Agenda item

Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice (including the text of the question/statement) to Mark.Codman@northyorks.gov.uk of Democratic Services by midday on Monday 5 June 2023. Each speaker should limit themselves to 3 minutes on any item. Members of the public who have given notice will be invited to speak:-

·         At this point in the meeting if their questions/statements relate to matters which are not otherwise on the Agenda (subject to an overall time limit of 30 minutes).

·         When the relevant Agenda item is being considered if they wish to speak on a matter which is on the Agenda for this meeting.

If you are exercising your right to speak at this meeting, but do not wish to be recorded, please inform the Chair who will instruct anyone who may be taking a recording to cease while you speak.

 

Public Questions and Statements

 

The Chairman advised that four notices had been received from members of the public who wished to make statements or ask questions at this meeting.

 

The following public statement was read out by Rene Dziabas- On behalf of the Western Arc Coordination Group (WACG) consisting of:

 

–      North Rigton PC

–      Pannal & Burn Bridge PC

–      Beckwithshaw PC

–      Harlow & Pannal Ash Residents Association

–      Duchy Residents Association

–      Hampsthwaite Action Group

 

This statement is being made on behalf of the Western Arc Coordination Group (WACG), and its purpose is to register our complete dissatisfaction concerning the lack of progress with the production of a West Harrogate Infrastructure Strategy (WHIS) and associated Infrastructure Delivery Schedule (IDS).

 

For many years now we have expressed our concern that the equivalent of a small town, approximately 4000 dwellings, is being proposed for the western arc of Harrogate without an improved infrastructure able to support such a massive development. By infrastructure we are not just referring to roads, but to schools, medical facilities, bus services, etc. It also needs to be noted that all of this ultimately tracks back to a Local Plan process that started more than a decade ago, and in many respects is now out of date.

 

The time allotted today is not sufficient to go over the background to this work, but nearly a year ago HBC and NYCC presented us with a draft `Mitigation Summary Pack`, solely concentrating on highways. At the time we expressed the view that much of this work came over as incoherent and lacking any real structure but we were assured that a complete WHIS and associated IDS would be made available in October of last year.  Council representatives assured us that these documents would include clear objectives, clear deliverables, timings, supporting data and financial costings. This was a Council commitment, not one invented by us as stakeholders. Yet here we are in mid-2023 and the latest position is that consultants are still looking at the viability of what previous consultants have proposed.

 

So far, we have seen no hard detail whatsoever in relation to the WHIS and IDS, and no offer of meaningful engagement with the community.  Recent correspondence would seem to indicate further delays. Therefore, our overall concern is that this work, when it eventually emerges, will deliver an ineffective and inadequate package.

 

As a group we have always expressed our willingness to be involved in discussions relating to issues of concern to our community, and to play a positive role, but the reality is that we are now some years on and we have seen nothing that convinces us that there is any sort of a plan in place that will really help to mitigate the strains on the infrastructure to the west of Harrogate.And, before somebody raises the matter, the Parameters Plan as it stands will not achieve this.

 

We therefore respectfully ask for meaningful consultations to take place with community representatives before the above key document are finalised, and that our concerns are made known to the Executive Committee.

 

Mark Codman (Democratic Services) read out the following statement on behalf of the Council’s Planning and Transport officers:

 

The current, adopted Harrogate District Local Plan, adopted Supplemental Planning Documents and site specific documents such as the West Harrogate Parameters Plan (WHPP) create a clear framework to achieve a co-ordinated strategic development at West Harrogate.  These have wide ranging infrastructure delivery at their heart and strive to provide high quality place-making which supports sustainable growth.  Planning applications for development in the West Harrogate area will be considered against this existing policy framework.  Appropriate trigger mechanisms will be included in s106 agreements to ensure that infrastructure directly related to the developments is delivered in a timely way over the life of the development.  Opportunity for input by the local community into policy documents has been carried out through statutory periods of consultation.  Additional engagement and information updates for key stakeholders have been provided on a number of occasions over the last couple of years. 

