Transcript

[BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Hello, and welcome everyone to this meeting of the Harrogate and Nesborough Area Constituency Planning Committee. I'm Councillor John Mann and I'm the Chair of the Committee. Please can I remind everyone that today's meeting is being live webcast. The officers in attendance today to support this meeting are John Worthington, Executive Officer Development Management, Kate Laval, Solicitor Lawyer Planning and Environment, Harriet Clark on my left, Senior Democratic Services Officer, Dawn Droyy Democratic Services Officer, also Jerry Walsh on my right, and Amy McKenzie also on my right, planning officers from the Council. Also, Edward Maxwell from Democratic Services, I think Edward is around somewhere, he's responsible for the IT and other aspects. And also Heather Yendall from the Council Highways Department, welcome, and welcome to Heather. Members will be aware that we are in a pre-election period with the general election being held on the 4th of July this year. Whilst the business of the Council continues, we do need to be mindful of avoiding giving an individual or a political group a platform by which they can influence public opinion in the lead up to the election. Please can I ask that all members are mindful of this during today's proceedings. It takes me to agenda item one, apologies for absence, Dawn, if we could do it, have any apologies please. We have Chair, we've had apologies from Councillor SCORE field, thank you. Thank you, so we have a Committee of six, I think, which is good. It takes us to agenda item two minutes for the meeting held on the 28th of May. We need to receive these minutes, is there a move and a seconder, please, Councillor Chris Aldred and seconder, Councillor Robert Windas. We will now move to the vote and I think we can do this electronically so if we could press the... no, we can't. Okay, that's fine, so we just need to do the manual, raise your hands, please, if you wish to second the motion to accept the minutes. So I think that's unanimous. Thank you, so that means that the minutes have been accepted as a true and correct record of the meeting. It takes us on to agenda item three, which is declarations of interest, does anybody have any interests to declare? If I could just go first, if I may, Chris, if I may, I think we've all received probably two emails from the applicant. I received a very late one this morning, I think, or perhaps it was possibly last night. I think that email has been sent to other members as well, please nod if you've received that. Sorry, this is an email about the first item on the agenda, yeah, Peggy Parn, about the second item, the children's home. I do beg your pardon. So, Chris, you had your hand up to declare a declaration of interest, I think. Yeah, just to say, I've only had one... I've only had one email from the applicant of the second item. I haven't received anything today. But I do have to declare an interest on the first item in that. I am gosh. Do it on this one. Okay, so I am a member of Harrigut and there's the Liberal Democrats. We have a contractual agreement in a higher of an obvious property owned and managed by the applicant of the first item. Just as a declared, the last time it came to committee, it is non-precuniary, so I intend, unless told otherwise, to stay in the meeting and vote. We will note that. Thank you. I knew the members have a... Councillor Gosslow. I need to... I need to, sorry, Chair, I need to declare the same interest as Councillor Aldred with regards to the Harrigut and Nesbrough-Live Dems. So again, Chairman, and also I am a member of the Harrigut Civic Society. But just a member, I'm not a committee member or anything like that. And just on the former but not the latter, so the dem group, thanks. Thank you. I need to say also that I am going to speak on the second item, on the agenda, because I have an interest as the individual member for a panel and old ones, and I have been talking to residents and had various pieces of case work with regard to the second item on the agenda. So I will relinquish the Chair on that item, and my Deputy Chair and Councillor Aldred will be taking the Chair for that second item, which will allow me to make a statement from the public stand at the back. So we will do that for the second agenda item, thank you. So I think if we've covered everything, we can now move on to the first substantive item on the agenda, which is a gender item 4, which is the former Council offices at Crescent Gardens Harrigate North Yorkshire. If I could ask the case officer, Jerry Walsh, to introduce the report, please. It's just got a slight technical hit, just bear with this, will I? I think we just dropped the mouse, hopefully it will work. If members in the public can just bear with us as we have a slight technical hitch at the minute. Right, it seems to be working. Jerry, are you okay to continue? Give us a report. Thank you very much. Over to you, thank you. Thank you, Chairman. There's just a couple of updates for this application. We've received one additional representation since the application was considered at the 7th of May planning committee. And in summary, the additional points raised are the proposal makes no contribution to the town center strategy and master plan. The road is a value to the public and to remain in public ownership and the application does not enhance the conservation area. The second update is an additional condition is proposed to remove the development rights for the erection of fencing or walls on the site. This is considered necessary to give the planning authority control of potential handful impacts on the setting of Queen Elizabeth Memorial Gardens and the conservation area generally. I think most members were here at the last meeting, but just as a way of update, the application was deferred at the meeting on the 7th of May because members didn't feel that they had sufficient information to make an informed decision and the view of a potential application to the sector, say, for stopping a border, which if granted would allow for public way to be extinguished, there is a need to understand the full consequences of granting the planning mission. On the back of that, the following further information has been provided in the report. At Appendix B, the report to the Cabinet of under disposal of President Gardens Highway, Appendix D, the minutes of that meeting, and at Appendix D, the summary of supplementary information provided by the applicant on the 28th of May 2024. As the Chairman said, the application of the installation of access control, bollards, construction of planters and block paving to the roadway at President Gardens. So that's the existing site layer plan, the sites outlined in red, so what was... What you'll be looking at is the odd end of the Crescent Gardens Road, some bollards and planters to be installed, which would obviously prevent vehicle traffic from moving through that section of road. That is the proposed site layer plan, so you could see the... it's probably quite difficult to see, but you can see the varnish and planters are around, the details of those will be subject to conditions. So what they would look like will be controlled by conditions. There's also a section of paving to the main entrance to Crescent Gardens of block paving that would link the main entrance to the Queen Elizabeth Memorial Gardens, and that would match the existing paving at the front of the Crescent Gardens. That's just at the spawn road end. That's proposed to introduce some tactile paving to improve pedestrian crossing facilities there. Okay, that's looking from spawn road end. The bars and planters would be roughly where that car is in the foreground. That's looking from the Montpellier end, and the bollards would be roughly where that forest post is, and coming across the other side of the road. That's just looking at the front of the Crescent Gardens, that the paving that would come across from there would match that paving and would link up with the Queen Elizabeth Memorial Gardens. The recommendation is to approve the application in accordance with the conditions set out on the report and that additional condition that was outlined in the update. Thank you, Jeremy. Thank you very much, Jerry. We have members, we have two speakers for this item. I'd like to invite the first to is Rebecca Oliver from the Duchy Residence Association. You're right, beg your pardon. Following the report, I think we now need to take questions from members to the officer, Councillor Aldred. Thanks, Chair. And thank you, Jerry, for your report. I want to say, I found that very easy to read and put everything into perspective. I think it gave us the information we needed from the last report, including those appendices, which we're really useful, actually, and explains why we need to do this before the stopping the border, which I think we were kind of debating. Have it gone the wrong way, or the right way, et cetera. Lovely that we're referring to the land as the Queen Elizabeth Memorial Gardens as well, which is its