Stockeld Park / Hallam Public Inquiry
In December 2019, representatives of Better Wetherby participated in a Public Inquiry in Harrogate which resulted in planning permission being refused for the building of 210 houses on Spofforth Hill and potentially extending Wetherby into North Yorkshire. During the hearing, Better Wetherby worked in support of Harrogate Borough Council, to successfully contest the appeal by Stockeld Park and Hallam Land Management.
See below for full details....
See below for full details....
Latest News
Planning Permission is Refused
Planning Permission is Refused
Better Wetherby are pleased to annonce that planning permission has been refused! The full report is available for viewing/download here
Alternatively you can view the full text here:
The following comments were included in our latest newsletter
Peter Swales, Acting Chair of Better Wetherby commented:
‘‘We are immensely grateful that the Inspector has dismissed the Appeal. It has been evident for some considerable time that Harrogate Borough Council had an emerging local plan which fully met their housing needs until 2035. The fact is that the Stockeld Park development is not in that plan and is simply not needed by Harrogate to fulfil their housing needs – as was stated by Harrogate Borough Council themselves at the Public Inquiry last December. It is disappointing, to say the least, that the owners of Stockeld Park, appear to have little regard whatsoever to the serious and genuine concerns regarding the negative impact this development would have had on their neighbours in Wetherby and Spofforth”.
Paul Crossan, who headed representations for Better Wetherby at the Public Inquiry said:
The Inspector’s decision to reject the Appeal is extremely welcome. Better Wetherby has always maintained that it would be transformational and harmful to the landscape, character and local environment, contributing to a worsening of Wetherby’s existing highways, congestion and air pollution problems. Moreover, it would have placed considerable further pressures on our already overburdened schools, doctors and other local services. With this decision, the dreadfully adverse impact on Wetherby and our neighbours in surrounding villages has now been avoided. I wish to express my sincere thanks to all the local people who supported Better Wetherby in our efforts at the Public Inquiry.’
Alternatively you can view the full text here:
The following comments were included in our latest newsletter
Peter Swales, Acting Chair of Better Wetherby commented:
‘‘We are immensely grateful that the Inspector has dismissed the Appeal. It has been evident for some considerable time that Harrogate Borough Council had an emerging local plan which fully met their housing needs until 2035. The fact is that the Stockeld Park development is not in that plan and is simply not needed by Harrogate to fulfil their housing needs – as was stated by Harrogate Borough Council themselves at the Public Inquiry last December. It is disappointing, to say the least, that the owners of Stockeld Park, appear to have little regard whatsoever to the serious and genuine concerns regarding the negative impact this development would have had on their neighbours in Wetherby and Spofforth”.
Paul Crossan, who headed representations for Better Wetherby at the Public Inquiry said:
The Inspector’s decision to reject the Appeal is extremely welcome. Better Wetherby has always maintained that it would be transformational and harmful to the landscape, character and local environment, contributing to a worsening of Wetherby’s existing highways, congestion and air pollution problems. Moreover, it would have placed considerable further pressures on our already overburdened schools, doctors and other local services. With this decision, the dreadfully adverse impact on Wetherby and our neighbours in surrounding villages has now been avoided. I wish to express my sincere thanks to all the local people who supported Better Wetherby in our efforts at the Public Inquiry.’
Public Inquiry Progress

Public Inquiry update 17th December - A large delegation from Better Wetherby attended the start of the Public Inquiry. The Inspector, Mr. Bryn Bowker, outlined the process and timetable for the four day hearing. He said that he had already familiarised himself with the the site, but a formal site visit would be made during the Inquiry. He referred to specific issues of concern that would be dealt with during the Inquiry - landscape, highways, integrity of the Kirk Deighton Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and agricultural land.
Opening remarks were made by Andrew Williamson, Advocate for the Appellant, who made the case for the Appeal to be allowed. Opening remarks were then made by the Advocate representing the interests of Harrogate Borough Council, Stephen Whale. He said that the development will conflict with the emerging Harrogate Local Plan. Moreover, the Council already has more housing provision than needed. He added that the adverse impacts of the development would significantly outweigh the benefits. He invited the Inpector to dismiss the Appeal.
