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.

29

Sept 2021

Last Updated: 29/09/2021
Environment
Environment

‘No irregularities’ found after Harrogate council officer ‘massaged’ key planning report

by Calvin Robinson

| 29 Sept, 2021
Comment

0

An internal investigation into allegations a Harrogate Borough Council officer 'massaged' a key planning report for an A1 service station at Kirby Hill finds 'no irregularities'. Campaigners have 'no confidence' the matter has been properly investigated.

harrogate-borough-council-2

An investigation has concluded that “no irregularities” took place when a Harrogate Borough Council planning officer sent emails saying he “massaged” a key report on plans for the controversial Kirby Hill A1(M) service station.

The council launched the probe after emails revealed Barrie Gannon, a former principal landscape architect, made changes to a report in 2019 when the council went against three previous refusals of the plans to recommend approval in what campaigners described as a “complete U-turn”.

Seventeen months later, the service station was approved at a fourth appeal by the developers despite 25 years of objections.

It is not known what changes were made to the landscape report, but Gareth Owens, chairman of Kirby Hill Residents Against Motorway Services, said he believes the council’s actions were “highly suspicious”.

Mr Owens also said he has “no confidence” that the matter has been “properly investigated” and added it “leaves more questions than answers”.

He said: 

“We think the council’s U-turn on the decision, after 25 years of objections on landscape grounds, is highly suspicious.
“The landscape position remained one of refusal until shortly before the planning committee meeting. It was altered only when a different landscape officer, by his own admission, ‘massaged’ the report.
“The council has not provided any evidence that this change of heart was above-board and followed due planning process.
“The absence of such evidence suggests that it was not.”


Change of stance


The emails, which have been seen by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, show Mr Gannon said to a colleague: 

“I’ve massaged the landscape section 9.56 -9.69 which hopefully reads better.”






Read more:




  • Inquiry launched after council officer ‘massaged’ A1 service station report



  • ‘There is a need’ for A1 service station near Kirby Hill, inquiry told

  • Government approves A1 service station after fourth appeal in 25 years






The landscape report itself said the impact of the service station was “not substantive” in what campaigners described as the “complete U-turn” from a previous council assessment which warned the plans would cause “significant harm”.

This led to questions over why a change of stance was taken, but the council has repeatedly defended its position.

A council spokesperson said: 

“We can confirm that, following allegations that a report was ‘massaged’, an investigation was carried out.
“This investigation found no irregularities in the preparation of the officer report for the planning committee.
“As was stated at the time, officer recommendations are fair and impartial, and carefully considered against local and national planning policy, case law, consultation and anything else considered to be ‘material’ to the decision.”


Background: Villagers’ 25-year fight against the Kirby Hill service station


For over a quarter century, villagers living in Kirby Hill had been fighting – and winning – a battle against the plans from Irish-firm Applegreen.

The service station was refused four times by councillors on Harrogate Borough Council’s planning committee and three times by a government inspector in 1997, 2003 and 2010.

However, their luck ran out in 2019 when a fourth government inspector gave the go-ahead.

Planning inspector David Rose said in his ruling that the proposals were “materially different” to past plans.

However, his decision was met with anger from villagers whose objections had not altered since the first application was submitted back in 1996.