Decision details

Considered – A report of the Corporate Director for Community Development providing an update on the New Settlement (Maltkiln) Development Plan Document (DPD) following the withdrawal of previously available land within the proposed boundary and seeking in principle approval to use of the Council’s Compulsory Purchase Powers to support the delivery of Maltkiln if an agreement cannot be reached with the owners of the land outlined. 

 

Councillor Derek Bastiman introduced the report and welcomed the public participants to the meeting and their submissions, as follows:

 

1. Clare Beckett – Chair of Whixley Parish Council

‘Whixley Parish Council (WPC) has been involved in the development of the Maltkiln proposals for many years, including participating in the Community Liaison Group. WPC has made a number of representations at different stages of the process including most recently providing detailed comments on the HBC DPD document in November 2022. Separately we have made representations on the developers planning application 19/00017EIAMAJ, most recently detailed comments on the Transport Assessment – WPC Document dated January 2023.

 

There are some very significant infrastructure requirements to deliver Maltkiln. HBC attempted to list and cost these in the DPD (Section 11 – Delivery and Phasing) but the information in this section was full of omissions, inconsistencies and errors (WPC comments on DPD Page 9).  The developer’s own highway advisor concluded that the A59 between the A1(M) and Maltkiln would need to be widened to a dual carriageway (Developer’s Transport Assessment Para 8.10 onwards) but that the developer would not be able to fund it. A widening scheme for the A59 is not included in the HBC list of infrastructure projects in the DPD.

 

The developer’s highway advisor made errors in their assessment of the capacity of the existing A59 (WPC Document January 2023) which means the dual carriageway scheme will be required much sooner in the build out of the development. Using the correct calculations A59 widening may also be required on the east side of Maltkiln.

 

A key element of the development is to provide a new bridge over the railway to replace the existing Cattal level crossing. Network Rail have full control over the provision of this bridge and WPC do not believe the costs and risks of this have ever been properly quantified.  Infrastructure requirements of this scale will require funding from the public sector. NYC have now concluded CPO and by implication public money is likely to required just to assemble the land required for the comprehensive development envisaged in HBC’s Local Plan.

 

There must be sufficient doubt over the availability of public funds of this scale to mean that NYC should question whether delivery of Maltkiln is a viable prospect and whether it’s a sensible use of public money to proceed with the DPD process.  WPC would like to ask the executive members whether they have been sufficiently briefed over the viability of the scheme, including the implications of recent cost rises, to have confidence that proceeding with the DPD is appropriate?

 

WPC would conclude that the further uncertainty CPO brings is a reason to halt the process and consider the need for Maltkiln within the wider development of NYC’s new development plan.’

 

Councillor Derek Bastiman voiced appreciation for the positive and constructive engagement from Whixley Parish Council on the DPD to date and in response to the submission reiterated that the proposed recommendation aimed to get the DPD to the next stage of plan-making - an independent examination by the secretary of state, in order to allow full scrutiny of the viability and infrastructure demands.

 

He noted the Parish Council was correct in that there were large infrastructure demands to deliver Maltkiln. Whilst a note was published detailing viability work undertaken so far, the Council had since commissioned specialist advice to look at the viability of the scheme which showed that Maltkiln was a viable scheme. He also confirmed that if the DPD proceeded to examination, the advice would be published and submitted for consideration at the examination in public.

 

2. Kevin Bramley – Parish Councillor for Hunsingore Walshford with Great Ribston & Cattal Parish Council

‘Residentsare concernedthattheNew Settlementproposalcouldbebecoming North YorkshiresHS2. Concernhas beenexpressed bysome residentsas tothe timingof thereport toCommittee and the shortperiod inwhich toraise questionsor passcomment. Clashingwith thefestive period.

 

Havethe Councillorsbeeninformed,interrogatedand establishedthecoststodate and consideredthose goingforward of pursuingthe proposalfor aNewSettlementincluding separatelyidentified costsof otherpublicbodieswhichhave beeninvolvedin theprocess?(All usingTaxPayersmoney).