proper name, which is brilliant. My question is, on the additional condition we're putting in, you referred to fencing, is that to stop when putting any fencing in that kind of area? Yes, honey. Any fencing they wanted to put on the site would need to come towards the planning mission, and we could make a judgment down of what impact that's having, either in the, probably on the character of the area. Thank you. I think that's very sensible as well. And I'm glad to see also that they've taken on board comments about the cycle stand being removed. And put elsewhere in that vicinity. So, thanks for that as well. Thank you. Any further questions to the officer committee? Councillor WINDERS. Thank you, Chair. Is the land the highway still within the Council of North Yorkshire Council at this moment in time? Has it been sold to this developer? So it's still within the thing of North Yorkshire Council. I've got here the advertisement for the actual sale of Crescent Gardens, but it's absolutely no mention whatsoever about stopping up of the road. It shows the number of parking places on the shelf, which was in with the sale of the Crescent Gardens, and also the 15 spaces at the end of the building. There is no mention whatsoever in this sale item, I've found, then stop it up the road. Can you tell me where this came and what agreement was made? When? That the report that was brought to cabinet for the sale of the land. And that's how it came about. That's it. So it's not being sold yet because the sale is subject to getting a stopping up order. So the process of getting a stopping up order involves getting a planning application approved and then they can move on with that process. So that's how it came about. To elaborate on that, Councillor, I think it's a two-stage process. In other words, the sale that you discussed in there didn't involve the road, but there's been further negotiations. And the appendix B is a result of that further negotiation where we've been approached, I think at the time as Harrogate Council, about the potential sale. So it's gone through the papers that you see and that has been agreed subject to planning and the stopping up order. Thank you very much for that. If we continue, I'm looking at Harriet now and Dorne, if we continue to get vibrations from the microphones, would it be easier if we just dispense with the microphones and continue without them? It's quite a small chain, but I don't know what people think. I mean, mine's working, but obviously Roberts wasn't working. Okay, any further questions, please, Committee, to Jerry. Councillor Broughton. Chair, I have some red reports that I still can't understand why a stopping up order needs to be part of the final deal. I'm just talking about there'll still be access for the cycle and pedestrians. So why do they need a standing up order? I just don't understand why it's imperative that they have to have that without me going through. The basis of the purchase is that it will train chance and obviously if it was continuous a highway, then the council is the local highway authority. So by stopping it up, it takes it out of the responsibility of the local highway authority as well, and therefore that move to private hands is part of part of that. So ultimately, it's a decision that's already been taken that the sale will proceed subject to the stopping up order and that's where we're at. Okay. Do you answer the supplementary, Councillor Broughton? Any further questions, Committee? Councillor Goss one. A difficult one, but will it cause issues in terms of access for events on the gardens, stopping a order because it will require a presumed permission from the owner to allow access for that type of use? I'm just concerned about the type of road that surrounds and how busy that is and what the loading, offloading, etc. would be allowed on those surrounding highways if the road, if the present garden street isn't therefore allowed access for events? Well, I'll defer to Heather on this one. She's the highways officer, so maybe she can explain that. Yeah. So essentially, any application for an event on the highway would come to the highway authority to assess. So the impact of that event would be managed appropriately as to what they're providing. So should the area be stopped up and those highway rights relinquish, we would obviously deal with any events that came up and what the proposals were for the areas within the highway. If they were proposing to use something on what will become the private land subject to a successful stopping up order, they would need to get the permissions from the land on it for that. Quite clearly, do you want to come back on that? Yes, just to ask whether there is any usable access if that road weren't allowed to be used. Is there in your mind another access point onto the gardens? Again, we'd have to assess it on what the individual needs were for that event. And there's always ways and means of managing access sites set up, break down. So it would just have to be assessed on an individual basis, how to manage those events. And I could take and still gain access from Malpellier Road and from President Road. Any further questions, members? Senator Aldrin. Sorry, I meant to ask this one earlier, Gerald. Your report is quite clear that the stopping up order doesn't read, the planning decision we're asked to take today isn't part of the stopping up order. It doesn't, we shouldn't really take that into account. However, obviously it is a big issue if that road is going to be closed for public access, etc. And I can quite say now from reading the committee reports that the purchase of the land is not going to be taking place. If there isn't the stopping up order and planning permission it is required for that, the answer. So I can see why we are where we are today. The question is, if in the future, because I don't think actually the current applicant, they actually want people to go on that land. Their whole business principle as I understand it, they're opening a restaurant, there's going to be offices there. Let's talk about using the old counter chamber there as some kind of art gallery and the area with a nurse gallery and putting objects in there. So the applicant, the current applicant actually wants people to use that land. What we don't want is vehicles going up to and through all the time, which I can perfectly understand. But they're not denying me as a pedestrian, a cyclist, a horse rider, any access. I don't ride a horse by the way, any access to that land. So I'm quite comfortable with the current owners. My position would be different if they sold it onto somebody else who suddenly is going to use that land. Councillor, so what's your question, please? Okay, I'm coming to it, John. If any subsequent owner of the land doesn't want to use it for something that requires public access, i.e., I don't know, residential use perhaps. And they wanted to block that access off to pedestrian, cyclist, horse rider. Presumably they would then have to come back to planning. Because a few bottles and plants, it isn't going to deny access. So they would have to come back to planning. If they were to put a typical housing, they would have to pay for that. That's great, thank you. Any further questions, committee? Take that as a no, thank you. So we can now move on to the next part of the agenda. And we've got two speakers for this item. The first is an objector. I'd like to invite Rebecca Oliver from the Duchy Residence Association to speak now. You've got a maximum of three minutes over to you whenever you're ready. See if the technology works for me. I'm not sure. My name is Rebecca Oliver. I'm Chair of the Duchy Residence Association. And I'm here today just representing some of our members who have either objected to this, who are unable to be here today, or who have expressed concerns to me about it. So their objections are as follows. Crescent Gardens is a useful road which takes traffic pressure off Crescent Road if you're traveling from the Duchy estate into the town centre. It is also used as a drop-off point for the Convention Centre and the Royal Hall and for parking for the Doctor's Surgery on King's Road. The loss of the car parking spaces, particularly if you've got disability or mobility issues, is something that the Council should consider for access to the Doctor's surgery you feel. The statement from Impala regarding pedestrian cycle access is Babe. We would ask that there is explicit reference to pedestrian access for the general public, as well as visitors to the building, as part of a condition of any planning commission. At the last planning meeting, the Council lawyer said that it would be difficult to prevent Impala in the future restricting access further once they have ownership. So this decision may have longer-term unforeseen consequences, particularly if the building is sold on and the ownership changes. The sale of a publicly owned road to a private developer seems highly unusual and we would ask the Council as what precedent that sets for the Council. In general, it would help Impala's cause if they were clearer