Investigation: Council’s ‘inconsistent’ approach to disclosing information

Yesterday we reported on how the council’s has a shocking record of withholding information compared with similar councils.

Today, we are looking Harrogate Borough Council’s response to public and the press who use the Freedom of Information act and other means to force the council to reveal information they have kept secret.

Over the past year, the Stray Ferret has investigated and published stories scrutinising the use of Harrogate taxpayers’ money.

To do this, we have submitted Freedom of Information requests to the borough council to get information or asked direct questions on matters of public interest.

As a taxpayer, it is your right to know what the local authority does with your money, how it is spent and what it is spent on.

What we have found is an inconsistent approach to responding to freedom of information requests, suspicion of the press and members of the public who feel the council has a defensive attitude to requests for information.

On two significant occasions, the council has decided to withhold information where thousands of pounds of public money has been spent – only to later publish it when challenged.

Today, we will focus on two FOI requests from ourselves and two from residents:

On two of these occasions the council refused the FOI and then, inexplicably, posted the information on Twitter.

Jacob Bailey and Visit Harrogate

When the borough council decided to bypass its own procurement rules to hand a contract to revamp the Visit Harrogate website, it posed serious questions of public interest as to whether the contract was value for money.

The decision was taken by the Cabinet Member for Culture, Tourism and Sport, Cllr Stan Lumley in November 2020.

While the council published a public report on what it wanted to do with the website and that it was going to hand the contract to a Suffolk-based company, Jacob Bailey, it also contained information that was confidential.

The public parts of the report did not include any reference to how much the contract cost.

Read more:

The Stray Ferret asked the borough council what the value of the contract was, while a member of the public submitted a freedom of information request with the same question.

We also asked why the authority had not dealt with the matter sooner and what market research had led it to select the Jacob Bailey Group over local companies.

The council refused to answer our questions and refused the FOI – citing grounds of commercial confidentiality.

Yet, two months later in January, the council did publish the cost – which was £165,000 over four years – on Twitter.

The matter raises questions once again as to why that information was not public in the first place and why it was not given at the point of request – to either journalists or the member of the public.

Flaxby Park legal costs

In October, the borough council appeared at the High Court as part of a judicial review over a decision to choose Green Hammerton over Flaxby for a new settlement.

The authority hired Paul Brown QC, joint head of Landmark Chambers in London.

Despite the costs being paid through public money, the council refused an FOI request from the Stray Ferret to reveal the sum paid to Mr Brown.

It said the information was exempt from disclosure because its lawyers’ legal fees should remain private.  We challenged that by requesting an internal review.

Read more:

In January the borough council revealed on social media that the legal costs were £57,360. But instead of giving to us, it published it on Twitter first.

We later found that the authority paid Mr Brown on five separate occasions and published his name on its publicly available expenses.

It begs the question why was the information denied to us in the first place when it was already available publicly?

Live streaming costs

One request last year dragged on for six months before the council decided to hand over the information.

In January 2020, the ruling Conservative group, led by leader Cllr Richard Cooper, rejected a proposal to stream meetings live.

At the time, Cllr Cooper said there was “not enough public interest” in the idea and added it would “cost tens of thousands of pounds”.

As a result, Jerry Diccox, a local resident, submitted a freedom of information request asking for the details of the council’s cost analysis of live streaming meetings.

Mr Diccox documented his e-mail exchange with the council on the website WhatDoTheyKnow. It lasted for six months until finally the authority released the information.

Initially, HBC rejected the FOI request due to “commercial confidentiality”. Mr Diccox asked for an internal review but the council’s chief solicitor upheld the original decision.

He argued that the cost analysis related to a “potential expenditure of public money”.

After taking his complaint to the Information Commissioner, Mr Diccox finally received his information.

Six months after his initial request, the council said it had reconsidered his request after being advised of the complaint.

The analysis showed indicative cost of live streaming meetings over one year and three years.

It showed that streaming meetings could cost £5,377.20 or £25,185.80 for one year. Meanwhile, three years could range from £5,377.20 to £40,623.80.

Mr Diccox said at the time that the council’s attempts to “hide behind the public interest” exemption was “nothing short of shameful”.

He said:

“This whole exercise has been a huge waste of time and effort, and as such I very much hope (but very much doubt) that the council has learnt lessons about attempting to hide information from the public.

“In future, HBC should try to follow its own stated aims of being more open and democratic and should stop trying to behave like a secret state.”

