Harrogate councillors cave in over Starbucks drive-thru plans

Harrogate Borough Council will not fight controversial plans for a Starbucks drive-thru after planning officers, lawyers and councillors refused to take on the legal challenge.

Retail firm Euro Garages has spent almost a decade trying to win permission to open the coffee shop at the former 1st Dental surgery on Wetherby Road, Harrogate but has been refused three times by councillors and once by a government inspector.

The most recent refusal came in 2019 when councillors went against an officer’s recommendation for approval to reject the plans because of concerns over road safety, idling cars and the impact on residents.

Now the developers have lodged a second appeal in what marks their best chance yet of winning permission.

This is because officers said they are in no position to fight the case for the council given their previous recommendation and that they had also been unable to find lawyers willing to do it for them.

It left councillors in what they described as an “appalling dilemma” with two options on the table: take on the legal challenge themselves or withdraw their objection.

£50,000 legal costs

Speaking at a meeting last night, councillor John Mann, chair of the planning committee, said councillors did not have the legal expertise or experience to fight the appeal which would see them “batted for six by the professional lawyers of the applicants”.

John Worthington, the council’s executive officer for development management, said officers could not stand successfully at appeal because their previous recommendation would “undermine” their case and that losing also risked legal costs of over £50,000.

He said:

“The report that was put before members of the committee in December 2019 concluded on all issues that the scheme was acceptable.

“As with all decisions to refuse, that decision then has to be defended and as officers we can not then about-face and suddenly present an appeal to say actually we have now changed our mind.

“But where there is a defensible case, we will defend it, no matter what the cost.”

Read more:

Meanwhile, councillor Robert Windass said he felt “betrayed and let down” by planning officers. He said:

“We are here to make decisions and they say ‘we can’t defend so it’s up to you’ – that is wrong, wrong, wrong”.

Councillor Pat Marsh also questioned:

“Where are the residents’ voices here? We are supposed to represent these people yet we come up against a brick wall when we have got developers like these.

“They are determined to do what they want and they have got the money to do it. We are in a no-win situation here.”

Appeal in June

Councillors agreed to withdraw their objection rather than stand during the appeal, which will still go-ahead on 15 June.

The applicant and objectors will give evidence during a hearing across several days before a government planning inspector makes a final decision.

Speaking after tonight’s meeting, a council spokesman said not contesting the appeal “hasn’t been an easy decision to make” but was “the best way forward in this instance.” He said:

“Officer recommendations are always taken with a balanced approach and are based on careful consideration of a wide range of issues, including local and national planning policy, case law, consultation responses and anything else considered to be ‘material’ to the decision, including the comments of local residents.

“In this case, the officer recommendation of approval was overturned by the planning committee and permission was refused, which has led to an appeal by the applicant.

“Following this recommendation, along with feedback from relevant consultees and comments made by an independent inspector – who considered a previous appeal at the site for a similar proposal – we believe the most sensible and cost-effective approach would be to not defend the appeal.”

Investigation: Shocking number of council papers withheld from public

An investigation by the Stray Ferret into whether Harrogate Borough Council has a culture of secrecy has found the authority has a shocking record of withholding information from the public.

Our findings raise serious questions over how and why the council decides to keep so much information out of the public eye on matters that are of public interest and involve large sums of public money.

The council kept information from local taxpayers on key decisions, such as contracts on the Visit Harrogate tourism website and the dire financial state of the Harrogate Convention Centre.

Our investigation 

The Stray Ferret decided to look into the number of papers withheld after noticing a number of key decisions were being made without disclosing full information to the public.

Our research looked at confidential reports known as “pink papers”. This means they are not to be seen by the public or journalists- but are seen by councillors at cabinet and council meetings.

We looked at five similar councils, including Harrogate.

The councils we looked at were of comparable population size, were Conservative-led and all operate on the same cabinet and leader system.

The authorities ranged from population sizes of a high of 140,000 and the lowest was 120,000.

A shocking revelation 

The number of papers made exempt at the five Conservative-run councils.

The number of papers made exempt at the five Conservative-run councils.

The findings show Harrogate Borough Council had three times more restricted papers than the second highest council and nearly 25 times as many as the lowest.

A total of 222 of Harrogate’s reports were marked “commercially confidential” as a reason for being kept from the public.