with the general public and local residents about why the road ownership is so crucial, why a long lease wouldn't have survived, and also what sort of timescale they're working on in terms of progressing with the project as there hasn't been an update on their website since 2022. We agree with the Civic Society that the treatment of the landscaping in the drawings is not of a sufficiently high standard for a building at the heart of the town centre. In conclusion, while members of the residence association recognise the need for this important building to be developed and protected, we object this application on grounds of loss of immunity and inappropriate design. Thank you. Thank you very much. I would now like to invite the applicant to speak to the committee. If I could ask Hamish, Robert Shaw, to step forward please. You've got three minutes there, over to you, thank you. Thank you, Chair, good afternoon members. At the last meeting, the application was deferred to allow members to receive further information and clarification on matters of the land sale and stopping up procedure. We duly provided a note on this matter which hopefully members have been able to review and found helpful. Hopefully your officers have also been able to advise on these masses from a council perspective. In brief summary, this application proposes that the site be developed and repurposed so as to provide enhanced public realm, private parking and outdoor space in front of the Crescent Gardens building. If permission is granted, the applicant will seek the stopping up of the highway which will remove any public access rights over the land. The development will not be able to proceed unless and until a stopping up order is made. The stopping up application will be made to the Secretary of State and be subject to its own process and considerations in due course. The decision made today does not pre-determine the outcome of that process. The installation of bollards will physically restrict vehicular access but not pedestrian or cycle access. The Crescent Gardens Development incorporates a number of public facing uses such as restaurant bars and office space. Access to and from the building will therefore need to be maintained for pedestrians and cyclists by permission of the landowner. The site immediately joins the Queen Elizabeth Memorial Gardens which will be unaffected by the proposal. Members of the public will still therefore be able to pass from Swan Road to Montpellier Road in this area and there is no objection to the proposal from highway's officers on accessibility grounds. The development offers a number of benefits to the town. It will improve the frontage to the Crescent Gardens building, including visual amenity and the locality. It will create a softer interface between the development and the gardens, reinstate flower beds in the area following removal from the gardens in recent years and make a positive contribution to the conservation area. It will also enhance the attractiveness of the Crescent Gardens development to occupiers and customers and thereby make a positive contribution to the town centre vitality and economy. We agree with the planning condition to remove permitted development rights for the erection of any fence, gate or means of enclosure and to facilitate the relocation of the four existing cycle stands to a nearby location of council owned land for public use. Overall, the proposed works will enhance the Crescent Gardens development and its relationship with the town centre as well as benefit the conservation area and historic environment. We sincerely hope that members endorsed the officers' recommendation for approval and request that permission is granted. Thank you. We don't have any further speakers on this item committee, so we now move into the debate phase on this item. Does any member have any comments or debating points I wish to make please? Councillor WINDERS. Thank you, Chair. I'm very uneasy about this application altogether. The stopping up of the road doing away with a lot of parking spaces which brings revenue into North Yorkshire Council. To stop it up just so they can say they've got a lovely building with pedestrian access. By the way, I didn't pick up on the last speaker, the cycle stands. Yeah, we're going to move them from there and put them back on somewhere on council property. In other words, they don't even want cycles down there. Crescent Gardens, the roadway there is, as I say, used for parking. It is often and many times used for people going to the Royal Hall on an evening for concerts. Where are they going to go? Where are the disabled bays going to go? We're going to lose a lot of parking spaces and that road is used for people coming along Swan Road to get down onto the things without having to fly through all the rest of the traffic. I think it's totally and utterly wrong that they are wanted to close that road completely and I'm surprised that North Yorkshire ought to even considering it. I think I've said enough and you can imagine where my vote will go in a few minutes. But I think it's been rather seeded all the way along. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor WINDERS. Any further comments? Well, you're having a think. I'd just like to make a brief comment myself. We're not here this afternoon to discuss the stopping up of the road per se. We're here to consider planning application for the planters and the landscaping changes to the road at either side. For me, and probably for others, it's a slightly confusing argument because it's a catch-22 situation to get the stopping up order, which is a condition of the sale, I think. The Secretary of State has to give that permission for the road to be stopped up. Before he or she does that, planning permission has to be given. So it's a circular catch-22 situation, which is difficult to break into as a circle, if you like, and it's a bit difficult to understand. But certainly my understanding, and Officer Colley can correct me if I'm wrong, is that we're here this afternoon to discuss the planning application for the placing of the planters on either end of the road under the landscaping changes. So having said that, I'd just like to bring in the officers if they wanted to, either correct what I've said, or add to it, John or Jerry, please. I think that's a fair summary of the situation, German. We're in debate. Shortly I'll be looking for a motion committee. But any further debate or comments before we move to a motion? Councillor BRILL. It's common, really. I'm unhappy about the way this has all developed. I don't think this, I don't think the stopping of order is necessary. It should be necessary. But I mean, obviously, if it's part of the condition of sale, that puts us all in a difficult situation because the sale has already gone through as far as I'm aware. And I'm just very unhappy about being placed in this situation at all. I know that, well, certainly under the current ownership, there will still be access for people to walk through and to cycle through. But it's, well, it's just, it puts us all in a very difficult position. And obviously we've got to decide something to do on the planning application. I've no objection to a few planters being put down, but it's a paving put down. But I just think, generally speaking, I'm very unhappy with it. Councillor interjecting. I'd just like to add to my rather inadequate description of the planning application a few seconds ago, just to read, if you look committee at the bottom of page one, it says this application seeks full planning permission for the installation of access control bollards. That's the phraseology. Construction of planters and block paving to the roadway, to the front of the former council offices. So that's the, they're the aspects which we're seeking to either give planning application to, planning permission to or not. So that's the proper description of why the application is before us this afternoon. The stopping up order is phase two, if you like, of the plan to eventually redevelop the Crescent Gardens offices. So planning permission has to be given first. And then the applicant, I presume the owner in parliament states, has to apply to the department for transport for the stopping up order. So that's the sequence. And then the developer starts developing, you know, the new offices, the restaurant and the bar, et cetera, which in my view will be a huge asset to the town. So that's the way where I'm coming from. So that's why we're here. That's why it's, and it is confusing. I appreciate it. Any further comments, please? Councillor Alderight. And then I'll go to Councillor Windes and then I think Phillip wanted to say something as well. So Councillor Alder, please, your first. Dare I risk this? Ooh. Take it. Stay away from it. Okay. Yeah. I think it is confusing for people, but as I said previously, I think now we've got this second report, which actually includes the HBC cabinet minutes. And their discussion back in July 2022. And I think Robert, really, if we talk about this being speedy, it comes to that. And we were both on that