The council later denied that there was any attempt to avoid accountability.

Turkish Baths

In the midst of the council taking a major decision to set up a new company to run leisure services, the Stray Ferret decided to look at how much each facility cost to run.

As well as setting up an arms-length company, the authority was planning to borrow £26 million to revamp two of its pools.

We sent a Freedom of Information request to the council asking for the running cost of each leisure facility.

The request was answered in part- however the council refused to reveal the costs of the Turkish Baths on “commercial” grounds.

A source who used to work for the council, but did not wish to be named, told the Stray Ferret that there was no reason why that information could not have been handed over.

Read more:

The Turkish Baths is owned and run by the council. It is the public’s right to know how much it costs to run.

To date we still do not know how much it cost the public to run the Turkish Baths. We do not know if it makes a profit or a loss for the taxpayer.

An Inconsistent Approach

The frustration of getting information from the authority is echoed by campaigners.

Alex Smith, a local resident, has submitted FOI requests over section 106 agreements and asked the council to update its transparency data several times over the years.

Under the Transparency Code 2015, the council is required to publish a range of data for the public such as expenses, grants and parking income.

Mr Smith said he found it difficult to get the council to update its information.

He told the Stray Ferret:

“They will not really come clean and their instinct is to be defensive.”

Our examples give rise to public accusations that the council is deliberately avoiding scrutiny- that decisions are taken behind closed doors, with the public and press not party to crucial information and that it only publishes that information when it is forced to do so and, in some cases, never.

Our findings show that Harrogate Borough Council has been inconsistent when it comes to providing information to the public and journalists – despite saying it is committed to be open and transparent.

We put our findings to the borough council. A spokeswoman said:

“In 2020/21 we dealt with 822 requests under the Freedom of Information Act of 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations of 2004.

“Both make provision for keeping some information, which is commercially sensitive and may prejudice our commercial or contractual interests, exempt from disclosure. The same applies to personal information.

“We apply exemptions only when we need to, and if the legislation permits, but sometimes we take the view that keeping information exempt is outweighed by the public interest in disclosing it.

“This means, in certain circumstances, we may decide there is a good reason for releasing otherwise confidential or commercially sensitive information.

“We pride ourselves on being and open and transparent council.

“We publish all spending over £250, agendas, reports and papers can be found on our website and anyone is welcome to attend one of our various committee and council meetings – most recently virtually – and from this week in person.

“We are committed to explaining how council taxpayers’ money is spent.

“More information is available on our website: https://www.harrogate.gov.uk/data-protection-freedom-information/data-transparency.”

Tomorrow we will be reporting on the political reaction to our investigation of secrecy at Harrogate Borough Council.

Majestic murder-suicide: one week on, questions remain

The Harrogate district was shocked last week when two guests from London lost their lives in an apparent murder-suicide at the DoubleTree by Hilton Harrogate Majestic Hotel.

Eight days on, the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Chenise Gregory and Michael McGibbon, who were both aged 29, remain unclear.

Staff found the pair dead with stab wounds on the Tuesday night at 10.20pm. North Yorkshire Police said it believed Ms Gregory was murdered by Mr McGibbon, who then killed himself.

But the police and the hotel have said little since.

One of the key unanswered questions is why and how the pair booked their room or rooms. Under current coronavirus rules, hotels can only allow guests if the hotel is their main address or if their visit is essential for work, education or training purposes.

The family of Ms Gregory has said she was a childcare specialist. It is unclear what Mr McGibbon did for a living. The reason for their booking has not been revealed.

Devante Gravesande-Smith, a barrister from London who was a cousin of Ms Gregory, described her as a “loving and caring person, whose smile would light up a room”.

He claimed she was “lured to her death at the hands of her controlling and manipulative ex-boyfriend”.

We asked the hotel the purpose of the two people’s stay and how it verified the reasons.

A spokesman for the DoubleTree by Hilton Harrogate Majestic Hotel told the Stray Ferret:

“We are deeply shocked and saddened by the incident and our thoughts are with all of those affected.

“The hotel complies with the government guidelines in respect of who can stay. We are unable to comment further on the specific guests.”

The Stray Ferret has also asked North Yorkshire Police for an update on the case. It did not reply by the time of publication and, eight days after the tragic incident, many questions remain unanswered.

Read more:

Temporary detective chief inspector Jonathan Sygrove of North Yorkshire Police’s major investigation team said when the deaths were announced:

“We are treating Ms Gregory’s death as murder and we are not looking for anyone else in connection with the incident.