By comparison, South Kesteven District Council restricted 79 reports, East Lindsey District Council 48, East Hampshire District Council 11 and Test Valley Council had 9.

In December alone Harrogate withheld information in 46 reports.

While one would accept that each authority varies in population size (the lowest being 120,000, the highest 140,000) and each has different local issues to tackle, the sheer scale of the gap suggests Harrogate has a systemic attitude of withholding information.

It begs the question as to why so many papers were withheld from the public and how the decisions were arrived at, especially on major spends of public money such as the Harrogate Convention Centre.

The Stray Ferret has looked at three examples of where the authority has chosen to exempt information on big investments using taxpayer cash and questions whether it was necessary or appropriate to do so.

Harrogate Convention Centre 

In July 2020, the Stray Ferret published a leaked (pink) report into the proposed £46.8 million refurbishment of Harrogate Convention Centre.

It’s the single biggest spend the council has proposed in recent times and yet the report that was used to make the decision included information that was not made available to the public.

The report showed the dire financial state of the centre.

It said the venue, which is owned by the council, lost £710,000 in the 2019/20 financial year.

Read more:

The report added that the HCC financial performance has “declined significantly since 2008/9”. But this information was withheld from the public and the council later approved the investment.

A source who used to work at the borough council, but did not wish to be named, told the Stray Ferret that there was little reason to keep that information from the public.

They said:

“There’s nothing in that report which would suggest commercial confidentiality. The only thing you can find is projected loss, which is hardly sensitive.”

The council was so upset about the leak that it held an internal investigation to establish who had sent us the document.

Yet we would argue that public has a right to know about the performance of one of the council’s biggest assets, owned by taxpayers, ahead of a huge investment of public money.

Jacob Bailey and Visit Harrogate 

Four months later, the council decided to approve a contract to Suffolk-based Jacob Bailey Group to revamp its tourism website Visit Harrogate without open tender.

At the council meeting where the decision was taken to award the contract, two pink papers were presented to the cabinet member responsible, Cllr Stan Lumley.

We can only assume these papers explained why there was no tendering process and the amount Jacob Bailey was going to charge.

It led to a member of the public using the Freedom of Information Act to ask for the cost, which was then declined.

Read more:

Another person has since complained to the Local Government Ombudsman, asking for information on why the council decided not to openly tender for the contract.

Eventually the information was released. It was £165,000 for the tourism website. Many questions remain about how the decision was made and how that sum represents value for money.

Leisure investment 

In June last year, the borough council outlined another of its big publicly funded projects.

It planned to borrow £26 million to fund two capital projects, a refurbishment of the Harrogate Hydro and a new leisure facility at Knaresborough.

In the report, the council outlined what the Hydro and the new centre would need and how it intended to get the money.

However, it also included nine supporting papers – eight of which were withheld from the press and public on “commercial grounds”.

Read more:

The following November, the council approved a contract for a development manager for the investment.

It appointed Somerset-based Alliance Leisure and decided to do so without competitive tender. 

The report came with a restricted paper, once again withheld on commercial grounds.

Such was the lack of information we asked exactly what the fee was for the company and why there was no competitive tender process. We did not receive a response.

It’s another example of a lack of transparency around a contract that leaves unanswered questions about value for money.

Culture of non-disclosure

Our findings suggest at best there is a culture of non-disclosure at the borough council when it comes to making information on key decisions public.

They raise legitimate questions over why the borough council decided to keep such information out of the public eye on matters which involved millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

The council says it is committed to openness and transparency, but our research suggests the opposite.

In the authority’s own code of corporate governance, it says it is committed to the principle of “implementing good practices in transparency”.

The council has also released public statements – one as recently as last month – saying it has a commitment to be “an open and transparent council”.

What does it say about the transparency of the council when a £710,000 loss at the convention centre is deemed too sensitive for the public to know?

We put our findings to Harrogate Borough Council. A spokeswoman for the authority said:

“We are an ambitious council with several multi-million pound and major projects underway, including new sport and leisure facilities and investment in Harrogate Convention Centre.

“This is for the benefit of our residents and for the district to be known as the best place to work, live and visit.

“This means, compared to other councils, we probably have more than the average number of commercial contracts being tendered.”

Although the council says it has major projects underway, our research shows the next highest council in our comparison – South Kesteven – also had commercial projects in the past year.

