Harrogate Borough Council has defended its decision-making on its new civic centre following an investigation by The Stray Ferret.

After our reports were published on Monday morning, Harrogate Borough Council posted a series of tweets in response.

In response to articles published on the Stray Ferret website about the supposed cost of civic centre in #Harrogate, the articles are not accurate. The figures are based on a wide range of assumptions backed up by unnamed experts.

— Harrogate Borough Council (@Harrogatebc) July 13, 2020

As outlined in our reports, in the course of our investigation we contacted and interviewed a number of established, independent estate agents, architects and quantity surveyors. Each gave us their honest opinion based on their expertise but, as they all work in the local area, they asked us not to identify them in our reports.

Land value

The land at civic centre did not cost the council £4.5million. We already owned it, so the cost was £0. Including the assumed value of land when working out the cost of a building is not a methodology we ever used.

— Harrogate Borough Council (@Harrogatebc) July 13, 2020

The Stray Ferret has looked through all the available documents at the time, including the appraisal of the Hornbeam site and others. They sum up the council’s view that none of them was as suitable as Knapping Mount.

Though the council can argue it did not spend any money on the Knapping Mount site because it already owned it, this misses a central point of our investigation. The land was potentially extremely valuable and, if sold, could have brought in sufficient income to buy and build on a cheaper site elsewhere, with resulting savings for taxpayers.

Without having achieved planning permission, the council could never have had a clear value of the land in order to make an informed decision about whether to sell it or build on it.

Other options

It is true that one of the sites we considered was at Hornbeam Park. A full appraisal of this option was put to cabinet and council in October 2014 and rejected as not viable. You can read more at: https://t.co/w0ZnpRLyyB

— Harrogate Borough Council (@Harrogatebc) July 13, 2020

What has never been released, however, is the full detail of those sites, how the costs were calculated and why they were dismissed as less favourable than Knapping Mount. A full report was done by an external consultant – but this has always been kept under wraps.

As outlined in our report, the council referred to areas including Pannal and Beckwith Knowle, but did not specify which sites, or whether they were buying buildings or land to build a new office on.

These details were never part of any public consultation or even discussion. Without this information being made public, local taxpayers are unable to judge whether the council made sensible use of their money.

Final costs

At the moment, we cannot reveal the final cost of the building as we have not agreed a final bill with the developer. It is now in receivership. We are waiting for an update from the official receiver. As soon as the final cost is known to us, it will be made public.

— Harrogate Borough Council (@Harrogatebc) July 13, 2020

The final cost of the build is only part of the picture. We know the contract was agreed at £11.5m and the council views that as the fixed cost. The contractor has argued for more money and only in time will we find out what has to be paid.

But there is more to it than that. The additional value of the land has never been discussed publicly, and nor have the costs of fitting out the building – everything from flooring to light fixtures, IT infrastructure and more. There is no reason why the council cannot release these details now, more than two-and-a-half years after the building was occupied, and we call on them to do so.

Savings

Civic centre represents excellent value for the council tax payer of the district. It saves us around £1million a year compared to running and maintaining the previous network of offices. This is money that was sorely needed to keep our public services running in recent months.

— Harrogate Borough Council (@Harrogatebc) July 13, 2020

The council argues that the civic centre saves £1m per year and we don’t dispute that those savings have been made. However, any money saved was through reducing staff numbers, working on one site instead of five and moving to a modern, efficient building.

All of those savings could have been made with a move to any new office – it did not have to be Knapping Mount. A cheaper site and a cheaper build would have given the same results AND left taxpayers enjoying the benefit of the same savings.

Questions still to be answered

A number of key points in our investigation have still not received a response from HBC.

We found that their choice of a round building – designed to ‘express the nature of democracy’ – made the project more complex and therefore more expensive. The council has not defended this choice.

Nor has it responded to the continuing threat of devolution which could mean the new civic centre is no longer needed, or is too large or even too small for changing requirements in Harrogate in the next few years. These discussions began before the council committed to the new building and are continuing now:, with change expected within two years.

