Agenda item

Recommendations - That the Executive:

i.    Notes the report and considers any matters arising from the work of the Area Constituency Committees detailed above, that merit further scrutiny, review or investigation at a county-level.

ii.   Considers the recommendations proposed by Harrogate and Knaresborough Area Constituency Committee regarding a maximum speed of 20mph across parts of south and west Harrogate, as detailed in paragraph 4.4 of the report, as part of the ongoing review by the Council of its current 20 mile per hour speed limit and zone policy.

iii.  Considers the recommendations proposed by Harrogate and Knaresborough Area Constituency Committee regarding the proposed Harrogate Station Gateway scheme, as detailed in paragraph 4.7 of the report, and the scheduling of engagement meetings and the establishment of and support for a working group of the committee.

iv.  Considers the recommendations proposed by the Thirsk and Malton Area Constituency Committee as detailed in paragraph 7.6 of the report regarding the Filey toilet provision and the proposed county wide review of public conveniences.

 

Considered – A report of the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal & Democratic Services) providing an overview of the key issues considered at recent meetings of the Area Constituency Committees (ACC). 

 

Councillor David Chance introduced the report and drew attention to the Chair and Vice-Chair appointments detailed in the report.  He confirmed that for the Scarborough & Whitby Area Constituency Committee, Councillor Liz Colling had been appointed Chair and Councillor Janet Jefferson Vice-Chair. 

 

He also drew specific attention to the recommendations arising from recent meetings of the Harrogate & Knaresborough Area Constituency Committee, as detailed in paragraphs 4.4 and 4.7 of the report, and the Thirsk & Malton Area Constituency Committee as detailed in paragraph 7.6 of the report.

 

It was noted that a public submission had been received from Barry Adams in response to the Harrogate and Knaresborough ACC's response to the petition under paragraph 4.7 of the  report as follows:

 

“I refer to the submission of a Petition in opposition to the Harrogate Station Gateway Project which was presented by Rachael Inchboard to the Harrogate and Knaresborough ACC Meeting on 08 June.  As a result of the discussions by Councillors at that meeting there are two specific but important issues, namely the large number of signatories and their location, which were inappropriately questioned by certain Members.  There are perfectly valid reasons that address both these issues which need to be brought to the attention of this Executive Meeting.”

 

In regard to the Petition itself he stated:

“One of the Conservative Members attending this meeting queried the petition’s veracity, saying its signatories included people from as far away as South Africa.  According to people who are more computer literate than I am, it is reportedly an anomaly where the IP address of people’s computers shows up on the petition rather than their postal address.  So I have been told, it occurs when a Virtual Private Network (VPN) is used to provide additional security and privacy rather than that afforded by the normal internet connection.  For example, two people I know who most certainly live in Harrogate had their addresses displayed on the petition as Sunderland.  It therefore seems to confirm that the Councillor who announced in a sarcastic manner at the NYC Executive Meeting on 30 May that he had rigorously checked the petition and that it proved nothing as at least 20% of the signatories lived outside the Harrogate area, was quite wrong.

Surely there must be some way in which these misleading discrepancies, fabrications and exaggerations can be taken into account as they were extremely misleading.   I find it hard to comprehend that the "technology wizards" at NYC have not come across this anomaly before.”

 

In regard to interpretation of the Petition he stated:

“In addition to the above issue, another Conservative Member attending the ACC Meeting pointed out that even 500 local signatures, the threshold needed to have the petition debated by the Committee, were not representative of all views from local residents.  Just over two years ago quite extensive coverage was given in the local media of the survey results following public consultation on the Gateway Project including the pedestrianisation of James Street.  A report commissioned by NYCC claimed the Gateway Project still had more supporters than detractors.   I understand the overall population of Harrogate at the time was in the region of 75,000 residents, from which there were some 1,101 respondents to the online survey.   This equates approximately to 1.5% of Harrogate town's total population - some 45% of the 1,101 participants voted in favour of this proposal or in real terms somewhere in the region of 0.75% of Harrogate’s population.  So, if you adopt this Councillor's "theory of interpretation", it is less representative of all the views from local residents even though at the time Cllr Phil Ireland from the then HBC claimed that “we have EVERYBODY’S feedback and ideas to feed into the next phase of detailed design work”.  And yet, the Conservative Councillor mentioned above dared to trash the recent petition which reached over 2000 signatures at the time and has continued to increase to nearly 2500 signatures.  We do not expect this standard of behaviour from Councillors who were elected to represent us the residents of Harrogate and a public apology on both issues would be appropriate and this fact recorded in the minutes of the Executive Meeting.

 

The simple fact that the signatories to the petition may not be representative of all views from local residents’ rests firmly in the lap of NYC.  It is quite disturbing to find out even now how many local residents and businesses still have not heard of or do not know what the Station Gateway Project involves.  Whilst I appreciate it will always be a problem to ensure everyone is aware, I believe NYC and the Highways Team in particular has a history of poor consultation, ignoring the democratic process; not listening and dismissive of public comment, and hiding behind a meaningless excess of words in press releases.  If only they had involved us much earlier in the democratic process, more of us would have shared in ownership of a Gateway Project.”

 

In response Councillor David Chance confirmed it had not been his intention to offend when he responded to the petition at the last meeting, he had merely pointed out that 20% of the petitioners were indicated as being from outside of the North Yorkshire area.

