Pannal & Burn Bridge Parish Council

The Parish council wishes to submit an objection and makes observations to both reserved matters applications:  Reserved matters application (Access, Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping) for erection of 128 dwellings including sports pitches and public amenity space approved under outline application 16/05447/DVCMAJ  Reserved matters application under permission 16/05447/DVCMAJ for Phase 2B commercial area comprising office and retail floor space: and park and rail car parking spaces with access, layout, Scale, appearance and landscaping considered.

The objections and observations are divided into four parts: 1. General comments applicable to both applications. 2. Comments applicable to 16/05447/DVCMAJ – the 128 dwellings. 3. Comments applicable to 16/05447/DVCMAJ – the Phase 2B commercial. 4. Selected summaries by residents or other interested groups.

General Comments Applicable to both Applications.

1. The most serious objection has to be the disappearance of the Post Office (PO) and the placement of “Building 3”. After the Bellway presentation in March (where it was clear that there was no plan for continuity of PO services), the subsequent discussion that the PC had with the developers gave us confidence that a PO facility would continue. The insistence from the community for continuing with a PO has been made clear and the plans have ignored both these feelings and the undertakings that we had after the Bellway presentation. 2. Construction work. a. The Parish council is seeking an undertaking that all demolition and construction traffic use only the A61 access. That was a concession from Mr Ward when we asked for it. It has not been mentioned by Bellway. The existing gate at the Station Road end should remain locked and any road works outside the site should only take place after all road works inside the site has been completed and the first house is almost ready for occupation. We would wish this to be made a condition. b. We also request early view of the developer’s construction Management plan. 3. Traffic calming at the entrance from Station Road – and throughout the spine road. We do not see details of the measures to be taken and are concerned that the current imprecise plans may lead to the road’s use as a rat run. 4. We seek confirmation that the phased construction programme will be circulated including the S228 and S38 road adoption for the access road besides the existing post office building. 5. We are concerned and seek an undertaking that residents’ parking will be secured despite the proximity to the station. The current situation in the village is that the public roads are regularly used by train passengers as opposed to the station car park (which levies charges).

Comments applicable to 16/05447/DVCMAJ – the 128 dwellings. The Reserved matters application (Access, Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping) is for erection of 128 dwellings including sports pitches and public amenity space approved under outline application 16/05447/DVCMAJ. The source documents link is: https://uniformonline.harrogate.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OPUL7CHYLK500

1. Construction work. The Parish Council is seeking an undertaking that all demolition and construction traffic use only the A61 access. That was a concession from Mr Ward when we asked for it. It has not been mentioned in the plans for the development schedule. The existing gate at the Station Road end should remain locked and any road works outside the site should only take place after all road works inside the site has been completed and the first house is almost ready for occupation. We would wish this to be made a condition. 2. Traffic calming at the entrance from Station Road – and throughout the spine road. We do not see details of the measures to be taken and are concerned that the current imprecise plans may lead to the road’s use as a rat run. 3. Residents’ foot access to the station. There is no detail as to how residents will get to the Leeds bound platform (and thence to the York bound one). This is an omission and can’t be left to “tbc” which it appears to be on the plan. We wish this to be clarified and make

Reserved Matter applications former Dunlopillo site - Parish Council comments.doc Page 1 Pannal & Burn Bridge Parish Council

reference to Network Rail’s observations where they make reference to “appreciate clarity on how the link is to be delivered in terms of funding”. Matt Leighton’s mail of 26 June 2017 15:46 to the Planning Department. (http://documents.harrogate.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/08854039.pdf). 4. We seek assurances that the comments made by the Borough Council in its letter referring to the TOWN &COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 to Bellway homes dated 26th August 2016 (especially pages 8 and 9) have been fully answered and rectified in the proposed design and layout. 5. Furthermore, we’d like assurances that the design issues commented upon on pages 7-8 of the PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES response dated 24th June 2016 have been rectified. 6. There is considerable talk in the proposals about all the various bushes/trees and general green speak. We understand that the new householders would have to pay a management fee (guide costs of @£100 pa to a grounds management company) for maintenance of the public area green spaces and vegetation. We would wish to see some firm undertaking that this is indeed correct. 7. The inclusion of sports pitches (see also page 3 – the Pannal Sports Junior Football Club (PSJFC) section). a. We believe that inevitably these will be commandeered by residents and visitors. There appears to be no planning for safeguarding parking spaces for users. The example of lack of provision of sufficient parking for casual users is the congestion on Crimple Meadows when the football is being played. b. We make reference in this section to the letters of objection to the sports pitch provision by PSJFC whose points of objection echo those of the Parish Council particularly with respect to the placement and lack of facilities of the proposed pitches. c. In connection with the PJSFC submission, we note that the S106 agreement offers the opportunity for the sports pitches to be used for other purposes than football and seek clarification that this is indeed the case particularly if the objections from PSJFC are upheld.