There has been no justification for the need for a town centre office, which dominated HBC’s decision-making process and bumped up the cost of out-of-town options, as it argued it had to retain another central office as a customer service centre.

Finally, the council has still not explained why, when the Knapping Mount site was earmarked for housing, it did not attempt to get planning permission in order to asses the true value of that land before deciding to where to build the new civic centre. Without that, we can never know what the land could have been worth.

Councillors have given the green light for 64 homes to be built at Church Farm in Tockwith, despite passionate pleas from objectors.

Harrogate Borough Council’s planning committee met this afternoon via Zoom and voted by seven to four for the application to be deferred to the chief planner for approval, subject to a Section 106 agreement and an ecology report.

The development was brought before the planning committee in January but was deferred after concerns were raised around the density of housing. Since then, York-based developer Mulgrave Developments reduced the number of homes from 68 to 64.

Cllr Norman Waller, ward member for Marston Moor, said the strength of feeling against the development from Tockwith residents was so strong that to approve it would “show local democracy at its worst”.

The site is allocated within HBC’s Local Plan for 53 homes and Cllr Waller said the extra 11 homes were a “stab in the back” to the local community.

He also criticised the design of the homes, suggesting the development could become the “slums of tomorrow”.

He said:

“The design is totally bog-standard, unimaginative and doesn’t represent housing styles in Tockwith conservation area.”

Another objector, Mr Pozman, pleaded with councillors to reject the application, saying it “rides roughshod over the principle of conservation.”

He said:

“The development would obliterate the landscape setting of our village. Please don’t let the developers destroy the character of Tockwith forever.”

Mark Blaine, speaking on behalf of the developer, said the updated plans are “more spacious and have reduced density”. He also said the houses are built to the “highest standard of materials and design”.

Read more:

• Harrogate loses ‘feel-good factor’ due to new housing

• Major Harrogate housing scheme blocked for second time

Cllr Pat Marsh asked why no energy statement had been submitted as part of the application. She said she was “very unhappy” with the way the council is currently dealing with environmental and sustainability issues surrounding housing.

In response, Mr Blane confirmed that no energy statement was submitted as there was no requirement to do so.

Nicholas Turpin, planning officer at HBC, added that until the council has a supplementary planning document in place regarding greener housing, it doesn’t have the ability to refuse an application on that basis.

A Section 106 agreement includes what the developer will pay towards local infrastructure such as roads or schools.

Harrogate Borough Council’s new civic centre has been branded a ‘vanity project’ by a campaign group focused on the good use of public money.

The comments from the Taxpayers’ Alliance comes after The Stray Ferret investigated the costs and decisions around the civic centre, finding its true cost to taxpayers was £17m.

Having seen the investigation, Harry Fone, grassroots campaign manager at the TaxPayers’ Alliance said:

“This is an absolutely shocking and ridiculous waste of money. Poor council procurement and planning has cost taxpayers dearly.

“Residents have faced year after year of rate rises. They don’t deserve to see their hard-earned taxes frittered away on council vanity projects.

“It is essential that every penny of public funds delivers maximum possible value. Harrogate council must clean up its act and stop taking ratepayers for a ride.”

Political reaction

Harrogate Liberal Democrat opposition group has also slammed the council’s spending on the project.

Cllr Pat Marsh, who leads the group on Harrogate Borough Council, said:

“Liberal Democrat councillors have opposed this move from the very beginning, arguing that it’s a shocking waste of money and we should be investing in the services that touch people’s daily lives.

“However our opposition was ignored by Conservative councillors who stressed at great length that this would be a £9million project which ‘will pay for itself within five years’. Our residents need to know whether this is still the case, and if not, why not? It is their money and they deserve answers.”

Despite spending millions, Harrogate Borough Council still faces problems with its new civic centre. 

The amount of parking on offer has been controversial from the outset and results in staff having to park elsewhere – taking up valuable commercial spaces and clogging residential streets. 