council. You were a member of the administration group. Your cabinet approved this back in 2022. And I didn't notice any members raising the issue back there. Councillor Bronmunks telling me he did, but I'm talking about the administration group. It was passed, and it was passed with flowing terms. The building is sold, so there's no, and the, the, we passed planning permission for use of the future use of the building, which includes all the items that Mr. Robert Shaw told us about the bars, the offices, the restaurant. And I understand there are talks already ongoing with the Mercer Art Gallery, who have limited space to display the vast collection of the Harrigo collection. Part of it could, could be, and should in my opinion, be displayed in the old council chamber within that building, which they're keeping. So because of all those things, the applicants, this applicant, sorry, this owner, certainly wants to encourage Joe public to go into that building, and they're putting some nice paving from the Queen Elizabeth Memorial Gardens to Crescent Gardens to encourage that as well. So I don't have any problems with the public being able to use the building and use that space. They can't drive down there. That's all we're talking about, and I can see that if we're encouraging people to walk over from the gardens into the building, a public highway in the way is actually probably causing a problem, so I can see where the, the applicant is coming from. I think it would actually help with events as well, Councillor Gosselow, because I think actually negotiations could take place between the landowner and whoever's putting on the event, and it would actually be easier to park on their land than might be a financial deal. I don't know, but the highway's offices is already informed. There's plenty of space around the bottom there for any events to come on, and I think they already do use that space for things like the Christmas activities that have already taken place there, so that doesn't worry me. I'm not, I'm really, really pleased with this new fencing condition, which we didn't have before, because I think that really does. So I think Mr. Robert Shaw did say they're in complete agreement with this, so if they want to put any fencing along that length of the building there, the highway, they're going to have to come back to our colleagues in planning and justify why they want it in a temporary or permanent measure. I don't accept the car parking argument. There's plenty of space in how to get town centre for people to park, the cars. If I was going to the doctors on King's Road, I wouldn't park there, particularly if I had a blue badge. There's plenty of nearer spaces where you could park your vehicle if you're immobile and wanting to get to that doctor's. So I think that's a bit of a red herring. I accept we'll use a bit of parking. People who are going to the Royal Hall do use that. There's plenty of other additional spaces. I think parking in the Harrogate Town Centre, there's only a couple of times a year when all the spaces are in use, and that's when we have a big event at the Convention Centre. And cyclist Robert, we actually asked them to move those things at the last meeting. They were actually in the curatorial, and my colleague here said, Can you put them elsewhere at their expense, which they're going to do? So I don't think we can call that CD or anything like that because we're just asking, we're doing what we ask them to do. So my only big worry, all along with this, has been, if in permanent states for any reason, chose to sell that building on in the future. And can anybody else put, restrict, access, and we're talking about pedestrians, cyclists, et cetera, because the stopping the border will have gone through? Yes, they can. But to do it, physically, the question I asked the officer earlier, they will have to come back to the planning department because those ballads and those planters are not going to prevent cyclists, horse riders, pedestrians walking into that space alone in the future. So if any bit future buyer, and can only think of residential use, there was a plan we all know about that it was going to be a super duper multi-millionaire space. And I think that particularly applicant wanted to prevent access because he wanted to keep it exclusive. So if him or somebody else buys it in the future and he's that way minded, we now have a condition with their, with the fences, and they will have to come back to the planning department to actually exclude pedestrians, cyclists. So I am a bit uncomfortable with losing public space, but because this applicant wants the public to go into that building, and it is a crucial building, a splendid building, as we said, in Harrogate's history. And they're encouraging public usage there. I'm comfortable with this application, and unlike Council members, I will be voting for it. Thank you. Any further debate before we, before I ask for a motion members, Councillor Gosslon? I am still a little bit concerned about the access. Because of the stepped access around the public toilets and through the park, and the concern of the public not being able to move through that site in the future or easily. And that still remains a huge concern for me. I can see that events could be possible. I'm worried that that might be impacted because of the nature of the road surrounding the site. But the, not having step-free access, I feel would be detrimental to that public space. I'm just looking around. I'd just like to our people having a brief think. I'd just like to make a couple of comments myself, if I may. For me, this is a really good commercial scheme in the centre of the town to provide really good standard office space. I don't know if any of you ever looked for an office in Harrogate. It's very, very difficult. There's hardly any office premises in Harrogate for rent or to buy, if you're so minded. And that space, which is available, is just horrendously expensive. So I think if we want Harrogate to thrive in the future, we do need a better supply of office space. Now this is office space for me that's in the centre of town. It will look great. It will enhance the street scene in that particular part of town. And it will provide tens of thousands of square metres of office space. Now in addition to that, if you're looking for a good restaurant and a good bar, they will also be provided there. So first and foremost, for me, as a resident of Harrogate, these redeveloped premises are commercial premises, which are obviously just asking to be used. So the owners in Parlor want nothing more than loads and loads of people to flock to their offices, to attend their restaurant and to drink in their bars. So the last thing they want is to deter people. So they're not going to do that. They want to attract the crowds, attract the punters, and attract people wanting a good meal. So the last thing on their mind is to exclude people. Okay, they want to exclude cars. I appreciate that, but having said that, there's really good parking in Harrogate. Although we have bad congestion, we do have in Harrogate loads and loads of parking space, particularly in multi-storey car parks, all over town, the Victoria car park, et cetera, et cetera. So although the development is taking away, I think it was 35 or perhaps it's 30 parking spaces, if you walk into any of our off-street parking multi-storey spaces, there's loads of space there. Hundreds and hundreds of spaces which are available. So I don't think that's a downside. I'm talking about the withdrawal of 35 spaces. We have plenty of parking space in town. And lastly, I would just say, obviously in the future, uses do change, buildings change and develop. So if at any point in the future, Impala wants to sell up for whatever reason, and somebody else comes forward and wants to convert it to residential development, then of course, what they've got to do is apply to this committee for planning permission. So we've got control. So I would say to the committee, we've got control of the situation through this committee, and we can make sure that whatever supersedes Impala's development is of good quality and fits in with the town. Personally, although I regret the complications around the sale of the land, et cetera, I think it was the right thing for Harugate Borough Council to do. A key part, a key head of terms of the sale was the stopping up of this particular road, simply because not because the Impala or the developer wants to be awkward, but they wanted to be a super facade, a super sort of forecourt, if you like, at the center of their forecourt, the front of their building. So I think they will use it to, this is the road, once it's been stopped up, they will use it to enhance the street scene. And okay, cars won't be able to get through, but I think that's not a bad thing to be frank, pedestrians, cyclists, et cetera, will be able to use it. I don't think there are many, although it's complicated and perhaps a bit annoying, and it's a circular argument, which is difficult to get my head round. I think I do understand it, and I do support Impala's