“An investigation into the circumstances around the deaths is ongoing, but the evidence we have gathered at this stage suggests it was a suspected murder-suicide.”

There have been no police updates since.

Angry residents to fight controversial Wetherby Road Starbucks plan at appeal

Residents will fight controversial plans for a Starbucks on Wetherby Road at a public inquiry after Harrogate Borough Council decided not to risk a costly legal battle.

The council decided to withdraw its objection yesterday ahead of an appeal hearing on June 15, warning it could cost £50,000.

But residents will appear at the inquiry and make a case against the application.

Retail firm Euro Garages has spent almost a decade trying to win permission to open the coffee shop at the former 1st Dental surgery on Wetherby Road, Harrogate but has been refused three times by councillors and once by a government inspector.

Read more:

Although the council decided yesterday not to put up a defence, residents will still contest the refusal as a third party.

Cllr Pat Marsh, a Liberal Democrat whose Harrogate Hookstone ward includes the site, is to meet residents tonight to devise a strategy for the hearing.

She said:

“We have decided to do this. We are going to fight this to the bitter end.

“There is a lot of anger here about this application.”

Designs of the Starbucks as included in the planning documents to Harrogate Borough Council.

Designs of the proposed Starbucks included in planning documents to Harrogate Borough Council.

Cllr Marsh added that the application was another example of “big companies pushing for planning applications” to be put through.

The council rejected the proposal on grounds of air quality and traffic flow concerns in December 2019. It also raised concerns over a loss of amenity to those living next to the Starbucks due to noise and light pollution

Council drops defence

The council’s decision not to defend its objection was made at a planning committee meeting yesterday.

Speaking at the committee, Cllr John Mann, chair of the planning committee, said councillors did not have the legal expertise or experience to fight the appeal, which would see them “batted for six by the professional lawyers of the applicants”.

John Worthington, the council’s executive officer for development management, said officers could not stand successfully at appeal because their previous recommendation would “undermine” their case and that losing also risked legal costs of over £50,000.

After the meeting, a council spokesman told the Local Democracy Reporting Service that not contesting the appeal “hasn’t been an easy decision to make” but was “the best way forward in this instance.” 

He said:

“Officer recommendations are always taken with a balanced approach and are based on careful consideration of a wide range of issues, including local and national planning policy, case law, consultation responses and anything else considered to be ‘material’ to the decision, including the comments of local residents.

“In this case, the officer recommendation of approval was overturned by the planning committee and permission was refused, which has led to an appeal by the applicant.

“Following this recommendation, along with feedback from relevant consultees and comments made by an independent inspector – who considered a previous appeal at the site for a similar proposal – we believe the most sensible and cost-effective approach would be to not defend the appeal.”

‘Disappointment’ as Stray dining and drinking hopes dashed

Harrogate councillors have expressed disappointment after hopes that hospitality businesses could use the Stray this summer were dashed by legal complications.

There was widespread optimism that reopening restaurants, pubs and cafes could be given outdoor dining space when Harrogate Borough Council revealed the plans in March but historic laws protecting the parkland have since thrown up a series of challenges.

As landowners by law, the Duchy of Lancaster is guided by the Stray Act to ensure access to all residents and visitors.

The body had entered into negotiations with the council but took a firm stance that use of the Stray for commercial purposes, except for some large events, was not permitted by the Act.

Read more:

While the debate rumbled on as Harrogate and Knaresborough MP Andrew Jones intervened with calls for further flexibility, the bad news for businesses was all but confirmed until a meeting on Monday when a senior council official said the authority had stopped pursuing the plans.

Trevor Watson, director of economy and culture at Harrogate Borough Council, said:

“I certainly share the view that the Stray potentially provides a fantastic opportunity to help businesses come out of a very difficult period.

“But our custodian role for the Stray is to ensure it is maintained free and open for the use of all rather than what appears to be the use of all but effectively is for the use of individuals visiting an individual commercial premises.”

Cllr Pat Marsh said she was “very disappointed” by the decision.

She said:

“The Stray is for the people and we must remember that.”.

Cllr Chris Aldred added:

“At the start of lockdown everybody seemed to be in favour of this happening and then suddenly it got lost in bureaucracy somewhere.

“We really do need to look at how we use the Stray in the future. As a council that should be one of our priorities to see it developed for everyone.”

