Transcript

a negligible neutral impact on traffic and the operations road network. So that's why we're recommending for approval because we think it's unbalanced. There is a minor positive impact there. Did you answer supplementary, Councillor? All right, thank you. All right, thank you. Councillor Haslam, did you have a question? Thank you, Chair. I'm presuming that everything that's in 10.22 is really why we have nowhere to go with this particular-- we appear to have not very far to go with this, particularly reasons for the decision or item three. The disposal was conditional upon the proposed purchase obtaining or stopping upward or on the highway. So I'm presuming that sort of almost precludes our debate here. I'm not quite sure why we are here. But perhaps you could clarify that for me. And the completely separate processes, the-- that is just for information and background and the interests of clarity, what's got on, the decision of-- it's a planning authority is a separate decision. That's-- the decision to sell the land or otherwise is up to the North Georgia Council as a landowner. The decision of what do you approve this application today is a decision of North Georgia Council as a planning authority, a two separate things. So that does not point you to make any decision today. OK, but-- no, OK, all right, I-- but it actually says that disposal was conditional-- conditional upon the proposed purchase obtaining or stopping upward or on the highway. Yeah. So I think this decision has quite-- a lot of ramifications then. Yeah, I mean if the applications approved, that means they would be able to apply for the stopping order and assuming they've got a stopping order, that means they would be able to comply with that requirement of the-- of the sale, if you have the guys-- Well, no, it's not a-- I mean it's-- let's just be clear here. This is a sale that this effectively looks like this could be a blocker to the sale. Are we quite clear on this? Yeah, absolutely. Right, OK. In which case, I've got a couple of other questions, please, Chair. That's fine. So in effect, the privatization of this road has been previously agreed by a different committee, and I presume at that time, there was some sort of road assessment, which isn't in this report as to whether this road would actually make any difference to the traffic flows in the area, is there-- is there a document as such that actually explains whether this-- the closure of this road would actually impact on traffic flows? I know we've had a verbal statement, but have we-- is there actually a document-- a piece of documentation somewhere? You mean a document that was submitted as part of that? Yeah, well, for the-- For the cabinet meeting. Yeah, for the cabinet meeting. Yeah, cabinet meeting. For the cabinet to make a decision that it was OK to-- I don't know. I was just put in the report the bare bones of what's-- what's happening with the cabinet meeting, what was probably for them, what the recommendation was, and what the decision was. OK. And then one last question, which relates to-- I think you said that a new party had asked for us to defer any decision on the basis of some negotiation, can I ask whatever the outcome is, and I'm not trying to prejudge any outcome, but that perhaps that is considered as a condition if should this go forward, that that's one of the conditions that they should be-- but that's just me putting that down. I know that's probably getting into discussion, but anyway, those are all my points. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor. Do we have any further questions? Councillor Gostlaw. Just a question on the cycle parking again, because it looks to me that that's the only cycle parking in the very close proximity to our art gallery, is that correct? Does that also serve our own art gallery? It's at the Montpellier and as far as I understand it, stand there. So it's fairly close to the art gallery, I suppose. I mean, from the Council's point of view, they could re-instate that in a different position, or they could require a style of the land that the applicant do that, or potentially we could require as far as application, possibly. Is it something we could condition to us, at least to move it, so it isn't something that the Council has to pay for, and also, therefore, it would provide cycle parking for the art gallery still? That's the legal officer, I think we probably could, but is that something we can condition or don't need to be legal agreement? It's the usual test that you're familiar with, is it necessary, is it reasonably related and scaling kind in terms of what we're requiring, and is it reasonable in all of the respects? Is that something that we would say? I'm not quite sure what we ask for, is there a single block of, just to pay for a... So the cycle parking that they're removing could just be moved and moved nearer to the Mercer Gallery, so they're removing some cycle parking, so for that same cycle parking to just be moved further up the site, so that it doesn't have to be removed entirely. So moved on to land, which they own? Just moved further up the site, they're removing it from one area, because it conflicts with their plans, but it could be replaced and put on another area, either on their site, or nearer the art gallery, it's just so that we still rent, yeah, same amount of parking spaces, just... I think currently, as you say, if the application goes there, that cycle standard would be in private land, so it wouldn't be available to the public anywhere, so what we're asking is for that to be moved on to public land, possibly closer to the gallery. We've already got a condition which