Paul Crossan, representing Better Wetherby, outlined concerns about the proposed development and the adverse consequences for Wetherby and surrounding villages if the Appeal was allowed. He referred to the pressures on the Town’s infrastructure, with schools already full to capacity and lengthy delays to get an appointment to see a GP. He said that the development would be largely ‘car dependent’ which would add to existing congestion, parking and air pollution problems in Wetherby.
(see here for full transcript of Paul Crossans opening statement)
The Inquiry then addressed Highways issues at length. The Appellants referred to traffic assessment surveys carried out in 2016 and in October 2019. These indicated that the effects from the additional cars from the 210 house development would not be severe. This view was challenged by Paul Crossan of Better Wetherby. He questioned the accuracy of the trip rates and traffic flows suggesting these were too low. Chris McIntosh of Better Wetherby pointed out that events and activities held at Stockeld Park had expanded significantly in recent years, resulting in considerably more traffic passing through Wetherby. He raised the question of whether this additional traffic had been taken into account in the surveys. It was confirmed that it had not been. The issue of sustainability and safety was raised, with Better Wetherby pointing out that no pedestrian crossing for the busy A661 is planned for the development. The infrequency of bus services, particularly during evening periods and weekends, was highlighted and noted, this again reinforcing the fact that those living on the development will be largely ‘car dependent’. Further points raised by Better Wetherby included the fact that there were no realistic options to mitigate the problems of congestion, lengthy tailbacks and traffic delays at the busy and often congested junctions in the centre of Wetherby.
Day 2 - 18th December The morning session addressed landscape issues. Better Wetherby contended that the current gateway to Wetherby would be seriously and adversely transformed if this development was allowed. Evidence to support this was given by Mike Spence, a landscape visualisation consultant contracted by Better Wetherby. He produced various photographs and outlined how the development would impact negatively on the landscape. The Landscape expert for the Appellant disagreed, suggesting that the development would be 'green' and sustainable with only limited damage to the landscape. The Landscape Officer for Harrogate BC, who had initially expressed concern about the likely negative effects on the landscape, said that the replacement of trees should help ensure that in 10 years time, when the trees were fully grown, the effects on the landscape would not be significant.
Following this session, the Inspector, Mr. Bowker, accompanied by representatives of the Appellant, Harrogate BC and Paul Crossan of Better Wetherby, made a visit to inspect the proposed site.
The afternoon session dealt with ecological issues. Dave Howard gave evidence on behalf of Better Wetherby, highlighting serious flaws in the Appellant’s claims that there would be no detrimental effects to the Kirk Deighton Special Area of Conservation (SAC). BW provided evidence to demonstrate that the principal mode of drainage from the proposed site is via groundwater, rather than surface run-off, and restated that the groundwater would drain to the north-east in accordance with the underlying dip of the limestone aquifer. This groundwater would therefore flow directly towards the SAC, and inevitably would impact on water levels.
The appellants produced a lengthy, last minute rebuttal to these claims, maintaining that drainage was via surface water and that any groundwater would drain to the south-east and into the river Wharfe. BW did not have opportunity to formally comment on this 212 page rebuttal prior to the Inquiry, but did identify that much of the evidence was based on the use of 2 maps that were incorrect ('desiccation of SAAC/SSSI' page for details). BW did provide the latest versions of these maps on the first day of the inquiry, and highlighted during cross-examination that these versions do actually contradict the appellants claims and do demonstrate that the SAC is highly likely to be fed by groundwater. Under cross examination Dave also suggested that even if the drainage was via surface water, then there is a likelihood that the water would enter the SAC via the water table once it reaches the flat land to the east of the SAC.During cross examination, the appellant's witness conceded that he was not a geologist, and also that he had little experience of limestone hydrology, yet in the Technical Appendix to the original hydrology report he concluded that " ..the effect of the proposed site alone and in combination developments on the surface and groundwater flows is also considered sufficiently insignificant (de minimis) to have a hydrological impact on the SAC / SSSI.." Unfortunately BW were not given the opportunity to identify that there was no additional evidence provided to justify this diminishing of the impact, from the original 'low' in the hydrological report.
