Transcript

As the chairman said, the application today is for the installation of five access control ballads, two at the western end of President Gardens Road, and three at the eastern end and construction of planters at the eastern and western end to narrow the width of the road and block paving. What you're seeing there now is just the location plan. So you're seeing President Gardens building sort of former council offices in the center in gray. President Gardens back just below that, and the area we're talking about is outlined in red, the applicant owns the other land outlined in blue, including the packing to the south of President Gardens Road, which is formerly known as the shelf when it was used as council offices. As you can see, we're having some technical difficulties. So that is the proposed soleo plan. So you can see on the end of President Gardens Road, there's planting areas, ballads and block paving to be installed, and in the center between President Gardens and the access to President Gardens, it's proposed to put an area of paving to match the paving that exists to the front of President Gardens building, just to link the park in the front of the building for pedestrians more clearly. There's a couple of areas you can see where the shelf packing was, where they're going to remove a couple of spaces and remove some concrete around a couple of trees and just put some landscaping in, so that will improve the health of those trees. We've just skipped a slide there, but basically what I showed was at the western end of President Gardens Road, they will be installing some new textured paving and drop-corbing to enhance pedestrian facilities at that end of President Gardens Road. So what you're seeing there is just a view from the, that's the slide that we missed. So that's looking from the western end, so looking from Swan Road down President Gardens Road, the block paving, ballads and planters will be going just about where the car is or just to this side of that car. And that's looking from the east end, so Montpellier, and again the ballads block paving and planters will be going just about in line with where that forced post is there in the foreground. That's just a photograph of the front of President Gardens building, so you can see the paving to the front where the time act there will be taken up and paving to match that would be put in linking through to President Gardens. That's the end of the presentation, the recommendation is to approve the proposal element in accordance with the condition set of the report. Thank you very, Jerry. That's where any helpful. We'll now take questions from members to officers. Do we have any questions, please, committee, Councillor Aldra? Thanks, Chair. Can I just clarify with our legal beagles? We can't ask the applicant or the object as any questions, can we? No, that's correct. That's correct. Yes, that is correct. Jerry, so you're going to get a load from me then, as I can't ask anybody else. First of all, we refer to in the report to the land, the parkland, you refer to it as President Gardens Park, but I'm sure I sat in this very chamber along with others in February 2023, and we changed the name to Queen Elizabeth Memorial Gardens. Is that right? So that's something I was aware of. I'm quite happy to call it Queen Elizabeth Memorial Gardens. Yeah, I know it's just a name, but if we are changing it, and it is in respect to the late Queen, I think in council documents we should refer to it. Because it's right name, otherwise why are we changing the name? So that's the first point. In terms of public access, if this scheme we vote approval of, I'm right in saying that the only things that will be prevented from moving across the front of that great building we're looking at there will be vehicles. So pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair users, horses will still be able to go to and through in front of that frontage to their heart's content. That's the current plan. While it's being blocked, there are vehicles, the planters and the ballads would block vehicles that aren't authorized, they don't use credit cards to build them from going through. So there will still be pedestrian access, cycle access, although as outlined in the report, if the applicant goes through the process of stopping up order, potentially they could block off pedestrians or glasses, but I don't think that's the intention. And that's not what we're considering today. We're not considering stopping up order at all, it's just these, the planters and the ballads. The planters and the ballads would give effect to blocking up the road, so they would restrict any traffic other than prevent any traffic other than that isn't present, bad in buildings using that road. So if the scheme is implemented, that would be the effect. But we're not considering the stopping up of the highway today. Okay. I've just come back to stopping up if I may, but at the moment I'm right in saying the parking on the shelf, or the park opposite where the picture is now, that is actually, and you said actually, that's in the legal ownership of the applicant and they are currently charging vehicles to park there. It's nothing at all now to do with the, sorry, any council parking, that is private land and private parking. Yeah, on the land and there is a scheme in place at the moment for charging to park there. Yeah. Okay. In the objections, there's a great deal being made about cycle spaces. Are there currently cycle stands within that area that we're talking about? There's one cycle stand at the eastern end, so at Montpellier, which has maybe four or five bicycles could be put there. That will have to be either moved or taken out, but what I would say is that the scheme approves in the Crescent Garden building as a space for 40 cycle spaces. 40? Yeah. Within the building. Yeah, there's an area at the back of the building with bin store or cycle store. The back building. Yeah, so it would be for staff and for staff, basically. Will that cycle space be available for the general public or just users of that building? It will be just for the users of that building. Right. So there's a slight loss of general public parking, sorry, cycling parking in the town centre, but overall, there's going to be more with users of the building. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think when you consider the amount of parking that's available for the users of the building, if they wanted a cycle, they will not then be using public cycle parking. So, yeah, I mean, you can see where you're coming from. There's a slight loss of public cycle parking, but I think that's part and compensate far by what's being provided within the building. Okay. And in the objections as well, there's something about wheelchair use, but we've already established wheelchair use will not be affected at all. Also in the objections, there's a claim that was congestion in that area leading on to Ripon Road there, that highways are very, well, I wouldn't say, in your opinion, highways are obviously happy that this will not add to any congestion from Swan Road into the Ripon Road there. Yeah, they've had a good look at it, and their view is it won't have any significant impact on the operation of the highways in that area. Right. Well, there's the option to go out onto Crescent Road, and then you can still cross through Bumpelier onto Ripon Road from there. So it is stopping the cross through from Swan Road down to Ripon Road, but, as I say, however, it's not being major. I mean, when I've cycled, walked, driven in that area, I must admit, I don't consider that really a congestion hotspot in the town centre is worse than that, there's a lot worse than that. Yeah, I mean, it is used, but I don't think it's heavily used. I don't think the impact, and how are these officers are currently, the impact of closing offs are going to be significant. You'll understand the mask in these, you, these questions, because I can't ask the applicants or the... Yeah, that's fine, Councillor. Keep going, if you've got a couple of others, I've got a chance for a couple of others, and I'll thank you, Chair. The objectives also say that the events set up will be affected for public events there, but in actual fact, there's not going to be cars coming down. And I think that space with the block paving, et cetera, may, and especially if there could be some sort of deal done with the applicants or the owners of the building, there could actually be more space for vehicles setting up for the Christmas events down there, or whatever else takes place in the Queen Elizabeth Memorial Gardens. It has potential for more, for actually not driving onto the grass, et cetera, but using the new space that has been created, would you agree? Well, that would be a matter between the applicants, the private owner, and whoever's that you go, but there's still public access from the north and from the present road and from LAA. So it may change the way that space is accessed, but there's still other access to it. Yeah. Okay. That was my understanding as well, and you'd be glad to know this is my final one. Can you just clarify that stopping your process for us, with stopping the border? If we vote for this today, is there a time scale on that, and what is the legal procedure for it? Because it's quite unusual, and I haven't heard of it before, and what would the process be? The legal process? It's not something I've come across before either, but my understanding of it is if you, if this application is approved, that allows the applicant to apply to stop up the road under the Planning Act. If there's no permission in place, there's a separate process you can do under the Transport Act, but it's a longer process. So timing wise, I'm not sure. We have Harry Yendall here from the Highways Authority, who may be able to give you a bit more information on that. Yeah, so time-wise, essentially, if permission is granted for the application, as Jerry said, it means that the applicant is able to apply to Secretary of State under Section 27 for the Town and Country Planning Act, and it's essentially to enable that development to come into fruition. It's deemed that, in order for that development to take place, that this stopping a border is required. So they won't be able to actually start this development until that stopping a border is in place, essentially. And I'm writing saying they can't do this stopping a border until this proposal has been planned. Okay, that's good. Check, could I just, I didn't realise we had the Highways Office here, could I just ask? This is directly to the Highways Office. The point I was making about the congestion, could you just expand on that? Presumably you've done some modelling, and the proposed stopping up or closure wouldn't actually contribute significantly to any congestion on Ripon Road. That's fine. So we've had a look at some recent traffic data through there, and it's been assessed in line with this application, and essentially it was deemed that the impact isn't going to be significant, and it's not going to have a significant detrimental impact on the neighbouring junctions of the general road network in that area. Thank you, and thank you for your indulgence, Jay. Well, thank you. I think Chris has actually asked a lot of the questions I was going to ask. On stopping up or is it a ministerial decision, or is it a mayoral decision, or is it a council decision, or who basically who makes the decision in the end on that, please? Ultimately, the decision is taken by Secretary of State, so the application is made to Secretary of State, like I say, under section 274 of the Town and Country Planning Act, so they will be the ones making the necessary order to stop up the highway. Should it be successful? The other one was on the parking there, the bit that they are on, presumably, that will be only available to whoever is in the building, whatever they do to the building, right? Okay. Thank you. That's my understanding of it, the packing on the shelf, and the on street packing is still currently will be available for the users of the building. Yeah, sorry. Okay. So, I've got Councillor WINDERS next. Councillor, did you want to ask a question? Thank you, Chair. I'd just like to ask the Planning Officer, why on earth has it recommended approval of closing of this road? We know that had a better council sold this, the Crescent Garden building and the shelf to the developer. I just can't understand why we then have to recommend it to approve the closing of the road, losing an access road, all right, they say that it's not great for you, but it is used, and it's used quite often, and there's quite a few parking bays down there, which are all going to be abolished. We've also, when we're still at the station gateway, we're removing parking there. Are we going to be anti-car totally, that we're not allowed cars to go down roads and anybody else that buys a building, can they start and apply to have a road closed? I just want to understand why you've come to the recommendation