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 Harriet Clarke of Democratic Services via democraticservices.har@northyorks.gov.uk by midday on Thursday 20 July 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 matter 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 Chairman who will instruct anyone who may be taking a recording to cease while you speak.
Minutes:
The Chair advised that one notice had been received from a member of the public who wished to ask a question at this meeting.
The following public question was read out by Adele Laurie-Wilson:
I was in attendance at the previous planning meeting 31 May 2023.
Missing information in draft minutes
I am concerned about the brevity and lack of detail in the published draft minutes arising from that meeting. In my opinion, they fall well below the standard that a public body accountable to the electorate should maintain.
Due to technical issues the meeting was not live streamed, disappointing given the huge number of local objections raised against the controversial planning application, which was the only application on this agenda.
Given the usual livestream was unavailable, and no alternative recording was made and the huge numbers of parties interested in this planning application, I would expect more detailed minutes would have been taken.
Omitted content
I have read the minutes, but where is the summary of the speakers’ content, there is nothing recording what councillor Haslam spoke about, neither anything giving any clue as to what Messers Readman, Bowen and Hesmondhalgh covered in their speeches.
The minutes omit any content of the fairly tense debate that took place, including what I consider to be undemocratic manipulations of the voting process by the council solicitor and Mr Turpin.
The motion to reject the application was put forwarded and seconded, is not noted in the draft minutes? It was not voted on due to the intervention by the council solicitor and Mr Turpin. There isn’t any indication of the solicitor being in attendance, therefore I cannot even refer to him by name.
I am aware that there were at least two observers in the room that made detailed notes of the meeting.
Inaccuracies
In addition, due to the speakers no longer being able to question anyone, I wish to bring to your attention two errors in the information that was provided to the planning committee, which may have swayed the Committee:
1 Nick Turpin is recorded in the minutes as saying “No residential development is proposed on the SLA itself” This in wrong, H2 is all in the SLA, so the previous planning appeal is very relevant as it is the same SLA.
2 The planning committee were told by the Planning officer that all the land that might be contaminated would be removed offsite so the issue is not relevant. Dr Bowen wished to make the point that the correct method is to test on site, to determine if there are any contaminants, this will then determine any safe removal methods. Otherwise, the local residents could be put at risk.
Minute taking guidance.
The UK Government “Guide to minute taking “ states:
”The minutes should set out the names of all those attended, distinguishing between the members…others invited to attend….the secretaries.”
“The first purpose of a minute is to set out the conclusions reached so that those who have to take action will know precisely what they have to do. The second is to give the reasons why the conclusions were reached. A minute should, therefore, fall clearly into the following parts:
i. Statement of the problem;
ii. discussion;
iii. chair’s summing up;
iv. conclusion
Other guidance is published by Information Commissioner’s Office and Askyourcouncil.uk which both refer to the minutes must be accurate.
QUESTION
My question to the Committee is –
Why do the draft minutes omit large important parts of the meeting such as
· the debate,
· all proposed and seconded motions,
· who was in attendance and
· the correct requirements re the treatment of the potential contaminated land? and
· include uncorrected inaccurate statements in relation to the SLA area
Could the observer’s notes be provided to the council and published alongside these draft minutes to give a more complete picture of what actually happened in the meeting if the council no longer has any notes of the proceedings? I urge the committee to request the minutes be expanded to give a more accurate record of the meeting that took place.
Nick Turpin, Planning Manager gave the following response:
Missing information in draft 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. The published minutes meet all legal requirements and follow the Council’s standard agreed format, which does not include providing a verbatim account of the statements of public speakers or the members’ debate. The Council cannot publish additional notes written by members of the public on its website.
The names of the officers’ present at the meeting are detailed in the published minutes and are distinguished from the list of committee members present. Going forwards Democratic Services will ensure that the job titles of officers are also included to provide further clarity.
Inaccuracies
You are correct that residential development is proposed on the Special Landscape Area (SLA). Local Plan Allocation H2 is indeed all within the SLA. The SLA designation of the site was accurately set out in paragraph 10.45 of the report to the Committee and the application will be brought back to Committee in due course, where this will be clarified again:
10.45. The majority of the site falls within the development limits for the town, with the exception of the northern section which falls within an area of land designated as a Special Landscape Area (SLA). The SLA includes that area also within the development limit for the town. The countryside to the north and west of the application site is an intimate landscape of local valleys and hills above the River Nidd flood plain and its tributaries, including Oak Beck. The site falls within Harrogate Landscape Character Assessment Area 24 (Lower Nidderdale Valley).
The other point raised relates to land contamination. The application (20/01333/FULMAJ) was deferred "for a further report regarding land contamination to include further sampling including sampling specifically in the area of the former railway line". I was referring to the information which had been put forward by the developer, as to how the developer had reached their conclusions as to why the further sampling work had not been undertaken. When the application is returned to Committee in due course, an updated report on this matter will be provided.
It was queried whether the previous minutes of 31 May 2023 were accurate. It was confirmed that that as part of application 20/01333/FULMAJ, residential development was proposed on the SLA. Local Plan Allocation H2 is indeed all within the SLA. The SLA designation of the site was accurately set out in paragraph 10.45 of the report to the Committee and the application will be brought back to the Committee in due course, where this matter would be clarified again. It was agreed that the minutes of 31 May 2023 would be amended to reflect these changes.
As a supplementary question, Adele Laurie-Wilson asked why the Council was not recording all motions that were put forward and seconded in the minutes and commented that this had occurred the last time this particular application was brought to the Committee. Adele Laurie-Wilson explained that she felt this should be recorded in the minutes for the public to see the full and accurate recording of what had happened.
Glenn Sharpe, Planning Solicitor, responded that North Yorkshire Council’s minutes were produced in a similar way to other Councils and followed best practice. The minutes were not meant to be a transcript of the debate but to reflect the decision that was made and the individuals concerned with that decision. There was now a transcript of many Council meetings via the audio or visual recordings however in this particular incidence due to unforeseen technical difficulties this meeting could not be streamed or recorded.