Harrogate planner: ‘council mistakes have created massive urban sprawl’

A planning specialist has blamed Harrogate District Council’s “parochial mindset” and “lack of vision” for the district’s “massive urban sprawl”.

David Howarth, who was employed by the council for five years in the 1980s and then worked for it as a private consultant for 30 years, contacted the Stray Ferret to give us his views after reading our series of planning articles this week.

Mr Howarth said the coverage had “brilliantly identified the major problems we have had over the last 20 years”.

He said the district’s planning department had been in a “state of disarray for two decades”, which had left the area at the mercy of developers.

David Howarth

David Howarth

Mr Howarth said the “acutely embarrassing debacle” of the Local Plan, which maps planning in the district and took six years to finalise between 2014 and 2020, was the critical failure. He said:

“When you get to the position where you have no Local Plan it becomes a free-for-all.

“You can’t blame the developers. They’re just doing their job. You can’t criticise them any more than you can Volvo for selling cars.”

Read more:

Mr Howarth said many councils faced similar challenges but Harrogate Borough Council’s “parochial mindset” had backfired because its unrealistically low housing targets had been rejected by the government and resulted in far more being built. He said:

“We tried to restrict development because places like Harrogate and Knaresborough are nice places to live but when you try to restrict development to the absolute minimum and don’t conform with government guidelines, what happens then is the opposite arises and everybody piles in.

“In 1982 Killinghall Parish Council was screaming for a bypass. That’s 40 years ago — where’s the bypass? What we have instead is massive urban sprawl.

“A bypass could have been included in the Local Plan. The plan could have made developers pay a levy for houses they built Killinghall.”

Afraid to speak out

Mr Howarth said the council’s weak resistance to builders contrasted with its heavy-handed approach to residents seeking planning permission. He said:

“Some developments that have been accepted are very poor but if you put in an application to extend your conservatory they are down on you like a ton of bricks.”

Mr Howarth said the current situation was “predominantly the fault of the people in charge of Harrogate Borough Council” and its planning department needed to be more dynamic and visionary.

He said many planners were reluctant to speak out in case it cost them work with the council. He said:

“I’ve retired and could not care less now. Five years ago I wouldn’t have made this phone call.”

The Stray Ferret has asked Harrogate Borough Council for a response to Mr Howarth’s claims. At the time of publication we had not received one.

Investigation: Harrogate targeted for development during planning chaos

An investigation by the Stray Ferret has uncovered how some of Britain’s biggest land promoters deliberately targeted Harrogate to exploit cheap land and high property prices.

Between 2014 and 2020 the district’s planning system was in disarray.

These failings made it easy for developers to get controversial housing schemes approved. The developers, knowing this, made speculative applications for thousands of homes across the district.

All this week, the Stray Ferret looks at the impact of six years of planning failings: thousands of extra cars on the roads, large detached houses prioritised over much-needed affordable homes for local people, and a lack of sustainable, environmentally friendly building.

Today, we examine how the Harrogate district became a target for opportunistic developers .

The draw of Harrogate

The Harrogate district is a prime place for money to be made in property.

It’s one of the most desirable places to live, often coming top in national property surveys. Just last month, Harrogate was named the ‘chic capital of the North’ by Tatler. It makes it very attractive to developers.

The latest figures put the average home at almost £360,000 – a whopping 13 times the average income for the district.

It is, according to the Harrogate Borough Council Housing Strategy 2019-2024, the least affordable area in the north of England.

It means home owning is out of reach for many low to middle income families caught in the Harrogate housing trap. There are more than 2,000 families in the district on the Housing Register living in unsuitable accommodation.

It’s not a question of Harrogate building too many properties. Rather, it’s too few of the right homes, in the right places, at the right price to meet local people’s need for affordable homes.

Planning failings

Every council has to put forward a 21-year plan to the Secretary of State for approval.The Planning Inspectorate examines local plans on the Secretary of State’s behalf to determine their suitability.

In 2014, the Planning Inspectorate advised Harrogate Borough Council  to withdraw its version of the Local Development Plan (or LDP 2014-2035).

The LDP sets out the council’s priorities and policies for land use. It defines where and how many homes can be built, where employment sites are located and what our town centre will become.

For a plan to be approved, it must demonstrate that it is well evidenced and meets local need. The plan must be in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and a raft of legislation, practice guidance and regulations.

Harrogate Borough Council withdrew its draft LDP at its first hearing on April 24, 2014, upon advice from the planning inspectorate.

The failed plan – years in the making – was deemed ‘inadequate’.

A letter from the Planning Inspectorate to Harrogate on April 29, 2014 explained that the evidence used in the plan was too out of date to be meaningful.

Harrogate was forced back to the drawing board.

Prior to its submission, Liberal Democrat leader councillor Pat Marsh had told the Yorkshire Post:

“I do not have confidence in anything to do with the plan, whether it be the actual allocation of homes, whether there is the necessary infrastructure in place to cope and how members will be able to decide on the final proposals which are still being finalised. I have been a councillor for 22 years, but I have never experienced anything quite like this. It is a complete shambles.”

Conservative councillor Alan Skidmore, who was appointed cabinet member for planning at HBC in 2012, publicly defended the plan at the time. Yet speaking to the Stray Ferret this year, he said he knew the plan that had been prepared was “absolute rubbish”.

“I was astonished. I delayed it as much as I could, much to the chagrin of certain planning officers. We were forced to submit it in the state it was in, because if we didn’t, the government would have taken steps against us.”

Houses under construction at Harlow Hill Grange in Harrogate

The local plan should have helped control where new housing was built

Land supply

Harrogate failed on another critical requirement. Councils must show that they have a supply of specific deliverable sites enough to provide five years’ worth of new housing (plus an appropriate buffer).

