The owners of Flaxby Park Golf Club have withdrawn an appeal over a decision to refuse plans for 350 eco lodges and a hotel on the site.
In March, Harrogate Borough Council rejected the proposal on the grounds that it would cause an “unacceptable” impact on the environment. The site is close to junction 47 on the A1(M).
Last month, Flaxby Park Ltd took the decision to the government’s Planning Inspectorate – which deals with planning disputes.
In documents submitted to the inspectorate, planning consultants Lichfields, which lodged the appeal on behalf of the developer, said the reasons for refusal were “unfounded”.
It said:
“The appellant will show that the council’s reasons for refusal are unfounded and that there are no technical issues arising from the proposed development, which cannot be addressed by appropriately worded conditions or Section 106 planning obligations.
“The appellant will therefore submit that planning permission should be granted for the development proposed by the appeal without delay.”
However, Flaxby Park Ltd has now withdrawn the appeal. A public inquiry into the case scheduled for January 31, 2023, has been cancelled.
An aerial computer generated image of the proposal. The A1(M) is to the east and the A59 is to the south.
The Stray Ferret approached both Flaxby Park Ltd and its agent Lichfields to ask why the company made the decision and if it still intends to propose a new scheme for the site.
But we did not receive a response by the time of publication.
The move raises questions over the future of the former Flaxby Golf Course site, which has been closed since 2014.
History of the site
In 2008 The Skelwith Group bought the site from farming family the Armstrongs for £7m. It published plans for a 300-bedroom five-star hotel on the site that it touted as the future “jewel in Yorkshire’s tourism crown”.
But the plans never materialised and in 2016 the company went out of business.
Flaxby Park Ltd, a company made up of businesswoman Ann Gloag and regeneration specialists Chris Musgrave and Trevor Cartner, bought the 260-acre golf course site from administrators in 2016.
Read more:
- Flaxby parish council calls for government to reject eco-homes
- Business park near Flaxby that could support 2,000 jobs approved
Its original proposal for the site was to build 2,750 homes and a rail link at Goldsborough. But these plans ended after the council chose the Cattal and Green Hammerton area as the site for a new settlement in the district instead.
In October 2020, the developer challenged the council’s decision in the High Court but was unable to overturn it.
Pannal man takes council to appeal for refusing to let him prune treesA Pannal man has taken Harrogate Borough Council to appeal for refusing to let him prune willow trees which he believes hang precariously over his house.
Professor Alejandro Frangi, who is an internationally renowned expert on computational medicine, lives by Crimple Beck with his wife and eight children.
He believes the trees next to his house could fall in strong winds and threaten the safety of his young family.
But the council refused him permission to reduce the willows in 2020 and Mr Frangi has now taken the authority to the government’s Planning Inspectorate.
He told a hearing this morning he decided to appeal after the council made the trees subject to a tree preservation order (TPO) following his proposal.
Mr Frangi had previously accused the council of acting “unreasonably” over the matter and made a formal complaint, which the council rejected.
No suggestion of felling
Mr Frangi said he was “not suggesting felling” the trees and that he would rather they were reduced in size.
He told today’s hearing:
“The crown reduction is the least of evils”.
But the council said it took requests for reduction in trees under TPO on a “case by case basis”.
Professor Frangi believes the trees are unsafe for his young family.
Joshua Arthur, speaking on behalf of the authority, said that works to the trees was also “considered unjustified”.
He added that the work would be a “detriment to the conservation area” if felled.
Read more:
Alan Gilleard, the council’s arboriculture manager, added that work to reduce the size was not a common practice for TPO trees.
He said:
“This is not something we routinely support without strong justification.”
Mr Frangi also argues that the trees are unsafe for his family as they can fall over in strong weather conditions.
He told the Stray Ferret previously:
“These trees risk falling on to my side of the river, straight on my property, posing a risk to my family and property. The council has been acting unreasonably, dismissing the risks and putting TPOs on the trees instead of protecting us.”
William Cooper, a government planning inspector who oversaw this morning’s hearing, will make a site visit to the trees before making a final decision at a later date.
Developer appeals council refusal for three yurts in Kirkby MalzeardDevelopers have lodged an appeal against a decision to reject plans for three yurts in Kirkby Malzeard.