South Kesteven council set up a new leisure company and transferred its assets over to the business. The council was also involved in an investment project at St Martin’s Park in Stamford.

Tomorrow, we will look at the council’s response to Freedom of Information requests and general enquiries from the press and public.

How does Harrogate council restrict information?

Councils across the country can restrict reports on committee agendas, if they feel it would adversely affect the financial affairs of a business or person.

Report writers have discussions with the legal service at a council to decide which information should be kept out of the public eye.

The authors of the report may be challenged on why information should be exempt before it goes to committee.

A decision as to whether to restrict information is down to council officers and their interpretation of the reports.

The authority must make clear on the public agenda why a report is restricted by quoting the relevant paragraph of the Local Government Act.

Read more:

For example, paragraph three relates to commercial grounds and paragraph one is information relating to a specific person.

However, exactly how they arrive at that decision is not revealed to taxpayers and can lead to the press or members of the public using the Freedom of Information Act to try to force councils to release the information.

Freedom of Information Act

The Freedom of Information Act was introduced in 2005 to make government more open with the public.

Its sole purpose was based around peoples’ right to know what public bodies were doing with their money and to make institutions like councils more accountable.

How does the act work?

Anyone can submit a request for information to a public body, such as Harrogate Borough Council, under the freedom of information act.

The council must then respond to that request within 20 working days.

When someone requests information, there is a presumption in favour of the council disclosing information under the act.

This is because the principle behind the legislation is that people have a right to know about the activities of public authorities, unless there is good reason for them not to.

The council must justify under what exemption it refuses information and why.

For example, it can refuse a request on the grounds of commercial confidentiality under section 43 of the act.

But it must show that it factored in the presumption of disclosure into its reasons for refusal.

Guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office says:

“The main principle behind freedom of information legislation is that people have a right to know about the activities of public authorities, unless there is a good reason for them not to.

“This is sometimes described as a presumption or assumption in favour of disclosure.”

If the council does refuse a request and the person submitting the request is not satisfied, they can ask for an internal review.

The review is carried out by a senior officer who was not involved in the initial freedom of information request.

The council reviews its original decision and decides whether it feels the information should be disclosed.

If it decided not to hand over the information after the review, the person can take the matter further to the Information Commissioner.

Extinction Rebellion replaces fake grass with flowers in Harrogate

Environmental campaigners have removed fake grass from one of the raised beds in Harrogate’s Cambridge Street, and replaced it with plants.

Extinction Rebellion Harrogate claimed responsibility for the action in a sign posted on the bed reading, ‘Grow plants not plastic’.

The group also posted a poem on the bed titled ‘We Did This’. It reads:

“Just ordinary people

Made this ordinary stand”

The poem goes on to explain what they have done with the plastic grass:

“We haven’t stolen it

You get your plastic back

We have rolled it up and tied it

And put it in a sack”

Read more:

It is not known precisely when the group performed the stunt, although it is thought to have taken place last night or early this morning.

The controversial plastic grass first appeared last weekend, and has been widely condemned. Criticisms included the lack of aesthetic appeal and the anti-ecological nature of using plastic grass instead of real plants.

The Stray Ferret has approached Extinction Rebellion and Harrogate Borough Council, which installed the fake grass, for comment.

Decision on 200 homes in Pannal Ash delayed after protests

Harrogate Borough Council has postponed making a decision on controversial plans to build 200 homes on a former police training centre site.

The council’s planning committee was tomorrow due to hear the proposal for the site on Yew Tree Lane in Pannal Ash.

However, Harlow & Pannal Ash Residents Association called for the application to be moved after it said several people who objected to the plans were not told about the meeting and that nobody from the group had been invited to speak against the plans.

The council today admitted it had made an error and withdrew the item on the agenda.

Read more:

It now intends to make a decision on June 3.

HAPARA welcomed the delay but said said no decision should be taken until a parameters plan for the western side of Harrogate is agreed.

A total of 4,000 homes are due to be built on the western side of town, including those at the former police training centre.

The parameters plan, which the council is developing, assesses transport and infrastructure needs associated with the housebuilding. It was expected last year but has been delayed.

The spokesperson for HAPARA said it had received assurances from the council that no new developments would be considered in the area until the plan had been agreed

The spokesperson said:

“Whilst we welcome the postponement from the planning meeting tomorrow we are very concerned that the revised date has been suggested of June 3.