requires them to pay for the amendment to a traffic regulation order. I'm just wondering if we could use, if we could tag that on to that, to pay for the... Because we aren't losing the public cycling as part of this development, so it seems to me it's not that unreasonable to require them to replace that. No, I agree, now that I've understood the point, probably as well as Councillor COSSELL, I think if we refer you back to those tests, is that really simple, there is currently a parking provision for bicycles, could that be moved elsewhere within the site, is that something we could reasonably require a condition on, I think, probably could, to area? Okay. Any further questions, committee? I think that's a no, well, thank you very much for that. That takes us now to the next part of the meeting. We've got two speakers for this item, I'd like to call the first speaker, who is Mr Patrick Turner. Hello, sir. Turner, whenever, please begin whenever you're ready, thank you. Good afternoon, I'm a local resident and I walk and cycle, sorry, and drive regularly through Crescent Road, Crescent Gardens, rather. Crescent Gardens is a useful road providing access to and from the Dutch estate and beyond. It takes some traffic away from the busy roads nearby. It is a quiet road at the moment, so why is there a need to stop it up? It is a very useful road for access to the Royal Hall and Convention Centre. Buses taking passengers to events often stop there to drop passengers off. It is a useful pedestrian route for these events and for the general public. The proposal opens the way, potentially, to discriminate by closing the public footpath, to discriminate against those with disabilities, as the alternatives are either a flight of 11 steps or a narrow pavement past Hales Bar and a busy Crescent Road. The public right of way should never be closed. I object to the application. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. I'd now like to call the second speaker who is Mr. Hamish Robert Shaw. Good afternoon. Please commence whenever you're ready. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, members. I'm Hamish Robert Shaw of Johnson Road Planning, the agent for Impala Estates. Impala Estates is a Harrogate-based investor that has acquired the former Council Office Buildings at Crescent Garden and is progressing a development to extend and convert the building to provide office space and a restaurant. This approved development will make a significant positive contribution to Harrogate Town Centre. Separate to the sale of the building, the Council has exchanged contracts with Impala Estates to sell the Crescent Gardens Road for the provision of dedicated parking spaces, access and external space. The decision to sell the land was passed by Cabinet and is not a planning matter for consideration now. As the road is public highway, the sale is contingent upon the purchaser obtaining a stopping up order to remove public access rights and maintenance obligations and create a private road for access and maintenance by the owner. Impala Estates is in the process of obtaining the stopping up order at present and will go through the normal consultation and determination process. This planning application proposes a small number of relatively minor works to the road and parking area. The existing tarmac surface, immediately around two trees, shall be removed and replaced by soft landscaping. Three sections of stone paving shall mark the transition from public to private road and form a crossing between the park and main entrance of the building. Two load-level stone planters will be constructed at either end of the road to create an attractive entrance feature to the Crescent Gardens development. Between the planters at either end of the road, retractable metal bollars will be installed in the carriage way. These serve to restrict vehicular access to authorized vehicles only, which is intended to be used as the Crescent Gardens building. Stopping up is required to give the owner the ability to control access and undertake works and activities to the building and road in an effective manner. These matters have been suitably considered in the context of nearby heritage assets and setting and have been assessed for the degree of any impact caused. These are very minor works and have a minor positive impact. Highways and parking matters have been fully considered in consultation with Council Highways officers who have no objection. A series of conditions are proposed to address matters of detail which the applicant agrees to and the Council's costs associated with stopping up of the highway shall be paid by the applicant via a Section 106 agreement. Overall, this planning application is assessed on planning merits as set out in the report and must be considered proportionately to the works proposed. It conforms to relevant policy causes no harm or impact and presents benefits to the town centre and the Crescent Gardens development. It is therefore requested that permission is granted. Thank you. So we now move to the next phase of the meeting. Is there any debate before we move to a recommendation? So we're now in debate. Do any Councillors wish to make points about what they've heard, what they're thinking, et cetera? I thought I had clarity but maybe I don't. Is this although we're blocking this part of the carriage way off? Is it still effectively a public right of way? I mean, that's a question, Councillor, I'm happy to ask Jerry to answer it but we are in debate but I'm happy to take that question. Jerry, if you wanted to just clear up that technical point for the Councillor to assist us. If a stopping or barter is