Comments applicable to 16/05447/DVCMAJ – Commercial. The Reserved matters application under permission 16/05447/DVCMAJ for Phase 2B commercial area comprising office and retail floor space: and park and rail car parking spaces with access, layout, Scale, appearance and landscaping considered. Source documents link: https://uniformonline.harrogate.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OQ1QIUHY09W00

1. The lack of provision and thought for continuity of service from the Post Office (PO) and the placement of “Building 3”. a. After the Bellway presentation in March (where it was clear that there was no plan for continuity of PO services), the subsequent discussion that the PC had with the developers gave us confidence that a PO facility would continue. The insistence from the community for continuing with a PO has been made clear and the plans have ignored both these feelings and the undertakings that we had after the Bellway presentation. b. Therefore the Parish Council will be insisting that a transitional solution is in place well before any demolition of the existing building is demolished to make way for the new retail complex on the site. 2. Building 3 shows retail units (which may or not solve the PO problem). Irrespective of the PO’s location, we do not believe that the parking provision for the retail units (up to 4, on two floors) is sufficient to prevent casual parking on the other areas such as public roads and the allocated spaces in the rest of the commercial area of the development. 3. We are concerned about the plans for Building 1 – the old office block and the existing office buildings on the site. a. The designs seem to show them to be very heavily glazed. We do not feel that this is in keeping with the surrounding area. In the application and plans it is clear that consideration of appearance is important. b. Further, the initial impression was that that the buildings were to be demolished and

Reserved Matter applications former Dunlopillo site - Parish Council comments.doc Page 2 Pannal & Burn Bridge Parish Council

new buildings erected. All the application correspondence refers to “demolition” of existing buildings (including, for example, the 5th May 2017 application. It appears to the Parish Council on examining the proposals, that demolition is not proposed but recladding or using the existing shell of the original office block is planned. We’d like this point to be clarified. 4. We believe that parking provision is insufficient and have not seen data to back up the plans for provision. Furthermore, there seem to be plans for parking 120 cars for the new office development plus either 62 or 72 parking places for the railway station. Apart from the fact that his is additional traffic and we’d like to see how this traffic is integrated into the traffic movement plans, we’d also like an undertaking as to whether there will be charges for parking fees for the railway park after it is completed. We know of the knock on effect of the imposition of parking charges at the existing station car park on the Harrogate bound side – the traffic migrated to the residential areas of Pannal. 5. Building 5. This is a large building we do not believe that the effect of occupancy including parking provision (120 spaces) is sufficient. We would wish to see the calculations. 6. Station access for those who commute to the commercial areas on the site, and for those who work on site but wish to use the station, needs to be clarified. 7. Overall we feel that the proposed commercial side of the development needs further revision to fit in with the style and appearance of the current village.

Selected Summaries By Residents Or Other Interested Groups.

