usage is declining, about four percent less over the last five years. · The model does not take into account the successful outcome of this project as the aim is to develop a switch of choice from the vehicle to public transport, cycling and walking. · The model assumes continuation of current usage based on the worst case scenario. · The model supports future investment opportunities coming forward in terms of potential growth on the network and achieves a very high level of validation against national transport standards
The model covers a substantial part of the town centre from Ripon Road all the way through which in the car is about a 15-minute Journey at present. It is predicted that there will be a slight increase in that Journey time with walking and cycling having marginal gains:
· From King's Road up Cheltenham parade and onto station parade there are eight sets of signals, three of those are pelican Crossings that are not coordinated particularly well at the moment · There are accessibility issues and of the eight signals five of them are captured within the red yellow boundary of the scheme to coordinate better with new software and increasing the opportunity for green waving · Everything can be linked and coordinated better · The main blocker to free flow is the controlling signals ensuring free flowing traffic.
The Traffic Regulation Order is an enabler to the wider design proposal. There are various orders:
· A parking and waiting order that effectively controls the kerbside space in terms of the ability to park your vehicle, loading, etc. · The loss of 40 spaces across the red line boundary of the scheme · A move in taxi space from James Street and reallocation to the western side of Harrogate · On the northern portion of station parade two loading Bays are being introduced · The potential relaxation of wait and load restrictions · In James Street a reduction in the physical length of the loading bay by 14 metres · A one-way system on the northern section of station parade · A one way system in the southbound direction down to Bower Street to accommodate the new bus lane · A fourth consultation for the traffic regulation order · 35 statutory bodies have been consulted none of which reported negatively against the project · The consultation has resulted in 41 public objections to the order with themes including loading and parking loss · A one-way system in Cheltenham Mount will result in a small increase in vehicles heading northbound of two to three vehicles per minute · A bus lane is proposed to be introduced on station parade north · A bus lane has been taken out of Cheltenham Parade as the modelling indicated no actual journey gain
The business case has been successful in securing funding, it is a strong economic driver, supports a vibrant, sustainable economy and recognises the climate emergency
The Chair thanked the Officers and the presentation was followed by questions from the Members.
- Councillor Walker highlighted his concern about the amount of spend and the possibility of costs running over due to such factors as inflation. He asked when the financial business case had been revisited and how any potential shortfall would be funded.
· Richard Binks confirmed that the outline business case had been developed and a full business case was to be presented to the Executive on the 30 May. · The funding is capped therefore the budget cannot be exceeded and in terms of costs there was an inbuilt quantified risk assessment that took account of factors such as inflation built into the business case · The Council is working with a contractor and receiving monthly market valuations, including potential construction costs prior to the final tender price · The budget for the project would be closely monitored and the team was working with partners to ensure the project delivered on cost and quality
- Councillor Mann highlighted public questions and statements about a possible deterioration in the air quality in the centre of town if there was slower moving traffic on Station Parade
· Matt Roberts confirmed that air quality impact had been measured with diffusion tubes measuring nitrogen dioxide along Station Parade. The last prediction was that although idling can increase CO2 levels the scheme is beneficial to air quality along the stretch of the project area
- Councillor Harrison asked a question regarding buses that currently go up Cheltenham Crescent to station parade and then into the bus station. It was confirmed that there would be two lanes leading up to the bus station with one being the bus lane that fed buses straight up and into the station.
- Councillor Harrison sought clarification about the two sets of traffic lights that are outside of the scope of this scheme um on the junction of Kings Road and Cheltenham Parade and the King's Road Parliament Street
· Richard Binks confirmed that as the traffic lights are outside of the red lane boundary the Transforming Cities Fund money cannot be used. They will be considered as part of the report to the Executive and a way forward will be outlined for both of those junctions in terms of potentially using the highways capital programme funding money - Councillor Schofield highlighted his concern that there had been an economic assessment report but not a business impact report or business impact assessment undertaken. Why had this not been undertaken in consultation with all local businesses within the town centre? He was aware that business within Harrogate particularly independent businesses all offering individual services that can't be found online were concerned about future business. In addition there are other recent schemes that require to be revisited such as the Otley road cycle path.
· Richard Binks confirmed that a business impact report for a scheme like this is not normally undertaken. In addition the indirect impact on businesses is difficult to quantify reliably. The aim is to encourage more people to enter the town walking cycling and remain in the area. A full economic appraisal is included within the report looking at similar types of schemes in other areas and the profile of the local economy in Harrogate. He confirmed that there were various reasons why other schemes, for example, the Otley Road scheme had not been taken forward that was more to do with design considerations rather than any business impact assessment.
- Councillor Aldred asked the following questions:
Would the scheme cause more traffic possibly backing up all the way to Ripley? Would any of the work be conducted at night? Was an environmental impact assessment carried and if not why not? Did we refuse a public meeting with the residents of the Granville area?
· Richard Binks confirmed that in terms of the traffic impact any queueing would be contained within the station parade Cheltenham Mount area there would be no backing up beyond the limit of the project. There was no planned night time working. · Tania Weston stated that environmental impact assessments are specific to certain planning applications and the local planning Authority had deemed that it the planning application was not one that required an environmental impact assessment. In response to the question about meeting residents in the Granville area it was noted that this may have been a reference to potential meetings with Don McKenzie and Andrew Jones.
- Councillor Marsh sought clarification about the connection to educational establishments and employment areas mentioned in the report.