approved, the public right of way is extinguished. Right, thank you. Any other points you wanted to make by way of debate, Councillor? I'll come back to you later if you wish. Yeah, okay. Anybody else want to make? Councillor Winders. Thank you, Chair. There has been numerous objections to this, it's been all over, Facebook and the rest of the media. There's a lot of people very strongly oppose this and I've just heard now after Councillor Haslam's question that we're going to stop up the public right of way. In other words, the general public will not be able to walk down that even which sounds you know absolutely bizarre. I think this is, you know, somebody wants to buy that building, I've gone into negotiation and bought it and now they want to stop it up, stop people walking past it. No, it's, you know, it's a little bit too far as far as I'm concerned. It's a clarifier point. The point that the Councillors just made, Gerry, about the attitude or the view of the owners in part of a state towards people walking across the land, the former road, once it had been stopped up, did you say something in your presentation about that if you could just remind me and the committee, what you said, please? Yeah, the application, there's nothing in this application which would prevent pedestrians and cyclists using the road. And it's more understanding that even if the stopping of all was approved, that's not the applicant's attention at this time. So going forward, that's what the applicant is expecting is for pedestrians and cyclists to use. But as I said earlier, if they decided that they wanted a block off, they could do. Okay. Yeah, but Chair, he's already saying it at the camp, but if we approve this, it goes to the Secretary of State, they're going to extinguish the public right of way. And then it becomes down to whether they wish that the public can walk past the building. At the moment, a public right of way is exactly what it says, a right of way. And I think this has gone too far. Just a clarifier because I don't know. We're not determining whether the public right of way is extinguished today. I know it's a bit slightly complicated about what's actually happening, but that's a decision for the Secretary of State. We are not making that decision. So Chair, if we're not making that decision today, it's the Minister then, it's the reference to the Minister later when it will come. So are you saying that at the moment, if we approve what this goes today, they've still got the right of way, but if they decide to change that later, then there's nothing after the stopping up order, there's nothing we can do apart from, obviously, object to the stopping up order. Yeah, I mean, as we're just looking at the physical works today, which is the ball ads, planters, that they would block vehicle access, but they wouldn't block pedestrian access. But as you say, the stopping up order, it's a separate process. At that point, it's determined whether the public right of way across that route is extinguished a lot. So as I say, we're not made, that's not a planning decision, that's a decision for the Secretary of State. And just, could I just clarify? Sorry, this is part of the problem, Chair, in the past we could ask before, we could ask the applicant and we could ask other people objecting all that before we got into proper discussion. It does hamper and hinder decision-making on this. It's ridiculous. I don't know why this ruling has come in. It's only since this new Council came in, no idea why it came in. We need to get back to what we used to have proper questioning, because otherwise decision-making is a bit difficult. I'm trying to help, Council. I know you are. I know you are, yes. We've got the process. We need to adhere to the process. But having said that, I'm trying to be flexible as Chair, I've let you come in, I've noted your point. It will be passed up the line, but do you have any further, why have you got the floor? Do you have any further points? This is a debate, isn't it? We're actually debating the issue. We're in debate now, right? Because I don't have a problem with a few planters that have done some paving, that's fine. I do have a problem with this being stopped potentially sometime in the future as a public right-of-way. I do have a problem with that, because it's been there ever since the place was built, and I just don't see why it should come about, and I don't see why they need to stop public right-of-way. It's nothing to do. It would affect the business and what's going to be there, and I don't know. Apparently, I'm writing saying that if they don't get the stopping up order, then the whole thing might not go through anyway. I don't know. It's a bit technical. Could I ask Jerry, forgive me, but could I ask Jerry to come back in? Sorry about this, but it is a technical issue this, so I need some help please on the technical side. This application is just for the physical works, so there will be a separate application that will stop up the road to the secretary of state, that's his whole decision. In terms of the sale of the land, I don't really want to get into too much detail of it, because it's not really a consideration today, it's a separate, it's a matter between the landowner and the applicant, but from what was set out in the cabinet decision, the sale of the land is predicated on the stopping up order being granted, so is that the question you're asking? It's the actual, I mean, the whole stopping up business, will we get to know when that process has started and going through with local, I mean, I presume it's going to be advertised, it's got to be advertised, isn't it? I'm happy to stay on