efforts to improve the town centre in this way. But having sort of said that, before we move to a motion, does anybody else have any comments they would like to add, please? Councillor Gossle. It's more of a question, Chair, are we able to request or ask that any subsequent planning applications come before committee? I mean, certainly any applications change use of the building would return here, so if that's your concern, then yes, that would come back. So, having listened to the arguments, and thank you for your comments, committee, could I ask for a recommendation? It has been the custom and practice of this committee in the past that our recommendation supports the Office's report as first and foremost as an initial recommendation or motion, and if that falls, we can take subsequent motions. So, could I ask for a motion, please, first, that might support the application, Councillor Aldred? Yeah, I'm happy to support the Office of Recommendation. Right, thank you. Do we have a second, please, committee? Councillor? Councillor Broadbank. Reluctantly. I hear what you say, thank you. So, committee, we've got a motion that's proposed by Councillor Aldred, seconded by Councillor Broadbank. Councillor Broadbank, we're now in debate on this motion. Any thoughts, comments, please, on the motion, please, committee? Councillor Broadbank. On the stopping up order, I know it's not part of this application, but there would be 28 days. What form would that take, would it be a sort of public inquiry held in Harrogate? If I could ask Officer Colleagues perhaps to header from highways. So, once the details of the application is agreed with Secretary of State for Transport, essentially they will prepare a draft order, and a public notice will be produced, which contains details of the proposals. It's then publicized in at least one local newspaper and in the London Gazette, which starts the 28 day period from there. And that's the time in which law interested parties can lodge objections regarding the loss of public right of way. Sorry, when you say in the right way, does that mean there will be something in Harrogate to discuss before a decision is made, or is it just something where people write in and goes to London and then somebody somewhere in London makes a decision and that's it? So, it does also state the requirement is that copies of the order must be made available at local public office for inspection, and can also be obtained from the National Transport Case Work Team. Yeah, that didn't answer the question. Where, if anybody objects wants to object, where will they be? It is just something in writing then to the minister, and it's not going to be a meeting here where various comments and people can come in and say, Right, I want this. It's not nothing like that, it's just a question of something being put in the paper. The London Gazette, having those, why the London Gazette, but anyway, something needs to be put in one of the local papers. People need to pick up on that and then get the comments in and then await for the decision. Yeah, ultimately, that individuals can make that representation to the casework team in department. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, anybody could write in, but yeah, it wasn't a verbal thing, it's just in writing. Yes. Thank you for that, very helpful response. Any further debate committee, please? Councillor WINDIS. Yes, Chair, we've talked about stopping up order, we've talked about the planning consent that is before us today. I appreciate what everybody said about the stopping up order, that will go to the Secretary of State. What you're asking us to do today is to drive the thin edge of the wedge to start it off, because if we grant this today, then the witness is almost certain that the next thing they're going to go for is the stopping up order. So those of you on this committee who was concerned about the stopping up, this is the time to either approve it or vote against. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Any further comment and committee? No, I'm just looking at members, Councillor Aldred. I know you're not an avid reader of a London Gazette, but I think that's where all the planning things have to be published lately. And I'm sure one of our renowned local media organisations, because they seem to pick up on any planning issue, will actually put this on a platform so that it can be seen by people who are concerned, and that will be the time for them to object, et cetera. I'm sure people will know when it goes through the bloke process. I don't think it'll be a state secret. Just a comment, I think things go to the London Gazette. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, it's just the traditional sort of newspaper or organ, if you like. It's been used for centuries to announce things relating to the legal profession and to give notice to the world that certain legal things, highways, things, crowd things are going to happen in the future. So it's just a matter of tradition. I think that's why we use. Sorry, I should have mentioned as well. They do actually display a notice on either end of the extent of the proposed stopping up order. So there will be a physical notice on site for people passing to know, and it'll have the details as well as to where people can raise injections, should they wish, or pass comment. All right, any further comment, committee, before we move to the vote on this application? Actually, because it's sort of technical, any further technical questions, which officers can help answer and perhaps a lay concerns, fears, et cetera. No, I have to tell that. Can we move to the vote, please? Now, I think it's a manual vote, isn't it? Yeah, and so if you support this motion, which is, yeah, the motion is to, that this particular application is granted subject to the conditions listed below, and I think also the additional condition mentioned by Jerry about the fencing, which I think is an excellent conditioner. So I think that's the motion. So if you support the motion, which has been proposed by Council Aldrid and seconded by Council, broadband, I would ask you to, broadband, bank. I would ask you to raise your hands now, please. Thank you. So that's one, two, three, four, that's five. Any members against, please? So that's one. I think we've all voted. So I don't think there's any abstentions. So that's by five votes to one. That means that this application is therefore passed this afternoon by this committee. Thank you. So we're going to now have a very short break. I'm going to leave the chair to allow me to speak from the stand at the back and Council Aldrid will very kindly take the chair in my absence. Thank you. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you, yeah, as mentioned, it is for the change of use of a dwelling house, a C3, to a children's residential placement home, C2. The site itself is located in a mixed 10-year residential quarter sack, in a housing estate, in a development limit of Harrogate. There's no external alterations proposed to the building. However, changes are proposed to the front and side of the property to allow for greater off-road cycling and car parking. Well, it is the schemes for maximum of three children, age between 11 and 18, for maximum of nine staff members. The size of scheme is therefore small in scale. And the proposed use is a residential in nature, and there's no detrimental impacts that come to light around landscaping character of the area and neighbors' residential immunity or highway safety. The development is within the same area, within the development limits of Harrogate itself. It has some verbal updates. I'm aware that members of Planning Committee will have received three emails, one from the applicant and two from members of the community who are objecting to the proposal. I expect that members will have read those in their own time and aware of what's within them. As for myself, this morning, I was made aware of one additional public comment that's come through that raised comments around residential immunity and privacy needs. The email itself raised concerns about fencing between the properties and the need for obscure glazing to a landing window that overlooks a bedroom window in the neighborhood property. Both conditions of a new fence and obscure glazing don't feel is necessary from an officer's point of view. The officer's recommendation on this proposal is that it should be supported subject to conditions. Thank you. Sorry, I thought about the slides. So the slides, yeah, this just explains clearly what I talked about, how it's in a mixed tenure area, how it's in a cul-de-sac within the development limits of Harrogate. The next slide shows a bit of a close-up of the actual application site itself, and it shows the neighboring properties that propose layout of the car parking, where it's going to be one within the distinct garage, two to the front, and to the side between 24 Ashgraph Court and the application building itself, the proposed cycling storage area. This image is a frontal elevation of the property. No proposed changes are to the front of the building, and obviously the image also shows where the off road to parking would be and the cycling to the side. And this shows a view as you enter the cul-de-sac where it's got off road parking for the residents to the left of my screen, the left of yours as well, if you're looking at it on the wall, and the privately owned but publicly used for the residents of the state green space to the north of that image.

