Agenda item

Recommendations – That the Executive approve:

i.       the making of the proposed Harrogate TCF Traffic Regulation Order(s) (TRO’S) detailed in Section 11 and Appendix C of the report which would be required for the Harrogate Station Gateway Project, and to delegate to the Corporate Director of Environment in consultation with the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation the making of the Orders with an amendment adjacent to Bower House to avail loading opportunities for adjacent businesses, and reduce the proposed bus lane entry taper by two car lengths and any other amendments to the TRO’s which are appropriate.

ii.      the Full Business Case being prepared and submitted to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) with the approval of the detail of the Full Business Case for submission to WYCA delegated to the Corporate Director of Environment in consultation with the Corporate Director Resources and Executive Member for Highways and Transportation.

iii.     In the event that the Full Business is approved by WYCA to delegate the acceptance of the TCF funding to the Corporate Director Resources in consultation with the Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services and the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation, subject to acceptable terms and conditions being received and for the Harrogate Station Gateway Scheme to be implemented.

 

Considered – a report of the Corporate Director for Environmentseeking approval for:

i.       the proposed Harrogate TCF Traffic Regulation Order(s) (TRO’S) required for the Harrogate Station Gateway Project, and delegation to the Corporate Director of Environment in consultation with the Corporate Director Resources and Executive Member for Highways and Transportation to make the TRO’s together with any amendments required.

ii.      The preparation and submission of a Full Business Case to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, and in the event that the funding is approved delegation to the Corporate Director Resources in consultation with the Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic and the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation to accept the funding subject to suitable terms and to then proceed with implementation of the Harrogate Transforming Cities Fund project.

iii.     Delegating approval of the detail of the Full Business Cases for submission to WYCA to the Corporate Director of Environment in consultation with the Corporate Director Resources and Executive Member for Highways and Transportation.

 

Councillor Keane Duncan introduced the report and drew attention to the significant public consultations that had taken place and the petition against the scheme that had recently been received containing 2000+ signatures - it was noted that not all of the petitioners were local to the area and the true number had yet to be confirmed.  He also acknowledged the significant engagement of local Councillors through the involvement of the Harrogate & Knaresborough Area Constituency Committee (ACC) whose recent meeting had represented a major step forward for the new Council’s localism agenda and had led to cross party support for the scheme from local councillors.  Noting the importance of securing the major investment and the transformative impact the project could have, he drew attention to section 12 of the report which contained feedback on all of the suggestions put forward at the ACC meeting and confirmed that should the full business case be accepted, it would represent a major step forward for the scheme enabling it to stay of track, and for work to start in late 2023.

 

A number of non-executive Members requested to speak on the agenda item.  Councillor Pat Marsh, Chair of the Harrogate & Knaresborough ACC stated:

 

“I'm here today to say to you do not go forward with this scheme. This scheme starts nowhere, goes nowhere, doesn't deliver for cyclists, has a massive impact on our town centre, has a massive impact on air quality as you push the traffic down to one lane which causes idling traffic going up through the town centre and I'll remind you that idling traffic can produce up to twice as many exhaust emissions as engines in motion.  These emissions include carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide which have an impact on the air we breathe, and that's what will happen to those pedestrians, cyclists and those who live along this route. 

 

The scheme does not deliver what you want to do which is to encourage people to use alternative forms of travel.  If you're starting somewhere where it doesn't connect to local communities and it ends somewhere which is more difficult, you're not going to achieve getting people out of cars and into other forms of travel. 

 