The proposal would have seen the yurts created on Back Lane North, to the west of Pipistrelle Barn, in a field previously used for grazing sheep.
The application was submitted by Frederick Atkinson to create the yurts, each on raised decking and with its own hot tub along with a ‘services area’ of toilet, sink and shower in a wooden hut.
Harrogate Borough Council turned down the proposal in September.
The authority said the plan would have “an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the Nidderdale Area of Oustanding Natural Beauty”.
Read more:
However, the developer has lodged an appeal against the decision to the government’s Planning Inspectorate.
In documents submitted to the council, the developer said:
“The subject proposals would see the creation of a small family-run business named ‘Yurts @ Pipistrelle Barn’.
“It is envisaged that the site will provide a peaceful, low impact and eco-friendly retreat, nestled on the edge of a well serviced Yorkshire village, providing the perfect base for future guests to enjoy the best of North Yorkshire.”
A government planning inspector will make a decision on the plan at a later date.
Flaxby Park appeals decision to refuse 350 ‘eco lodges’ near A1The owners of the former Flaxby Park Golf Club have appealed a decision by Harrogate Borough Council to refuse its plans for 350 ‘eco lodges’ and a hotel on the site.
The borough council turned down the proposal in March on the grounds that it would cause an “unacceptable” impact on the environment. The site is close to junction 47 on the A1(M).
Now, Flaxby Park Ltd has taken the decision to the government’s Planning Inspectorate – the body which deals with planning disputes.
In documents submitted to the inspectorate, planning consultants Lichfields, which has lodged the appeal on behalf of the developer, said the reasons for refusal were “unfounded”.
It said:
“The appellant will show that the council’s reasons for refusal are unfounded and that there are no technical issues arising from the proposed development, which cannot be addressed by appropriately worded conditions or Section 106 planning obligations.
“The appellant will therefore submit that planning permission should be granted for the development proposed by the appeal without delay.”
The proposal includes plans for 350 holiday lodges along with a hotel, outdoor swimming pool, spa and sports area as well as a pub/cafe, farm shop, gift shop and activity hub.
Read more:
- Flaxby parish council calls for government to reject eco-homes
- Business park near Flaxby that could support 2,000 jobs approved
The scheme would be built on the former Flaxby golf course, which has been closed since 2014, off the A59 York Road.
In March, council planning officer Kate Broadbank said the development would have a negative impact on the district’s natural environment as well as harming views from the nearby Temple of Victory, which is Grade II* listed.
Ms Broadbank wrote:
“The scale and layout are considered to have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the district’s natural and historic environment.
“In addition, the application site is not considered to be accessible to local services nor is it demonstrated that an acceptable connection to public utilities can be achieved.”
An aerial computer generated image of the proposal. The A1 (M) is to the east and the A59 is to the south.
A government planning inspector will make a decision on the appeal at a later date.
History of the site
In 2008 The Skelwith Group bought the site from farming family the Armstrongs for £7m. It published plans for a 300-bedroom five-star hotel on the site that it touted as the future “jewel in Yorkshire’s tourism crown”.
But the plans never materialised and in 2016 the company went out of business.
Flaxby Park Ltd, a company made up of businesswoman Ann Gloag and regeneration specialists Chris Musgrave and Trevor Cartner, bought the 260-acre golf course site from administrators in 2016.
Its original proposal for the site was to build 2,750 homes and a rail link at Goldsborough. But these plans ended after the council chose the Cattal and Green Hammerton area as the site for a new settlement in the district instead.
In October 2020, the developer challenged the council’s decision in the High Court but was unable to overturn it.
Government approves James Street flats planThe government has approved plans to redevelop a retail unit on Harrogate’s James Street to create three flats.
The application was made by Leeds-based company SJM Cotech Ltd and included plans to create a three storey extension for the flats to the back of the site and create two ground floor retail units.
The developer revised the plans after submitting them in May 2021, which initially outlined proposals for four flats.
The property is located at 16 James Street, near the cut-through to the Victoria shopping centre. It fronts both on James Street and on Market Place to the rear. It was previously home to Thomas Cook, the travel agent.
SJM Cotech Ltd took the proposal to the government’s Planning Inspectorate after Harrogate Borough Council refused the plan in February this year.
Council officials said the proposal would fail to enhance or preserve the character of the conservation area.