Thank you. The just to conclude yet, the officer recommendation is that it should be supported subject to conditions. Thank you. Thank you, Amy. So we now open up to questions to Amy on her report. Any questions? Just a few, please. I mean, one, you say that we could condition this to adjust the children's residential use only. If it's C3, we obviously go to other things. Are you saying that we can condition it just to be that? And if it does change, if somebody wants to change, by hand. It's condition nine of the report that sets out that, yes, it should be C2, residential children's home only. What would happen is the application will have to come forward when it will be used. Well, back to the council. Back to council or back to committee. Any application submitted to the council. And then there will be a decision made whether it's determined or delegated powers or by the committee, which is the usual route, whether a local member called call it in or whether we as officers leave it merits committee time. So it would follow that usual route. Right. Sorry. I didn't catch was this was this requested to be referred, or was it an officer decision to refer it. It was called in. Another one. Offstead. Apparently, it couldn't go ahead unless it offstead is the got offstead approval. Why is it that way around? Why isn't why if they want to do it, why don't they get offstead approval first and then put in for the planning application that they want. It seems to be a bizarre way round of doing things to me. I suppose it's a bit similar to the previous case that was called here. It's a case that you can't have one decision about the other and it's a bit of a circular motion. So that the blocking of the road is the same sort of idea. You need the application in place. It's my understanding before you offstead can consider an application for it to become public use of CTUs. Another one on the bedroom sizes. If it goes to offstead and then there might be conditions about bedroom sizes which this might not meet, then what? We're getting it permission before it gets to offstead approval. It's well known, well-versed elements of planning that we don't overrule any of the legislation. So giving planning permission doesn't overrule the offstead considerations. If they were to consider they didn't mean their regulations. So it wouldn't be able to commence use because it wouldn't have got that full suite of approvals. The final one for me anyway. The area, I've obviously had a look at the site. I noticed there was no site visited on this one. But I have had a look at the site and it is a fair way out of the town centre. How many other examples have we got similar sort of applications in similar sort of areas? Because normally, as far as I'm aware, they are normally in areas which are various facilities and things, particularly young people, close by. As far as I'm aware, there's none in the Harrogate area that are privately owned, children owned. It would be the best. I'm aware of one that's in Selby area that's privately owned and Scarborough, I believe, but not in the Harrogate area itself. What's the capital though? You have to determine its application, its own merit, it's not based on what's happened with other applications. Planning, Phillip. Any other questions to Amy on a Harrogate? Councillor Gosling. Well, not really a question, but I just want to be assured that Austin will look at the suitability of the house and that's nothing we need to look at because there wasn't enough information to make that decision. We couldn't see how many bathrooms, et cetera, which was a concern I originally had, whether there be some for staff carers and then some for their residents, the children. But if you're assuring us that Austin will look at all the suitability, et cetera, before signing it off, then I am assured about that. Yes, that's their role in this process. Any other questions for Amy before we move to our other speakers? No, so in that case, could I invite Richard Bannister to speak now for three minutes, Richard? I think you've been shown the appropriate place. Is that working? You hear me? We can. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of many concerned residents. At first glance, who could disagree with the idea of a new children's home in a quiet cul-de-sac? However, close inspection raises many concerns over the speculative nature of the application, the unsuitability of the property, its location and impacts of the development. The applicant has no credentials in the sector, experience of working with children, any staff, and is not off-stared registered. There is no record of generic care at companies' house or anywhere else. Social services should be a key consultant yet there is no input from the nor any children's care provider. The speculative nature of the application is evident from how information provided has been altered. To begin with, nine employees were suggested, and by the end only three. These numbers do not include managers, health and social care workers, teachers, police officers for abscondas which the police themselves mention. Under estimating traffic movements means that parking is under-provided and dimensions of the parking provision to fail council 2015 standards. Besides parking, policy TI3 of the local plan is also not satisfied due to the location being away from key public transport routes, leading to an increase in journeys by car beyond those associated with a family home. Schools, doctors and shots are well beyond one kilometre, the maximum distance sought by policy standards. There are no playgrounds or bus stops within an acceptable distance. Children will rely upon staff to be taken anywhere. Just as staff will rely upon cars to get to the property contrary to policy TI1. The property itself does not satisfy government standards for size of rooms, unnecessary facilities such as toilets. Yet the applicant claims it needs no internal restructuring. There are insufficient rooms for staff and visitors. Only one of the bedrooms meets area standards and none meets ceiling height standards. Our council happy to have a 16-year-old resident in a room less than 3 by 2 metres. The garden space fails to meet guidelines. The property therefore fails to deliver satisfactory immunity for occupants in accordance with policy HP4. It also removes one family home for which there is a demonstrated need in local plan policy. The government blog on registration dated August 2023 states, your location assessment must show the steps you have taken to make sure the home is needed locally. Also, we do not necessarily need more children's homes, we need the right homes. We do not understand why council would wish to support a new children's home here when there is no demonstrable need. The location is unsatisfactory and importantly the property would not offer a quality home for children who are deserving. My research shows existing care homes in older buildings are being closed down as they cannot be brought up to modern standards. If North Yorkshire Council needs more care homes, surely they would look to identify and deliver new facilities that meet modern standards using off-stead registered providers in appropriate locations rather than leaving such decisions to speculative applications. We kindly ask for the application to be refused. Thank you. Thank you very much Mr. Bannister. We move on now to the local member who I think we know. Councillor JOHN MANDERS, if you remember, for Oatlands and Pannell. Three minutes, John. Thank you, Chair. Are you happy for me to sit here or not? Of course we move over there. Thank you. I agree that we need to make adequate provision for child care homes. We need to make provision for child residential placements. However, homes used for this purpose need to be in the right location. Thank you. And I have received many emails and comments from local residents about this application. Comments include statements such as there are better places than a quiet residential estate away from public transport shops and services. Statements such as there is no local need for a children's residential home in the Harrogate local plan. Statements from residents such as the property is too small to accommodate three teenagers. The property would need extending. We've heard already that the rooms are very small. There's no floor plan which would have been helpful. And I've been around the houses on either side of the property in question. And I can testify that the bedrooms – there's one largest room. The second bedroom is smaller. And the third and fourth bedrooms are very small. Indeed, I would describe one of the bedrooms as being a box room. I've also received comments