The route you're taking is the main Ripon to Leeds Road.  In the very beginning I did suggest that the original route be opened up - Parliament street, which used to be the route that went straight up and through the town but I was told it would cost £4m so go away.  Now my concern is that you're not looking at the other alternative which is the East Parade route. When I read the reports, I saw changes were included as part of Harrogate Borough Council’s intent to develop the rail station into a two-sided station.  That is what you've been told by a professional which is absolutely ridiculous.  Harrogate has had a two-sided station for years.  The station parade side leads to York Lane, and the East Parade side actually deals with the York to Leeds line.  The East Parade side connects our communities which is what you're supposed to be doing - encouraging people to get out their cars. The East Parade side can connect Starbeck, Knaresborough, Ripley etc - it connects out further to the other side of town that I represent which connects to schools, local businesses etc.  On the East Parade side you have access to a car park where cyclists could safely park their bikes undercover. On the station parade side there is no cycle parking provision so why would they come into town. The whole thing is not thought out properly and the majority of people who you’ve consulted responded negatively. Nobody has actually agreed to this in a way that says this is really acceptable to the people of the town.   I’m not saying this because I am anti-cyclist, because I'm not.  What I'm saying is give them a better more connected route and not this start somewhere, end nowhere and cause absolute impact on our town centre. 

 

I would beg you to go back and give us time to re-look at the East Parade option because that does deliver for our community much more than what you're offering.  Nobody is going to use this route in the way that you would like it to be used.  You need to connect to communities to encourage them to come into town and that's what the East Parade route does, so I'm pleading with you today not to support this proposal but to go back to the table and look at the East Parade option that delivers for the very people you want to deliver it for and that's the cyclist.”

 

In response Councillor Duncan stressed that throughout the entire scheme, the walking and cycling infrastructure was compliant with the highest standard set by government, as the Authority was mandated to do as part of the scheme, and that the Authority had worked very closely with Active Travel England. He confirmed that he and the officer team had met with them just recently to discuss how the scheme could be used as a catalyst for further investment and how it could be embedded and connected into the wider Town Centre.

 

He confirmed the East Parade proposal had been looked into at the outset, but it had been ruled out in September 2021 due to the incredibly restricted carriageway causing problems due to its width, which would have had a significant impact on traffic flows and would not be compliant with the highest government standards required. 

 

He accepted Councillor Marsh was entitled to her personal view but expressed disappointed that as Chair of the ACC she had chosen not to represent the collective majority view of her committee, including five of her own liberal Democrat colleagues, but instead pushed forward her personal opposition to the scheme and to promote a proposal that was ruled out almost two years ago.

 

He noted that Councillor Marsh’s ACC colleagues had on a cross-party basis after extensive deliberation, give their backing with some caveats, to the Authority pursuing the scheme further, so he appealed to her to move away from her personal opposition of the scheme, and to support the effort that had been put forward very constructively by her ACC colleagues to help shape the scheme and move it forward into the future.

 

Councillor Lacey stated:

“I refer specifically to section 12 of the report that outlines the proposed response to the three conditions for welcoming the investment underpinning the Gateway scheme.  In moving the motion of the ACC, I referred to the divided nature of opinion that undermines the potential for this investment to be a catalyst for positive change.  Addressing this division continues to be my motivation, a path that I believe can best be achieved by adopting two fundamental principles.  Firstly that every effort should be made to listen and to respond to alternative use, and that second any evidence underpinning these views should be carefully weighed as we progress with implementation. 

 

This is a tough balance to achieve, particularly when we find ourselves for whatever reason behind the curve.  When applying these two principles of listening and weighing the evidence, I would comment on the responses in the paper before the Executive as follows:

i.       Condition 1 regarding addressing concerns - I and my colleagues are disappointed that at least some dates have not even been set for an agreed meeting with the Granville Road residents and that other correspondence with members has not resulted in face-to-face meetings being arranged.  Whilst acknowledging the pressure on time available to us all, including officers, I would urge the Executive to facilitate these meetings. 

ii.      Condition 2 regarding ACC involvement - whilst welcoming regular reporting I would point out that such reporting has not been adequate in the past as it tends towards a retrospective rather than proactive opportunity to help shape things.  In light of our role in representing residents’ views, I therefore hope that the ACC would establish a more proactive approach.

iii     Condition 3 regarding monitoring of the scheme - perhaps in the long term the most significant element, the gathering of evidence of impact in an open and collaborative way, is critical and I therefore urge the Executive and officers to involve all stakeholders in agreeing on what and how such monitoring should be carried out.”