 

The current infrastructure work being carried out by officers and appointed consultants will add detail to the important framework provided by the adopted Harrogate District Local Plan and West Harrogate Parameters Plan (WHPP).  The Infrastructure Delivery Schedule (IDS) is an appendix to the WHPP and will remain so, with updates only where there were gaps in detail at the time of the WHIDS sign off in February 2022.  The West Harrogate Infrastructure Document (WHIDS) takes the details of the Plan WHPP and the Schedule IDS, setting out the mechanism of how the infrastructure across a number of adjacent sites will be co-ordinated. The Schedule WHIDS is intended as a tool for the implementation stage of these schemes, not a policy document.  

 

To support the Highways Authority in assessing the transport mitigation strategy for West Harrogate, HBC and NYCC (now NYC) jointly commissioned consultants to carry out a buildability review and costings exercise.  This will provide clarification and certainty for future application determinations, accompanying s106 agreement and assist delivery of the transport works.  Whilst the majority of this commission was carried out in Autumn 2022, the complex, technical nature of the work means it is not yet complete.  Officers are prioritising this work; however the nature of strategic projects does sometime involve unforeseen delays.  We anticipate being in a position to hold further stakeholder engagement sessions in the next couple of months, prior to finalising documents.  In addition, the Current planning applications for West Harrogate remain live and further re-consultation for consultees and the public will be carried out following any resubmission package from the applicants and prior to formal determination of the planning applications.

Thanks”

 

Councillor Chris Aldred expressed his support for the Member of the public’s statement agreeing that there had been no substantial progress over the course of the last year. Members of the public were keen to know what the plan was for the West of Harrogate infrastructure and he hoped that now that the North Yorkshire Local Government Reorganisation was well underway that progress could be made on developing the detailed plan.

 

 

The following public statement was read out by Alison Haywood regarding the Planning Committee meeting held on Wednesday 31 May 2023:

 

Consideration of planning application 20/01333FULMAJ, application to build 53 houses on land off Knox Lane, Harrogate.

 

This statement is given on behalf of the residents in the Knox and Bilton communities who have expressed their opposition to the proposed development in this application, very many of whom are extremely disappointed and outraged at the process followed during the meeting mentioned above. We believe that it was unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of fair representation of the community.

Although we are disappointed in the result, this statement is relating to the process of the meeting rather than the ensuing result.

We ask this Constituency meeting to reflect on the failures in the conduct of the planning meeting and consider how to correct the injustice to local community democracy.

The major – but not exclusive – considerations are as follows

1.     Once again, for the second time, the meeting to discuss this application was held during half-term holiday.  There has been a very strenuous case and well-documented problems raised by local residents about the hazards associated with this development. Why has it been scheduled again for a time when it is likely to be less convenient for local residents to attend?  Especially when there happens to be no live streaming which is invaluable to people who cannot attend in person?

2.     The proceedings were not available for public viewing on live streaming due to unexplained “technical issues”.  This is in contravention of good practice established by HBC and many other local authorities over the past several years.

3.     The effect is that there is no record of the meeting available to the public; this is contrary to the right to public scrutiny and record.

4.     From the evidence of the minutes published it also led to an inability to write an adequate record of the discussion and decisions taken.

5.     No warning was given of these difficulties before the meeting, and when the Chair announced that there would be no live stream, she should - at the same time - have told the attendees that there would be no recording either and they were at liberty to make their own notes and record the meeting themselves.  This did not occur and so the public was disadvantaged, and open government principles were compromised.  

6.     Is it really the case that a Committee member must provide – on the spot, during a committee meeting and without reference to independent expertise - the fully referenced technical details, with complete explanations of the contravention of planning law and NYC rules -  in order to successfully counter any legal  arguments which may be put forward if there were to be an appeal submitted by the applicant? Does not the Committee provide the recommendation and the Legal Department provide the minutiae of the legal defence?

7.     It also highlighted that the elected representatives of the public interest had not received adequate training in the rules which have been changed since the HBC was subsumed within the NYC.  This made it impossible for them to do their job and serve their community effectively.

8.     There is a case to answer that this has allowed a miscarriage of the intent of the committee and we would be grateful for your full consideration of these issues.