While HBC argued its move to the new civic centre would save £1m a year, this would have been true no matter which site the council chose for its new headquarters. 

The building itself has no mayor’s parlour for civic occasions, a choice which was queried by groups including Harrogate Civic Society, leaving nowhere to host visitors.

The council also made the move knowing that changes could lie ahead for local government, with the future shape of local government in North Yorkshire being debated at the time. Now, with HBC having only been in the civic centre for two years, even the existence of district councils is up for debate as North Yorkshire prepares for devolution.

Why is parking a problem? 

From the outset, the amount of parking was controversial.  

• Previously, 266 spaces were available across HBC’s five sites 
• Knapping Mount has just 95 spaces for staff and visitors 
• 561 staff are based there (though not all are there five days a week) 

As a result, the council is using spaces at the nearby Harrogate Convention Centre as overflow parking. In its plans for using up to 130 of these spaces, HBC acknowledged that it could result in a reduction in the £150,000 annual income from the public using the HCC car park 

When events are held, staff can park free in the Victoria multi-storey car park, using permits issued by HBC.  

• Usual cost of £11.70 for nine hours 
• Annual parking pass costs a member of the public £1,512 
• 786 parking spaces available 
• 698 parking passes have been issued to staff 

While it is unlikely they would all be used at the same time for the full day, there is no limit on how many spaces in the Victoria Car Park can be taken up by council staff. 

Not only does this mean that staff are being given free parking in a prime spot for shoppers who could be supporting local businesses, but it also limits the potential income for the council from parking spaces. 

The new civic centre car park has 95 spaces, with 561 staff based there

A report to HBC’s cabinet in November 2014, before building work began at Knapping Mount, rejected the multi-storey car park as an option. It said: 

“The use of Victoria Car Park as a potential location for employee parking has been considered, however feedback suggests that this may not be well utilised by employees due to the facility being more distant from the Knapping Mount site.” 

However, staff are now given passes for that car park when the convention centre is in use. If they do, as predicted, feel it is too far, the only option left to staff who drive is to park on surrounding streets. 

North Yorkshire County Council, which looks after on-street parking, warned during the planning process that it would have to enforce residents’ parking zones if neighbouring streets became congested. It said it would review the situation annually for five years after the new civic centre was occupied, in December 2017. 

The county council told The Stray Ferret it was working with HBC to monitor the situation, but follow-up surveys to its initial report have not been possible during the pandemic and would not give a representative picture of normal working days. Allan McVeigh, NYCC’s head of network strategy, said:

“Harrogate Borough Council is not only obliged to monitor how staff travel to the civic centre and where they park, it has also committed to promoting sustainable travel and encouraging staff, councillors and visitors to reduce their car use.

“The borough council has provided us with a draft monitoring report that contains the results of a travel survey, an update on agreed travel plans as well as a number of initiatives to promote sustainable travel to the civic centre.”

The full report will be published on HBC’s website once finalised.

Read more:

• The Stray Ferret reveals the civic centre cost taxpayers £17m
• Expensive design choices as council sought to ‘express nature of democracy’
• The alternative site that could have saved £7m

What savings have been made?

An ambitious savings target of £1m per year was set by HBC when it planned its new civic centre, which the ruling Conservative party said would mean the £5m spend would pay for itself in five years. 

Taken from a Conservative leaflet distributed in 2014

In its 2019 annual report, HBC said:  

“Savings of £909k from our move to civic centre have been built into the base budget and approved budget for 2019/20.” 

According to the council, this is made up of: 

• Senior management review – £269,000 
• Running costs – £265,000 
• Facilities management and support services – £134,000 
• Reduction in annual provision for print equipment replacement – £13,500 
• ICT – £227,000 
• TOTAL – £908,500 

The same could have been achieved by a move to any modern building. Knapping Mount did not have to be chosen in order to reduce staff numbers and streamline IT.  

A move to any single site would have delivered the same results – so a site and build which cost millions less would have paid for itself much sooner. 

If the new civic centre is no longer needed

When the public consultation over the Knapping Mount proposal was held in 2015, concerns were raised about future changes to local government.  

At the time, Harrogate Chamber of Trade and Commerce said a potential move to a unitary authority in the coming years could mean Harrogate no longer has a council, being replaced by a single authority for the whole county. 

The chamber argued that the decision over a new office should be delayed until the future of local government was clearer. However, HBC’s response at the time was that, should a move to unitary authority be made, a new civic centre would put Harrogate in an ideal position to become its headquarters.  

With discussions about unitary authorities and devolution still going on, the council’s civic centre may not be needed in the next few years

Even with that level of uncertainty, HBC chose to spend millions on a new headquarters. Its five offices could have lasted a few more years until the future of local government had been confirmed. 

If it had deemed the move essential at the time, a more traditional building design would have been pragmatic: the council could have extended or sold the building, or even leased part of it to a commercial tenant, if its needs changed. 

As it is, one local expert told The Stray Ferret that the council’s choice of a round building has restricted its adaptability for re-use or sale in future, meaning it is less valuable than it might have been.  

Five years later, the issue of changes to local government is still being debated. North Yorkshire County Council leader Carl Les told The Stray Ferret last week that discussions are still being held about forming a combined authority for North Yorkshire – and Unison has issued a statement raising concerns about the situation. 

The future of local government in Harrogate is still uncertain – meaning the new civic centre may no longer be required just a few years after it was built.

Next:

• The questions still remaining over Harrogate’s civic centre

More than two-and-a-half years after HBC moved into its new civic centre, there are still question marks over some of the logic and decision-making involved.

After our in-depth investigation, The Stray Ferret would like to know: 

• Full details of which other sites were considered and how the costs of these were calculated 
• Why the council didn’t apply for planning permission for homes at Knapping Mount to assess its true market value 
• Why a town centre base was deemed essential – even though Knapping Mount is in a largely residential area 
• Why such an unusual design was chosen and whether more traditional options were costed up before the decision was made 
• The detail of the financial claim made by Harry Fairclough Ltd to HBC, which the authority disputes 
• The full costs on top of the build, including all fixtures and fittings – IT, flooring, furniture and other essentials 
• Why the publicly discussed cost of the project not take account of the value of the land on which the civic centre was built 

In its preparations, HBC said the new civic centre represented “good value and careful use of public money”. Our investigation calls into question whether that was the case. 

It is now for the public to decide whether £17m really represents the best possible use of public funds. 

Read more:

• Revealed: The true cost of Harrogate’s civic centre
• The design choices that pushed up the price of Harrogate’s civic centre
• The option dismissed by HBC that could have saved £7m
• Parking, efficiencies and devolution: is the civic centre delivering value for money?

As the council faces unprecedented financial challenges and a possible £15m deficit, with inevitable cuts to services ahead, could more prudent choices over the civic centre have placed it in a better position to support local residents?  

And with the looming possibility of changes to the structure of local government in North Yorkshire, was it prudent for the council to invest so much money in a headquarters that may not be needed within just a few years of being completed?

The National Audit Office, which examines local councils’ use of taxpayers’ money, says: 

“Local public bodies are required to maintain an effective system of internal control that supports the achievement of their policies, aims and objectives while safeguarding and securing value for money from the public funds and other resources at their disposal.” 

The council’s external auditors have signed off the accounts for the years when those decisions were made.

So we ask taxpayers: was it worth it?

The Stray Ferret has today asked Harrogate Borough Council for a response to our investigation and will publish this when it is received.

Since publication of our first reports yesterday, the council has posted a series of tweets responding to our findings and questioning our sources.

In the course of our investigation, The Stray Ferret contacted and interviewed a number of established, independent estate agents, architects and quantity surveyors. Each gave us their honest opinion based on their expertise but, as they all work in the local area, they asked us not to identify them in our reports.

Harrogate Borough Council is set to consult on three plots of land to be designated the Stray as part of a land swap to make way for the Otley Road Cycle Route.

