North Yorkshire’s seven district and borough councils have been told any new major spending schemes they approve will not be ratified before they are abolished.

North Yorkshire County Council has written to the second tier councils, including Harrogate Borough Council, stating there is insufficient time before the new unitary North Yorkshire Council is launched on April 1 for it to consider the raft of large-scale schemes being submitted.

The decision is likely to come as a blow to many of the district authorities, which had been told they would continue to have a significant jurisdiction until Vesting Day, operating and making significant decisions for their residents, businesses and visitors.

Under the structural change order for local government reorganisation in North Yorkshire, which was laid down by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities last May, the district and borough councils were given a legal requirement to request approval for some financial decisions.

It was underlined the district councils would be given “general consent” to approve smaller scale schemes, but the sanctions for not complying with the consent regime would be “severe”.

District and borough council schemes in recent months have seen elected members discussing a range of proposals to boost housing, leisure facilities, infrastructure and financial support for communities, many of which involve using their reserves ahead of the councils being scrapped.

For example, last week Richmondshire District Council approved a move to spend up to £240,000 on further repairs to Richmond swimming pool, a scheme which will need the county council’s consent.

Read more:

• New council chief questions future of Harrogate Convention Centre
• Revealed: the Harrogate areas set for new council tax charge

Numerous district councillors have spoken openly in meetings about their determination to spend their council’s coffers in the area in which they were raised, rather than allowing North Yorkshire Council to inherit and distribute them across the expansive county as it sees fit.

However, the county council’s leadership says the district council’s reserves could be needed to cover the costs of providing essential services for vulnerable people, such as social care.

The letter to the districts states the county council had expected giving general consent for smaller schemes would reduce the bureaucratic burden on it, but instead the district authorities had continued to submit a large and unmanageable number of spending requests for approval on a weekly basis.

It states: 

“We are now less than three months from Vesting Day for the new council, so the majority of schemes that were requested, and were not foreseen as part of the general consent, are likely to be capable of being delayed until post Vesting Day, when the new North Yorkshire Council can consider the matter.

“In addition, there is a duty on all councils to prepare for the new council and additional schemes at this stage are likely to seriously erode the capacity of councils and their staff to be able to provide the level of support desirable.”

The letter highlights how North Yorkshire Council is facing a large revenue deficit again next year and beyond, as well as unquantifiable risks on hundreds of millions of pounds of infrastructure plans.

It adds: 

“It is therefore important that resources are able to be directed to those principal area of responsibility including those commitments, deficits and projetcs bequeathed by all eight councils across North Yorkshire.”

‘Petty and wrong’

The letter says it has “been determined that no new section 24 requests will be considered, unless it is exceptionally urgent spend which endangers normal service delivery…”.

Nevertheless it adds: 

“This does not mean that those schemes are rejected, merely that they are subjected to full consideration by the new North Yorkshire Council from April 1 onwards. Those that have already been submitted will be considered in due course.”

Leader of the opposition on the county council, Cllr Bryn Griffiths, said the county council’s move was short-sighted.

He said: 

“Blocking the districts and boroughs using their own monies to fund schemes, which will support their own residents, is I feel just petty and wrong.

“It smacks of the Tories at County Hall not being democratic and trying to cream off the districts’ and boroughs’ money to shore up their own pet projects. They are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.”

Harrogate Borough Council is paying some of Harrogate’s larger town centre hotels to provide accommodation to homeless people.

The Stray Ferret approached the council a month ago after a well-placed source revealed the names of some of the town’s best-known hotels that are being paid to put up homeless people. We asked the council how many homeless people it was helping, why it was having to use town centre hotels and how much it was paying the hotels.

The council, which has duties to prevent and relieve homelessness, confirmed it used hotels “as a last resort” but declined to reveal costs.

A council spokesperson said:

“Should someone become homeless we have a number of options available to help them find somewhere safe to stay on a temporary basis. As well as helping them plan for the long term and secure permanent accommodation.

“We have hostels in Harrogate, Ripon and Knaresborough as well as Fern House in Starbeck, our purpose-built temporary accommodation with 19 self-contained bedrooms.

“Should someone be placed in a B&B or hotel, they are only ever done so on a temporary basis and as a last resort when no other suitable accommodation is available.

“Currently, 16 people are being temporarily accommodated in B&Bs and hotels, and 82 in hostels, until we find a more permanent solution.”

The spokesperson added the council worked with partners “to find more secure accommodation” while it provided temporary relief.

Fern House, which cost £2.3 million to build, opened 18 months ago to help provide more accommodation for homeless people.

We once again asked the council to provide details of how much taxpayers’ money it was paying the hotels. But despite subsequent requests, it has not revealed how much it spends on hotels.

The spokesman initially said he “didn’t have the costs to hand” and it “wasn’t a straightforward answer”.

Three weeks ago he said he had asked a colleague in finance to collate the information and they would “pull it together as soon as they can”.

But no further details have been provided.

The Stray Ferret has submitted a Freedom of information request.