Questions have been raised over whether the planning process is democratic after a controversial housing application in Harrogate was deferred for a third time.

The 53-home proposal for Knox Lane was discussed at a planning committee meeting at the end of May, but councillors were told this week that residents were unhappy about the way it had been conducted.

The plans were recommended for approval, but councillors did not follow planning officers’ advice.

Instead they voted to defer it again because the developer, Jomast, had not carried out the land contamination report requested at the last meeting.

This week, nearby resident Adele Laura Wilson asked North Yorkshire Council‘s Harrogate and Knaresborough area constituency committee why the report had been brought to the planning committee again by officers when the requested information was still not available.

She also said a motion was put forward at the meeting to reject the application, but officers advised them they needed to have planning reasons for turning the plans down otherwise the decision would be overturned at appeal, with costs to the council.

Ms Wilson added:

“That motion was not allowed to be voted on. This surely is in contravention of the democratic process.”

She also said incorrect information was given to the committee about the site, which an officer said was only partially in a special landscape area (SLA). The whole site was in fact part of the SLA, Ms Wilson said, but there was no opportunity for this to be corrected during the planning meeting.

She said:

“I would ask this committee to consider if the current planning committee is being given the powers to truly consider and question planning applications or are they redundant? And are planning applications being decided by just the planning officers and the solicitors?”

Read more:

• Controversial Knox Lane 53-homes plan deferred for third time
• Plans approved for Kingsley Road and Tesco — but Knox Lane decision deferred

Resident Alison Hayward said she was addressing Thursday’s area constituency committee on behalf of residents in Knox and Bilton, who were “extremely disappointed and outraged” by the situation.

Ms Hayward said:

“We believe that it was unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of fair representation of the community.

“Although we are disappointed in the result [of the vote to defer the application again], this statement is relating to the process of the meeting rather than that result.

“We ask this constituency meeting to reflect on the failures and the conduct of the planning meeting and consider how to correct the injustice to the local community and democracy.”

She said the meeting had been held during the half-term holidays, when fewer local people were available to attend.

Ms Hayward also raised concerns about the fact the planning meeting had not been streamed live, as it would usually be, because of “technical problems” on the day. She said this meant there was no “proper record” of the meeting, as the minutes did not record everything discussed.

In a statement read by clerk Mark Codman, NYC’s legal, planning and democratic services departments responded:

“The council does apologise for the lack of a live stream. The issue was only discovered on the morning of the meeting and it couldn’t be resolved.”

The statement said there was no legal requirement for a meeting to be recorded and minutes were never verbatim. Live streaming was only introduced in Harrogate during the covid pandemic, and was not used for all meetings across North Yorkshire.

The statement also said:

“It was made clear to members of the committee that they were free to vote in whichever way they wanted, but were advised of the implications of their choosing to do so on the basis of inadequate material planning reasons.”