Mr Watson responded:

“Whilst I share some of the frustrations, it is not bureaucracy, it is legislation. The terms of the legislation we have got to work with are very restrictive.

“It is essentially what is wrapped up in the Stray Act that has led to the view that we should encourage its use for open and regular enjoyment but not perhaps for the benefit of individual businesses.”

The idea of businesses using the Stray was put forward to help those with little or no room for outdoor dining under the current lockdown restrictions.

The Duchy of Lancaster said in a statement that while it was keen to support the economic recovery, the Stray “exists for the benefit of all the people of Harrogate,” not just certain businesses.

It said:

“Harrogate Borough Council is responsible for the management of the Stray in accordance with the Stray Act.

“The Duchy has no legal grounds to object to management proposals permitted by the Act.

“It is not the role of the Duchy to act as arbitrator in what should be a local discussion among the affected stakeholders.”

Harrogate turf war: residents offer to swap fake grass for flowers

Harrogate Borough Council has rejected an offer from a residents group to remove the fake grass in town and plant flowers instead.

Lucy Gardiner, co-founder of the original Harrogate Residents Association group, wrote to council leader Richard Cooper offering to carry out the work with local schoolchildren.

Her offer follows yesterday’s direct action by Extinction Rebellion Harrogate in which. the plastic grass in one of the raised beds was removed and replaced by shrubs.

Yesterday’s direct action by Extinction Rebellion Harrogate.

Harrogate Residents Association’s offer is the latest twist in the turf war saga that has provoked a fierce backlash by residents concerned about the environmental impact as well as the damage to Harrogate’s reputation as an upmarket, floral town.

Ms Gardiner’s letter, seen by the Stray Ferret, said:

“We have quite a few volunteers who would like to remove the Astro turf in the centre of town and plant up the beds with flowers/shrubs that survive in shaded conditions.

“Do we have the permission from you as the head of the Harrogate Borough council to do this please?

“We thought we could also engage with some of the primary schools to encourage the children to help plant them up, supporting a greener future and community spirit for their future town.”

Cllr Cooper declined her offer and in his reply copied yesterday’s council statement, which apologised for not explaining its actions better.

Read more:

The statement, which can be read in full in this article, said the artificial grass would serve as a base for planters that will sit on top of the beds, resulting in “a vibrant display of colour all year round”.

It added the scheme was a trial and if it didn’t make the town look better “we will remove them and try something else”.

Ms Gardiner said the group would pursue the matter with Harrogate and Knaresborough Conservative MP Andrew Jones.

 

 

 

Harrogate Town shop finds permanent home on Commercial Street

Harrogate Town’s shop on Commercial Street is to become a permanent fixture after the club signed a lease to stay.

The store opened in April, initially as a one-week pop-up shop to sell club merchandise and provide information on community initiatives.

It’s being run by the club’s community foundation in a unit previously occupied by Scandinavian lighting company Nordium.

The shop has proved popular and has also given fans the chance to see the National League play-off final trophy and the FA Trophy, plus meet members of the first team and club mascot Harry Gator.

Shops on Commercial Street were decorated in yellow and black bunting last week in honour of Town’s Wembley heroes, who beat Concord Rangers in the FA Trophy final.

Read more:

 

‘Bring back Bilton Youth Club to tackle anti-social behaviour’

A campaign has been launched to bring back Bilton Youth Club a decade after it closed.

Arnold Warneken, who was the Harrogate and District Green Party candidate in last week’s the Bilton by-election, has set up a petition calling on North Yorkshire County Council to reinstate the youth club. It was wound up in 2012 following funding cuts.

He said a reinvigorated youth club would have a big impact on young people in Bilton who have been stuck for things to do, particularly during lockdown.

Anti-social behaviour and crime were key issues when he was out campaigning, he added.

Mr Warneken said:

“It’s about getting people to acknowledge the relationship with anti-social behaviour and the lack of youth clubs.”

His petition currently has 230 signatures and Mr Warneken hopes the Bilton community will rally behind it to put pressure on North Yorkshire County Council, which runs children’s services in the district.

Read more:

Bilton Youth Club ran for over 50 years and was open three nights a week for teenagers to meet up and socialise. It also offered a range of activities, including sports and outdoor pursuits, until 2012.

The building is now run by the charity North Yorkshire Sport, which operates Bilton Health and Wellbeing Hub. It provides community activities, including a youth club, art club, physical activities, and social sessions for older people.