The building of the cycle route means that verges classed as Stray land have to be removed. As part of the Stray Act, a suitable plot of land must be offered in exchange.

The council will now consult on the three areas of land before settling on one to exchange.

The three areas identified are:

• Wetherby Road land next to the war memorial (preferred option)
• St James Drive verges
• Arthurs Avenue verges

Senior councillors on the borough council’s cabinet are expected to approve the public consultation on Wednesday.

It comes as North Yorkshire County Council’s looks to press ahead with a multi-million cycle route on the stretch of road between Harlow Moor Road and Beech Grove.

Read more

• The agony of getting a single cycle route built in Harrogate
• 26 cyclists a year injured in collisions in Harrogate
• Cyclists groups must “remain realistic”, says county council

The scheme has been marred by delays and, with less than a mile of the route being built, the county council has been criticised over a “lack of ambition”.

Now, highways bosses will hope that the consultation will lead to a solution to its latest stumbling block and prevent any further setbacks.

The preferred area of land outlined in Harrogate Borough Council documents earmarked to be exchanged as part of the Otley Road cycle route.

Lengthy negotiations with the Duchy of Lancaster over the use of Stray land on the footpaths and verges between Cold Bath Road and Beech Grove delayed the second phase of the project from going ahead.

The borough council’s preferred option would see a plot of land behind Harrogate District Hospital which adjoins the end of Willaston Road offered in exchange.

While the land has a covenant which states that it is intended for recreational and open space, the council said it would not prevent it from being used as exchange land.

However, the Stray Defence Association (SDA) raised concern over the amenity value of the second and third options outlined by the council.

Judy D’Arcy Thompson from the SDA said:

“Land taken from the Stray to build roads, footpaths etc remains forever Stray land, belonging ultimately to the Crown.

“However, as everything on the surface of the Stray belongs to the people of Harrogate, any land utilised for any purpose must be given back to Harrogate’s people as ‘payback land and be of the same amenity value to them as their original Stray.

“What concerns us about the latest proposals from HBC and NYCC is just that. Of what ‘amenity value’ are the verges along Arthurs Avenue and St James Drive going to be for local people?

“Are people going to picnic there, sit and read a book there, play football, cricket, or any other game there? We think not. Therefore, what actual ‘amenity value’ does the land being offered have?”

The new civic centre constructed by Harrogate Borough Council cost the taxpayer at least £17m, The Stray Ferret can reveal. 

From its choice of an expensive round building to opting to use a highly valuable piece of land, the council wasted millions of pounds of public money. 

The council argued at the time that it offered value for money. Our investigation shows that, because the potential value of the land at Knapping Mount was never fully revealed, taxpayers were not given a true picture of the overall costs involved. 

Over the next few days, we will investigate: 

• A building which cost millions – but will be very difficult to sell 
• A site which could have been hugely valuable if sold 
• Other options dismissed as too expensive, but full details have never been revealed 
• A site put forward at the time which would have saved £7 million 
• Continuing concerns over issues including parking 
• The savings promised by the council would have been achieved on any other site 

The new civic centre at Knapping Mount

It is our belief that the council chose Knapping Mount because it wanted to create a landmark building in the town centre.  

Now, with a true picture of the costs, the taxpayer can decide: was the new civic centre worth it? 

How did it cost £17m?

The contract awarded to builder Harry Fairclough Ltd for the construction was worth £11.5m.  

The final bill has not been settled: the contractor – now in administration – believes the council should pay more, but HBC views £11.5m as the fixed cost. 

The Stray Ferret has conducted an investigation into the value of the land on which it was built. We believe that value is at least £4.5m.   

On top of that, almost £400,000 was spent on furniture. Total costs for flooring, IT infrastructure and other essential fittings have never been confirmed and could add even more to the cost.

A total spend of £865,000 was approved in 2013 for appointing a professional design team and for design, pre-planning and project costs. 

The unique round design of the new civic centre would have added a significant amount to the cost of the project. Experts have told The Stray Ferret that a curved design can add an average of 20% to the build cost. 