 

Theabove questionis raised becauseviewshave beenexpressed thattheoverall projectisnot viable.Affordablehousingrequirements havebeenreduced throughthe process(which had beenagreed presumablyon viabilitygrounds) Thisreduction tookplace priorto theinflationrun, hikeininterest ratesandeconomicshocksofmore recenttimes.

 

LocalgossipsuggestsOakgate YorkshireLtdthe applicantsof planningapplication 19/00017/ EIAMAJand sitepromoters (CaddickGroup asthey arenow referredto bytheCouncil) donot havecontrolof themajority ofthe site. Indeeditwas notedin oneof thecommunity Liaisongroup meetings that although engagementhas takenplacewithNetwork Railon infrastructureissues the"elephantintheroom" ofransomandland agreementshadnot beenadvancedas negotiations withNetworkRailaredifficult.

 

Cllr Derek Bastiman thanked Mr Bramley for his submission and noted that theMaltkiln Community Liaison Group (which includes Hunsingore Walshford with Great Ribston & Cattal Parish Council) had been notified of the broad timings of decision making on Maltkiln and that the report had been published in line with the Council’s committee procedures.  He confirmed the viability work showed Maltkiln was a viable scheme without public sector intervention, and that the Council had always been open about viability being a challenge for most new settlements and larger scale schemes. He suggested it was unlikely that 40% affordable housing would be achieved on all phases of development, but given it was a very long-term scheme, suggested that later phases would be expected to contribute more affordable homes. He also noted the significant benefits to delivering new settlements and providing facilities and infrastructure in a holistic and well-planned way.

 

In terms of land availability, Councillor Derek Bastiman confirmed the Council was satisfied that the test of delivery set out in national policy (i.e. that there is a reasonable prospect of the site being delivered) could be met subject to the decision before Executive.  He also drew attention to the regular discussions between the Council and Network Rail and confirmed that whilst the finer details of the shared value payments had yet to be concluded, the Council did not believe that was a barrier to delivery. Shared value payments had been accounted for in viability appraisal work.   

 

3. Richard Holliday an Associate at Carter Jonas speaking on behalf of their client Mr Dent of The Wheelhouse, Hunsinggore, Wetherby, LS22 5HY (Landowner)

‘We refer to the recently published Executive report which seeks an in-principal approval that the Council use its CPO powers to support delivery of the above New Settlement. Given the Council’s requirements for lodging a representation 3 working days before the Executive Committee, we have not had much time to read and consider the paper. However, there are a number of comments we wish to make at this stage of the process which should be drawn to the attention of Members taking the decision and which are set out below.

 

We are surprised to see a recommendation to progress with compulsory acquisition given the stage the proposals for the New Settlement have reached. The key concern is that it cannot be demonstrated that there is a compelling case in the public interest and, therefore, it is not possible to take forward a CPO. Even an in principle resolution is premature at this stage.

 

A key reason given in the report for needing an in-principal decision is that a landowner (and here we are assuming you are referring to our client) decided not to renew their agreement with the site promoter, the Caddick Group. The Caddick Group had an option to purchase land owned by our client which they decided not to exercise and which they let expire. It is difficult to see how CPO can be justified, even in-principle, in circumstances where the land could have been acquired by agreement. Related to this is that there are no identifiable boundaries to the New Settlement yet and, therefore, it is not possible to determine the extent of land needed to deliver the proposed New Settlement. If the boundaries cannot be ascertained, how is it possible for negotiations to take place under the threat of CPO given the Council is unable to confirm what land is actually required from each landowner and, therefore, what is needed for the proposed development?  Compulsory purchase is not a generic tool and there must be certainty for those affected, even at the in-principal stage.

 

We note that the Council asserts that the Caddick Group controls the majority of the land required. We should be grateful if details of this can be made available as we were not aware that the Council had secured the majority of the rest of the land that it needs? We also note that the report refers to both landowner and landowners but has not clarified the number of landowners which are affected by CPO. We would request greater transparency on this point.

 

So far as the DPD is concerned, the Executive report refers to a draft which has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate but not progressed. Our understanding is that a DPD consultation was undertaken (both in 2020 and 2022), but there is no document with any status upon which any development proposals are underpinned. Therefore, again, there appears to be no basis for taking forward proposals for development and there is too much uncertainty as to whether, in planning terms, a New Settlement at Hammerton/Cattal is needed, viable and deliverable. It is, therefore, far too early to even contemplate CPO as a means of acquiring land.