In a decision notice, the council said:
“The rear historic offshoot is considered a heritage asset. The proposal seeks to remove and replace this without suitable justification.
“The proposal therefore would fail to enhance or preserve the character and appearance of the host building and Harrogate Conservation Area.”
Read more:
- Four flats could be built above James Street shop in Harrogate
- Developer appeals James Street flats plan
It added that the proposal would also result in “poor levels of natural daylight to all apartments”.
However, TJ Burnham, a government planning inspector, said in a decision notice that “nothing within the evidence suggests that this would have any harmful effect on the living conditions of a future occupier”.
A decision notice from the inspector said:
“There would therefore be no significant harm to the living conditions of future occupiers of the flats with regard to the availability of daylight or ceiling height.”
It added:
Government rejects plans to build 170 homes in Knaresborough“I have identified no conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations to indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.”
The government has rejected plans to build 170 homes in Knaresborough.
Landowner Geoffrey Holland’s application would have seen homes built on Water Lane in the town.
The decision is the latest refusal for the developer, who has twice sought permission to build on the site.
Harrogate Borough Council rejected the latest proposal in August 2021 after planning officers said the scheme had a number of “fundamental” issues.
However, the developer took the council to appeal over its decision and said there were no “significant impacts” that would be caused by the development.
‘Unsatisfactory scheme’
Kate Broadbank, the council’s planning officer, told a planning committee meeting in August 2021 that the scheme had a number of issues to resolve.
She said:
“One of the site allocation requirements is the provision of a circular recreation route – and this has been provided around the edge of the site.
“However, it is considered to be unsatisfactory, as it is a narrow path between the site boundary and side elevations of dwellings, meaning it is not very well overlooked and would not provide a safe, attractive route.
“The same situation occurred around the open space and children’s play area where houses backed onto this.
“The applicant has tried to overcome this by turning some houses around to face onto the path and play area, however, this has led to an issue with rear gardens now backing onto the streets.
“On the whole, the scheme is considered to lack character or a sense of place.”
Cunnane Town Planning, which lodged the appeal on behalf of Mr Holland, said there were “no significant or demonstrable adverse impacts that would arise as a consequence of the development”.
Read more:
- Bid to build 170 homes in Knaresborough refused again
- Knaresborough pub co-founder leaves after two years
However, Chris Baxter, planning inspector, dismissed the developer’s appeal on the grounds that the plan was outside the development boundary and would still have “significant harm” on surrounding areas.
Mr Baxter acknowledged that the scheme had “adequate affordable housing” and would not have an impact on highways safety, but added that it still had issues.
He said in a decision notice published this week:
£1 billion plan to dual A66 takes a step closer to construction“The proposal would not have a detrimental effect on highway safety and adequate affordable housing would be provided within the scheme.
“However, these matters and the benefits described above would not outweigh the significant harm I have identified with regards to the effect on the surrounding area and future users.”
A £1 billion plan to dual one of the busiest roads in northern England has taken a step closer.
National Highways, formerly Highways England, wants to dual the remaining parts of the A66 between the M6 at Penrith and A1 at Scotch Corner.
The road is used by thousands of drivers in the north of England each day to travel between the north east and Cumbria and on to Scotland.
Now, proposals have taken a step further after the government’s Planning Inspectorate approved a development consent order from National Highways.
Lee Hillyard, National Highways’ A66 Northern Trans-Pennine project director, said:
“We are pleased that our DCO submission has been successful and accepted by the Planning Inspectorate and this marks another significant milestone for this important project.”
Should the Secretary of State for Transport give the final go-ahead for the scheme, construction will start in 2024.
Read more:
Developer appeals James Street flats plan
A developer has appealed a decision to refuse a plan to redevelop a retail unit on Harrogate’s James Street to create three flats.
The application was made by Leeds-based company SJM Cotech Ltd and included plans to create a three storey extension for the flats to the back of the site and create two ground floor retail units.
The developer revised the plans after submitting them in May 2021, which initially outlined proposals for four flats.
It said in documents submitted to the council that the proposal would help to “deliver a high quality residential scheme” for the town.
However, Harrogate Borough Council refused the plans in February this year.
