Transcript

[BLANKAUDIO] [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] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [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] If members in the public could just bear with us as we have a slight technical hitch at the minute. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] What you be looking at is an odd run of the Crescent Gardens Road, some bollards and planters to be installed which would obviously prevent vehicular traffic from moving through that section of road. That is the proposed site layer of plants. So you can see the it's probably quite difficult to say, but you can see the barnards and plants are around the details of those will be subject to conditions of what they would look like. There will be control by conditions is 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. [BLANKAUDIO] That's just at the spawn road end that's proposed to introduce some tactile paving to improve pedestrian crossing facilities there. [BLANKAUDIO] Okay, that's looking from spawn road end, and the bars and planters will 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 coming across the other side of the road. That's just looking at the front of the Crescent Gardens, that the paving that will come across from there would match that paving and would link up with 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, General. Thank you very much, Jerry. [BLANKAUDIO] We have members, we have two speakers for this item. I'd like to invite the first who is Rebecca Oliver from the Dutchee Residence Association. [BLANKAUDIO] Of course, you're right, thank you, pardon. Following the report, I think, we now need to take questions from members to the officer, Councillor Alderman. Thanks, Chair. 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, and I think you gave us the information we needed from the last report, including those appendices, which were really useful actually, and explains why we need to do this before the stopping the border, which I think we were kind of debating and it come the wrong way, or the right way, etc. 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 were putting in, you referred to fencing, is that to stop when putting any fencing in that kind of area? Yes, Annie. [MUSIC] Annie Fencing there wanted to put on the site would need to come to us for Platic Mission, and we could make a judgement down of what impact that's having, either in the, predominantly, on the character of the area. What we were deciding on? Thank you, I think that's very sensible as well. And I'm glad to see also that they've taken on board our comments about the cycle stand being removed, and put elsewhere in that vicinity. So, thanks for that as well. Thank you, Annie for the questions to the officer and committee. Councillor Wendes. Yeah, 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 was brought to cabinet for the sale of the land. That's how it came about. 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, it's gone through the papers that you see and that has been agreed subject to planning and the stopping up order. All right, thank you very much for that. If we continue, I'm looking at Harrogate now and Dawn, 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 change, but I don't know what people think. I mean, mine's working, but obviously Roberts wasn't working. No, I'm not working on that. Okay, any further questions, please, committee to, um, Jerry? Councillor Broadbank. Chair, I have some red reports that I still can't understand why a stopping up order is part of, needs to be part of the final deal. The talking about there will still be access for the cycle and pedestrians, so why does the need to stand up or I just don't understand why. Why it's imperative that they have to have that without me going through. On the basis of the purchase is that it will train chance and obviously if it was continuous a highway, then accounts 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 that. So, ultimately it's a decision that's already been taken, that the cell will proceed subject to the stopping up order, and that's where we're at. Okay. Do you want to supplementry, Councillor Broadbank? Okay. Any further questions, committee? Councillor Gosl? Um, a difficult one, but will it cause issues in terms of access for events on the gardens stopping up order because it will require a presumed permission from the owner to allow access? To allow access for that type of use, and we're just concerned about the type of road that surrounds and how busy that is, and where the loading, offloading, etc. Would be allowed on those surrounding highways if the road, if the Crescent Garden Street isn't therefore allowed access for events. 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 that 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. 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. They could still gain access from Monpellier Road, from the Crescent Road. Any further questions, members? Councillor Oodron. Sorry, I meant to ask this earlier, Gerald. Your report is quite clear that the planning – the stopping up order doesn't read, the planning decision we're asked to take today isn't part of the stopping up order. So, it doesn't really take that into account. However, obviously it is a big issue with that roading is going to be closed for public access etc. I can quite see now that the purchase of the land is not going to be taking place if there isn't the stopping up order and planning permission is required for that. So, I can see where 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 council chamber there as some kind of out gallery, and the area with theDoing Circle 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 the 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 on to somebody else who suddenly is going to use that land. Councillor, so what's your question, please? Yeah, 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 followers on planters isn't going to deny access, so they would have to come back to planning. Yes, that's great, thank you. Any further questions, committee? Take that as a note, Horan. Thank you. So, we can now move on to the next part of the agenda. We've got two speakers for this item. The first is an objector. I'd like to invite Rebecca Oliver from the Duchy Residents 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 Residents 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, present gardens is a useful road which takes traffic pressure off present road if you're travelling from the Duchy Estates 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 refill. The statement from Impala regarding pedestrian cycle access is 'Bade'. 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 permission. 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. 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 accepts for the Council. In general, it would help Impala's cause if they were clear with the general public and local residents about why the road ownership is so crucial, why a long lease wouldn't have sufficed. 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 and the drawings is not of a sufficiently high standard for a building at the heart of the town center. In conclusion, while members of the residence association recognise the need for this important building to be developed and protected, we object to this application on grounds of loss of amenity 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 over to you. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, members. As I 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 an 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 Montpelier 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, improving visual amenity in 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 center 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 a 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 center, as well as benefit the conservation area and historic environment. We sincerely hope that members endorse 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 WINDASS. Thank you Chair. Excuse me, I'm very uneasy about this application altogether. Stopping up of the road, doing away with a lot of parking spaces, which brings revenue into North Yorkshire Council. They 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, they'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. The pleasant gardens, the roadway there, 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 blow 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 had a lot 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 Winters, any further comments? Are you 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. But 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. 