This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities...
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
    • Politics
    • Transport
    • Lifestyle
    • Community
    • Business
    • Crime
    • Environment
    • Health
    • Education
    • Sport
    • Harrogate
    • Ripon
    • Knaresborough
    • Boroughbridge
    • Pateley Bridge
    • Masham
  • What's On
  • Offers
  • Latest Jobs
  • Podcasts

Interested in advertising with us?

Advertise with us

  • News & Features
  • Your Area
  • What's On
  • Offers
  • Latest Jobs
  • Podcasts
  • Politics
  • Transport
  • Lifestyle
  • Community
  • Business
  • Crime
  • Environment
  • Health
  • Education
  • Sport
Advertise with us
Subscribe
  • Home
  • Latest News

We want to hear from you

Tell us your opinions and views on what we cover

Contact us
Connect with us
  • About us
  • Advertise your job
  • Correction and complaints
Download on App StoreDownload on Google Play Store
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Comments Participation T&Cs
Trust In Journalism

Copyright © 2020 The Stray Ferret Ltd, All Rights Reserved

Site by Show + Tell

Subscribe to trusted local news

In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever. By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.

  • Subscription costs less than £1 a week with an annual plan.

Already a subscriber? Log in here.

12

May 2021

Last Updated: 11/05/2021
Politics
Politics

Harrogate councillors cave in over Starbucks drive-thru plans

by Suzannah Rogerson

| 12 May, 2021
Comment

0

Threat of £50,000 legal bill sees Harrogate councillors say they are not in a position to fight the bid to build a Starbucks on Wetherby Road. One councillor says he felt 'betrayed and let down' by the decision.

firstdental
The former 1st Dental site on Wetherby Road, which has been approved to be demolished for a Starbucks drive-thru.

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:



  • Investigation: Shocking number of council papers withheld from public

  • Harrogate council apologises for fake grass saga






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.”