Read more:
- Four flats could be built above James Street shop in Harrogate
- Final backing for 72 homes in Spofforth
The property is located at 16 James Street, near the cut-through to the Victoria shopping centre. It fronts both on James Street and on Market Place to the rear. It was previously home to Thomas Cook, the travel agent.
Council officials said the proposal would fail to enhance or preserve the character of the conservation area.
In a decision notice, the council said:
“The rear historic offshoot is considered a heritage asset. The proposal seeks to remove and replace this without suitable justification.
“The proposal therefore would fail to enhance or preserve the character and appearance of the host building and Harrogate Conservation Area.”
It added that the proposal would “result in poor levels of natural daylight to all apartments”.
SJM Cotech Ltd has since taken the refusal to the government’s Planning Inspectorate.
A planning inspector will decide on the proposal at a later date.
Final backing for 72 homes in SpofforthA plan to build 72 homes in Spofforth has been given final backing by councillors.
Yorkshire Housing Ltd plans to build the housing development on land at Massey Fold in the village.
A government planning inspector approved the homes in October 2021 following an appeal by the developer against Harrogate Borough Council’s refusal.
The developer already had outline permission to build on the site, but councillors turned down an application for appearance and landscaping in November 2020.
A reserved matters application, which includes access to the site, was backed by the authority’s planning committee today.
Cllr Robert Windass, who sits on the committee, said councillors had no choice but to approve the plan.
He said:
“We rejected this at committee and we felt strongly that it would not go ahead.
“The Planning Inspectorate has had a different decision. They [the developer] have now got planning permission. Our hands are tied.”
Meanwhile, Cllr Pat Marsh said:
“In some respects our hands are tied.
“This went to appeal and it was given permission. This is sort of a final legal tie up.
“I am sorry to think that this is going to go ahead. It is something that this committee strongly opposed every time it came here. That is why it went to appeal.”
Inspector backs Spofforth homes
Siobhan Watson, a government planning inspector, gave the go-ahead for the proposal in October after she said she found the design and proposed housing “to be acceptable”.
She also awarded costs against the council after finding that the authority “behaved unreasonably” and that its reasons for refusal were “vague and illogical”.
The decision followed concerns from local residents over the design and that the housing would not be in keeping with the village.
At the time, more than 300 local people and organisations, including Natural England and Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, raised concerns about the scheme.
Shirley Fawcett, chairman of Spofforth with Stockeld Parish Council, wrote to Prime Minister Boris Johnson appealing for help in challenging the development.
Government rejects expansion of Follifoot business parkThe government has rejected an appeal for a business park in Follifoot to expand onto green belt land.
Harrogate Borough Council initially rejected a bid to build two new buildings at Follifoot Ridge Business Park, which would have created space for five commercial units.
The development would have taken place on a small strip of land alongside existing units (pictured above), which were previously allowed because they were classed as farm conversions.
The site owners said the new units would help to meet demand from businesses for more space. Following the council’s refusal, Uffa Kirkby appealed to the government’s Planning Inspectorate.
But Robert Walker, the planning inspector who oversaw the appeal, said the harm to the green belt was not outweighed by the economic benefits of the scheme.
In his decision notice, Mr Walker said:
“Based on the evidence before me and for the reasons outlined above, I cannot be satisfied that the overall benefits clearly outweigh the substantial weight given to the harm to the green belt by reason of inappropriateness.
“I have come to this conclusion having regard to the importance that the government places on making efficient use of land and building a strong, competitive economy.”
Read more:
- What is green belt land and how would Harrogate look without it?
- Flaxby Park ponders next move after eco-resort plans refused
In June last year, the council’s planning committee said the proposal was “inappropriate” and harmful to the green belt.
However, ahead of the appeal, the developer argued that the scheme was not inappropriate and disagreed with the authority’s conclusion.
How the business park would look with the commercial units built on the green belt land.
The business park’s planning agent, ID Planning, said in a statement of case:
“The appellant disagrees with the reason for refusal based on the development being inappropriate as the site is not brownfield land.
“The appellant considers that the site is brownfield land but notwithstanding this considers the development comprises limited infilling.”
It added that the scheme had economic benefits and would not have an “impact on the openness of the green belt”.
“The development provides clear economic benefits set out in full in the planning statement and supported and acknowledged by the local planning authority which further support the appellants case for planning permission to be granted.”