this point and to allow further questions to Jerry from any other Councillors, I think it's quite important, so do you want your, that question answered first? Yes, yes, please. And then I'll come to anybody else who wants to ask a question on this particular issue if I may, so Jerry, if you wanted to address, Phillip, would you just repeat your question, please, for Jerry? Well, it's a question of the whole process of the stopping up order, have we any idea when it would be, when it would start, and have we any idea who would know? I mean, some of these things, when you say advertised, sometimes you just get a little advert on page whatever at the back of the, look, pay me, you don't, it's not often highlighted so people can see and note it and do something about it. I mean, how much, basically, how much notice and publicity will be given to this move before it goes to the minister, and it is definitely the minister and not the mayor, by the way, under the new system. So how much notice that will, do we, do the public get to, to answer your question, OK, Jerry? Um, basically, there's a separate advertising process, they're given the minimum of 28 days to make representations, well, it goes into the newspaper, but there's also a requirement to put a notice at either end of the currently way to be blocked up. So either end of the president's role will have a notice advertising that this process is in, is happening, and I mean, however, maybe I'll be able to give you a bit more detail on that. Yeah. How good? Yeah. Um, so you are right, it's a 28 day, um, consultation period, under section two, four, seven, um, of the Town and Country Planning Act, it is made, essentially, once the details of the application has been agreed, um, with the office for the secretary of state, they prepare the draft order, um, public notice is produced, it's put on site, um, the draft order is also advertised in at least one local newspaper, also in the London Gazette, which starts that 28 period, um, uh, consultation period, essentially. Um, copies of the order must also be made available at the, uh, local public office for inspection, and they can also be obtained from the, um, national transport case work team, uh, department for transport. Right. Just to clarify, local public office being here, civic centre here, um, are the elected representatives of the town, at least, uh, are they going to be notified that the whole process is being started? I'm not too sure exactly who is included in, um, secretary of state's, uh, consultation. Only the highway authority are, we receive, uh, notification of any proposed stopping up, obviously, of the highway, um, is that area six or, or, yeah, well, I think it does come centrally, but ultimately it will, that comes to local area. Right, okay. So when you're notified, Mike, I'm requesting, if that, if this goes ahead today, could, could you, could the highway office then, uh, at least inform the, the local representatives? We can inform, yeah, um, the, I think what's probably worthwhile saying as well is that, uh, by applying for first section two, four, seven, um, you're applying for that to enable this development to come to fruition. So essentially this planning application is the consultation for this proposed development, which will include the stopping up, but, the stopping up order and doing away with the right of way is different than approving a few plants on a, and a little bit of paving on them. But you, you have to, like, you can only apply for secretary, for approval from secretary of state, once you have that value planning commission in place, you cannot make that order unless you have an approved application. No, but it is not, um, an indication, it's not to say, yes, okay, we approve these plants, planters and a bit of paving, but they were also approving the stopping up order. No, it is a separate process. Yeah. In that regard. Okay. No, thank you for it. Thank you very much. Any further questions on this issue? Councillor Haslund. Yeah, and I'm going to broaden it out slightly. Um, this is what I call classic silo thinking, and I don't believe we have enough information provided today in order to make a proper decision. I do not believe that a, we should have the report on the fact about the road and whether there was a report written when this particular piece of land was sold, uh, and that therefore what was, what was driving the cabinet's decision to this, I would also, uh, like to understand what the consequences of this decision are really spelled out. You know, if it's in an ABC chart, that would work nicely for me and equally for other people that are looking in on this. I, I really feel that, uh, we do not have a, we, this is, we're making a small decision here, but, but potentially with what I would call, uh, frightening consequences into, well, let's say frightening, just enormous, I'll, I'll change the word because frightening is wrong, because I'm not necessarily frightened by this, but with quite enormous consequences. Let's put it that way, uh, and I just, I, I just don't believe that we have sufficient information here today to actually, you know, it's great that we can pick, we can pick the colour of the planter, but actually that's not really the issue here. The issue here is that by agreeing to this, we then, it goes forward to a stopping up border, which then has a consequence in terms of access to that land, and I would like to, I would like us to have more detail, more or less work detail, I think, but I just wonder what else we're missing, and therefore I would, my recommendation will be, we defer pending further information. We just make a request. We're