 

Councillor Aldred stated:

“There's been a lot of hyperbole and a lot of disinformation about the scheme.  As Harrogate Councillors we have received lots of emails on this. It's been described as a destruction of a town; a devastation of a town; There has been comments about traffic going all the way back to Ripley - that just won't happen. Major projects have taken place in Harrogate before and the town survived, so I'd like to concentrate on the actuality rather than the hyperbole.  I'm not a great fan of the scheme as described, and I would like to look again at the East Parade cycle scheme for some of the reasons Councillor Marsh has stated e.g. the covered cycling storage would be a great benefit.

 

The scheme as described does have some benefits – I think I'm right in saying there is actually a small carbon gain with the projections, so the talk about pollution does not bear up; there is minimal impact on motorists - just one more minute in peak time and buses and cycling are improved as well.

 

People talk about a loss of Taxi bays (3) and a loss of car parking spaces (40) but that number out of 6789 car parking spaces is 0.5%, so I'm not worried about that.  Very rarely does Harrogate get full to capacity with its car parking spaces.  One thing that continues to really annoy me in all of this conversation that I very rarely hear people talk about and is my main reason for supporting the scheme as it stands, is it addresses the issues of One Arch that leads to the highest area of crime - not just in Harrogate but in the whole of North Yorkshire.  It is not watertight, it is littered all the time, the lighting is terrible you would not use it at night if you were trying to get into town, which you should be able to do.  The Gateway scheme could deliver something in that area that Harrogate Borough Council and the County Council has not been able to deliver in 30 years. 

 

We have the money now to do it so let's get together around the table, let's talk with the residents and with businesses.  The ACC needs to form a working group. ACC members want to be hands-on in this, we don't want to be just sitting there having reports, that's why the resolution we passed at the ACC back on the 5^th May called for the ACC to have a meaningful role in the implementation of the scheme. I think that means hands-on, and yes, we've got to consult more, and we can tweak the scheme at this stage to make it better. I'm not a fan of the whole scheme as I've said but there are extremely good positives in the scheme – improvements to One Arch being one of them.  I want the Executive and Councillor Duncan to give a guarantee they will engage, that there will be a timetable of meetings and that you will let the ACC members get more involved in this.”

 

Councillor Brown submitted a statement in writing so that it could be read out in his absence as follows:

 

“Colleagues many thanks again for allowing me to make a written Statement re the Station Gateway scheme,that, as a Harrogate Borough Councillor, I have been a lone voice on HBC in backing the Business community’s concerns about it. Sadly once again, I am unable to attend this morning in person, for the reason stated earlier.

 

I believe the proposed scheme will be detrimental to the prosperity of Harrogate Town and its Retail Sector. Firstly though I would like to make clear that I do believe we have a climate change crisis that we all must tackle. Where I differ from the usual, rather more strident groups- is that we need to realise that this should be phased over a timeframe, agreed nationally, so the lights don’t go out!

 

I now want to concentrate on the failure by local government in our area and in recent times to communicate and support the Retail Community. All my adult life I have been taught that this country is a Nation of Shopkeepers and so it is. In my political life too I have also believed that my ‘brand’ of politics was hugely supportive of the business community and the wealth creators. The Harrogate we see today, which attracts tourists to the great shops we have (who come mostly by car and not by train) by their thousands, was created over many years, indeed centuries, by successful businessmen and women. These people have been part of a system that has, as its heart, entrepreneurship and the creation of wealth. Their enterprises, if successful, pay tax and employ people who also pay their taxes which fund among other things a Welfare State that is needed to protect those in society who, for whatever sound reasons, are unable to provide for themselves. It has been my guiding light, therefore, to support the business community, as I believe any good citizen should do.

 

Sadly over the last few years in Harrogate this philosophy has almost gone and the business community, I think it fair to say, have had poor relationships with a local government administration that took little notice of them but again, sadly, these local government policy makers have been in thrall to minority groups who have held sway with their ideas for everyone to walk and cycle everywhere, contrary I would suggest, to the silent majority of residents.