The Parish Council makes reference to and supports the submissions and opinions from:

Pannal Sports Junior Football Club (PSJFC) Whose contention is, in summary:  Greater economies of scale will be achieved at Leeds Road to ensure high quality pitch provision to FA standards throughout. Such quality cannot be guaranteed with a smaller, ‘on site’ development. We are not aware of Football Association involvement in the design of the proposed pitches at the former Dunlopillo site or arrangements for future management and maintenance  Very limited car parking is to be provided for parents at the former Dunlopillo site, meaning parking and disruption is likely to take place within the residential area. Pannal Sports are aware of traffic and parking difficulties which have occurred at Crimple Meadows in Pannal where only a single pitch was provided.  No catering or other ancillary facilities are to be provided at the former Dunlopillo site.  No welfare or WC facilities are proposed on the former Dunlopillo site.  The land at Dunlopillo slopes and significant earth works would be required to make it suitable for sport.  The land at Dunlopillo proposed for sports pitch development is adjacent to the Harrogate-Leeds railway presenting significant safety issues.  The land proposed is adjacent to the Green Belt where new access/parking and related built development and activity will have an adverse environmental effect. Note: The Parish Council understands that the sports pitches referred to in the PSJFC submission are in the green belt therefore there is no other possible use for that space apart from sports or leisure facilities. And further that the request to relocate them to the new site off the Leeds road is not possible. If, based on PJSFC’s submission, specific to “football” pitch facilities are not provided, the Parish Council wishes to ask and seek confirmation as to whether it is possible to commute any of the planned costs related to providing those facilities to other purposes.

And Local Residents Pannal Village Society - PVS (predecessor to the Parish Council). PVS was proactive in the discussions and objections to the development of the site from the early days especially when it was not deemed to be in the interests of the village or the community.

PVS lodged objections which were recorded in the Delegated Decision By Chief Planner dated 23rd September 2013 that included:

RESIDENTIAL LAYOUT - Whilst PVS supports the principle of a mixed development, the layout of

Reserved Matter applications former Dunlopillo site - Parish Council comments.doc Page 3 Pannal & Burn Bridge Parish Council the residential area to the south of the site will result in it becoming remote from the village settlement and therefore less sustainable. It is separated from the village by commercial property identified as employment B1, mixed use, retail and the park and ride. For anyone wishing to visit the existing village facilities, the doctors, the church, the school or the village hall they must pass through this area. The LDF policy relating to the development of the site specifically states that housing will be facing onto Station Road. There has been no justification for deviating from this policy. To do so would generate more vehicle journeys for residents in the new houses visiting the school, church and other village facilities. PVS places great store on trying to create a more cohesive village community given the physical constraints imposed by the A61 and the railway line. RECREATION provision - The Society sees no need for this sports provision, and therefore objects to its inclusion, particularly as it is in the green belt and the topography of the land would require the investment of considerable work. Sufficient provision is made at site HS6a for the future sports need of Pannal. If this provision is for the residents of the new development why is there a car park for 40 cars to be provided? Apart from the possible exception of providing a Local Area Playground (LAP), any resources that would be put into providing playing pitches or associated car parking should be diverted to support the development of HS6a (Land West of Leeds Road) and its access from the A61. LANDSCAPING - The Statement of Community Involvement identified Landscaping as the first and most important aspect of the development that concerns local residents. PVS welcomes the attention that has been given to Landscaping to ensure a high quality green infrastructure to the whole development and especially given its position at the gateway to Pannal and Harrogate. PVS would expect the Council to include an appropriate condition on any planning approval that ensured the landscaping was undertaken in the early stages of construction. CAR PARKING - The second most important aspect that concerned the residents in the Statement of Community Involvement was Car Parking. At the public exhibition at the village hall exhibition, provision was shown for 241 parking spaces for employment. The application contains a much reduced provision for 185 spaces which is wholly inadequate for the estimated 700 office jobs based on the Regeneris report. Even allowing for some commuting by rail and bus, there will be insufficient spaces on site which will lead to cars being parked elsewhere in the village, aggravating an already serious problem. The concept for the B1 industrial units includes ‘undercroft’ parking. This type of design places limits on the potential use of the units, particularly large workshops or storage operations and would restrict the development of this part of the site to office based uses only therefore risking the economic viability of a sizeable area of the site. PARK AND RIDE - PVS are not convinced that any serious thought has been given to how a park and ride scheme would operate and how it would be policed. For commuters to Harrogate, there is no bus priority lane on the A61, leaving them with the alternative of a train which only runs every 30mins. There will also be a big problem of trying to prevent employees on the Dunlopillo site from parking their cars on the 75 Park & Ride spaces, given the serious shortfall in car spaces for these employees. PVS believe there is no proven case for a Park & Ride and it should be abandoned. This would help to mitigate the shortage of car spaces highlighted above by supplementing the provision of 185 spaces with an extra 75. SPINE ROAD THROUGH THE SITE - The greatest concern of PVS with this development is the generation of much more traffic through the village because of the potential for the spine road to become a rat run for commuters to and from the West of Harrogate. A similar problem was experienced at the St Georges development and the through road eventually had to be blocked off. The potential for a significant increase in traffic when Cardale West is developed is a big worry. The priority over traffic on the A61 for southbound travellers exiting from Dunlopillo onto the A61 roundabout will be very attractive. This route would tempt drivers to avoid the dangerous access to the A61 from Burn Bridge Road where they have no priority. PVS note the proposed section of road from Station Road into the site being designated as “Pedestrianised Shared Space”. Whilst it is welcomed as a step towards reducing the potential for the road to be used as a rat run, PVS believe much greater conditions must be set down to restrict through traffic, including: Road signs “Access only, no through road” , Speed-restricting tables/humps, pedestrianised road surface, and other relevant street furniture to discourage vehicle movements. RETAIL - In the original discussions with Forward Investments Ltd, their plans included for three small shops. The retail element in the application now shows provision for 6000sq ft. PVS regard