not saying we don't want to do it, uh, but I, I, I'm saying we, we need to understand the consequences of our actions here. Okay. All right. Thank you, Councillor. I, on a technical question, which I like, Jerry, to answer, you made various, um, debating points as well, and you suggested a possible resolution also, but in relation to the question which, um, Councillor asked, which was, what was the motivation of the cabinet when it sold the land to Impala, uh, what was their motivation regarding the sale, the inclusion of the road in the sale? I think that was the question, wasn't it, Jerry, could you just perhaps throw some light on that, please? Yeah, well, it's, it's in the report, um, the reason for the decision at 10.22 last paragraph, um, tell that again, Jerry, sorry, it's, yeah, at 10.22 that, that's what's, uh, in the cabinet report. So that was the reason for the decision, uh, the post-portions are wishes to improve the landscaping and alter the existing layout of the parking and landscaping areas to the front of the building. Impala estates were progressing with the refurbishment of the Councillor's request and guidance. This was an important project for the town centre, creating much needed, good quality office space, uh, in the current public realm and front of the building, if the current public realm and front of the building could be improved, this benefited the building itself and the town and the wider context, as well as surrounding properties, many of which remained in the ownership of HBC. So that is the reason given in the cabinet report for the decision. Okay. I think, Chair, if I remember rightly at the debate, the cabinet, when he went to Council, said that the, the question about the road, uh, that wasn't a matter for them, it was a matter for the nuke, it was a matter for the highway authority to the new Council. That was the comment then. Okay. All right. Okay. So we've got the reason. Councillor Alderind, if you wanted to come in on this point, I'm presuming on this point, isn't it? It is actually, yeah. Thank you, Chair, again. Um, I think it's, it's interesting that the, the cabinet at the time, I think I'm writing saying did include the ward Councillor, the Councillor for Valley Gardens and, um, the central part of how to get, who was the cabinet member for the environment in, at that time. So presumably he would have, uh, taken great interest in this and it was a unanimous decision of, of that, uh, cabinet and at, at the time. But I, I think I personally, I mean, this is, I agree with Phillip entirely, how we cannot question an applicant is ridiculous because a lot of this would be solved if we could, but we can't because the constitution is a constitution. We need to change that. We need to change that. We need to change that. But so put that to one side, but I think in parallel states, obviously one high quality and product there, present gardens, it is not in their interest to the public access. You know, they want people coming to the restaurant, I understand there's going to be an art gallery there, there's offices, they will be able, people who use lease those buildings will be able to park Robert or otherwise why are they taking up the, the parking, they've already bought the parking facility there and they're going to use it to an advantage. So I don't necessarily have a problem with the current applicant going ahead with that scheme and developing that scheme as has been outlined and he's on their website if we look on it. But I do think there's a problem going forwards with the stopping up order because in parallel states and that scheme may well grant access to the public. It's to their advantage to do. How else are people going to get into the building? So they're going to have a right of way there for people who want to go to the building. I would have thought they'd continue it for people walking past, as I said earlier, cycling, riding horses, wheelchairs, et cetera, but that's them and the problem comes later. If there is a stopping up order and in parallel states for whatever reason their scheme did not work in that area there, they would then be looking to capitalize on their asset and sell the building. We all know there was a scheme for private apartments there who else knows in the future. I don't think the private apartment gentlemen may well not have wanted public access in quite the well the way as in parallel states do. So I don't know whether, I don't know enough about planning law, do I? But I don't know whether, I don't think we can condition it that that public right of way maintains. I think that is in stopping up order, but Paul is absolutely right. We ask, you know, you're starting this and once you start it, who's to stop that area being totally out of the public realm as you were? And I think that would be wrong. So I was coming to this, as I said earlier, with an open mind and, you know, whilst the scheme is the scheme and in parallel states want people to go in and out of that building and it is in the public realm, I'm very happy with that. I don't object to cars not going to be able to go up and down that road at their whim if they want to control the usage of it fair enough, but I do object to it that right of the public, public right of way, as Robert said, in the future being taken away maybe with the sale of that land. So it is a slippery slope we're going down, which I think Paul alluded to there and it's not clear by the way the applicant has come forward with this. I understand there's other ways this could have been taken forward. This isn't really helpful for us as councillors as representatives of the public to be doing it this way. I