That all means that the total cost of the project was more than £17.2m. 

Read more on our investigation: 

• Expensive design choice as HBC sought to ‘express the nature of democracy’ 
• Better value option dismissed as council pursued town centre base 

Why was Knapping Mount so valuable?

Historically Knapping Mount was designated employment land because it had council offices on it.  

In 2014, though, the site had been earmarked for 52 homes in documents being prepared for the council’s Local Plan. That meant the land would have got planning permission for housing, and its value would have shot up. 

Yet, as it worked out the costs for its new civic centre, HBC chose not to explore this. It could have applied for formal planning permission and then had the land valued. Without this information it could move to Knapping Mount without having to be clear about capital it could have raised from the sale of the land.   

The Knapping Mount site, off Kings Road, before the new civic centre was built

A letter from Harrogate Civic Society to HBC in 2013 clearly shows the potential value was raised before any decision was made: 

“We have obviously had no access to confidential property reports but have concerns that only a boutique hotel use is mentioned for Crescent Gardens, no apparent appreciation of Scotsdale as apartments or Springfield House as a budget hotel in cooperation with Holiday Inn or appraisal of the fact that Knapping Mount and Brandreth House form the most valuable residential site in the Council portfolio.” 

In its own documents assessing the site, HBC said that building on Knapping Mount meant the loss of a “significant capital receipt” – but never went into detail about just how much that could have been.  

In a request under the Freedom of Information Act, The Stray Ferret discovered that the council last had the land valued at the end of 2017. That valuation was £1.83m – but it was no longer earmarked as housing land and the civic centre had already been built.  

Our question is: why didn’t the council properly value the land for housing before the move and make that value public? 

How did we get a figure of £4.5m for the land?

After talking to experts and making comparisons with sites nearby we have put a figure of £4.5m on the land. Throughout our investigation, we have sought expert opinion and always opted for a conservative estimate.  

The nearby Springfield Court, at the junction of Kings Road and Springfield Avenue, was sold in 2017 for £4.835m with permission to convert its offices into 35 two-bedroom apartments. That development now has an extra 26 flats being built taking the total number of apartments there to 61. 

Knapping Mount, which is twice that size, was earmarked for 52 dwellings in 2014. Those properties could have been either apartments or houses and a developer could have chosen, like Springfield Court, to build higher and apply for permission to add more flats. Of those, 40% would have been designated affordable housing, and the site is in a conservation area, both of which affect its value.  

With advice from local experts, we have conservatively put a figure of £4.5m on the land.  

While the council could argue this was not a cost because it already owned the land, the fact remains that they could have sold it and banked the cash. 

But that’s not all we have found. In the next of our series of reports, we show how an expensive design bumped up the cost – and how they could have done it all for millions less.

Next:

• Council chose expensive design to ‘express the nature of democracy’

The bespoke circular design of Harrogate Borough Council’s new civic centre could have cost taxpayers an extra £2m. 

Speaking to The Stray Ferret, several local architects and quantity surveyors have estimated that curved design adds anywhere between 15 and 35% to the cost of building. Conservatively, we have estimated 20% for the additional cost at Knapping Mount.

The contract with builders Harry Fairclough Ltd was awarded for £11.5m. Using the 20% uplift indicated by experts, a more conventional design for the same square footage could have come in closer to £9.5m. 

Not only that, but the unique design of the building has made it very difficult to extend compared to a rectangular building. 

What were the reasons for that choice? In its planning application, HBC rather grandly said: 

“The circular plan form derives from a number of influences including the desire to express the nature of democracy and local government through a circular debating room which is located at the centre of the building.” 

It talked about creating a ‘one council’ culture through working in one place, serving as a main civic hub for the district, and said the design was influenced by a need to offer “good value and careful use of public money”. 

Read more on this investigation:

• Exclusive: Stray Ferret investigation reveals true cost of new civic centre
• Council rejected business park option that would have saved £7m

Why are round buildings so expensive?

