Subscribe to trusted local news
If you are accessing this story via Facebook but you are a subscriber then you will be unable to access the story. Facebook wants you to stay and read in the app and your login details are not shared with Facebook. If you experience problems with accessing the news but have subscribed, please contact subscriptions@thestrayferret.co.uk. 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.
03
May
Will Harrogate taxpayers have to pay for appeals after recent planning refusals?
In the last fortnight, councillors have rejected two major planning applications in Harrogate.
Harrogate Spring Water and David Lloyd Clubs' applications were both recommended for approval by officers at North Yorkshire Council.
But instead the council's Harrogate and Knaresborough planning committee refused the schemes — leaving the prospect of costly appeals looming.
The cases highlight the tension that exists between council officers with specialist planning knowledge and councillors who represent the people who elected them.
Both decisions were welcomed by campaigners — but could they backfire by being approved on appeal and saddle taxpayers with a legal bill?
What are the proposals?
Both Harrogate Spring Water and David Lloyd have spent time and money looking to convince North Yorkshire Council that their proposals deserve to be approved.
Backed by French multinational Danone, Harrogate Spring Water has spent almost 10 years trying to get its bottling plant expansion into Rotary Wood over the line.
David Lloyd hired planning consultants Lichfields to represent it at Tuesday’s Harrogate and Knaresborough planning committee meeting at which they sought permission for two padel courts.
The site of the padel courts at David Lloyd in Harrogate.
Council planning officers recommended that the seven-councillor committee approve both bids.
However, both schemes faced sizeable objections from residents and campaigners.
Harrogate Spring Water's plans received more than 1,000 objections. Oak Beck Valley Residents Association, supported by Harrogate Town Council, opposed David Lloyd's plans.
Each planning committee meeting was also met with a packed public gallery, made up of residents and campaigners alike.
Councillors refused each application. The decisions were popular but went against officer recommendations and there is a sense that this might not be the end of either saga.
Why did councillors refuse them?
In both cases, councillors spent significant time questioning council officers over the merits of the applications.
They couldn't just say they didn't like the plans — they had to give valid planning reasons for refusal.
After an hour and 45 minutes of questioning inside the council chamber, the five committee members gave two reasons for refusing Harrogate Spring Water’s bottling plant expansion, which already has outline planning permission.
The first centred on landscaping and the replanting of trees, which councillors felt was “inadequate” and contravenes the national planning policy framework.
The second was on the appearance of the factory expansion, which was felt to lack “local distinctiveness”.
The David Lloyd application was refused solely on the lack of amenity caused by the noise of the padel court, which residents have likened to the sound of gunshot.
Is there a risk of an appeal?
When a planning application is refused, applicants have six months to appeal.
If they do, the case would go to the government’s Planning Inspectorate.
North Yorkshire Council officers, who have already recommended the schemes be approved, would have to justify the refusal decision.
Campaigners against Harrogate Spring Water's plans outside the Civic Centre.
The appeal process is costly, lengthy and could involve days of hearings overseen by a planning inspector.
It would not be the first time that the council has faced a major developer at appeal.
In December 2024, North Yorkshire Council was ordered to pay £180,000 to Teeside developer, Jomast, after losing a two-day appeal hearing over 53 homes on Knox Lane.
The move followed a similar theme, whereby elected councillors went against council officer recommendations and were later challenged.
At a public inquiry into the refusal at Harrogate’s Civic Centre five months earlier, council officials decided not to contest the appeal after receiving legal advice.
Will the companies appeal?
David Lloyd and Harrogate Spring Water have so far given little indication on whether they will appeal.
The Stray Ferret asked both firms whether they intend to challenge the council’s refusal.
A spokesperson for David Lloyd Clubs said:
At David Lloyd Clubs, we are committed to making a positive contribution to the communities and environments in which we operate.
We have worked collaboratively with the local council to address the issues raised, so we are disappointed with this outcome, as we know how much our members value the courts and the role they play in the club community.
We are now assessing our options and will continue working constructively with the council to find a positive way forward.
RIchard Hall, managing director of Harrogate Spring Water, pictured leaving the planning meeting.
Harrogate Spring Water reiterated the statement it issued following its refusal on April 17.
At the time, Richard Hall, managing director of Harrogate Spring Water, said the firm remained “confident in our plans” and was still committed to “investing in the business community”.
He added that the company would now “carefully consider next steps”.
Mr Hall said:
Our plans have been recommended for approval by the council and we have addressed the two reasons given for deferring this decision at the previous meeting. Throughout this process, we have worked constructively with officers and the local community to strike the right balance between sustainable development and economic growth.
We feel our proposal represents a significant investment in Harrogate – creating over 50 new jobs, delivering an annual £2.3 million boost to the local economy, and a commitment to protecting the local environment.
We are confident in our plans and will carefully consider next steps. Our commitment to investing in the business and community remains unchanged.
Both sides feel their plans remain valid, which suggests neither scheme is over — and the spectre of an appeal looms.
2