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 Blythe, it's a comment really. I'm unhappy about the way this is all developed. I don't think stopping a border is necessary, it should be necessary. But 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 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 on the planning application. I've no objection to a few applaudors being put down, bits of paving put down. But I just think generally speaking, I'm very unhappy with it. 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 Boldards. 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 the planning commission has to be given first and then the applicant, I presume, the owner in prior estates has to apply to the department for transport for the stopping up orders. So that's the sequence and then the developer starts developing the new offices, the restaurant and the bar etc., 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. But any further comments, please, can we, Councilor, all dread and then I'll go to Council wind us and then I think Phillip wanted to say something as well. So Councilor, please, your first. Can I risk this? Oh, take it. Stay away from it. Oh, OK. 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 see the becomes 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. But Councilor Brumont is 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 pass planning permission for use of the future use of the building, which includes all of 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 Gallery, who have limited space to display the vast collection of the harigold collection. Part of it 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, two 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, 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 application is coming from. I think it would actually help with events as well, Council of Council, 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 drag on their land than might be a financial deal. I don't know, but the highways officers has already informed us. There's plenty of space around the bottom there for the any events to come on. 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 really, really pleased with this new fencing condition, which we didn't have before, because I think that really does, and the Mr. Robert Show did say they're in complete agreement with this. So, if they want to put an offense 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 on how to get 10 cents for people to park the cars. If I was going to the doctors in King's Road, I wouldn't park there, particularly if I had a blue badge. There's plenty of near the 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 oil 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 then on the Cyclist Robert, we actually asked them to move those things at the last meeting. They were actually in the curatorial... And we, my colleague here, actually I think 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 asked 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 restraint actors, and we're talking about pedestrians, cyclists, et cetera, because they're stopping the board and we'll have gone through. Yes, we 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 but 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 is that way minded, we now have a condition with their with offenses and they will have to come back to the planning department to actually exclude pedestrians, cyclists. So, I am a bit uncomfortable with those in public space, but because this applicant wants the public to go into that building, and it is a crucial building, splendid building, as we said, in Harriquez history, and they're encouraging public usage. I'm comfortable with this application, and unlike the council members, I will be voting for it. Thank you. Any further debate before we, before I ask for a motion members, Councillor Gosselman? 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. Just looking around, I'd just like to hear people that are having a brief thinking, 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 have ever looked for an office in Harriquez. It's very, very difficult. There's hardly any office premises in Harriquez, 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 Harriquez 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 Harriquez, these revamped, redeveloped premises are commercial premises which are obviously just asking to be used. So the owners in Parler 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. OK, they want to exclude cars. I appreciate that, but having sent that, there's really good parking in Harriquez. Although we have bad congestion, we do have in Harriquez loads and loads of parking space, particularly in multi-storey car parks all over town, the Victoria car parking, etc, etc. 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 any points in the future in Parler want to sell up, for whatever reason. And somebody else comes forward and wants to convert it to residential development. And 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 in Parler's development is of good quality and fits in with the town. So personally, although I regret the complications around the sale of the land, etc. I think it was the right thing for Harrogate 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 of a developer wants to be awkward, but they want it to be a super façade, a super sort of forecourt if you like, at the centre 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, etc. will be able to use it, so 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 Gossey. 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 you 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 officer's report as a first and foremost as a initial recommendation or motion, and if that falls we can take subsequent motion. So could I ask for a motion, please, first, that might support the application, Councillor Aldridge? I am happy to support the officer's recommendation. Right, thank you. Do we have a second to 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 Aldridge, seconded by Councillor Broadbank. We're now in debate on this motion, any thoughts, comments, please on the motion, please, Committee? 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 public inquiry held in Harrogate? If I could ask Officer Colleagues perhaps, to head 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 exit, 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 to, 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 go 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 doesn't answer the question. Where, 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 as the London Gazette, having, having those why the London Gazette anyway, something needs to be put in the low, one of the local papers. Because people need to pick up on that and then get the comments in and then wait for the decision. Yeah, ultimately, individuals can make that representation to the casework team in the department. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, anybody could write in, but yeah, it wasn't a verbal thing, it's just in writing. Yes, yes. Thank you for that, very helpful response. Any further debate committee, please, Councillor WINDERS. 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 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 almost certain that the next thing they're going to go for is the stopping up order. So those of you on this committee were 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 Olorit. Just very quickly on Councillor Brandt's point. I know he's not an avid reader of a London Gazette, I think that's where all the planning things have to be published. 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. That would be the time for them to object, etc. I'm sure people will know when it goes through the bloke process. I don't think he'd 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 will 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? Because it's so technical, any further technical questions which officers can help answer and perhaps allow concerns, fears, et cetera. Any note? Can we move to the vote please? I think it's a manual vote, isn't it? 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 condition. So I think that's the motion. So if you support the motion which has been proposed by Council Aldrid and seconded by Council, or broadband, I would ask you to, broadband, bank, I would ask you to raise your hands now please. Thank you. 