Architects who spoke to The Stray Ferret said there are several reasons why curved construction is a more expensive choice. 

Each aspect of the build becomes more complex, from inserting square objects such as doors into rounded walls, to joining walls together and ensuring a watertight finish. 

Then the furnishings come into play. Flooring for a circular room is more expensive because there is more waste, while specialist furniture is needed to make the most of the space – otherwise, standard furniture leaves awkward, unusable areas.

At Harrogate’s civic centre, an astonishing 27 CCTV cameras are in place to monitor all the building’s facets, compared to just three in the district’s public parks. 

An architect’s drawing of Harrogate’s new civic centre

Local specialists who spoke to The Stray Ferret said it is much harder to use space efficiently in a room with curved walls, leading to a larger square footage being required to accommodate the same number of staff as a rectangular building.

One expert described the civic centre’s design as “ludicrous”. He told The Stray Ferret that the new civic centre is so bespoke that it would be hard to adapt for another purpose, leaving question marks over its potential resale value if it is no longer needed.

In the third part of our investigation, we look at what other options were available to the council – and how much less it could have cost the taxpayer.

Next:

• The dismissed alternatives – including one which could have saved £7m

In the third part of our investigation into the cost of Harrogate Borough Council’s civic centre, we examine how the council has publicly justified the decisions it made – and that cheaper options were set aside in favour of a town centre location.  

HBC has always framed the new civic centre as offering good value to taxpayers. In this report, we will explore the way the council has justified the money it spent and reveal that another option it dismissed would have come in at around £7m less.  

How the council justified Knapping Mount

In 2014, before the decision to move was made, a Conservative campaign leaflet stated that £9m was the gross figure and, following sales, the council expected the project to cost £5m.  

Taken from a Conservative leaflet distributed to local households in 2014

The final sentence of Cllr Cooper’s quote is particularly interesting:

“This consultation takes the politics out of the argument and gives the full facts.”

It later emerged £11.5m was the value of the contract awarded to the builder.  

HBC said that was always the ‘gross’ cost. The ‘net’ cost was £11.5m minus the income it made from selling its other buildings.

The leaflet distributed by the ruling Conservative party says otherwise.

What did the council sell to fund the move?

In moving to Knapping Mount, Harrogate Borough Council sold the following properties: 

• Crescent Gardens – £4m 
• Scottsdale House – £1.9m 
• Victoria Park House – £1.2m 

The total receipts for those came to £7.1m.  So according to the council’s argument, Knapping Mount actually only cost £4.4m to the taxpayer.   

Yet the cost of any commercial project is always the cost of the build plus the value of the land. Regardless of what was sold, how it was funded or what they offset to make it look cheaper, HBC spent £11.5m on the build and used a site worth £4.5m. 

Using their own logic, the council could have sold Knapping Mount with planning permission for housing and added that money to the pot, giving an income of £11.6m.

The alternatives

At the outset of the project, HBC commissioned a report into the options available. As well as staying in its existing offices, it considered buildings and sites around Harrogate. 

However, the full details of those sites have never been released. A summary document was presented to the cabinet for consideration, referring to a number of sites and costs including: 

• Hornbeam Park – £11.3m 
• Beckwith Knowle – £9m or £17m 
• Pannal – £20.5m 

How these figures were calculated – and which specific sites or buildings they referred to – has never been revealed.  

What is evident from the report, however, is that, alongside its aim of bringing all staff onto one site, HBC was determined to maintain a town centre presence.  

The same report also recognised the high potential value of Knapping Mount, but HBC opted not to realise this. In recommending to build on the site, with an indicated cost of £13 to £13.7m, it says: 

“Retaining the site does mean the loss of a significant capital receipt.” 

Read more on this investigation:

• Exclusive: Stray Ferret investigation reveals true cost of new civic centre
• Council chose round design to ‘express nature of democracy’

£7m to stay in the town centre

Another site at Hornbeam Park was offered to the council in August 2014 – more than a year before work began at Knapping Mount – at a total cost in the region of £10.5m. Two hectares of land would have cost around £1.5m and a rectangular build of the same square footage as the civic centre would have been no more than £9m, even for a high-spec finish. 