Dave was also cross-examined regarding the photographic evidence showing that there had been a change in recent years to the extent of floodwater ponds in a field down-dip from the Bellway development. On one particular day this year, there was no water in the pond, yet nearby fields showed ponds in accordance with government flood maps. Given that we also provided evidence that the field down-dip of the Bellway development has previously shown flooding in accordance with the government flood map, we suggested that this may be caused by by Bellway infrastructure works. The appellants claimed that we could not draw a causal effect, however they did not provide an alternate hypothesis, or other objective evidence to disprove our photographs.
Given the high sensitivity of the Kirk Deighton SAC, we believe high weight should be applied to any possible impact on the integrity of the SAC. There is a significant risk that this development will diminish the water inflow into the SAC
The Appellant’s maintained their stance that this would not be the case. However, the expert retained by the Appellants did concede that he was not a geologist and had very little experience of limestone hydrology.
The inspector later requested a brief summary of both sides position regarding the hydrology, this was provided as an additional signed statement and was appended to BW's closing statement
Day 3 - 19th December The morning session focused on Planning issues. Harrogate BC Planning Official, Natasha Durham, gave evidence that the Harrogate emerging local plan fulfilled housing needs requirements, including those for affordable housing, up to the year 2035. She said that the 210 houses proposed for Stockeld Park were not in the local plan and not required. In response to cross examination from Mr. Williamson for the Appellants, Ms. Durham maintained that there had been a healthy delivery of new housing in the Harrogate area in recent years and there was no need for more housing in open countryside at present. She said that the Harrogate emerging local plan, developed following wide consultation, was currently with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. She anticipated that Harrogate BC would be in a position to formally adopt the emerging plan early in the New Year. She commented that the appeal process was undermining and trying to circumvent the planning process. Evidence was then given by another Harrogate BC Planning Official, Kate Williams. She also referred to the emerging local plan, maintaining that significant weight should be given to the plan which had been carefully compiled taking into account public consultations. She accepted that in April 2018 she had recommended approval of the development, qualifying her remarks by saying that the decision was appropriate at the time. But circumstances had changed due to the more than adequate numbers in the emerging local plan and other factors.
Giving evidence on behalf of Better Wetherby, Paul Crossan said that the appeal site was not in the emerging local plan and was outside the planned growth strategy. He contended that Harrogate BC had identified sufficient housing sites, therefore the Stockeld Park site was not required. He referred to letters from Leeds City Council setting out formal objection to the application. Mr. Crossan also pointed out that a large number of new houses had been built in Wetherby in recent years, many more were in the planning pipeline, and the area has yet to absorb the cumulative effect of these developments on local services and transport infrastructure. He concluded by saying that the development will cause significant adverse impact on Wetherby and that the Leeds City Council objection should carry ‘great’ or ‘considerable’ weight.
An expert planning consultant, Jonathan Dunbavin, gave evidence for the Appellants. He contended that this was a sustainable development and that the appeal should be allowed. He disagreed with the view of the witnesses for Harrogate BC about the weight that should be given to the emerging local plan.
Day 4 - 20th December Planning conditions and obligations were the subject of discussions, primarily between Harrogate Borough Council and the Appellants, during the morning session.
Closing submissions were then made by Harrogate BC, Better Wetherby and the Appellants.
Stephen Whale, Advocate for Harrogate BC, invited the Inspector to dismiss the Appeal, outlining several specific reasons why this should be the case. The points of objection included the adverse effect and harms to the landscape character, loss of agriculture land and the fact that Harrogate BC had developed and submitted an emerging Local Plan well over a year ago and the appeal scheme was in conflict with it. Mr. Whale added that the emerging Local Plan had been the subject of hearing sessions that concluded in February 2019 and the Local Plan should be given significant weight. He emphasised that to allow the Appeal would be contrary to 'plan-led' planning and would undermine the detailed planning process.