Reserved Matter applications former Dunlopillo site - Parish Council comments.doc Page 4 Pannal & Burn Bridge Parish Council it as out of all proportion to the development and runs the risk of attracting shoppers from far wider than just the village, generating yet more traffic at Pannal Bank and through the village. PVS supports the provision of a new ‘village shop and post office’. Experience over many years in Pannal shows that any greater provision than this would not be patronised by local people. PVS would expect to see an appropriate condition imposed with any planning approval.”

The full document including the conditions of the approval can be seen here: http://documents.harrogate.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/07791629.pdf Extract of submission from local resident – 1

Although not objecting to development in principle we object to the detail. Essentially we support the document produced by the Pannal village society (PVS) but with additional points

The plan shows the residential development on the far side of the site split from the village by industrial units and offices. The LDF policy relating to the development of the site specifically states that housing will be facing onto Station Road. There has been no justification for deviating from this policy. To do so would generate more vehicle journeys for residents in the new houses visiting the village facilities. It also means that the new road must be a through highway - if the housing is near to the existing post office then the road can have restricted access to through traffic thus preventing the obvious rat run. See later point. The benefits of locating the housing facing Station Road will include better access to the station, bus stops, church, sports etc. It will clearly separate housing from industrial/office.

Encroachment on green belt. The sport facilities on the green belt are unnecessary and will lead to requests for huts and access. Provision for car parking will lead to further unwanted access. Better to use the funds to enhance existing facilities (site HS6a).We would also suggest the new road is built on site land and not on green belt (see later point). We understand there may be issues over ownership of land but the council should solve this and not allow the building of a road on green belt and risk the inevitable infill. Green belt should be just what it says and not be encroached upon.

The office design of 3 storeys with car parking underneath is completely inappropriate for the area. We would advocate a max of 2 storeys with a more adequate separate car parking provision which may mean cutting back on the number of buildings (but see next point). Why replace one eyesore (the existing Dunlopillo office building) with 3 storey buildings which would be equally intrusive?

Car Parking. We would echo the PVS statement number 4 which points to the completely inadequate provision for Car Parking for the industrial/office area. We also agree that the Park and Ride provision is misguided and should be abandoned.