 

The Station Gateway scheme under consideration today has over the last three years been

consistently opposed by a large and significant majority of the business community who feel that pedestrianisation will curtail their turnover. They believe that all the worst parts of Harrogate town centre are the ones where pedestrianisation has been imposed and that the 2016 Master plan, still at the heart of the scheme, is totally out of date and irrelevant for today’s conditions. They fear that the disruption of 12 or more months of building work will be the last straw for many businesses and that the anti-motorist approach and steady reductions in parking spaces over time will also curtail turnover. There is no mention of the transition period from diesel/petrol to electric or hydrogen fuelled cars anywhere. Most of the Districts population really do rely on car travel, as public sector transport to them barely exists, and if they find that the long hilly walks to distant car parks is an inconvenience to them they will shop elsewhere. Suggestions that commuters or shoppers coming into Harrogate could use bicycles to make their trips are not logical to most. Bad or poor weather for most of the year, adverse age demographics and the hills would not help either. The concept of a ‘Café Society’ is not an all year matter either with only two to three months at most.

 

Three business groups represent business in the town. The Harrogate Chamber of Commerce, the BID and Independent Harrogate. They have all expressed considerable concern at the scheme, with their survey of residents and businesses seeing a majority against it. They have been largely ignored, except for the occasional meeting, by those proposing the scheme.  Time and time again I and many others have asked for a full and detailed economic impact assessment as to the effects of the scheme on the town’s retailers and businesses and over and over again this was promised and never delivered. Academic Reports, I myself have seen to justify the’ Economic Case’, are flawed and bear little resemblance, in depth, to Harrogate and just don’t make sense. Who better to say whether the proposals will ‘have a positive impact on business’ than businesses themselves?

 

So finally I ask an important question of this Executive. Are these wealth creators and entrepreneurs, who actually run businesses in Harrogate, right in their approach or are they wrong and those who have probably never actually run a business, many of whom are academics with their theories and studies, most of which show no real relevance to Harrogate, right ? I think I know which side I’m on!”

 

Councillor Sam Gibbs stated:

“Thank you for allowing me just to say a few words. This is definitely something that's divided people within Harrogate. I've been single-handedly accused of destroying the town, I've also been told that I'd been ensuring the town's terminal decline if I didn't support it so that's just a snapshot of the feelings on this issue, but I'm here to urge you just to get on with the scheme now.  We cannot kick this down the road any longer.  We need to be thinking about how we can get on and deliver the scheme not what the scheme should look like as that debate has rumbled on since long before I was on this Council. 

 

It was made very clear that this decision would be made locally and that the ACC would have the final say, and that their decision would be respected by the Executive.  Perhaps that was a brave decision or a brave commitment, but I think it was the correct one because I do think important local decisions like this should be made locally, I also welcome Cllr Duncan’s commitment to engage further with the ACC and I hope that the Chair of the ACC has been in regular contact since that meeting with the Executive Member and officers and the wider team, putting personal views aside and carrying out the wishes of the committee.

 

I've never once said this scheme was perfect, but it's what we have in front of us, and I fear it would be a far greater mistake to do nothing which sometimes is the easier approach,

than it would be to progress a scheme that brings many obvious improvements to the town centre.  I also agree with Councillor Aldred’s views on One Arch.  Those type of improvements are very much needed. what we need to do now is come together to work it through, minimise any disruption and inconvenience that may come, and ensure that ultimately, we end up with a successful scheme.”

 

Cllr Duncan supported Councillor Lacey’s comments, and reiterated his sincere commitment to engage, which he hoped to do that over the coming weeks and months as delivery of the scheme progressed, subject to the decision at the meeting.

 

Specifically in terms of the Granville Road Residence Association, Councillor Duncan confirmed he had made an offer to meet with them in good faith and had been trying to seek a date, without success despite all his best efforts. 

 

Councillor Duncan agreed with Councillor Aldred's comments around hyperbole and the Doomsday scenario.  To put the scheme into perspective he went on to confirm:

·          The loss of around 40 parking spaces, leaving 6500 parking spaces where people could still hopefully find a space; 

·          The proposal for less than 100 meters of pedestrianisation on James Street, and around 300 meters of the A61 changing from Dual to single carriageway - a very short length in the grand scheme of that key road;

·          53 seconds extra journey time through the town centre during the pm peak, without any model shift to more sustainable transport options which included the impact of all new development within the town. 

 

Councillor Duncan was pleased to note the requests for constructive engagement and consultation and stressed the critical voice for the ACC would be the Chair, and expressed hope that her engagement would be constructive in line with what the majority of the ACC had supported.  He asked that local Councillors and the officer team work constructively to mitigate the inevitable disruption as a result of the scheme, as far as possible.

 

 

In terms of support for businesses, Councillor Duncan accepted there were issues to be addressed e.g. a drop in footfall and retail closures.  He confirmed he was prepared to offer a workshop with the contractor to get that engagement moving forward and pledged to have a forum for businesses to engage directly with the contractor.

 

He reiterated the scheme was about supporting the town centre in Harrogate, supporting retail, and ensuring that Harrogate remained a destination of choice. He acknowledged Harrogate town centre must evolve to ensure that it remained a popular destination and not just a destination for those with a car, ensuring accessibility for those who would like to walk, cycle or use public transport, as part of a balanced approach.

 

Finally, he agreed with Councillor Gibbs that in politics, it was probably easiest for Councillors to do nothing, but that would be the very worst case scenario for Harrogate.  He recognised the strong strength of feeling and welcomed the imperative from Councillor Gibbs that a decision was now needed without further delay. 

 

As a member of the ACC Councillor Michael Harrison expressed concern that the ACC Chair had chosen not to endorse the scheme but had instead put forward an opposite position, which was a misrepresentation of the ACC’s views.  He confirmed the ACC wanted a meaningful role in the implementation of the scheme and suggested that in view of the chair's position that could prove difficult.

 

He noted the Executive was being asked to agree the fundamentals of the scheme i.e.  the station parade traffic alterations and associated signal improvements, the cycle lanes, and the part pedestrianisation.  He agreed there was some scope for the rest of the details to change with further discussion.  He also drew attention to some previous junction Improvement schemes in Harrogate over the last 10-15 years that had not worked as expected and was pleased to note they would be addressed through the scheme to make sure it worked from a traffic perspective as efficiently as possible.

 

Councillor Simon Myer recognised it was a controversial decision but was willing to be guided by the ACC who were best placedto advise the Executive on it, having been elected by the people who live in the area affected by the scheme.

 

Councillor Derek Bastiman noted the conference trade described to Harrogate was worth circa £36m, supported by seven trains to London a day.  As someone who represented another conference town, he recognised the scheme would benefit the economy and be a lifeline for Harrogate.  He was also pleased to note the scheme received cross-party support from the ACC.

 

Councillor Gareth Dadd added his support for the scheme and asked that he as Executive Member for Finance be added to the consultees listed in recommendations (ii) & (iii).  He also expressed a word of caution about designing these things by committee and drew attention to the expertise the Authority had in its professional set of Highways officers and designers, both in-house and external.

 

Councillor Duncan confirmed there had been no underplaying of the risks involved in what was a major capital project of significant cost and complexity and reiterated his commitment to delivering a high quality scheme in line with the budget outlined within the report.

 

Having considered all of the information provided at the meeting and within the report, it was

 

Resolved – That:

 

i.       The proposed Harrogate TCF Traffic Regulation Order(s) (TRO’S) detailed in Section 11 and Appendix C which would be required for the Harrogate Station Gateway Project be made, and to delegate to the Corporate Director of Environment in consultation with the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation the making of the Orders with an amendment adjacent to Bower House to avail loading opportunities for adjacent businesses and reduce the proposed bus lane entry taper by two car lengths and any other amendments to the TRO’s which are appropriate.

 

ii.      The Full Business Case be prepared and submitted to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) with the approval of the detail of the Full Business Case for submission to WYCA delegated to the Corporate Director of Environment in consultation with the Corporate Director Resources, Executive Member for Finance and Executive Member for Highways and Transportation.

 

iii.     In the event that the Full Business is approved by WYCA, acceptance of the TCF funding be delegated to the Corporate Director Resources in consultation with the Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services, the Executive Member for Finance and the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation, subject to acceptable terms and conditions being received, and that the Harrogate Station Gateway Scheme be implemented.