Paul Crossan of Better Wetherby, endorsed the invitation of Harrogate BC to the Inspector to dismiss the Appeal. Mr. Crossan outlined concerns and objections regarding highways and transport issues, together with the adverse effects and harms to the landscape. He emphasised the point that Harrogate BC had developed an emerging Local Plan which demonstrated provision for housing and affordable housing needs, and that the Stockeld Park site was never a consideration in that plan. Some 500 new houses had either been built or were under construction in Wetherby and 800 more had recently been approved. He said that Leeds City Council object to the application on the grounds that it will severely and adversely impact on Wetherby, adding that Leeds CC already had an adopted Local Plan with housing provision to meet future housing needs.
Andrew Williamson, Advocate for the Appellants, requested the Inspector to allow the Appeal. He referred to the evidence given by several expert witnesses called by the Appellants to support their case in respect of highways/traffic impacts, landscape character, ecology and planning. Mr. Williamson maintained that overall, to allow the Appeal would provide much needed affordable housing in a sustainable location; be an appropriately planned extension to the major settlement of Wetherby; provide safe and convenient means of access to the highways network and not cause sufficient harms to other interests, as to justify withholding planning permission.
The Inspector, Mr. Bowker, then closed the Public Inquiry.
Opening remarks were made by Andrew Williamson, Advocate for the Appellant, who made the case for the Appeal to be allowed. Opening remarks were then made by the Advocate representing the interests of Harrogate Borough Council, Stephen Whale. He said that the development will conflict with the emerging Harrogate Local Plan. Moreover, the Council already has more housing provision than needed. He added that the adverse impacts of the development would significantly outweigh the benefits. He invited the Inpector to dismiss the Appeal.
Paul Crossan, representing Better Wetherby, outlined concerns about the proposed development and the adverse consequences for Wetherby and surrounding villages if the Appeal was allowed. He referred to the pressures on the Town’s infrastructure, with schools already full to capacity and lengthy delays to get an appointment to see a GP. He said that the development would be largely ‘car dependent’ which would add to existing congestion, parking and air pollution problems in Wetherby.
(see here for full transcript of Paul Crossans opening statement)
The Inquiry then addressed Highways issues at length. The Appellants referred to traffic assessment surveys carried out in 2016 and in October 2019. These indicated that the effects from the additional cars from the 210 house development would not be severe. This view was challenged by Paul Crossan of Better Wetherby. He questioned the accuracy of the trip rates and traffic flows suggesting these were too low. Chris McIntosh of Better Wetherby pointed out that events and activities held at Stockeld Park had expanded significantly in recent years, resulting in considerably more traffic passing through Wetherby. He raised the question of whether this additional traffic had been taken into account in the surveys. It was confirmed that it had not been. The issue of sustainability and safety was raised, with Better Wetherby pointing out that no pedestrian crossing for the busy A661 is planned for the development. The infrequency of bus services, particularly during evening periods and weekends, was highlighted and noted, this again reinforcing the fact that those living on the development will be largely ‘car dependent’. Further points raised by Better Wetherby included the fact that there were no realistic options to mitigate the problems of congestion, lengthy tailbacks and traffic delays at the busy and often congested junctions in the centre of Wetherby.
Day 2 - 18th December The morning session addressed landscape issues. Better Wetherby contended that the current gateway to Wetherby would be seriously and adversely transformed if this development was allowed. Evidence to support this was given by Mike Spence, a landscape visualisation consultant contracted by Better Wetherby. He produced various photographs and outlined how the development would impact negatively on the landscape. The Landscape expert for the Appellant disagreed, suggesting that the development would be 'green' and sustainable with only limited damage to the landscape. The Landscape Officer for Harrogate BC, who had initially expressed concern about the likely negative effects on the landscape, said that the replacement of trees should help ensure that in 10 years time, when the trees were fully grown, the effects on the landscape would not be significant.