 

 

The following public question was read out by Adele Laurie-Wilson regarding the Planning Committee meeting held on Wednesday 31 May 2023:

 

Statement/question

I wish to bring to the attention of the Committee the failings that I perceive occurred at the Harrogate and Knaresborough Area Constituency Planning Committee on Wednesday, 31st May, 2023, 2.00 pm. This is in connection with planning application 20/01333/FULMAJ for 53 domestic dwellings off Knox Lane Harrogate.

 

Background

The application is a long running and contentious application that has received many objections on the planning portal. The application has had many alterations and amendments and has been brought to the planning committee on three occasions.

I have been to these planning meetings and am concerned with the processes that do not appear to have been followed by the council, in effect rendering the Planning Committee powerless.

 

Failure to comply with reasons for deferral

On 14 February 2023, the noted planning application was deferred for two reasons. One to undertake further sample testing on the old railway lines for possible contaminants. It was requested this testing strategy be agreed with the planning committee before it is undertaken, also to gain further information from Northern Powergrid re risks from power cables.

The application was brought back to the Committee on 31 May 2023, with neither of the two deferral points being completed.

The planning officer put this application forward with the recommendation to “Approve in principle”, why, when the requested information remained unavailable.

I also note the huge number of conditions that have been attached to this application.

 

Livestream and recording

Despite the agenda for 31 May 2023, noting:

This meeting is being held as an in-person meeting that is being broadcasted and
recorded and will be available to view via the following link
www.northyorks.gov.uk/livemeetings

It was announced at the start of the meeting that the livestream was not happening due to technical issues.

Given the huge level of local opposition and interest, many interested parties planned to watch this or the subsequent recording to avoid taking time away from other commitments, such as work. However, I would have anticipated it would have still been recorded and uploaded later as there are many easy ways of recording a meeting. It transpires no recording took place.

 

Motion not allowed to be voted on and stance of council employees

The application did not get any Committee member seconding the published motion as the majority of the Committee were clearly unhappy with the application.

One Committee member listed six different reasons why he opposed the application and proposed that the application be refused, this was seconded by a second committee member. I was appalled at the conduct of the Council’s solicitor and the two council planning officers, who to all intents and purpose made it clear that they did not want the Committee to reject this application and cited possible legal costs of an appeal from the developer. The motion was not allowed to be voted on, this surely is in contravention of the democratic process.

The application was again deferred on the very same grounds as the meeting on 14 February 2023.

 

Lack of ability to ask question of speakers or correct factually incorrect statements

I am concerned at the process whereby the Committee cannot ask questions of the speakers. I was also concerned that the speakers and objectors cannot note to the meeting where the replies that are given are factually incorrect.

I raised an issue about the land being in a special landscape area, the planning officer incorrectly informed the Committee that only part of the area is in the SLA and not the development site. This is incorrect, the whole site is in the SLA.

The solicitor noted that that the railway embankment would be removed offsite for testing, the toxicology specialist speaker wished to note that the testing must be done on site, he was not allowed to do this.

 

Minutes omitting key parts of the meeting

The published draft minutes exclude large parts of the meeting, ie any content of the speakers and objectors delivery in the meeting, the details of the Committees debate, the frustration of the Committee that they were not allowed to ask questions of the applicant’s representative or any of the speakers, the Committee members desire to reject the application and the motion that was not allowed to be voted on. This is especially poor given the lack of any recording or livestreaming.

 

Question

Given the above failings, i.e. why was the application allowed to be put before the Committee again and why is the Committee not allowed to ask questions or vote on a motion that has been proposed and seconded? I would ask this Committee to consider if the current planning committee is being given the powers to truly consider and question planning applications or are they redundant and planning applications are now decided by the planning officers and the solicitor?

 

Mark Codman (Democratic Services) read out the following statement on behalf of the Council’s Legal, Planning and Democratic Services :

 

The Council apologises for the lack of a live-stream, the issue was only discovered on the morning of the meeting and could not be resolved.  It has never been the practice at Harrogate to record meetings, live streaming was introduced to enable the public to watch meetings safely during covid and recordings were only ever incidental to this.  As the audio visual system was not working it would not have been possible to record the meeting.  There is no requirement under law for public meetings to also be live streamed or recorded, and there is no ‘public right’ that recordings of meetings be available in addition to the minutes.

 

It is not the Council’s practice that verbatim minutes be produced on planning committee meetings, the minutes accurately reflect the decision taken and reflect good practice.