However, it only offers teenagers the chance to meet up once a week on Monday evenings from 5pm-7pm.

Mr Warneken proposes the youth club could be run at different venues in Bilton and offer activities from camping and foraging to musical tuition and sports coaching.

He added:

“It needs imagination and for the community to believe it will make a difference to crime, safety and health. The kids need to be given a chance.”

North Yorkshire County Council’s head of stronger communities, Marie-Anne Jackson, said:

“The county council’s children and families service are currently actively working with the stronger communities team, North Yorkshire Sport and North Yorkshire Youth to look at how we can work with local communities to support them to develop activities for children and young people and their families.

“We’re keen to harness the incredible energy and community response that has been seen in this work during the pandemic, by engaging with local people and organisations and making sure they have the support, skills and confidence needed to provide community services they would like to see in their local area.

“This includes making sure communities can provide support networks or services they feel they need for children, young people and families in their area.”

Harrogate councillors cave in over Starbucks drive-thru plans

Harrogate Borough Council will not fight controversial plans for a Starbucks drive-thru after planning officers, lawyers and councillors refused to take on the legal challenge.

Retail firm Euro Garages has spent almost a decade trying to win permission to open the coffee shop at the former 1st Dental surgery on Wetherby Road, Harrogate but has been refused three times by councillors and once by a government inspector.

The most recent refusal came in 2019 when councillors went against an officer’s recommendation for approval to reject the plans because of concerns over road safety, idling cars and the impact on residents.

Now the developers have lodged a second appeal in what marks their best chance yet of winning permission.

This is because officers said they are in no position to fight the case for the council given their previous recommendation and that they had also been unable to find lawyers willing to do it for them.

It left councillors in what they described as an “appalling dilemma” with two options on the table: take on the legal challenge themselves or withdraw their objection.

£50,000 legal costs

Speaking at a meeting last night, councillor John Mann, chair of the planning committee, said councillors did not have the legal expertise or experience to fight the appeal which would see them “batted for six by the professional lawyers of the applicants”.

John Worthington, the council’s executive officer for development management, said officers could not stand successfully at appeal because their previous recommendation would “undermine” their case and that losing also risked legal costs of over £50,000.

He said:

“The report that was put before members of the committee in December 2019 concluded on all issues that the scheme was acceptable.

“As with all decisions to refuse, that decision then has to be defended and as officers we can not then about-face and suddenly present an appeal to say actually we have now changed our mind.

“But where there is a defensible case, we will defend it, no matter what the cost.”

Read more:

Meanwhile, councillor Robert Windass said he felt “betrayed and let down” by planning officers. He said:

“We are here to make decisions and they say ‘we can’t defend so it’s up to you’ – that is wrong, wrong, wrong”.

Councillor Pat Marsh also questioned:

“Where are the residents’ voices here? We are supposed to represent these people yet we come up against a brick wall when we have got developers like these.

“They are determined to do what they want and they have got the money to do it. We are in a no-win situation here.”

Appeal in June

Councillors agreed to withdraw their objection rather than stand during the appeal, which will still go-ahead on 15 June.

The applicant and objectors will give evidence during a hearing across several days before a government planning inspector makes a final decision.

Speaking after tonight’s meeting, a council spokesman said not contesting the appeal “hasn’t been an easy decision to make” but was “the best way forward in this instance.” He said:

“Officer recommendations are always taken with a balanced approach and are based on careful consideration of a wide range of issues, including local and national planning policy, case law, consultation responses and anything else considered to be ‘material’ to the decision, including the comments of local residents.

“In this case, the officer recommendation of approval was overturned by the planning committee and permission was refused, which has led to an appeal by the applicant.

“Following this recommendation, along with feedback from relevant consultees and comments made by an independent inspector – who considered a previous appeal at the site for a similar proposal – we believe the most sensible and cost-effective approach would be to not defend the appeal.”

Investigation: Shocking number of council papers withheld from public

An investigation by the Stray Ferret into whether Harrogate Borough Council has a culture of secrecy has found the authority has a shocking record of withholding information from the public.

Our findings raise serious questions over how and why the council decides to keep so much information out of the public eye on matters that are of public interest and involve large sums of public money.

The council kept information from local taxpayers on key decisions, such as contracts on the Visit Harrogate tourism website and the dire financial state of the Harrogate Convention Centre.

Our investigation 

The Stray Ferret decided to look into the number of papers withheld after noticing a number of key decisions were being made without disclosing full information to the public.