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 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. [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] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [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] If it goes to Offstead and then there might be conditions about bedroom sizes, which this might not meet, then what? We've given it permission before it gets the 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 visit on this one, but I have had a look at the site. And it is a fair way out of the town center. 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 have various facilities and things, particularly for young people, close by. As far as more where there's none in the Harrogate area that are privately owned, children owned. I'm aware of one that's in Selby area that's privately owned and Scarborough, I believe, not in the Harrogate area itself. Ultimately, Councillor, you have to determine its application, what its own merit is not based on what's happened with other applications. Planning, Philip. Any other questions to Amy on the Harrogate? Councillor Gossela? Well, not really a question, but I just want to be assured that Offstead 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 Offstead 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? Can 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 Offstead 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 absgondas, 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 business 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 offstead 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. Ballista. And we move on now to the local member who I think we know. Council's your member for Oldlands and Pannell, three minutes to you. Thank you, Chair. Are you happy for me to sit here or? Let me just move over there. Thank you. I agree that we need to make adequate 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 round 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 the 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 fact 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 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 estra-tripps 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 ten. 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 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 seven a.m. Two staff not one leave at seven thirty a.m. The care manager arrives. That's fine. The care manager leaves. That's fine. But the next bullet says that one night shift staff member arrives at eight forty-five. That's incorrect. Two people shall arrive. Councillor MANN, you're coming up to you three minutes now. Thank you. And the last bullet is that one day shift member leaves at ten. Well, that's incorrect. 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 have to leave and obviously I have to leave as an obviously what I've been about and 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 Ashgraph Court. I grew up in a family where one of my siblings suffered from mental health issues, something which is increasingly common in 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. 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 C2 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 Lassie? 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. I'm 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. Has that been fully considered? It seems that from some of the comments they might not have. So, that's a question, Councillor Ayes. 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 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, you don't do it basically as part of a change of use. So, it's not really something that we can look at. Offset 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. 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.. Yeah, I mean, as Amy says, it's change of use. I think the key consideration that we've looked at the you now need to look at is does that use have a adverse impact or not upon the residential immunity of neighboring residents. And the kind of line there is is both the use the movements that we've heard discussed going to have a greater impact than the use of that property as a dwelling house, which is his current use. And secondly, is that increased use going to be a level that is demonstrably harmful to know be residents? Our view is it wouldn't be, but that's now before you. So 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 council I want to provide, just a question, I've just thought of, what Peter said, the inaugural council health and other services, no comments received yet. When you got did the report, have we actually received any now? We've received no written comments so far, no written comments. Have we pressed them for a comment or have we just said, oh, fair enough. They've been chased, but no, no, no. It makes me uncomfortable. Yes. 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 are not planning matters, I understand. 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 what I hear you. So I look forward to any further comments or indeed the offices are very happy to take questions by those out 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 that. So any chance discussion. Anybody's asked for a question of the applicant here, 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 health and 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 a family. And I can see those. I think it might be marginal because there will always be two families 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 health and health and health 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 it's a broadly item before you. Councillor Broome. Well, could 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 CAV professionals here, as I have two members on my team who overall have over 80 years experience within the CAV services. When it comes to parking on the site, when you have homes like this, you will have a sleep-in 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 Bellister. 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. 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 objectors much more time. So you've been asked a question you've answered there. I think we'll leave it there unless any committee members are desperate to know how offset the water's way. I'm fully aware of how offset works, and if we need to find out a little more, then that would be possible. OK. I mean, I just want to add my own comments. 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 Broughton. Yeah, I mean, four kids and two dogs, it's a valid point. I drove around the 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. It's 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, 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. To 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 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, on purely on planning terms, I'm minded to vote for this. Should we have a recommendation? It will, you know, off-stead will be the barriers. I think the council lazy is allergic to, and there will be all sorts of questions. They will be asking, I shouldn't think. I think the council haven't come back, because they're purely being asked to come on the planning terms, and they're the adult and social services. And they're happy with that. They may not be happy with the things that off-stead 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 that, 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 their advice on, and I'm surprised and disappointed they haven't come back on the issue generally. And I think that would help us come to a final conclusion. So I would be, are you suggested to further, 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 it'd be home 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. Thank you. Do we have any more comments before I ask for a recommendation? No. So does any member wish to move a recommendation? Councillor Lacey 1st? 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 officers' recommendation. And Councillor Windess would. Okay. So we now go to the vote. With our arms, please, no buttons, all those in favour? Any abstentions? Thank you, Councillor Birbine. I think that is past Doug. Yeah. So thank you for that. For one. Yeah. Oh, for all in favour of the moon abstention. Thank you. And I am thinking under item six, I know of the items. So I can now, when's 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.