Thank you for your interest in this story
To continue reading this article, subscribe to the Stray Ferret for as little as £1 a week
Already a subscriber? Log in here.
09
Nov
Council blames ‘lack of communication’ for Harrogate strip club planning appeal
North Yorkshire Council has said an appeal over plans to convert the former Kings Club in Harrogate into flats has arisen over “lack of communication”.
The strip club, which was based on Oxford Street, closed during the first covid lockdown in 2020 and never reopened.
The proposal, which was submitted by Harrogate developer Forward Investments LLP in October 2023, would have seen the first and second floors of the building converted into flats.
According to planning documents, 12 two-bedroom and two one-bedroom flats would have been created on the upper floors of the site.
James Robinson, a chartered building surveyor, said in a statement to North Yorkshire Council that the move would allow the building to be brought back into viable use.
However, the authority refused the plan on the grounds that it could not reach an agreement over off site open space and affordable housing in the Section 106 legal agreement, which details what measures developers must take to compensate for the impact of their schemes.
In October, the developer took the decision to the government’s Planning Inspectorate, which deals with planning disputes.
Appeal statements
In documents submitted to the planning inspector, Addison Planning, on behalf of the developer, said that due to resourcing issues within the council’s legal services department, the council decided to outsource preparation of a section 106 agreement to legal firm Ashfords LLP.
The developer added that the legal firm then requested “undertaking to cover their costs which were estimated to be in the region of £3,000 plus VAT” which were then queried as the section 106 only required minor adjustments from a previously submitted agreement.
It said that the firm refused to lower its fees and subsequently a refusal notice for the plan was published.
The developer argued in its statement that at no stage has it disputed that affordable housing or open space contributions would be required as part of the scheme.
In its statement, the council said that the appeal had arisen over a lack of communication.
It said that it had queried with the applicant as to why it would not pay the legal fees, but received no response.
It said:
With no explanation being provided, the only option open to the council as the local planning authority was to refuse the application on the grounds that no provision had been made in respect of the two matters.
However, the council said it was currently drafting an agreement for the scheme and, should it be completed, it would not object to the appeal being allowed.
It added:
It is the councils opinion however that the need for this appeal has solely arisen through a lack of communication from parties acting on behalf of the applicant and therefor an application for costs is attached.
0