· Matt Roberts stated that these were from Hornbeam Park onwards to Leeds and York via cycling routes up to Cardell Park, the largest employment centre in Harrogate. It was also for people in the town centre to use bus and rail for forward opportunities to education and employment across the sub-region
Members discussed the following:
· Concerns that the project only delivers landscaping solutions such as trees, paving and a cycle lane with no onward connection. It did not fit within a wider strategic plan and that there were few people that would visit the unique areas of Harrogate. Investment was welcomed but it must support the heritage and environment. There was reference to funding to address issues in Knaresborough. · The scheme did not deal with congestion and increases car journey times and there were no changes to average walking or cycling times · A clear strategic plan was required for active travel across the constituency, with the positioning of the Gateway within the plan · There was reference to the delivery of the scheme and increasing costs · The advantages and disadvantages of a park and ride scheme · There was a need to do something with the Gateway and accepting that it was not something that everyone would agree on it is the only one at present and that there is a commitment by the Executive to look at possible adaptations and changes. It could be used as a starting point to move forward · Difficult decisions have been made previously in Harrogate recognising that there is some opposition at the time. It is recognised that the scheme has some opposition but that should not stop the council from making an important decision · Some of the objections to the scheme have been addressed such as concern about increased car journey lengths and potential gridlock. The work has been done to address these concerns and the information is in the report. · The Committee had been informed that the traffic signals on King’s Road and the bottom of Parliament Street were not part of the scheme however would be looked at · The scheme had advantages and disadvantages however once finished would make the town more welcoming to residents, visitors and new businesses · The project would rejuvenate the town centre and underpin the future of Harrogate Convention Centre · If the council rejects the funding from the government then this may impact future improvement funding/schemes in the future
- Councillor Haslam endorsed the recommendations in the report, he stated that the vision for the master plan had been set in 2015 and had been continually reviewed. The Gateway is the next investment in the programme and will create a transport hub with the opportunity to transition from one transport mode to another. The services will be inclusive and accessible to all, with better public transport and easier, safer active transport. The prioritisation of buses will improve reliability with only small increases in car journey times. It will also support tourism and the conference industry. Business difficulties are recognised but the town must do things to create new experiences. He stated that no project was perfect however the Committee has been informed that Officers will be flexible and work to make sure the project works.
Councillor Haslam proposed the recommendations in the report
Seconded by Councillor Mann
Members discussed the following:
· The consultation undertaken was appreciated however it needs be undertaken at the very local level to understand the pressure that the scheme could put on businesses · The impact of traffic lights at other junctions · The impact of other schemes that had not gone as well · The pedestrianisation of James Street · A recognition of the need for coordinated investment in the town centre particularly near the station · The need for shopping centre improvements · A potential alternative cycling solution with cycling infrastructure such as bike racks/stores · Air pollution due to idling traffic · The impact to pedestrians with prioritising crossings for car users
- During the debate on the tabled motion, Councillor Lacey put forward some wording that constituted a different but substantially similar motion to that already proposed. Upon consideration of Councillor Lacey’s wording, the proposer and seconder of the original motion withdrew that motion in support of the following proposal:
This committee believes that Harrogate needs a vibrant, prosperous, safe, attractive and accessible town centre and would welcome further investment in it to achieve that goal through a Gateway scheme, subject to the following conditions:
- Councillor Lacey explained the need for a strategic vision over the long term and the current state of the town centre. It is recognised that there are some groups that feel they have not been listened to and that the council can do better. The proposal gives the ACC a meaningful role in representing residents to deliver the best possible scheme.
Proposed by Councillor Lacey
Seconded by Councillor Haslam
Members discussed the following:
· Parts of the scheme such as One Arch, bus lanes, pedestrianisation, alternative cycling routes and links to other areas · The offer of discussion prior to the Executive meeting on 30 May and any potential input over the summer period to bring the report back to the Committee · The recognition that there are genuine concerns and the ability to make some changes however substantial changes would mean rejecting the scheme. There are things, therefore, that can be altered to a certain extent within the scheme as presented · A change to the wording in the proposal was suggested to include the words sustainable and healthier
The amendment to include the words sustainable and healthier was proposed by Councillor Gostlow
Seconded by Councillor Lacey
- Councillor Duncan confirmed that all suggestions that had been raised at the meeting would be taken on board for the report on the 30th of May. It was recognised that the timescale was tight to meet the meeting deadlines but this was the start of that conversation and would be an ongoing discussion with the ACC as the key forum for information, liaison and scrutiny throughout this process.
· Any suggestions that come forward will be considered it terms of how they might fit with criteria, budget and timelines. · The three core areas identified at the beginning of the meeting would be considered as part of the report together with any issues identified at the meeting · There are time constraints to produce the report taking into account the suggestions/comments received and this will be undertaken · The Executive would have to make a decision on the 30th of May to ensure that the scheme can be delivered in line with the Department for Transport requirements. This means that most of the spend takes place by the end 2023/24 there can be some spend into the subsequent Financial year but the majority has to be in 2023/24 · The proposal being considered at the meeting will be worked on. There will be a decision on 30 May in principle around the decision of the submission of that business case to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority. This will be on the basis that the ACC is content that it has been given a full opportunity to be consulted on the traffic regulation orders that underpin the scheme, the formal part of the consultation · The ACC would be actively involved as the scheme is progressed and have oversight of any subsequent discussions around delivery, construction, etc.
In response to a question Councillor Duncan confirmed that there is a clear indication from the Department for Transport that they expect most of the money to be spent in 2023/24. There is potentially some expenditure that could go into 2024/25 but the majority of the expenditure is required to be in 2023/24 that is a very tight time scale to achieve.
It was confirmed that the Committee would vote on the proposal as amended to include the words sustainable and healthier.
A vote was taken and 10 members voted for the motion, three voted against and there were no abstentions.
Resolved –
This committee believes that Harrogate needs a vibrant, prosperous, safe, attractive, accessible, healthier and sustainable town centre and would welcome further investment in it to achieve that goal through a Gateway scheme, subject to the following conditions:
|
|
|
|
The meeting concluded at 1:20 pm.