Our research looked at confidential reports known as “pink papers”. This means they are not to be seen by the public or journalists- but are seen by councillors at cabinet and council meetings.

We looked at five similar councils, including Harrogate.

The councils we looked at were of comparable population size, were Conservative-led and all operate on the same cabinet and leader system.

The authorities ranged from population sizes of a high of 140,000 and the lowest was 120,000.

A shocking revelation 

The number of papers made exempt at the five Conservative-run councils.

The number of papers made exempt at the five Conservative-run councils.

The findings show Harrogate Borough Council had three times more restricted papers than the second highest council and nearly 25 times as many as the lowest.

A total of 222 of Harrogate’s reports were marked “commercially confidential” as a reason for being kept from the public.

By comparison, South Kesteven District Council restricted 79 reports, East Lindsey District Council 48, East Hampshire District Council 11 and Test Valley Council had 9.

In December alone Harrogate withheld information in 46 reports.

While one would accept that each authority varies in population size (the lowest being 120,000, the highest 140,000) and each has different local issues to tackle, the sheer scale of the gap suggests Harrogate has a systemic attitude of withholding information.

It begs the question as to why so many papers were withheld from the public and how the decisions were arrived at, especially on major spends of public money such as the Harrogate Convention Centre.

The Stray Ferret has looked at three examples of where the authority has chosen to exempt information on big investments using taxpayer cash and questions whether it was necessary or appropriate to do so.

Harrogate Convention Centre 

In July 2020, the Stray Ferret published a leaked (pink) report into the proposed £46.8 million refurbishment of Harrogate Convention Centre.

It’s the single biggest spend the council has proposed in recent times and yet the report that was used to make the decision included information that was not made available to the public.

The report showed the dire financial state of the centre.

It said the venue, which is owned by the council, lost £710,000 in the 2019/20 financial year.

Read more:

The report added that the HCC financial performance has “declined significantly since 2008/9”. But this information was withheld from the public and the council later approved the investment.

A source who used to work at the borough council, but did not wish to be named, told the Stray Ferret that there was little reason to keep that information from the public.

They said:

“There’s nothing in that report which would suggest commercial confidentiality. The only thing you can find is projected loss, which is hardly sensitive.”

The council was so upset about the leak that it held an internal investigation to establish who had sent us the document.

Yet we would argue that public has a right to know about the performance of one of the council’s biggest assets, owned by taxpayers, ahead of a huge investment of public money.

Jacob Bailey and Visit Harrogate 

Four months later, the council decided to approve a contract to Suffolk-based Jacob Bailey Group to revamp its tourism website Visit Harrogate without open tender.

At the council meeting where the decision was taken to award the contract, two pink papers were presented to the cabinet member responsible, Cllr Stan Lumley.

We can only assume these papers explained why there was no tendering process and the amount Jacob Bailey was going to charge.

It led to a member of the public using the Freedom of Information Act to ask for the cost, which was then declined.

Read more:

Another person has since complained to the Local Government Ombudsman, asking for information on why the council decided not to openly tender for the contract.

Eventually the information was released. It was £165,000 for the tourism website. Many questions remain about how the decision was made and how that sum represents value for money.

Leisure investment 

In June last year, the borough council outlined another of its big publicly funded projects.

It planned to borrow £26 million to fund two capital projects, a refurbishment of the Harrogate Hydro and a new leisure facility at Knaresborough.

In the report, the council outlined what the Hydro and the new centre would need and how it intended to get the money.

However, it also included nine supporting papers – eight of which were withheld from the press and public on “commercial grounds”.

Read more:

The following November, the council approved a contract for a development manager for the investment.

It appointed Somerset-based Alliance Leisure and decided to do so without competitive tender. 

The report came with a restricted paper, once again withheld on commercial grounds.

Such was the lack of information we asked exactly what the fee was for the company and why there was no competitive tender process. We did not receive a response.

It’s another example of a lack of transparency around a contract that leaves unanswered questions about value for money.

Culture of non-disclosure

Our findings suggest at best there is a culture of non-disclosure at the borough council when it comes to making information on key decisions public.

They raise legitimate questions over why the borough council decided to keep such information out of the public eye on matters which involved millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

The council says it is committed to openness and transparency, but our research suggests the opposite.

In the authority’s own code of corporate governance, it says it is committed to the principle of “implementing good practices in transparency”.

