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.
18
Jun 2021
Wetherby Road Starbucks developer to seek legal costs if plan approved
A developer behind a planned Starbucks drive-thru on Wetherby Road has said it will seek full legal costs if the proposal is approved by a planning inspector.
Alan Evans, counsel for Euro Garages, told an inquiry earlier this week that the company would seek costs from Harrogate Borough Council for “unreasonable behaviour”.
Residents fighting the controversial proposal, which is planned for the former 1st Dental surgery site, appeared before the hearing to defend the refusal after the borough council withdrew its objection.
Alan Evans, a legal representative for Euro Garages, told the appeal that the planning committee’s latest decision of refusal should be overturned.
He said:
Residents living next to the potential site of the drive-thru told the inquiry into the plans that it would “completely destroy” their enjoyment of their homes.
Read more:
- Controversial Wetherby Road Starbucks would ‘change our lives’, say residents
- Harrogate congestion at ‘breaking point’ even without Starbucks, say residents
- Harrogate councillors cave in over Starbucks drive-thru plans
Speaking at the hearing on Tuesday, resident Joanne Richardson, who lives behind the proposed site, said:
Mrs Richardson also said revisions to the plans – including a re-jigged car park, reduction in the size of the coffee shop and an acoustic fence – did not go far enough to address local concern.
She said:
Another resident, Mark Hinchliffe, told the appeal that the nearby Woodlands junction was “probably the busiest” in Harrogate as he also warned the town was already at “breaking point” with traffic congestion.
He said:
The plans were first refused by Harrogate Borough Council’s planning committee in 2017 before the applicant lodged an unsuccessful appeal, then submitted a revised application two years later.
These latest proposals were still rejected in 2019 but the council, nor its planning committee, chose not to contest the appeal because it had previously made a recommendation in support of the plans.
The council also said it was unable to find lawyers willing to fight the appeal on its behalf.
Helen Hockenhull, the planning inspector in charge of the appeal, will make a decision on the plan at a later date.
0