that we approve the closing of this road. Okay, I mean, from the highway's perspective and the loss of parking and traffic, the highway's officers have looked at and deemed it to be no significant impact, so that's more or less neutral. With regards to what's happening otherwise, you're preventing through traffic, so less traffic cutting through there, plus you're putting in planters, new paving, so it improves the look of the area, and it improves the frontage of that building and the general character of the area, so as we said in the report, there is a minor positive impact on the character of the area, and a negligible neutral impact on traffic and the operations road network, so that's why we're recommending for appraisal, 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 conditioned upon the proposed purchase of taking a stopping up order 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. The completely separate processes, that is just for information and background and the interests of clarity, what's got on, the decision of as 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 land order. The decision of what do you approve this application today is a decision of North Georgia Council as a planning authority to separate things, so that does not point you to make any decision today. Okay, but it actually says that disposal was conditional upon the proposed purchase of taking a stopping up order on the highway, so I think this decision has quite a lot of ramifications then. Yeah, I mean if the applications are approved, that means they would be able to apply for the stopping up order and assuming they've got a stopping up order, that means they would be able to comply with that requirement of the sale. It'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, okay. In which case, I've got a couple of other questions, please chair. That's fine. So in effect, the privatisation of this road has been previously agreed by a different committee, and I presume at that time that 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 a document as such that actually explains whether 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, for the cabinet to make a decision that it was okay to- I don't know, I just put in the report the bare bones of what's happening with the cabinet meeting, what was probably for them, what the recommendation was, and what the decision was. Okay, 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. 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 Inn, as far as I understand, as it stands there, so it is 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—oh, sorry, 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? Well, that's the legal officer, I think we probably could, but is that something we condition or don't need to be legal agreement? Well, it's the usual test that you're familiar with, is it necessary, is it reasonably related in scale and kind, in terms of what we're requiring, and is it reasonable in all other respects? Is that something that we would say? I'm not quite sure what we're asking for, is there a single block of—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. Sorry, 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 rain—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 anymore, so what you'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 properly 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, Gerry? 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. You've got three minutes, Mr. 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 eleven 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-Moe 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 in 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. Heritage 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 councils 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. Which 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, etc.? Councillor Haslund. 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 up order 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, OK. Anybody else want to make, Councillor WINDIS. 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 opposed this, and I've just heard now, after Councillor Haslund'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 like, 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 clarifying point. The point that the Councillors just made, Jerry, 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? The application, there's nothing in this application which would prevent pedestrians and cyclists using road, and it's more understanding that that's, even if the stopping up order is 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. But Chair, it's all right saying that they can, 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 clarify, because we're not determining whether the public right of way is extinguished today. I know it's a bit slightly complicated, but what's actually happening, 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, but it will come. So are you saying that at the moment, if we approve what this goes to today, this 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. And 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 or not. So, as I say, we're not making, that's not a planning decision, it's a decision for 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, proper because otherwise decision making is a bit difficult. I'm trying to help, Councillor, I know you're flexible. 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... Well, why have you got the floor? Do you have any further points? This is a debate. This is a debate, isn't it? We're actually debating the issue. We're in debate now. Right. Yeah. 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... How it would affect the business and what's going to be there, and I don't know. I mean, apparently, we're actually saying that if they don't get the stopping up order, then the whole thing might not go through anyway. I don't know. I'm just... 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. Yeah. I mean, this application is just for the physical works. So there will be a separate application to 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 land is predicated on the stopping up order being granted. So... Is that the question you were 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? Yeah. But... I'm happy to stay on this point and to allow further questions to Jerry from any other Councillors. It's important. So... Do you want your... That question answered first... Yes. Yes, please. The brought back. Yeah. 