We would like to make it clear that Chris Bentley, from Hornbeam Park Developments Ltd, is a supporter of The Stray Ferret but has no involvement in any editorial decisions taken by this publication. For more information, click here. All information given to us for this report was assessed and included on its own merits.

Costed up by the council at the time, the Hornbeam Park option was put at £11.9m. Though the details of this total cost have never been made public, the higher value could include an allowance for retaining and refurbishing one of the council’s town centre buildings. The report on the investigation into this option says it “prevents a single site solution” and, being out of the town centre, “results in requirement for additional town centre customer service centre”.  

The Hornbeam Park option only prevented a single-site solution because the council was absolutely determined that it needed to be in the town centre.  Although high quality, the simple rectangular design would have been cheaper. 

The council headquarters put forward at Hornbeam Park were rejected

An office on the business park could have placed HBC adjacent to a railway station, giving ease of access for anyone using public transport. A bus route had previously existed between Hornbeam Park and the town centre, which HBC could have reinstated.  

The proposal suggested up to 177 parking spaces – 82 more than the civic centre now has – for anyone travelling in a car. And the growing trend for working online means most residents will never have cause to visit the civic centre anyway, on foot or otherwise. 

Harrogate Borough Council itself said in a 2014 report that visitor numbers were expected to decline: 

“Visitor allocation is included within the proposals for the Knapping Mount site; this is currently shown as five spaces but could be increased by the redesignation of six of employee spaces at the side of the building. This allocation is being carefully monitored and visitor surveys will continue to take place as the council moves towards the new accommodation, this will be necessary as the visitor numbers could decrease due to the channel shift effect of more services being deliverable online or via telephone.” 

Was being so central really necessary? Serving a district of more than 500 square miles, was it essential for HBC to be located in Harrogate town centre?  

Using their logic and offsetting the income from the sale of all the sites, the council could have had £11.6m to put towards the new civic centre. At a cost of £10.5m, this would have left £1.1m in the bank.  

Tomorrow:

• Is Knapping Mount delivering on promised savings?
• The problem of car parking at the new civic centre

Read The Stray Ferret on Tuesday morning for the full story.

Harrogate Borough Council has won a case in the UK’s second-highest appeals court over a contentious planning decision.

The ruling stems from September 2018 when HBC granted planning permission for 21 new homes in the village of Bickerton near Wetherby.

Oxton Farm, which is near to the development, sought to overturn the decision through a judicial review, which was rejected in 2019.

In June 2020 the farm took the case to the Court of Appeal in London. They argued that HBC deviated from a government method councils use to calculate how many homes are needed in an area.

As Harrogate had no Local Plan at the time of the decision, the government says planners should use the most recent household projections made by the Office of National Statistics as its baseline for calculating its five-year housing supply.

In a report published five days before the Bickerton planning decision was made, the ONS said HBC requires 383 homes to be built a year to meet its five-year housing supply. This was almost half the 669 homes that HBC said it needed to be built each year in a previous report.

Read more:

• Council steps in to buy Summerbridge social housing

• Harrogate loses ‘feel-good factor’ due to new housing

Lawyers representing Oxton Farm said that HBC’s original projection was “falsified” by the ONS statistics.

They argued that the ONS figure of 383 new homes showed there was a “substantial surplus” of deliverable housing sites in the district and therefore there was no need to grant permission for this development, which is on green belt land.

Ruling in favour of HBC in his judgement, Lord Justice Lewison said Oxton Farm’s position was “erroneous” because the ONS was not mandatory for councils to follow.

He said:

“Government policy states quite clearly (a) that the standard method is not mandatory; (b) that the purpose of the
standard method is to determine the minimum starting point in deciding the number of homes needed in an area; and (c) that higher housing targets than those produced by the standard method will be considered sound.”