“Although this will give groups opportunity to review the latest reports it is unlikely that the area parameters plan will have been approved by the council.

“It has been agreed by all parties that this parameters plan is a key and critical document needed before any major new developments are considered in the area. As such this application must be delayed whilst infrastructure and other facilities/ amenities in the western arc arc of Harrogate are finalised. Without this we will continue with further piecemeal planning decisions.”

The council told the Local Democracy Reporting Service there had been an “administrative error”.

It said in a statement:

“We would like to thank the people who made us aware of the issue. The opportunity for people to speak at planning committee meetings is an important part of the democratic process.

“The item will now be considered on June 3, which should give everyone interested in the application time to put their views to the committee.”

Turf wars: Harrogate council spent £800 on fake grass

Harrogate Borough Council has confirmed that it spent £800 on the installation of fake grass in the town centre.

The council has also told the Stray Ferret, after an overwhelmingly negative response, that it has no plans for further turf in the town.

That news will likely come as a relief to many residents, some of which feel like the new look undermines Harrogate’s reputation as an upmarket, floral town.

We have received more than 300 comments in the past few days. Nearly all criticised the council’s new grass.

Read more:

Organisations including the Harrogate Civic Society, the Harrogate BID and the Stray Defence Association have also voiced their displeasure.

The council previously said that it had received “lots of positive feedback” and explained that it was “testing ways of brightening up the town.”

“The trees mean any plants in the beds struggle for light and moisture, so we’re looking at potential ways of keeping the beds neat and tidy without plants in them.

“When summer bedding plants become available, we will place additional planters and hanging baskets in the town centre to add a splash of vibrant colour.”

The Stray Ferret also asked if the council had plans to take the turf down from the raised beds on Cambridge Street and Oxford Street. We have not yet had a reply.

New footbridge planned for RHS Harlow Carr

RHS Harlow Carr has lodged plans for a new footbridge in its gardens.

The application submitted to Harrogate Borough Council would see the wooden bridge cross over Queen Mother’s Lake.

It forms part of proposals to improve the visitor experience at the attraction.

Liz Thwaite, head of site, said:

“The new bridge is part of our overall masterplan for the RHS Harlow Carr site, and will improve the flow of people and the overall visitor experience. 

“It has been made possible through a generous donation, which we will release more information about in due course.”

The gently curved bridge would be built at the south of the gardens, near to Otley Road.

Read more: 

According to planning documents, the bridge would be three metres wide so that there is space for people to pass on foot, in wheelchairs or with prams and scooters.

The path at the south of the gardens would also be realigned towards the bridge as part of the wider masterplan.

A decision on the planning application will be made at a later date.

Huge backlash against ‘cheap and tacky’ fake grass

Harrogate Borough Council has defended its decision to install fake grass in the town centre despite an overwhelmingly negative response.

The Stray Ferret’s article that broke the news yesterday received well over 150 replies on Facebook and nearly all of them criticised the move.

Comments ranged from “it looks cheap and tacky” to “wasting council tax money yet again” to “who actually sat there thinking this was a cracking idea?”.

Some people felt artificial grass undermined Harrogate’s reputation as an upmarket, floral town.

Organisations also spoke out against the move.

Henry Pankhurst, who represents Harrogate Civic Society on planning issues, said:

“I agree with those who dislike the unnecessary production of plastic that damages the environment. We may unfortunately find it displaced and strewn on the ground.

“I would like to see it taken away, it is not an enhancement for the street scene and the conservation area.”

Read more:

Harrogate Business Improvement District, which attempts to increase footfall to the town centre, distanced itself from the council’s decision.

Sara Ferguson, the BID chair, said:

“We want to make it clear that the fake grass being ‘planted’ around town centre trees is nothing to do with Harrogate BID.

“We have spent a considerable amount of money installing barrier baskets, placing planters outside town centre businesses, and arranging for hanging baskets to be displayed outside many shops – all done to help build on Harrogate’s reputation as a floral town, and to make the town centre as attractive as possible.”

The Stray Defence Association was concerned about the environmental impact, tweeting:

“Real grass or plants absorb carbon dioxide from the air and release oxygen. False turf is a reservoir for not only fungus and bacteria, but also contaminated organic matter.

“It kills healthy soil bacteria, worms and root systems underneath it. Water is not absorbed and runs off.”