This is called the five-year land supply (5YLS).

In 2014, the council had more than two thousand families on the housing register.

Planning inspectors and developers surgically dissected Harrogate’s calculation that just 390 new market and affordable homes per annum was enough to meet housing need.

The figure had to be revised, and Harrogate employed a consultant, GL Hearn.

To meet the 5YLS, Harrogate had to find enough developers with land to deliver 1,050 completed homes a year.

As a result, the land earmarked for development within the plan was insufficient.

The perfect storm

Without an approved local plan and evidence of a five-year land supply, a condition called the ‘tilted balance in favour of presumption of approval’ was triggered which prioritised building houses.

In 2013, the Campaign for Rural England warned local government that a

“widespread failure to implement local plans left 175 local authorities (including Harrogate) vulnerable to ‘damaging development’”.

But the Federation of House Builders disagreed, saying:

‘‘Fears that the lack of a (local development) plan will lead to the untrammelled destruction of the countryside are overblown. Even where there is no Local Plan, development must still conform to the NPPF, which clearly sets out that development must be well located, well designed and sustainable.”

Harrogate Borough Council planners advised councillors from 2014 to 2018 that there was a ‘tilted balance’ in favour of approval on almost every major development regardless of whether the site was well located and sustainable.

For almost every major housing scheme, planning officers advised committee members to approve the application.

The planning committee did turn down some applications during that time, though, and the council successfully defended its decision at appeal.

A district vulnerable to promoters

Enter the land promoter: land promoters seek out land which could be ripe for housing and help the owner get outline planning permission before managing the onward sale to a developer.

In the Harrogate district, a hectare of agricultural land will fetch around £25,000 at the farmers’ auction.

As a development site with outline planning approval, the same land will realise between £1.2 and £2.3 million.

The promoter then takes a share of the land’s increased value when it’s sold.

Gladman Land is the promoter behind applications for nearly 1,500 properties in the district since 2014, including Harrogate, Boroughbridge, Killinghall and Knaresborough.

Co-founder David Gladman told the High Court in July 2016:

“We normally only target local authorities whose planning is in relative disarray and… either have no up-to-date local plan or, temporarily, they do not have a five-year supply of consented building plots.”

Even if the council refuses the application, it’s of no consequence.

Gladman Land stated that going to appeal was part of its business strategy, with a success rate of over 90%. They advertise themselves as one of the most successful land promoters in England.

It’s completely legal and was essentially a standard practice within the land promotion industry.

In 2016/17, Harrogate received the highest number of planning applications since records began.

Crofter's Green Killinghall

The development at Crofters Green, Killinghall, was one of those passed at appeal. Click here to read more.

Strengthening position

By January 2019, Harrogate could demonstrate a robust 5YLS which tilted the balance in a different direction.

Harrogate Borough Council’s planning committee was advised to support an outline application by Gladman’s to build 175 houses on Bar Lane, Knaresborough.

The debate ran over several hours with councillors struggling to reach a consensus, despite officers’ recommendation to approve the proposal. Eventually, the committee deferred the application to planning officers to approve, subject to some details being finalised.

But just nine months later, on September 9, 2019, the same application returned to the planning committee who refused it against the advice of officers.

The advanced state of the local plan and a healthy 5YLS gave the planning committee the confidence to reject the proposal.

The local development plan was finally accepted by the planning inspectorate and adopted by HBC in May 2020 affording further protection against harmful development in the borough.

But the damage has been done to the fabric of our communities, and over the next week, the Stray Ferret will look at the impact that six years of planning dysfunction has had on the lives of local people.

Coming up

All this week, we look at the impact of a planning system in disarray. 

 

Harrogate council wins contentious planning case at Court of Appeal

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:

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.”

 

Developer launches judicial review into major extension to Green Hammerton

Flaxby Park Ltd has launched a judicial review into the controversial decision to build a major extension to Green Hammerton.

After a bitter debate over where to build thousands of new homes in the east of the district, Harrogate Borough Council formally adopted its local plan in March and took the decision to build at Green Hammerton.

The local plan was backed by the government’s Planning Inspector, Richard Schofield, despite a long fought battle from residents in Green Hammerton who argued strongly that it was not required.

It will see up to 3,000 new homes built and extended into nearby Kirk Hammerton and Cattal.

But residents of Green Hammerton said the better option was to build the homes in Flaxby, while land owners in Flaxby agreed that the village’s disused golf course would be a good site for new houses.

But the council went ahead and adopted its plan and now faces a review over whether its decision was lawful or not.

Flaxby Park Ltd, the developer behind the Flaxby site, confirmed it has launched a judicial review into the decision but could not comment further at this time.

Chris Eaton, co-chair of the Keep The Hammertons Green Action Group (KTHG), said residents will get behind the review. He said:

“KTHG produced evidence-based and persuasive arguments that demonstrate that a new settlement is not required and, if even if it were, there are better locations, such as at Flaxby Park.

“We were most disappointed with the inspector’s report on the examination of the Harrogate District Plan that was published in January 2020.

“KTHG said at the time that we do not agree with or accept those parts of the Inspector’s report which relate to the requirement for a new settlement and the selection of its location in the broad location of Green Hammerton and Cattal.

“We are not surprised to hear that the potential developers of the Flaxby site are mounting a legal challenge and we shall follow the matter with great interest.”

What is a judicial review?

A judicial review is when a claimant asks for a review of a decision made by a government body or local authority.

The review looks at whether or not the decision made was lawful and followed the right procedure.

If it is found to be unlawful, it could mean the decision has to be made again.