 

Councillor Chris Aldred read out a statement on behalf of the Liberal Democrat members of the Area Constituency Committee as follows:

‘I am addressing Executive Members today, on behalf of all the Liberal Democrat members, who form the democratically elected majority on the Harrogate & Knaresborough Area Constituency Committee.  It is with disappointment that I am speaking here today. Disappointment at the failure of this Executive to engage with business and residents in a meaningful way.  Disappointment at the failure of this Executive to respect the recommendations of Harrogate's democratically elected Councillors on Harrogate and Knaresborough Area Committee, and disappointment that those most closely affected, are left feeling ignored, with their genuine concerns side lined.

 

On the 5th May, as detailed in the report before you, agreement was given by the ACC to pursue further investment in the proposed Gateway scheme.  This was not universal support, and it was given subject to conditions, which were that the genuine concerns of individuals and groups continue to be listened to, debated and responded to, and that the ACC has a meaningful role in the implementation of the scheme, including conversations with concerned individuals and groups.

As far as I can see, no action has yet been taken to meet either of these conditions.  At the following ACC meeting on 8th June, Councillors expressed frustration that there had been no engagement with individuals and groups who had expressed concerns a month earlier.

 

I proposed a motion seconded by Cllr Slater, in which we called for two simple things. A programme of engagement meetings to be drawn up and the details published before the 30th June, and a Working Group of ACC members to be set up. You can see this request quite clearly in the report before you at paragraph 4.7.  Two simple asks that would have gone someway to mitigating fears that this scheme is being forced on Harrogate residents. The impression you are giving, is it is this or nothing.  This motion was supported not only by all my Liberal Democrat colleagues, but by the Conservative member in who’s Division this scheme will have the most impact – Valley Gardens & Central Harrogate.

 

Well, 30th June has come & gone, so now our question must be, are you unable to comply with the requests of the ACC, or are you just unwilling to do so? Sadly, I think it is the latter.

 

Given your abject failure to deliver – or even engage – on these requests from a democratically elected local committee of this Council, I am here today to inform you that the Liberal Democrat members of the Harrogate & Knaresborough Area Committee, who represent the majority of local people, are unanimously withdrawing our support for this scheme.  We have no confidence that this Executive - in particular the Executive Member for Highways & Transportation - have the competence to deliver this scheme in a manner that will be of benefit to Harrogate.

 

We do not need a scheme forced upon local people and businesses without engagement. Meaningful engagement is not a tick box exercise, it is about ongoing conversations. Actually Listening.  Liberal Democrat members will continue to monitor every aspect of this scheme, on behalf of our residents and hold the Executive to account for every pound of public money spent on it.  But we simply cannot support a scheme that is being driven by an administration determined to ignore residents, businesses and Councillors alike. An administration who constantly fall short of what is expected.

 

This administration seems more focused on clinging to power and has prioritised its own political backroom conversations aimed at maintaining a majority in the chamber, above getting a grip on this controversial issue. We have given you enough opportunities to demonstrate you are sincere and competent – sadly, you have clearly demonstrated that you are neither.

 

We now call upon this Executive – in particular the Executive Member for Highways & Transportation – to demonstrate positive and transparent action. Admittedly this maybe more in hope than in expectation. We want to see a fully costed plan. One which makes it clear which areas will be scaled back to stay within budget constraint, or where the money will be coming from to meet any overspend. And we still want a series of engagement meetings and a working group to be created as per the recommendations of the Harrogate and Knaresborough Area Committee on June 8th. This is not too much to ask. It is the bare minimum.’

 

Councillor Duncan Keane thanked Councillor Aldred for his views and confirmed his focus and that of the Executive was on delivering the landmark investment in to Harrogate.  He noted the previous support given in principle by the Liberal Democrat members of the ACC for the investment and expressed disappointment that they were now rowing back on that commitment.  He confirmed work was ongoing to draw up an engagement plan as previously agreed, which would include ongoing communications throughout the construction phase with residents, businesses and other stakeholders.

 

Councillor Gareth Dadd also expressed disappointment at Councillor Aldred’s statement and suggested it was done as a way of appeasing a benefactor of the Liberal Democrat group who was not in favour of the scheme, which Councillor Aldred refuted.

 

Councillor Simon Myers also expressed disappointment at the unnecessary political grandstanding

and confirmed his support for the scheme had been given directly in response to the original ACC feedback.

 

Councillor David Chance confirmed it was not for the Executive to set up a working group of the ACC. ACCs were responsible for setting up their own politically balanced working groups.

 

Finally, Councillor Duncan reiterated his commitment to sharing an engagement plan in due course.

 

In response to the recommendations proposed by the Thirsk and Malton Area Constituency Committee regarding Filey toilet provision, Councillor Greg White confirmed checks would be carried out to ensure they had been built to specification.  He also confirmed there would be a review of all public conveniences across the county, starting in July 2023 and likely to take a year to complete.

 

Having considered the information provided at the meeting and within the report, the Executive 

 

Resolved - That the report be noted and:

 

i.       The recommendations proposed by Harrogate and Knaresborough Area Constituency Committee regarding a maximum speed of 20mph across parts of south and west Harrogate, as detailed in paragraph 4.4 of the report, be taken into consideration as part of the ongoing review by the Council of its current 20 mile per hour speed limit and zone policy.

 

ii.      The recommendations proposed by Harrogate and Knaresborough Area Constituency Committee regarding the proposed Harrogate Station Gateway scheme, as detailed in paragraph 4.7 of the report, and the scheduling of engagement meetings be noted.

 

iii.     The recommendations proposed by the Thirsk and Malton Area Constituency Committee as detailed in paragraph 7.6 of the report regarding the Filey toilet provision and the proposed county wide review of public conveniences be noted.