No date for Harrogate horticultural nursery move

North Yorkshire Council has said it does not know when a planned relocation of Harlow Nurseries will take place.

The site on Nursery Lane is where the council grows flowers for its displays across the district. It also sells plants to members of the public to bring in revenue.

However, the land it’s on is allocated for housing in the council’s Local Plan and a 62-home scheme is planned.

Harrogate Borough Council, in one of its last acts before being abolished to make way for the new unitary authority, proposed buying land to the north-east of Harrogate to relocate the nursery.

But since North Yorkshire Council took over in April, there has been no public comments on the move.

North Yorkshire Council has now confirmed the sale did go through.

But it added that a review of horticulture across North Yorkshire is underway and the move can not progress until that review is completed.

Read more:

A Harrogate Borough Council report did not disclose its specific location, citing a confidentiality exemption, but did say the land is in the former Killinghall and Hampsthwaite ward and is valued above £250,000.

North Yorkshire Council’s assistant director for highways and transportation, Barrie Mason, said this week: 

“While the purchase of land in the former Killinghall and Hampsthwaite ward was completed earlier this year by the former Harrogate Borough Council, there is currently no date for the nurseries to move.

“This is due to a review of horticultural provision across North Yorkshire following local government reorganisation.

“The nurseries remain located at Harlow Hill which, in accordance with the Local Plan, is allocated for housing.”

Latest £100,000 Harrogate cycle plan branded ‘a waste of money’ — by cyclists

Plans to spend £100,000 on making a minor Harrogate road better for cycling have been branded a waste of taxpayers’ money.

North Yorkshire Council revealed this month it wants to upgrade Nursery Lane into an off-road leisure route.

It was one of 10 proposals put forward costing £585,000 to reduce congestion in west Harrogate.

But the no through road off Otley Road is already tarmacked and gets very little traffic, prompting cyclists to question the merit of the scheme.

A meeting of the council’s Harrogate and Knaresborough area constituency committee heard a statement from David Mitchell, of Harrogate District Cycle Action, which said spending £100,000 on Nursery Lane was “not sensible because it would not make a meaningful difference to the cycle network”.

Paul Haslam, a Conservative who represents Bilton and Nidd Gorge, told the meeting the cycling community had told him the proposal was “a complete waste of money because that lane is already safe”.

Read more:

The Hedgehog Cycling website has also been highly critical of the scheme. A blog post, which does not identify the author, said:

“Nursery Lane is already fine as it is. There is very little traffic, no through traffic, and a sealed surface. There is absolutely no need for a cycle track. Spending £100,000 on it would be an outrageous waste of public money.

“Nursery Lane could be a useful cut-through from an Otley Road cycleway to Harlow Moor Road – but there would need to be an Otley Road cycleway. As it is, North Yorkshire Council is intent on building ‘ribs but no spine’ which is brainless.”

Cyclists’ frustration is compounded by the council’s failure to deliver on schemes such as the Station Gateway, Otley Road cycle path, Beech Grove and Victoria Avenue, which were supposed to form part of a connected route.

Mr Mitchell also criticised another of the 10 proposals, which is to spend £25,000 on a review of cycle route signs.

He said signs were improved in 2014 and cyclists “need safe cycle routes not more signposts”. He added spending £25,000 “presumably to consultants WSP would be a waste of public money”.

Discussing Nursery Lane at last week’s meeting, the council’s area highways manager Melisa Burnham said “there’s certainly been a historic desire from locals to see that widened and improved to improve the links that side of Harrogate”.

Ms Burnham said the transport measures had been compiled by an officer group that took part in community engagements, including one with Harlow and Pannal Ash Residents Association in May.

She said that meeting included representatives from the local cycling group.

Traffic lights at the junction of Cold Bath Road, Otley Road and Arthurs Avenue.

The council has also faced criticism about the biggest of its 10 proposed schemes, which is a £200,000 upgrade of the traffic lights at the junction of Otley Road, Cold Bath Road and Arthurs Avenue.

Arnold Warneken, the Green Party councillor for Ouseburn, told last week’s meeting the proposal was “sustainable for cars but not sustainable for active travel and the environment”.

Mr Burnham said the signal upgrade would relieve congestion, which was a “key objective” of the funding and the junction improvements “would create a safe space”.

Council ‘sets precedent’ by breaking listed building guidelines

Harrogate Borough Council’s planning committee has been accused of going against its own guidance in approving plans for a fence on its land.

The council applied for permission to put up a 1m high fence along the boundary between its land and the privately-owned Tower House, which adjoins the Grade II listed Harlow Hill Tower on Nursery Lane, on the edge of the Pinewoods in Harrogate.

The council’s own design guide states:

New 2m high timber panel fences used as screens to maintain privacy for neighbours are generally acceptable in back gardens, however in sensitive locations, such as the boundary to a Listed Building or in a Conservation Area, the screen should be of brick or stone as appropriate to the setting.

A planning application was submitted earlier this year for a picket fence running 28m along the boundary behind Tower House. Reporting to the planning committee, principal conservation officer Emma Gibbens said:

“A stone wall of matching stone would be more appropriate, however, there are concerns over the creation of a significantly more permanent solution for what seems to be a short term requirement, whereas the picket fence represents an option that could easily be removed in the future when it is no longer required.”

Read more:

Tower House was bought eight years ago by Neil and Lucy Hind. The boundary in question is not visible from Nursery Lane because of high hedging, but separates the house from a piece of land owned by the council.

‘No change’

Mr Hind addressed the committee during yesterday’s virtual meeting, urging members to reject the proposal. He said nothing had changed since the last planning committee meeting in March, when councillors deferred their decision on the proposal, telling officers to reconsider whether a fence was the most suitable option.

Mr Hind told committee members yesterday there had been no change to the fence proposal which they had refused to accept in March, other than limiting its life span to five years. The committee’s previous requests for an explanation of why the fence was needed, and for council officers to consult with the neighbours, had not happened, he said.

Among those objecting to the plans was Cllr Pat Marsh, who said:

“I feel that if we’re doing this, we’re almost setting a precedent which will impact on other parts of our district that have got listed buildings. Why don’t we just make it a permanent fixture? Why mess around with temporary fences?”

Her views were shared by Cllr Robert Windass and Cllr Nigel Simms, who said a more suitable material should be used for a boundary so close to a listed building. However, the plans were passed by six votes to five.

After the meeting, Mr Hind told The Stray Ferret:

“The committee members were originally unanimous in their view that the plans were not acceptable, so it is somewhat a mystery as to who or what changed some of their minds over the last few months.

“It was clear from the discussion that these plans are still not in line with the council’s own guidance and policy. However, it seems there is one rule for the council and one for residents, especially where cost is a factor.”