from residents saying that there will be noise, light and traffic disturbance from having a 24/7 business in a residential cul-de-sac. And there's no easy access to public transport or shops and services without a car. I think it's half an hour walk into town. It's a 21-hour walk to the A61 to get a bus. So it's a very rural location. And I've also received comments to the effect that this is from residents again, that the bedrooms don't meet the national described space standards, which have to be observed by councils if you rent out the rooms, for example. The rooms have to be a certain size. And I don't think the rooms meet those standards. In relation to the officer's report, which is very detailed, and I thank her for that, I would like to mention just a couple of brief aspects, namely highways and the lack and the size of the accommodation. In terms of highways, the number of trips, the extra trips generated is six. I think that's wrong. If you look at paragraph 5.5 in the report committee, you will see the list of six extra trips, but I think that's wrong. I think it should be 10. If you look at the first bullet in paragraph 5.5, there's not just one. There'll be five staff there during the day and two at night. So those, sorry, three staff during the day and two at night. So those three staff have got to arrive and the two staff have got to arrive at night. So two staff, not one, arrive at 7 a.m. Two staff, not one, leave at 7.30 a.m. The care manager arrives, that's fine, the care manager leaves, that's fine. But the next bullet says that one night's chief staff member arrives 8.45. That's incorrect. Two people should arrive. Councillor MANN, you're coming up to you three minutes now. And lastly, the last bullet is that one day's chief member leaves at 10. So to summarise, Chair, there'll be a lot more 60% extra trips generated. And I will also say that the accommodation, the room sizes are too small. Therefore, I would suggest to the committee that this application should be rejected. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor MANN. And I understand you do technically have to leave us, and obviously we'll have a vote on the issue. But thank you for your contribution. I need to invite Julian McKay. Is that right? To come before us. And he is the applicant. And you have, again, three minutes, Julian. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Julian McKay, the grandson of Miss June McKay, the owner of 22 Ashgoth Court. I grew up in a family where one of my siblings suffered from mental health issues, something which is increasingly common these days. Luckily, my family could afford to pay for the care and support needed, which, regrettably, many other families cannot. And therefore, themselves, at the mercy of ever-increasing wait lists. My grandmother, June, pioneered a way to teach blind children to play musical instruments, and my father, Barry McKay, was an active member of the Variety Club of the Northeast, promoting concerts to raise money and awareness to support less fortunate children. This has instilled in me a belief that it's every adult's responsibility to protect and improve the lives of vulnerable children. I understand the local residents' concerns, which have been shaped by, at times, shameful care events of the past. Issues have been raised, such as a high number of children, who in decades come by, would have been living on mass within a single institution, or the possibility of increased noise and general nuisance, which could have resulted in high levels and dangers to the local community. I assure you, these fears are unfounded. The children's well-being is my number one concern. It has been proven that child institutions do not work, and scientific research has shown that small family-style homes of no more than three children are better for the children's physical and mental well-being. At any given time, there will be at least two highly-trained professional carers acting as involved parents, making sure that the children are not only cared for, but educated in becoming valuable members of the community. During the time of my planning application, my grandmother received a full-asking price rent to offer from a family with four children, two dogs, which we believe would cause more traffic and disruption to the local community than our child placement home. Furthermore, it has come to my attention that residents believe that parking may not be adequate, as well as a lack of health services in the area, and if the application to turn the home into a T2 is approved, that it may be used for other purposes. To allay these fears, we have engaged proactively with the planning department and discussed parking requirements with highways, who are now happy that we have suitable on-site provisions for parking. As for health services, Harrogate has many hospitals, including a psychiatric hospital. For those that say the home may be used for other purposes, we have discussed conditions with planning that no more than three children are allowed to be in residence at any time, and that the home should be restricted to use as a child residential home. Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope with your approval that we can help as many vulnerable children as possible within Harrogate. Thank you, Mr. McKay. So, members, we now move into debate on the proposal before we go to a recommendation. So, I don't know if anybody wants to speak on the proposal. Councillor Lacy. Thank you. So, I don't think I'm confused. I'm conflicted in terms of the... I entirely understand how Offstead will need to approve the service, as well as the accommodation in which the service is provided, because its inspection will be based on a service. Not quite clear, but it's not the right question for here as to know whether Offstead will inspect when the service is up and running, or whether they need to give it permission to run, which would be more the case for our social services department to determine whether they would place children there. So, there's a bit of sort of... but I suppose my question is more around the accommodation itself and whether there are in planning considerations concerns about that I don't see in the offices report, the size of rooms and the likes for the proposed use. I'm not absolutely clear whether that has been fully considered in terms of a change from C3 to C2. So, my question is specifically around that, although you can see that there are other concerns and issues. And I take your earlier point that is a bit of a chicken and egg thing. But specifically around the planning considerations, the size of rooms when something becomes a C2. So, how has that been fully considered? It seems that from some of the comments they might not have. So, that's a question, Councillor Lacey. Can I come back on that? The applications for change of use of the building, so that's why there's no floor plans. The discussion about room sizes generally comes into play when it's an application for a dwelling, a new dwelling, not even a change of use of a building to flats, for example, commercial use to flats. You wouldn't look at room sizes necessarily. You just don't have to, or you don't do it, basically, as part of a change of use. So, it's not really something that we can look at. Off said May, but again, that's separate. So, what seems to be before us is a proposed use that under planning conditions may well be perfectly legitimate, but it is at the applicant's risk that then subsequently it is deemed not suitable for the use that it is suggested that it be put to. And I'm conscious. I can see how the family wants to respond to a need, et cetera, but it's a happenstance set of circumstances. And were you starting from scratch, would it be there? So, I'm not at the moment, I'm still a bit undecided in terms of whether this is just on the narrow planning application, something that should be permitted, but my advice to the applicant might be, are they really considered what the next hurdles might be in terms of actually getting it registered and it being a suitable accommodation for the service that's being proposed? But that would involve things outside the remit of this planning committee, because it would be about our social services department, for example, or other placement agencies outside of North Yorkshire. Do you want to come in there, Mr. Middleton? Yeah, I mean, as Amy says, it's a change of use. I think the key consideration that we've looked at that you now need to look at is does that use have a adverse impact or not upon the residential amenity of neighbouring residents? And the kind of line there is both the use, the movements that we've heard discussed are going to have a greater impact than the use of our property as a dwelling house, which is its current use. And secondly, is that increased use going to be a level that is demonstrably harmful to neighbourhood residents? Our view is it wouldn't be but that's now before use to help, that's where we would direct your discussion. Yeah, I think that is very useful, Mr. Wilmington, thank you. Further questions? Sorry, we don't