 

We would ask Members not to endorse the recommendation. The proper approach, as outlined in CPO policy, is for the Council to engage in meaningful negotiations with our client when it has reached the stage of knowing what land is required and it has a proper basis for moving forward with the New Settlement proposals.’

 

Councillor Derek Bastiman thanked Mr Holliday for his comments and confirmed that Council officers had been in dialogue with Mr Dent and their advisor for some time. He noted the potential use of CPO had arisen because it had become apparent to the Council that land previously understood to be available was now not. He also confirmed the Council was still keen to continue meaningful dialogue with the landowner and site promoters to ensure that a negotiated solution could be achieved thereby avoiding the need to resort to compulsory purchase.  He stressed that the recommendation in this report was not seeking authority to use CPO powers, rather it was an in principal decision to do so should a negotiated settlement not be possible. 

 

Councillor Bastiman drew attention to the report and confirmed the Council believed the proposed boundary for Maltkiln (including all of the land shown in Appendix A to the report) represented the best option to deliver a sustainable new settlement that met the requirements of the adopted Harrogate District Local Plan, and a viable proposition as shown by the work undertaken so far.

 

Finally, he noted the DPD had not been submitted to the Secretary of State for examination in public following a decision by the former Harrogate Borough Council to publish a final Draft for consultation and submit thereafter. That submission had been paused to allow further conversations to take place with Mr Dent. 

 

To clarify the intention of the report, Barry Khan Assistant Chief Executive (Legal & Democratic Services) drew attention to a proposed revision to recommendation (i) in the report as follows:

 

i)              That the Executive approve in principle Recommend to Full Council that a Compulsory Purchase Order can be is pursued as a mechanism to deliver a new settlement at Maltkiln if an agreement with landowners cannot be reached.

 

Mr Holliday confirmed his client had further queries to discuss and therefore would welcome more time to negotiate with the Council, and his view was that at this stage a CPO was a drastic tool to use particularly as previous negotiations halted as a result of the decisions of the developer. 

 

4. Paul Townsend – Chair of Kirk Hammerton Parish Council

‘I represent Kirk Hammerton Parish Council. Cattal Station and a significant part of the development land is in our Parish. It’s true that we were opposed to the original choice of location, but over the past 3-4 years we have spent a lot of time assisting the Council in developing the Maltkiln proposals. For example, the idea of the link road to the A168 was ours. Please don’t write us off as NIMBYs. On the other hand we are, most definitely, local taxpayers.

 

North Yorkshire/Harrogate officials have put a lot of effort into this scheme. They created the policy framework and appointed an experienced promoter to manage the development risks and deliver the scheme. Unfortunately, the developer has been unable to do that successfully and the briefing paper concludes that the project is undeliverable, as things stand. Does that mean the Council should now intervene and invest its own capital? We think not. It’s time to draw a line and move on.

 

We would urge the Executive to be very cautious indeed before considering the use of taxpayers’ money, even in principle. At a time when many authorities are on the verge of bankruptcy, does NYC really have capital available to invest in speculative development projects? If so, please can it be used for less glamorous but more appropriate purposes, like fixing the holes in our roads.

 

There are many risks which could still derail this project. Complex highways works, high costs of meeting renewable energy and environmental standards are examples. The developer has not resolved these challenges. This is not a scheme which just requires NYC to stump up some cash to allow construction of new houses to proceed. The elephant in the room is that no agreement exists, even in principle, with Network Rail for the construction of a road bridge over the railway, a fundamental element of the scheme and which is to be built on the land NYC would be purchasing using CPO. The developer has been quite open in describing this as a “ransom position” for Network Rail. The ransom terms will only increase once it becomes known that the Council has purchased land that will be worthless if the scheme doesn’t proceed.

 

You will be told that none of this matters because there’s no commitment to spend money at this stage. So what is the purpose of resolving “in principle” to use CPO powers? Simply to intimidate the landowner to agree to the developer’s terms, or we’ll impose a CPO? Surely that’s not how a reputable public authority behaves?