New spine road. We again support the PVS statement. (A similar problem was experienced at the St Georges development and the through road eventually had to be blocked off. The potential for a significant increase in traffic when Cardale West is developed is a big worry. The priority over traffic on the A61 for southbound travellers exiting from Dunlopillo onto the A61 roundabout will be very attractive. This route would tempt drivers to avoid the dangerous access to the A61 from Burn Bridge Road where they have no priority). However we would go further to say that this must be reviewed completely. The traffic count mentioned at the public meeting seemed to be underestimated. The numbers they mention may well be an average but in practice there is severe existing congestion in the area. From when schools close until around 6pm the traffic regularly backs up from the lights at Pannal Bank and over the railway bridge. Thus traffic is unable to leave the existing Dunlopillo site or the Park and Ride car park. This traffic will use the new road to access the A61 via the new roundabout. This traffic will have priority over the Leeds bound A61 traffic and it will quickly back up beyond the lights at Spacey Houses. We believe this will attract even more traffic through Pannal where the road is disintegrating and is unable to cope. In our suggested scenario of housing being positioned facing Station Road we would suggest the new road is for access only to the housing area with street furniture such as squeeze gates appropriate only for cars (lorries and vans use the new road to the roundabout) and enforcement cameras. It may be that the access between housing and industrial area is either

Reserved Matter applications former Dunlopillo site - Parish Council comments.doc Page 5 Pannal & Burn Bridge Parish Council blocked completely or made one way to prevent the rat run. We suggest a council led traffic survey during school term time would help scope the problem. We would further suggest that the road is not built on green belt but joins the A61 near the old Pannal Auction Mart thus giving residents in that development safer access to the A61.

Retail. Again we would echo the PVS comments. 30 years ago there were 4 shops (Post Office, Newsagent, Butcher, General Store). Over the years this has become unviable and we now have a Post Office/deli, hairdresser and part time surgery. That is probably all Pannal can support. Recent retail openings on Leeds Road (Sainsbury and BP garage) further exacerbate this trend and with the M&S food open at the BP garage there is little chance of successful retail of the size proposed (even with the new housing). We would advocate a new Post Office only (floor area about the same as existing). If the current Leeds Road GP practice would commit to a new health centre then that is a possibility of going ahead with a small unit. The existing plan shows a complete misunderstanding of the needs of the area and the competitive environment.

Knowledge of the consultants. Questioning the consultants at the public meeting showed they had no understanding of the local environment outside of the site itself. For them it is an isolated design task. In our view their judgements are unreliable for either the retail, transport or traffic decisions and their conclusions should be questioned and reviewed independently. Extract of submission from local resident – 2 We have two main areas of concern, and they are linked:-  the proposed through road and the subsequent demolition of the post office.  insufficient parking on the proposed development in view of proposed park and rail.

The through-road was opposed by PVS because of its potential to become a "rat run" from the A 61 into the village and vice versa, creating further congestion on Pannal Bank and the railway bridge and posing an added risk for pedestrians using that end of the village.

It was thought that it would also add to the parking problems in the village as those seeking to use the park and rail facility in the new development would have easy access to the streets around the village once the designated parking for that facility were taken up. This would not be the case if there was no access from the new development into the village.

The number of parking spaces allocated for the park and rail (75) is grossly inadequate. Far too few spaces when one considers the number of spaces which will be lost when the land designated for parking in front of the Dunlopillo office block office is developed and the scores of cars parked on the streets of Pannal by rail commuters are taken into account. There is a danger that the streets in the residential section of the new development and more areas of Pannal will become overflow parking for the Park and Rail, especially if there is easy access by a through - road.

The loss of the post office would be a tragedy! The Post Office is a Community Asset. We have already lost the post office on Rossett Green Lane; consequently the Post Office in Pannal serves a huge area. Pressure must be put on the Developers to relocate this and provide continuity. We could be left with no Post Office in the Village. The one up on the Leeds Road becoming the closest and a long way for some older members of the community to get to, especially in view of the much reduced bus service in Burn Bridge. Extract of submission from local resident – 3 Regarding Dunlopillo, I am one of those who believe an access road through to the roundabout will massively increase the ‘rat run’ traffic through Pannal and Burn Bridge. If this is required for emergency traffic, how do they account for the permanent bollards that exist around St Georges Walk and Hutton Gate near Harrogate Cricket Club? The route round these for emergency services is much greater than it would be if Dunlopillo was made a ‘no through’ development. We have almost all of the west side of Harrogate whether residential or business employers and ALL the proposed developments at the police training college and Cardale Park that will filter through our village.

Reserved Matter applications former Dunlopillo site - Parish Council comments.doc Page 6