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 solve this process? That's your question. OK. Jerry? 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, an either end of the currently way to be blocked up. So I had a round of credit cards, as well, to have a notice advertising that this process is in...is happening. I mean, however, maybe I'll just give you a bit more detail on that. Yeah. How good? Yeah. So, all right. It's a 28-day consultation period, under Section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act. It's made, essentially, once the details of the application has been agreed with the Office for the Secretary of State, they prepare the draft order, public notice is produced, it's put on site. The draft order is also advertised in at least one local newspaper, also in the London Gazette, which starts that 28-period consultation period, essentially. Copies of the order must also be made available at the local public office for inspection, but they can also be obtained from the National Transport Case Work Team at the Department of Transport. Right. Just to clarify, local public office being here, civic centre here, are the elected representatives of the town, at least, are they going to be notified that the whole process is being started? I'm not too sure exactly who is included in Secretary of State's consultation. And certainly the Highway Authority are. We receive notification of any proposed stopping up, obviously, of the highway. Is that area six or...? Yeah. Well, I think it does come centrally, but ultimately it will ultimately come to local areas. Right. Okay. So, when you're notified, Mike, I'm requesting, if this goes ahead today, could the highway office then, at least, inform the local representatives? We can inform. Yeah. I think what's probably worthwhile saying, as well, is that, by applying for a section 247, 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 button. The stopping up order, and doing away with the right of way, is different than approving a few plants and a little bit of paving on them. You have to apply... 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 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. Right. In that regard. Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you very much. Any further questions on this issue? Yeah, and I'm going to broaden it out slightly. 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, and that therefore, what was driving the cabinet's decision to this. I would also like to understand what the consequences of this decision are, really spell 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 really feel that we're making a small decision here, but potentially with what I would call frightening consequences into, well, when I say frightening, just enormous, 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, and I just don't believe that we have sufficient information here today to actually, you know, it's great that we can pick the color of the planter, but actually that's not really the issue here. The issue here is that by agreeing to this, we then goes forward to a stopping up order, which then has a consequence in terms of access to that land, and I would like, 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, 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, but I'm saying we need to understand the consequences of our actions here. Okay, all right, thank you, Councillor, you asked a question, which I'd like, a technical question, which I'd like Jerry to answer, you made very debating points as well, and you suggested a possible resolution also, but in relation to the question which Councillor asked, which was what was the motivation of the cabinet when it sold the land to Impala, 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? Well, it's in the report, the reason for the decision at 10.22 last paragraph, tell that again, Jerry, sorry, sorry, it's, okay, yeah, at 10.22 that, that's what's, that's what the, in the cabinet report, that was the reason for the decision, the post-proges are wishes to improve the landscaping and alter the existing layout of the parking and landscaped areas of the front of the building, Impala estates were progressing with the refurbishment of the Councillors, the present guidance, this was an important project for the town centre, creating much needed good quality office space, 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 water 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. I think, Chair, if I remember rightly at the debate, the cabinet, when he went to Council, said that the question about the road, that wasn't a matter for them, it was a matter for the new, 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, okay, Councillor Aldrin, if you wanted to come in on this point, I'm presuming on this point, isn't it? It is, actually. Thank you, Chair, again. I think it's interesting that the cabinet at the time, I think in writing, saying did include the ward Councillor, the Councillor for Valley Gardens and the central part of the Holy Spirit, who was becoming a member for the environment at that time, so presumably he would have taken great interest in this, and it was a unanimous decision of that cabinet at the time, but 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 the Constitution, we need to change that, we need to change that, but so put that to one side, but I think in parallel states obviously want a high quality end product there, the Crescent 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 at least those buildings will be able to part Robert, or otherwise why are they taking up 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 on their website if we look at 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, etc, 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 capitalise 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 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 public right of way maintains, I think that is even stopping up order, but Paul is absolutely right, we ask you know you start in 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, 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 a 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 applicants come forward with this, I understand there's other ways this could have been taken forward, and this isn't really helpful for us as councillors as representatives of the public to be