do questions. We're in debate now. So any other Councillor want to enter the debate? No, it's just a question. I just thought of what Peter said. And then the North Yorkshire Council had also, health and health services, no comments received yet when you did the report. Have we actually received any now? We've received no written comments so far, no written comments, isn't it? Have we pressed them for a comment or have we just said, oh, fair enough. They've been chased, but no, they're not. It makes me uncomfortable in terms of whether the application is premature, not that it's right or wrong, but whether it's premature. How many depends on the grounds on which you're looking for comments from them, if they're going to talk about the things that relate to registration, which we've discussed not planning matters, I hope you understand that that's not for you. However, yes, I understand your caution, but if they were to bring up something in relation to the matters I outlined earlier, then that's not here. Any further comments or indeed, the office is very happy to take questions by the side of it, so we can fire some more to them. Unfortunately, I can't have any questions to the applicant at this stage, which would have been useful, but our rules do not allow them. So any questions or discussion? Nobody's asked for a question of the applicant, or indeed the object is, would anybody like it? Seeing as I'm sitting here? No, I'm being told it's debate. Any further items of debate? Are there any other information that could help us, apart from the fact that health and adult social services haven't commented, that might merit a deferral pending further information. I recognize from a planning officer's perspective you've given us your view in terms of the relative impact of three children with staff not being materially different from our family. And I can see those, I think it might be marginal, because there will always be two families who will have different impacts, as has been pointed out. But I suppose you're dealing with a material impact, but I suppose my question in terms of the debate is whether there is additional information apart from, although that might be sufficient of you from other adult social services that should suggest that we defer, but that wouldn't necessarily mean extra work for the case officer, apart from chasing those views. Obviously we don't think so, or else we've brought the item before you. Can I ask a question to the applicant? It's about the staffing arrangements, not quite sure about how many, I know yes, one finishes, one starts. I'm not quite sure how it pans out for the day, but I've seen nine, that's total stuff, isn't it? How does it pan out, car-wise and traffic-wise, on the staffing? Sorry, I should have asked you Mr McKay, are you open for questions, but you look like you are. Yes, I'm very open for questions. I just would like to say I previously had asked Democratic Services if I was able to have my care professionals here, as I have two members on my team who overall have over 80 years experience within the care services. When it comes to parking on the site, when you have homes like this, you will have a sleeping staff member, so when it comes to the night shift, and it says two staff members are on duty, one staff member will be sleeping, and one staff member will be awake. That staff member who will be sleeping will join the day shift on the next day, and that other staff member who comes in, not including the care manager, will then stay the night over in case of emergencies with the next night shift member who comes in. I hope that answers your question. Yeah, I've found my confusion actually in the information, so I can't take questions, Mr Benister, unless you want to expand on what you just said, because it wasn't a question. What I was just going to say was about how the offset regulation works, if you wanted that mentioned. No. Yeah, I've been pointed out by my learned friend here. If we gave you a lot more time, we do have to allow the objectives much more time. So, you've been asked a question, you've answered it. I think we'll leave it there, unless any committee members is desperate to know how often the workers wear these options. I think I'm fully aware of how offset works, and if we need to find out a little more, then that would be possible. Okay, I mean, I just want to add my own comments, and I was a little confused about the sleeping in arrangements, and how the movements and that's answered that. So, I'm glad you asked that question, Councillor Bobbanger. Yeah, I mean, for kids and two dogs, it's a valid point. I drove around that area today before the meeting, and there's a lot of houses there with three cars on the drive. So, you know, I think, as the officer said, it's going to be more than it was with the previous occupant, the Jocelyn's grandmother. But in the terms of things, that house could be sold, and you could have a house with, you could have a lot of cars on the drive, you could have a lot more teenagers in three, maybe, well, not a lot more, but a few more. So, I don't think the actual movements around, and what's going to be happening in the house, and that's a planning thing. Does it affect the other residents more so than residential use? That hasn't been proved to me that it would do. So, we are looking purely in planning terms. Is it suitable? And we have, as has been stated, there is a condition on this, but it can't be used for anything other than children's residential use. That's condition nine, I think. So, you can't, they won't be able to be setting up anything else other than that without coming back to the council. So, I am minded on planning terms, it is chicken and egg, I appreciate that, and we had that with the other one. But it looks like this is a way of thinking, so I've got to be done. I mean, purely on planning terms, I'm minded to vote for this. Should we have a recommendation? It will, you know, offstead will be the barriers. I think the council, Lacey, has alluded to, and there will be all sorts of questions, they will be asking, I should think. I think the council haven't come back because they're purely being asked to come on the planning terms, and the adult and social services, and they're happy with that. They may not be happy with the things that offstead are looking at, but that's out of our remit today. I think we've just got to remind ourselves, we're looking at the planning issues. And as I say, for me personally, I know we're all differently minded. I'm happy that they've been proved to be okay, council got back. It's not just the, I think, I think we need to know from health and adult services about the demand and need for something like this in this area, because that's something that, you know, that's what they're there to advise on. And I'm surprised and disappointed that we haven't come back on the issue generally, and I think that would help us come to a final conclusion. So I would be, you suggested defer, didn't you? Well, I wondered whether there was grounds on that basis, but Chris has already pointed out, I think health and adult services would be reluctant to comment when we're considering a planning issue. I think it's to be open to the potential service provider, which is basically what it is, to satisfy themselves that there's a market, rather than for us to judge whether planning is given on the basis that there's a market or not, because these sort of placements could be purchased by North Yorkshire or another authority. So thinking about whether there is a need in this particular residential environment isn't necessarily something that health and adult services would, it's sort of not for us to judge, certainly not in this context. There are a number of hurdles that the proposal would need to jump. It would need to, offstead we've mentioned, but it would also have to then attract business, and if they've done their sums, and if there's no objection from planning, then that service would be provided. If they haven't, then there's a business risk, and that's entirely down to the proposal, and not for us to prejudge. Do we have any more comments before I ask for a recommendation? No. So does any member wish to move a recommendation? Councillor Lacey first. I do propose that we follow the office's recommendations and approve it. But I hope that our comments to the proposal will encourage them to look hard, and will also give some message to the other residents that were not unmindful of the considerations and the need to deliver a safe and secure service. So I hope that message comes through, but I would propose that we support the office's recommendation. So we now go to the vote with our arms, please, no buttons, all those in favour? Any abstentions? Thank you, Councillor Burbank. I think that is past dawn. Yeah. So thank you for that. Thank you. And I am thinking on the item 6 there are no other items. So I can now, when is the next meeting? Do we now? 30th of July. So thank you all for your attendance and the declare the meeting closed. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You You