would have thought there was another more useful way because my worry is when and if and it might be a wonderful successful scheme and we might all be enjoying picnics in front of Crescent Gardens in the Queen Elizabeth Memorial Gardens in the future, but in two years time it might all go belly up as certain other schemes have done in the past and they will have then the legal stopping apart I understand and they will be able to close that public right of way and that is a worry. So I'm certainly in two minds about this and I think I was thinking at the start, yeah, find the pluses outweigh the miners, but I don't think we've illegal ease how many more. That stopping apart really worries me. Sorry, I need to get used to this. If a condition was imposed on the application, try to preserve, say, a public right of way for pedestrian, cyclists, wheelchair users, horses, et cetera, is that possible and would it be consistent with the conditions of sale of the property from HBC, one of the legacy councils now part of this council and is that feasible either legally or practically? I'm not familiar with the terms of the transaction between former Harrogateborough Council and the applicant in Parler Estates, but I wouldn't all be surprised if there's some conditionality built into that which says the deal closes when X, Y, and Z occurs. In terms of our ability to condition a decision on this application and the way in which you suggest, I think that's slightly problematic as Jerry has correctly indicated, there are discrete regulatory regimes, a place here, section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act is a means whereby an applicant can apply to the Secretary of State for the stopping up of a section of highway in order to facilitate the development of a planning commission. So it's a two-stage process as you've heard, so there's the application today which is for the planters and the associated works. Those can't be implemented until the section 247 stopping up order is secured, therefore I don't think it's practical or perhaps even lawful in this instance to try and impose a condition on this planning commission which would prevent the Secretary of State or seek to prevent the Secretary of State from determining to stop up a section of highway in accordance with an application to 247. So that's a rather wordy way, Chair, forgive me if it's too lengthy to say no, I don't think that we could impose such a condition. Can I ask the legal, what's the legal definition of a section of the highway? Is that a complete road or is it a small part of a road? What is the definition, legal definition of a section of the highway? Well the highway has defined limits and there is, within former Harrogate Borough Council and the whole North Yorkshire area, it's something called the definitive map which identifies the location and extent of the highway. So there is a point of reference for that, I think what perhaps you're suggesting Councillor Broadbank or would be interested in is, is it possible to get different grades of stopping up order? Well, it's not so much, yes I think you could do that, but I think also it's possible to obtain standing, stopping up orders in different terms so you can have a vehicular stopping up order which removes the rights of vehicles to access a section of highway but doesn't impinge on the rights of pedestrians and other users to use the highway in that way. I don't know and forgive me if I've missed it but that we haven't seen the details of a section 247 application yet so we don't know in what terms the application will be made, all you have before you is an application for, as Gerry has said, some planters and some bits and pieces, there would then be an application for a stopping up order. On what terms, I don't know, we would be consulted on it as, as, as, as, as colleagues have identified to be an opportunity to make representations on that, I guess as well but we don't know what the details of the application would be. All right, come back on that if I may, apologies, I'm feeling, a stopping up order that only applies to vehicles would seem to make sense to me as a non-planning expert. Could I ask Heather for, I mean, do we as a committee have any influence on what type of stopping up order is applied for by the applicant or could we suggest that the applicant applies for an order that only applies to vehicles and not to people, cyclists, et cetera? So my understanding is yes, that you could make an order essentially to cover the carriage way element as opposed to the, the footway. My understanding is I think it, it, it was considered and included in the sale of the land. I'm not in, I'm not clear. I have, I wasn't obviously involved previously in the process for that but it, my understanding is again the applicant wanted to enhance the public realm and obviously the footway element is, is in trinsicle to that and sort of giving that feel between the building and the, the gardens themselves. So that's why their red line plan for the application is included in the carriage way and the footway at the moment. Yeah, and just further to that, if I might, Chair, I think that we've got to be, I would I'm not doing this, but I'll make the point in any event of attributing any weight to the financial implications of the transaction. So if there's a deal that's been brokered, which is subject to conditionality in terms of the status of the land before the sale is completed, that isn't something which should be an informative to your assessment of the transaction. Or assessment of this planning application, which is simply to put some planters and some associated paving works and so