Local Green councillors and Member of Parliament Tom Gordon have called for key decisions on the Harrogate Spring Water planning application to be made publicly by the Planning Committee after officers issued a screening opinion concluding that an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required.
Two Green Party Councillors have written to the council’s Head of Development Management, Martin Grainger, and the Chair of the Planning Committee, Chris Aldred, formally requesting that key remaining decisions be determined by committee rather than under officers’ delegated powers. Tom Gordon MP has issued a statement supporting the call-in request.
Outline planning permission for the scheme was granted in 2017, but the detailed application was deferred at committee in October because important information remains outstanding. Campaigners argue that a remaining condition relating to ecological matters should be decided by councillors, as it concerns whether environmental information must be provided before or after the Planning Committee considers the application – and that Members can’t make a meaningful decision without sufficient information on environmental impact.
Campaigners say the issue is particularly significant because legal opinion is divided. Lawyers advising campaigners argue the current approach is not lawful, while council lawyers maintain that it is. They say that where professional legal interpretations differ, the decision becomes one of planning judgement and should therefore be made by elected members in public rather than by officers.
They also question whether it is appropriate for a screening opinion to conclude that an Environmental Impact Assessment is unnecessary if information relevant to assessing environmental effects has not yet been provided.
Councillor Mike Schofield (Green Party – Harlow and St George’s) and Councillor Arnold Warneken (Green – Ouseburn Division) have asked that key decisions normally taken by officers now be referred to committee. Their request follows the officer screening opinion that the proposal does not require an environmental impact assessment, despite the removal of a swathe of woodland described as around 20 years old.
Councillor Schofield said:
This has been with officers long enough. Residents have made their feelings clear that this is the removal of a community asset that they love and use.
So much is at stake, and so many procedural flaws have come to light that it’s only fair and just to bring the remaining key decisions to the planning committee to decide whether the information provided is satisfactory and does actually do what the conditions in the outline permission were designed to do.
Councillor Arnold Warneken added:
A site with springs and wet woodland isn’t just ‘green space’ — it’s a living water system. Disturbing it without thorough investigation risks damaging something that can’t easily be restored or replaced, which is why these sites are often considered candidates for detailed environmental assessment.
We cannot ignore that this is one of the most controversial development proposals in Harrogate’s history, impacting on its heritage as a spa town, stripping us of our natural assets.
Campaigners state that outline permission was granted without ecological surveys such as tree and bat assessments, and say that although the current application was submitted in 2020 it remains undecided.
They also state that despite the felling of more than 500 trees no tree survey has been submitted, and that although the site lies in an area known for natural springs, the application does not include a drainage plan or surveys assessing potential impacts on the local water system.
Tom Gordon MP supported the request, saying:
This is a controversial application with many issues – not least that North Yorkshire council receives an annual levy from Harrogate Spring Water’s revenue, and that same council is deciding whether they should extend their factory. That is a conflict of interest that warrants making decisions in a way that’s fully transparent.
Given the strength of opinion of Harrogate residents, I support this request for the decision making process to be held in public.
Copy of Letter to Head of Development Management, Martin Grainger
Dear Martin,
We write in our capacity as elected Members of North Yorkshire Council, including the Ward Member for the division within which the application site is situated.
Accordingly, we formally request under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation that this application, and specifically the discharge of Condition 12, be referred to Planning Committee for determination (for clarity, this is a Member call-in request).
At the outset, we wish to acknowledge the considerable workload currently facing the Planning Service. We recognise the pressures under which officers are operating and the importance of maintaining efficient decision-making processes. Our intention in raising the following matters is not to criticise officers, but to ensure that the Council’s decision-making is robust, transparent, and resilient to challenge.
As you will be aware, this application has attracted significant public and press scrutiny. Having reviewed the application file and associated representations, we consider that a number of substantive material planning issues remain unresolved which, taken together, meet the threshold set out in the Scheme of Delegation for member determination.
1. Environmental Impact Assessment Screening
There remain concerns regarding whether the screening exercise was undertaken with sufficient rigour, particularly in relation to cumulative impacts, site sensitivity and interpretation of thresholds under the EIA Regulations. Given the scale and potential effects of the development, confidence in the screening process is essential.
2. Tree Preservation Order Request
The request for a Tree Preservation Order appears to have been declined without a published rationale. Where trees contribute materially to landscape character and visual amenity, a clear and reasoned explanation would assist transparency and public confidence.
3. Economic Benefit Claims
Economic benefits have been cited in support of the proposal; however, the evidential basis for these claims has not been fully set out or independently scrutinised in publicly available documentation. Clarification of job figures (gross versus net), local multiplier assumptions and longer-term impacts would assist members in attributing appropriate weight.
4. Net Biodiversity Gain Statement
Questions remain regarding the submitted biodiversity information. Given the statutory biodiversity duty and the material weight afforded to such considerations, members would benefit from confirmation that baseline assessments, metric calculations and any off-site provision have been independently verified and are policy compliant.
5. Section 106 Agreement
An updated draft of the Section 106 agreement has not yet been published. For members to reach an informed decision, access to the full and current heads of terms and obligations is necessary prior to determination.
6. Publication of Documents
We are concerned about delays between submission of documents and their appearance on the planning portal. While we appreciate administrative pressures, timely publication is essential for procedural fairness, transparency, and meaningful engagement. Delays risk undermining confidence in the process and limiting the ability of members and residents to consider new material.
7. Condition 12
We remain particularly concerned about Condition 12. In our view its implications are sufficiently material and potentially significant that it meets the threshold for determination by Planning Committee rather than delegated officer decision. Given its importance, elected member scrutiny is appropriate.
In light of the above, and to support lawful and transparent decision-making, we request:
- confirmation that the application will be referred to Planning Committee
- clarification of the matters outlined above prior to determination
- publication of updated legal and technical documents in advance of decision
- assurance that material documents will be uploaded promptly to enable proper review
Our intention is to ensure that any decision reached is procedurally sound, fully evidenced and defensible. We remain keen to support officers in achieving a lawful and robust outcome, and would welcome a short briefing if that would assist.
Yours sincerely,
Councillor Mike Schofield
Councillor Arnold Warneken