The council has also released public statements – one as recently as last month – saying it has a commitment to be “an open and transparent council”.

What does it say about the transparency of the council when a £710,000 loss at the convention centre is deemed too sensitive for the public to know?

We put our findings to Harrogate Borough Council. A spokeswoman for the authority said:

“We are an ambitious council with several multi-million pound and major projects underway, including new sport and leisure facilities and investment in Harrogate Convention Centre.

“This is for the benefit of our residents and for the district to be known as the best place to work, live and visit.

“This means, compared to other councils, we probably have more than the average number of commercial contracts being tendered.”

Although the council says it has major projects underway, our research shows the next highest council in our comparison – South Kesteven – also had commercial projects in the past year.

South Kesteven council set up a new leisure company and transferred its assets over to the business. The council was also involved in an investment project at St Martin’s Park in Stamford.

Tomorrow, we will look at the council’s response to Freedom of Information requests and general enquiries from the press and public.

Harrogate council apologises for fake grass saga

Harrogate Borough Council has apologised this afternoon for not doing a better job explaining its decision to put fake grass  in the town centre.

The statement, which can be read in full below, outlines the council’s reasons for choosing to install plastic grass.

It also reveals the council will place planters with flowers on top of the plastic grass — something it has already begun to do.

Early today campaigners from Extinction Rebellion Harrogate removed fake grass from one of the raised beds in Harrogate’s Cambridge Street, and replaced it with plants in protest at the council’s use of plastic.

The council statement says that although it recognises Extinction Rebellion’s reasons for its action, it would have preferred the group to speak to the council first.

It goes on to explain that the current installation is a trial, and will be removed if it turns out not to “make the town look better and bring more plants into the town centre”.

The statement adds the council has plans to plant trees on three sites totalling 17 hectares.

It says:

“We haven’t explained this well and we are sorry about that. We concentrated too much on getting the trial in place and not enough time explaining the totality of what we were doing.”

Read more:

A spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion Harrogate explained why it engaged in direct action this morning:

“We felt really shocked and disappointed and just a bit baffled by the fact that plastic grass had been put down in the first place, we’ve all spoken to lots of people, locals and visitors, and they all say it looks hideous.”

She denied the group had committed any legal offences, saying it had not damaged the plastic grass and will return it to the council in due course.

Asked about the council’s statement, she said it was more interested in aesthetic issues than environmental ones:

“What about the micro-plastics that are going to be layered on the soil? All you have to do is to plant plants that are shade loving, they’re ones that members grow themselves. Why bring plastic into the equation?”

“We don’t want Harrogate to be this plastic town and the council seems to be sending out such a strong message that neat and tidy is much better than biodiversity.”

Extinction Rebellion Harrogate removed the fake grass and planted flowers this morning.

Here is the council’s statement in full:

“While we recognise Extinction Rebellion Harrogate’s reasons for removing the artificial grass and installing plants, we would have preferred them speaking to us first so that we could have explained the full scheme and how it enables even more plants right into our town centre.

“Traditionally, we’ve put plants in the beds beneath the trees, but these rarely last very long because the trees soak up all the moisture and nutrients in the soil, leading to the plants looking rather sorry for themselves.

“Inevitably, this means the beds end up being visually dull and nothing more than a magnet for cigarette butts, empty coffee cups and fast-food takeaway packaging. They look a mess and prompt almost as many complaints as we’ve had about the artificial grass.

“The artificial grass is a base for planters that will sit on top of the beds.

“These planters – that have already started to be installed – will have their own water source, separate from the tree roots, so that the bedding plants can thrive on their own. This will result in a vibrant display of colour all year round. Using the artificial grass as a base means we can have more and more plants in our town centre and make the area more attractive.

“We’ve been asked why we didn’t put down stone or bark. We ruled this out because, regrettably, it will be most likely end up being used as an ashtray or messed-up because it is loose. Surfacing with stone, or something more substantial, would also compromise the tree root system.

“This is just a trial though. If, when the beds are fully installed, they don’t make the town look better and bring more plants into the town centre then we will remove them and try something else.

“We share the passion people have for Harrogate’s award winning floral displays and is something we will continue to support.

“We are also have further plans to reduce carbon emissions having recently identified three new council-owned sites, covering some 17 hectares, for new tree planting schemes.

“We haven’t explained this well and we are sorry about that. We concentrated too much on getting the trial in place and not enough time explaining the totality of what we were doing.”