forth on the, the, the, the crescent gardens site. So I just made that point. Thank you. I understand that. Yes. Okay. Councillor Haslam. Yeah. I mean, you know, sort of, I appreciate the legal, the legal element here. However, I still go back to the fact we have not sufficient information to make it a sound decision here. We do not know. I'll just wait for the chair to finish. It's all right. But we do not. No, okay. I'll start again. I respect exactly what the legal people have said here, but I do not believe we have sufficient information to make a decision here. Not necessarily that we actually, whether we actually are going to impact on any size of a deal, but we need to understand what the consequences of our actions are. And we, because we've not got the details of the deal in terms of not necessarily the finances, but in terms of the piece of road, whether it's a piece of road that's been sold, et cetera, et cetera. And I just think that there needs to be more information so that we could actually make an informed decision. I am sure this is all in the public interest, and it's right. But right now, I don't have enough information to me to say comfortably that, yeah, I think it's a great idea. Because all you're telling me is I'm going to agree to a few planters, but the consequences of me agreeing to a few planters could mean that nobody can walk across the front of that property. And so I am making an, I am not making an informed decision. So that's why I would ask that we perhaps look at it. And I would also say to the people that are here from Impala, or their representatives, that this is in no way a reflection of hostility. This is just, we need to understand, just as much as I would be careful about standing in a puddle, I would, you know, because it might be 10 foot deep. And so, you know, and I'm only 5 foot 6, so the consequences are quite high. So I really, I just feel that I want to be cautious, but I'm not urging criticism. But because at the moment, you know, so we're stretching different people's minds on different things. But I think we need to go away and check stuff and say, actually, is it true that this is really for just the road, or is it the road and the pavement, et cetera, et cetera. So, so I'm not casting, I'm not casting this person, I'm just saying, we need more information. I think that's very well said, Councillor. I think there's a makings of a resolution there, but I'm just conscious that Councillor Goslow a while ago wanted to come in. Do you still want to come in and contribute to the debate? Your points have been made elsewhere, haven't they? All right, thank you. So we're in debate. The last Councillor has just made some very good points. I think what he's suggesting is that this committee perhaps defer this application for further consideration and for further receipt of information to clear up one or two technical points. It is quite a technical. It's one of the most technical planning applications I've sat to consider. And I think there's no shame at all in needing more information. And I think you've put the case for that Councillor very well. So with your permission, as you've just suggested, I would just like to try and crystallise that and say that I think it's just looking around at the committee. Correct me if I'm wrong. It appears that we're edging towards a motion which asks that this motion is deferred subject to the provision of further information, technical detail and the consequences of what, you know, the consequences of our actions, so to speak. So that's the motion. Do I have a seconder? Or I'll second your motion, Paul. It's your motion. So are we happy to move into? If there's no further debate, I'm happy to take a vote on that motion committee. Chair. So that's fine. Just ask for absolute clarity on the additional information that you're seeking. I think everything that I've heard on, much what I've heard through the course of day is the one information on the details of what would be comprised within the section two, four, seven application, if that's how this proceeds. So it's the scope of that application, whether or not he's not looking to put words into anybody's mouth here. It's just please tell me if I've got this wrong. It's the scope of that application, in particular whether any restriction would be limited to vehicular access down the crescent road. And I think that was everything. I haven't missed anything. Thank you. In my head, the clarification is not the value of the deal. But what is in the deal? We need to understand what's in the deal and therefore what the thought process is. Yeah, I think we need to understand that. We need to, because my guess is that, and I don't want to put words in there, but this that we've got a sledgehammer here and actually in terms of legislation, but actually it might be modified so that it's only vehicle access that we're talking about. So it's what was that deal and then we can go through and what are the consequences of the decision we make here, because we are building through. But I think that covers everything that do we, would it be useful if we, as we've got the, would it be useful to try and find out the mind, if you like, of the applicant as regards what their intentions are for the stopping up order, would they be content with vehicles only, would they, et cetera. Well, I just, I'm just concerned that everybody's just trying to grasp at something rather, and I feel that we ought to go away, review the questions and come back with a full answer, because, you know, we're the best in the world. The gentleman over them, I want to go talk to the people that he'll have more, he's more than him that's