doing it this way, and 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 a poder 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 let me start, yeah, find the pluses out where the miners, but I don't think we've illegal ease how many more, and that stopping a poder 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, etc, 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 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 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, 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 it 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 Jerry has said, some planters and some bits and pieces that 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, as colleagues of identity, me and 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, go ahead and just, come back on that if I may, apologies, I'm filling it. Joining up order that only applied to vehicles would seem to make sense to me as a non-plan expert. Could I ask Heather for any of this, I mean, do we as a committee have any influence on what type of stopping up order is applied for by, 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. And, and just further to that, if I might, Chair, I think that we've got to be, I would urge members to be, be careful, you know, you're not doing this, but I 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, the, the, the status of the land before the, the, the, the, the sale is completed. And that isn't something which should be an informative to your 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 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 can 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 consequence of me agreeing to a few planters could mean that nobody can walk across the front of that property. 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, 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 I'm not casting, I'm not casting this person, I'm just saying we need more information, please. 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, thank you. So we're in debate. The last Council of Council 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 now we're happy to move into, if there's no further debate, I'm happy to take a vote on that motion committee. Chair, Chair, Collegiate, sorry, that's fine, but just as for absolute clarity on the additional information that you're seeking, I think everything that I've heard on, much of what I've heard through the course of day, is the one information on the details of what will be comprised within the section 247 application, if that's how this proceeds. So it's the scope of that application, whether or not he, so I'm 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, 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 them, but this, we've got a sledgehammer here, and actually in terms of legislation, but actually it might be modified, so it's only vehicular 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, perhaps we can. 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, with the best way in the world, the gentleman of them might want to go talk to the people of, he'll have more, he's more than him that's in the, 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, we'd just like to give you some time, and we'd like you to clarify this, and we're all on the same side, we all want things to be better for Harrogate, 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, 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. Yeah, I think that's very well said, Councillor. So I think we've, 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, 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, the 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, we need to consider it at a separate date, and be allowed to ask questions to the 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 BRUNKE - 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. 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 know you're quite right, Councillor BRUNKE - We have tried the constitutional aspect of not seceding, but in practical terms, it is needed. I know it was done because the majority of planning authorities and 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. Councillor BRUNKE - Just be aware, Councillor, 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 Yocha Councillor arrangements. Councillor interjecting. Your point has been noted, Councillor. 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 end of the points as we speak. Also, just to reiterate, I'm very happy to be flexible. In 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. I think we've got an agreed position. So, thank you for that. Sorry, Chair, just for the minute, if I may, because I saw Dawn raising her eyebrow, 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, 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. It was the Nesbrough 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 in the 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 Dawn to read the exempt resolution before we vote on whether to go into exempt session for this item on the agenda. So, Dawn, over to you, please. Okay. It is now before the committee to resolve that in accordance with section 100A for 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 Haslund, and I'm happy to second it, or Councillor Broadbank, whichever. So, if we could vote on that manually, please. So, we're now in unanimous that we go into exempt session. I mentioned earlier that Councillor Haslund was spoke, I think, against... Can I just check, Chair, as we've got to wait for the feed to close, could perhaps just at the live feed? Could it perhaps just suggest a short break to a three minutes if that's all right? Yeah. I'm jumping the gun. Okay. Short break. Thank you. Thank you. a very good evening. Thank you. a very good evening. Thank you. a very good evening. Thank you. a very good evening. Thank you. a very good evening. Thank you. a very good evening. Thank you. a very good evening. Thank you. a very good evening. Thank you. a very good evening. Thank you. a very good evening. Thank you. a very good evening. Thank you. a very good evening. Thank you. a very good evening. a very good evening. Thank you. a very good evening. Thank you. a very good evening. Thank you. a very good evening. Thank you. a very good evening. Thank you. a very good evening. the very good evening. Thank you. the very good evening. Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]