 

Speakers are entitled to address the committee under the Council’s “Public Speaking at Planning Committee” scheme, which has been agreed by councillors as part of the Council’s Constitution, and this scheme does not permit questions to be asked of speakers

 

During the course of the debate it became apparent that Cllr Aldred, and other members of the committee, were minded to vote against the officer recommendation in the report to approve the application and grant planning permission, indeed, Cllr Aldred proposed an amendment to this effect. The Council’s solicitor and the Planning Manager both made interventions to remind members of the need to identify clear, material planning reasons for refusing the application. Such advice was consistent with the Local Government Association Probity in Planning Guidance 2019 which provides:

 

“Councillors should be prepared to explain in full their planning reasons for not agreeing with the officer’s recommendation, which should be set in the context of the development plan or the NPPF. The officer should also be given an opportunity to explain the implications of the contrary decision, including an assessment of a likely appeal outcome based on policies set out in the development plan and the NPPF, and chances of a successful award of costs against the local authority, should one be made.”

 

Additionally, the Council’s own Constitution, specifically the Code of Practice for Councillors and Officers dealing with Planning Matters, contains guidance on best practice in the event that members are minded to vote contrary to officer recommendation; the advice offered to members by officers during the course of the meeting was consistent with the Code.

 

It was made clear to members of the Committee that they were free to vote in whichever way they wanted, but were advised of the implications of their choosing to do so on the basis of inadequate material, planning reasons. In the event members did not vote in favour of the recommendation, but opted to defer the application on the basis that the applicant had failed to provide information relating to potential land contamination which had previously been requested notwithstanding the fact that officers had queried the necessity of obtaining that particular information in the light of responses from relevant consultees to this aspect of the development.

 

All members of the newly established North Yorkshire Council have received training on the constitutional structure of the authority and, moreover, additional training relating to the planning role of the Council. The completion of such training is a prerequisite to participation at Planning Committee

 

The procedure adopted was consistent with the Council’s Constitution”

 

Councillor Chris Aldred expressed broad support for the issues raised in the public statements however he stated he would like to defend accusations regarding the live streaming, he was present in the time immediately before the planning meeting in question and witnessed the extensive discussions between the Democratic Services and IT officers in trying to resolve the technological issue so that the meeting could be streamed.

 

 

The following public statement was read out by Jenny Marks, on behalf of Stephanie Talbot:

 

I am reading this statement on behalf of the Stephanie Talbot, the mother of one of the children seriously injured on the pavement outside Ashville whilst walking to school in February.

My world was turned upside down on Thursday 2nd February 2023.  My eldest son Reuben and his friend were hit by a truck whilst walking to school. They were on the pavement. My daughter was also involved in the collision, as her car was hit by the same truck. My youngest son was right behind his brother on the pavement, so witnessed the whole incident.

My husband and I were there within a few minutes of the accident happening. Reuben's body had landed in positions it should never be in. Pieces of wall had to be removed from his body and he had 8 broken bones (arms, leg and back), fluid on his lungs, a de-gloved foot (not all the injuries).  I was later told that when the paramedics arrived his stats showed he could have easily died whilst on the ground there. I will never get over what I saw and heard that day. I'm crying whilst I write this. 

 

Something like this should not happen to any child whilst walking to school.  My children, in particular my eldest daughter, has never felt safe walking to school because of inconsiderate drivers/speeding motorists around Ashville College and Rossett High.  She had said to me many times ‘it's not if it happens mum it's when’. She and a friendhad been hit by a vehicle leaving the Sports Centre in September 2022 whilst walking on the path, which I reported to the police.

 

I want children to feel safe walking to school and feel that having a 20mph network around schools in Harrogate will encourage more walking, cycling and generally make children and their parents feel safer about travelling to school.  Putting action in place should not be done as a consequence to a child's injury or even death but this accident should be a wake up call to all parents, grandparents and the community to know that we need to make a change in our beautiful but busy town to enable our children to feel safe.

 

17 weeks on and many aspects of our lives are still on hold because of these injuries.  I cannot even explain the pain and trauma that we have all gone through and will live with for the rest of our lives.

 

Please be the people that make a difference.

Thank you for listening