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
Feb
Owner of Starbeck 'eyesore' hopeful that 'way is clear' for redevelopment
The owner of the derelict Harper’s building on Starbeck High Street says he believes the way is clear to redevelop the site, even though planning permission to demolish the building has just been turned down.
Otley-based entrepreneur Graham Bates did previously have permission to demolish the building, but that ran out in January.
A new application to raze the building was refused on Monday on a technicality – no site notice had been displayed – but Mr Bates is optimistic that permission eventually will be granted.
He told the Stray Ferret:
It’s been reapplied for, and the principle of demolition has been acknowledged, so it won’t be declined.
The Harper’s building, which stands next to St Andrew’s Church, was originally a Harper's grocery store and still bears that name carved in stone. It was later a McColl’s supermarket but had been vacant for two years when youths set fire to it in 2018. The burnt-out shell that remains has often been described as an "eyesore".
Mr Bates, who has developed his plans with business partner Mel Hemingbrough, intends to rebuild it as rental apartments with ground-floor retail space, but the project has been delayed because of a long-running dispute with the council.
North Yorkshire Council's Local Plan stipulates that all qualifying brownfield developments should have 30% affordable housing, subject to viability, but Mr Bates says that an affordable housing element would render his scheme unviable.
To prove his point, he commissioned a report by his own consultants, which apparently supports his argument.
He told us:
That report has been seen by council planning consultants, and it’s my understanding that they have accepted our contention that the much higher costs involved will not allow for an affordable housing element.
We’re now waiting for the matter to be addressed by the planners. We’re trying to get to a point – and I think we’ve done everything we can to get there – where the planning office says ‘we’ll support this application’.
Once that happens, we’ll submit a full planning application for the site.
A CGI of Mr Bates' proposed development
In October, Mr Bates told us he would be “extremely disappointed” if he was not in a position to submit such a full planning application by the end of January. So how does he feel now, in February?
He said:
I remain frustrated that the process is not moving as quickly as we wanted, but I’m pushing harder now than I perhaps have done in the past to make it happen.
I have to believe that we are now closer – I can’t see what could now stand in the way.
Mr Bates said the reason for not including an element of affordable housing in the redevelopment had nothing to do with maximising the return on his investment or making more money.
He said:
I can tell you categorically there’s no profit in this at all – we just want to get it done.
We’re producing 26 small homes for young people who couldn’t afford to live in central Harrogate.
If they can’t afford to run a car, that doesn’t matter either, as they’re right by a railway station.
Surely this is exactly the kind of thing the government wants?
1