Controversial plans to build 53 homes in a North Yorkshire town will now go ahead after a planning inspector overturned councillors’ original decision to refuse the development.
In a further blow to North Yorkshire Council, inspector Mark Sturgess also ordered the authority to pay full costs to housing developer Jomast due to “wasted and unnecessary expenditure”, following an inquiry last month.
The scheme for houses off Knox Lane, in Harrogate, failed to win approval at four different planning committees and was met with fierce resistance from residents in Bilton and Knox who issued more than 500 objections.
Jomast argued the homes were well-designed, in a good location and would help to meet a high demand for housing.
After it was refused by the Harrogate and Knaresborough planning committee in October, Jomast appealed and a hearing led by the government-appointed planning inspector took place in July.
The council decided not to contest the appeal so it was left to residents to defend the reasons councillors had given for refusal.
However, in his decision notice published on Friday, Mr Sturgess sided with the developer on all the key points.
At the inquiry, local resident Adele Laurie-Wilson pleaded with the inspector to uphold the original decision and said developing the green field for housing would be a “huge loss” for the area.
But Mr Sturgess concluded that the site “relates well to the town” and has good links for residents to get into the town centre and access shops, schools and other amenities.
RECOMMENDED READING:
- York's local plan may need to be amended as soon as it's adopted
- Persimmon to boost housebuilding as Labour plans reforms
- Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust scheme at New Earswick backed
Objectors had argued that the scheme would be a car-friendly development with residents having to travel long distances to get to bus stops.
However, the nearest bus stop from the site is 450m away and would not deter people from using the bus to get into Harrogate, according to the final report.
Mr Sturgess also said that improvements to the footpath on Knox Lane would make it easier for residents to use the bus stop.
At the appeal, resident Theo Street said it was “fanciful” of the developer to say that the scheme would not add to already congested roads in the area, including the notorious Skipton Road.
Mr Sturgess said that whilst traffic would be taken onto the A59 by residents living at Knox Lane it would not be significant and was not a strong enough reason for refusal.
One area where the inspector did appear to sympathise with objectors was the scheme’s impact on the semi-rural setting.
He agreed that chopping down trees, shrubs and scrub along the former railway embankments would lead to a “significant change in character” of Knox.
However, he said these changes had been anticipated through the sites’ allocation as H2 in the Harrogate local plan, which makes any refusal much harder to argue.
He added that proposed planting along the boundaries of the site along with shrubs and a wildflower meadow would “soften its impact” on the area.
The report also addressed other objections put forward by residents including the issue of contamination that had previously troubled councillors.
The site on Knox Lane includes part of a railway that pulled hoppers and tankers for the gas works in Bilton.
Asbestos was used for installation on steam trains and there are also concerns that tar from coal could still be toxic, posing a threat to future residents.
However, the inspector was satisfied the reports put forward by the developer indicated that a contamination risk was unlikely.
In awarding full costs to Jomast for the appeal and the inquiry, Mr Sturgess was critical of North Yorkshire Council for not putting forward a defence.
He said the system expects a council to be able to justify its position at an inquiry even if it doesn’t expect to win.
Following the decision, a spokesperson for Knox Community Conservation Group said: “We are disappointed and considering our next move.”
You can read the full decision here: https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3341645
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel