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.
05
Apr
Glasshouses Mill owner responds to claims developers ‘con’ councils
The owner of Glasshouses Mill, near Pateley Bridge, has said work on the second phase of the long-running scheme to convert the grade two listed building into flats could begin in autumn.
Chris Hawkesworth spoke to the Stray Ferret immediately after North Yorkshire Council’s Skipton and Ripon planning committee approved plans this week for the completion of the 50-home project.
The scheme ground to a halt after the first 32 homes were built amid a dispute between developer Glasshouses 123 and the council over payments for local facilities agreed beforehand in a legal document know as a Section 106 agreement.
To end the stalemate, Glasshouses 123 applied to vary the terms of the planning agreement and its application was approved this week despite concerns by residents and councillors about the council’s ability to enforce planning breaches.
Mr Hawksworth, who has owned the mill since 1971 and is a director of Glasshouses 123, said he secured the original planning permission for the site 22 years ago and was relieved to finally be able to see a route forward.
He added:
I am very pleased with the result because the 50 houses within that development will fit in very nicely with the village. When it’s finished, I think everybody will be happy.
Mr Hawksworth said it would take at least three months to prepare for work to begin and autumn was a realistic starting date, with the scheme then likely to take about two years to complete.
Lack of enforcement 'disturbing'
Tory councillor Robert Heseltine spoke out strongly against the way the application had been handled during Tuesday’s meeting. He said it was “disturbing” that the council had not enforced planning conditions and “it feels like we have been conned all the way down the line”.
Asked to respond, Mr Hawkesworth said:
I was really frustrated because there were expressions used like we ‘missed’ the Section 106 payments. OK, we didn’t pay them on time but it was agreed not to pay them on time. Why? Because we had the mill covered in scaffolding during covid.
That was costing us £200,000 a month then we found asbestos which we didn’t expect. The reason it’s called Glasshouses is because it goes right back to the glass that Fountains Abbey made on the site. So the youngest buildings are 260 years old.
Glasshouses Mill
Mr Hawkesworth added listed building planning applications “cost between 20% and 30% more” than standard greenfield planning applications.
That’s why other developers are struggling with places like Darley Mill and even the council’s own offices have struggled with planning permission because it costs so much more.
He also defended the council’s decision not to demand any affordable housing, saying it was “just not possible” given the financial constraints.
Residents' view
The Section 106 agreement required Glasshouses 123 to make payments for local services, including education, to compensate for the impact of the new homes.
The payments were due to be triggered when a certain number of homes were built.
New terms have been agreed that still require payments but the developer is no longer required to open a shop and can build extra houses to make the scheme more profitable.
Andrew Totten, of Glasshouses Mill Owners’ Association, claimed the first phase of the project had not been adequately completed and cited examples such as a blocked culvert in 2023 leaving residents with a £30,000 repair bill.
Speaking after the meeting, Mr Totten said:
We are relieved that the planning permission has been approved at last. We are relieved that conditions have been applied to cover the issues we have had. We are concerned that enforcement of these plans might not be robust and we will be speaking to the enforcement officer through our county councillor Andrew Murday to ensure enforcement is robustly applied.
Mr Totten added an enforcement officer has been monitoring breaches for the last two years “and at each point no action has been taken”.
But he said he could at last “see a time when we no longer live on a building site” now that a way forward had been agreed, and he hoped the project would move to its conclusion.
1