 

Two final points, because time is short – Firstly, investing in the scheme will create an obvious conflict of interest for NYC as Planning Authority. It will be impossible to maintain the appearance of acting objectively when dealing with future planning applications if it has an interest in the successful delivery of the development. And second, there is a flaw in the soundness of the planning process which is not mentioned in the briefing paper. The options appraisal of three alternative locations will not be finalised until the DPD is adopted. The appraisal concluded (several years ago) that there was little to choose between the three sites. That was before it became clear that 42% of the development land at Maltkiln was unavailable and required a CPO. The conclusion would surely be different now. The risk of challenge to the soundness of the process should be addressed before any question of investing taxpayers’ money arises.  All things considered, we simply have to conclude, unfortunately, that the project has reached the end of the road.’

 

Councillor Derek Bastiman thanked Mr Townsend, and all the other parish councils that formed part of the Community Liaison Group for their time and effort engaging with the DPD process. He noted the group had given valued input into the DPD and many of the policies reflected their suggestions and aspirations. He also noted that the group had assisted with ensuring constructive participation with the DPD within the wider community.

 

He went on the confirm that delivering any new settlement would almost certainly be a challenge and Officers liaison with other authorities delivering new settlements had confirmed this to be the case. That said, he was pleased to note the work undertaken to date showed that Maltkiln was a viable scheme, and that officers believed the framework within the proposed DPD still remained the most sustainable option when considered against the other options considered previously.

 

He accepted the railway line presented a challenge but also a great opportunity to create a place where sustainable travel was truly at the heart of the settlement. He noted Network Rail had always supported a new settlement in this location and that dialogue had continued with them throughout the DPD process.  He also suggested that if the DPD progressed successfully through an examination in public and was adopted; and if agreement with the landowners could not be reached; then there were still a variety of options available to the Council moving forward some of which would not pose significant risk or cost to the Council.

 

Finally, he noted that whilst the Council needed to meet a number of demands and provide value for money for its taxpayers, it also had a duty to provide high quality homes to meet the needs of current and future residents. He stated Maltkiln represented an opportunity to deliver a minimum of 3,000 homes in a way which could offer a high quality of life, offering services, facilities and green space within walking distance for its residents and easy rail access to other places. 

 

Councillor Arnold Warneken also addressed the Executive and suggested the amended recommendation was unnecessary given that every Council had the power to use CPOs and therefore an ‘in principle’ decision to use one in the case of Maltkiln was superfluous.  He also questioned whether the Council had spoken directly with the affected landowners and whether more pressure should be placed on the developers to progress the matter to address the hiatus they had created.  He suggested there should also have been greater communication with the Parish Councils and with the local Councillors.

 

In response Councillor Derek Bastiman confirmed that officer had been having regular discussions with the landowners and developers.  He noted his willingness to attend Parish Council meetings and the importance of the Liaison Group.  He also confirmed that feedback from the Group had led to changes to the plans.  He drew attention to a number of questions that Councillor Warneken had submitted outside of the meeting and confirmed that responses to those questions would be provided in writing.

 

Barry Khan Assistant Chief Executive (Legal & Democratic Services) confirmed that prior to being submitted for examination, the Council’s DPD would go to full Council for approval. He stressed that an assessment had been made which confirmed this was a suitable and sustainable development and that the purpose of the recommendation for an in principle decision regarding the potential use of a CPO was to show the Council’s serious support for the proposed development.

 

Councillor Derek Bastiman went on to draw attention to the background to the scheme as detailed in the report, the vision for Maltkiln, the consultation undertaken to draft the DPD, and the next steps.

 

Councillor Simon Myers welcomed the progression of the plans for the development recognising a new settlement would help address the county’s housing needs.  He also acknowledged the benefits gained historically by Local Authorities from using CPOs to demolish slums and build social housing.  He therefore gave his support to the revised recommendation.

 

As there were no further questions, it was

 

Resolved – That it be approved in principle that a Compulsory Purchase Order can be pursued as a mechanism to deliver a new settlement at Maltkiln if an agreement with landowners cannot be reached.