in the deal and I just think we ought to, rather than trying to put him on a spot, we actually just, we just say look, you know, we, we just like to give you some time and we like you to clarify this. And we're all on the same side we all want things to be better for her again so I would just, personally I would not want to try and try and get to an answer for the sake of getting to an answer when maybe in 48 hours, we might get the information back and then it's, it could all be sorted within a month when the next meeting comes. I think that's very well said, Councillor. So I think we've, with your, if you're happy, Glenn, I think we've got a motion there if I could ask people to vote on that. Could I just come in, please, I mean, regarding the cabinet report on the HBC decision, there was obviously an officer report, which is not part of the information we have. Can I ask, when we do get back, we see that HBC officer report, because obviously that was a unanimous decision by Cabinet, they were all in favour of it, and I'd like to see the basis of what we made that information on as part of this. I do agree with Councillor Haslam, we need to consider it at a separate date. I'd be allowed to ask questions to be applicant, maybe. I will do my best, Councillor, but I think your point is well made, and I think we can include that in the information which is provided to the committee before we meet again on this application. Councillor Broadbank, did you want to-- Just to clarify the legal position about asking questions, Chairman, questions can be asked if the Chairman allows it, that is the legal position. It's not that simply questions can't be asked end off, if the Chairman allows it, they can be. I think if there are exceptional circumstances, then the Chair can exercise his or her discretion, that is correct. And more generally going forward, I've heard these concerns raised on a number of occasions, there is a constitutional reform. So you're familiar with that, but you're quite right. We have tried the constitutional aspect, not seceded, but it's in practical terms, it is needed. I know it was done because the majority of planning up authorities at the old didn't do it, Harrogate always has, because it always has, we've always been used to it here, but I think it's something that's absolutely essential. Just the other authorities, as you've just name checked, they hold very strongly at the opposing view there, so we can't just individually change the committee. It has to be the basis of the North Yorkshire Council arrangements. Your point has been noted, Councillor, it's been, it's a point well made, as I think Glenn's outlined, the legal position, and John has just said, we need to operate within the wider framework, but your thoughts will be passed up the line. And there's a constitutional group looking at these and other points as we speak. And also, just to reiterate, I'm very happy to be flexible on this particular point when this application comes back in the future. So, having said that, if we're all happy with the motion, if we could perhaps just vote on it manually, if that's all those in favour, if you could just raise your hands, please. I think that's unanimous, so I think we've got an agreed position. So, thank you for that. Sorry, sorry Chair, just for the minute. If I may, Councillor Dorn, raise your aye, but I think that that amendment motion was proposed by Councillor Haslam, and I had it that it was seconded by Councillor Broadbank. Thank you, sorry Chair. Yes, yes, apologies for not making that, Glenn. Okay, which takes us to, I'm just looking at the agenda. Yeah, I think that takes us to the next item on the agenda was the NERSBRA Stockwell Road Item, but as we've said, that's been withdrawn. So, that takes us on to agenda item six, which we've got a short statement to read out on this. And I'm mindful that one of our members, Councillor Haslam, was intricately involved in this particular debate on this, and he may wish to exempt himself from this discussion. But I'll come to that in a minute if I may, Paul. I'll just read this statement out. So, we've got one urgent item which we need to discuss, however, due to the nature of the information to be discussed, this item should be taken in private session. I will now ask Dorn to read the exempt resolution before we vote on whether to go into exempt session for this item on the agenda. So, Dorn, over to you, please. Thank you. It is now before the Committee to resolve that in accordance with Section 100A4 of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended. In view of the nature of the business to be transacted, the meeting be not open to the public during the discussion of item six, as there will be a disclosure of exempt information as defined in Section 100I of the Act. The exempt information in question relates to individuals and information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual as defined in paragraphs one, two and three of schedule 12A of the Act. Thank you. Thank you very much. Can I have a proposal that we go into exempt session, please? I'm happy to. Councillor Haslam, and I'm happy to second it, or Councillor Broadbank, whichever. So, if we could vote on that manually, please, my short hands. So, we're now in unanimous that we go into exempt session. I mentioned earlier that Councillor Haslam was spoke, I think, against... Can I just check, Chair, as we've got to wait for the fee to close. Could perhaps just the live fee, could have perhaps just suggest a short break, two or three minutes. If that's all right. I'm jumping the gun. Okay. Short break, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]