The council has so far declined to reveal the cost of the scheme. But a spokeswoman said the move had received “lots of positive feedback”. She added:

“We are testing ways of brightening up Harrogate town centre.

“The trees mean any plants in the beds struggle for light and moisture, so we’re looking at potential ways of keeping the beds neat and tidy without plants in them.

“When summer bedding plants become available, we will place additional planters and hanging baskets in the town centre to add a splash of vibrant colour.”

 

Harrogate businesses frustrated over delayed covid restart grants

Harrogate district business owners have expressed frustration about still waiting for government grants intended to help them reopen safely.

The government announced in the March budget that restart grants of up to £18,000 would be available from April 1.

Harrogate Borough Council, which is administering the grants locally, has previously said it hoped to be able to start awarding grants from April 26.

It has received more than 1,600 applications and although at least a third have been paid, many business owners are still waiting for them and some are exasperated by a lack of communication from the council.

Kate Borgen, owner of Ikonik Hair on King’s Road, was disappointed not to have received the grant before reopening:

“The problem for our industry is that demand is so high right now so all our costs are high because of rising costs for products. Without having that restart grant it’s been quite difficult.”

Read more:

Matthew Norris, owner of Sandwiches and More in Bilton and on Royal Parade, Harrogate applied for a grant as soon as the scheme opened on April 8 and is still waiting.

He told the Stray Ferret he had emailed the council twice in the last week, and sent messages on Facebook and Twitter, without receiving a response.

The scheme has been criticised for coming too late to help many businesses which reopened on April 12.

Its aim was to help non-essential retail and hospitality businesses to reopen safely but stringent anti-fraud checks imposed by the national government on local authorities has meant that almost none were able to send out money in time for the initial easing of lockdown restrictions.

A spokesperson for Harrogate Borough council said:

“We’ve been working very hard since last year to administer the various financial support schemes the government has offered. Grants worth millions of pounds have been paid to thousands of businesses across the district.

More than 1,600 restart grant applications have been received. So far, we’ve approved 902 of those and payments totalling £6.8 million have been made to businesses. We will continue to work as hard as we can to process the other applications and – subject to the checks that have to take place – we aim to have made all payments by May 14.”

 

Sale of Ripon Spa Baths to go ahead despite protests

Harrogate Borough Council has rejected repeated calls for the sale of Ripon Spa Baths to be halted while work on the city’s regeneration masterplan is underway.

The council put the historic baths on the market in February in a move which sparked concerns that it could lose its community use if snapped up by a private developer.

Groups including Ripon City Council, Ripon Civic Society and Ripon Together have since made calls for the sale not to be rushed through.

But a Harrogate Borough Council spokesperson has now made its intentions clearer than ever. The spokesperson said:

“We have no plans to withdraw the sale of Ripon Spa Baths.

“The building will soon become surplus to our requirements and we do not have the resources to maintain it.

“Selling the baths for redevelopment, subject to planning permission and listed building consents, would allow this local asset to be given a new lease of life, retain its key features and remain as a city landmark.

“Ripon City Council, or another interested party, is welcome to submit a bid.”

Read more:

Alternative options

City council leader Andrew Williams told a meeting on Tuesday that it was “clearly inappropriate” for the 116-year-old baths to remain on the market while the Ripon Renewal Project is underway.

The Harrogate Borough Council-led project started in January with a consultancy firm being paid £85,000 to draw up a vision for the future of the city and help it win funding for major infrastructure, planning and community projects.

At Tuesday’s meeting, Cllr Williams also pledged to set up a community working group to think up future uses for the baths, which will reopen on May 14 following months of closures caused by the lockdown and staffing issues.

He said:

“This council needs to take a lead in bringing other groups together to look at alternatives in terms of what the Spa Baths site could potentially be used for.

“With this master-planning exercise going on at the moment, we shouldn’t be taking this building out of the equation.”

The Harrogate Borough Council spokesperson said the building was being sold because it will no longer be needed by the authority when the refurbishment of Ripon Leisure Centre is completed later this year.

The multi-million pound upgrades were due to be completed earlier in 2021 but there have been construction and covid delays.

The spokesperson added:

“Our strategy of disposing of assets no longer required means we have been able to invest more than £10m in Ripon.

“The city’s new state-of-the-art, bigger, and better swimming pool and refurbished leisure centre will open at the end of this year”.