Following this session, the Inspector, Mr. Bowker, accompanied by representatives of the Appellant, Harrogate BC and Paul Crossan of Better Wetherby, made a visit to inspect the proposed site.
The afternoon session dealt with ecological issues. Dave Howard gave evidence on behalf of Better Wetherby, highlighting serious flaws in the Appellant’s claims that there would be no detrimental effects to the Kirk Deighton Special Area of Conservation (SAC). BW provided evidence to demonstrate that the principal mode of drainage from the proposed site is via groundwater, rather than surface run-off, and restated that the groundwater would drain to the north-east in accordance with the underlying dip of the limestone aquifer. This groundwater would therefore flow directly towards the SAC, and inevitably would impact on water levels.
The appellants produced a lengthy, last minute rebuttal to these claims, maintaining that drainage was via surface water and that any groundwater would drain to the south-east and into the river Wharfe. BW did not have opportunity to formally comment on this 212 page rebuttal prior to the Inquiry, but did identify that much of the evidence was based on the use of 2 maps that were incorrect ('desiccation of SAAC/SSSI' page for details). BW did provide the latest versions of these maps on the first day of the inquiry, and highlighted during cross-examination that these versions do actually contradict the appellants claims and do demonstrate that the SAC is highly likely to be fed by groundwater. Under cross examination Dave also suggested that even if the drainage was via surface water, then there is a likelihood that the water would enter the SAC via the water table once it reaches the flat land to the east of the SAC.During cross examination, the appellant's witness conceded that he was not a geologist, and also that he had little experience of limestone hydrology, yet in the Technical Appendix to the original hydrology report he concluded that " ..the effect of the proposed site alone and in combination developments on the surface and groundwater flows is also considered sufficiently insignificant (de minimis) to have a hydrological impact on the SAC / SSSI.." Unfortunately BW were not given the opportunity to identify that there was no additional evidence provided to justify this diminishing of the impact, from the original 'low' in the hydrological report.
Dave was also cross-examined regarding the photographic evidence showing that there had been a change in recent years to the extent of floodwater ponds in a field down-dip from the Bellway development. On one particular day this year, there was no water in the pond, yet nearby fields showed ponds in accordance with government flood maps. Given that we also provided evidence that the field down-dip of the Bellway development has previously shown flooding in accordance with the government flood map, we suggested that this may be caused by by Bellway infrastructure works. The appellants claimed that we could not draw a causal effect, however they did not provide an alternate hypothesis, or other objective evidence to disprove our photographs.
Given the high sensitivity of the Kirk Deighton SAC, we believe high weight should be applied to any possible impact on the integrity of the SAC. There is a significant risk that this development will diminish the water inflow into the SAC
The Appellant’s maintained their stance that this would not be the case. However, the expert retained by the Appellants did concede that he was not a geologist and had very little experience of limestone hydrology.
The inspector later requested a brief summary of both sides position regarding the hydrology, this was provided as an additional signed statement and was appended to BW's closing statement
Day 3 - 19th December The morning session focused on Planning issues. Harrogate BC Planning Official, Natasha Durham, gave evidence that the Harrogate emerging local plan fulfilled housing needs requirements, including those for affordable housing, up to the year 2035. She said that the 210 houses proposed for Stockeld Park were not in the local plan and not required. In response to cross examination from Mr. Williamson for the Appellants, Ms. Durham maintained that there had been a healthy delivery of new housing in the Harrogate area in recent years and there was no need for more housing in open countryside at present. She said that the Harrogate emerging local plan, developed following wide consultation, was currently with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. She anticipated that Harrogate BC would be in a position to formally adopt the emerging plan early in the New Year. She commented that the appeal process was undermining and trying to circumvent the planning process. Evidence was then given by another Harrogate BC Planning Official, Kate Williams. She also referred to the emerging local plan, maintaining that significant weight should be given to the plan which had been carefully compiled taking into account public consultations. She accepted that in April 2018 she had recommended approval of the development, qualifying her remarks by saying that the decision was appropriate at the time. But circumstances had changed due to the more than adequate numbers in the emerging local plan and other factors.
Giving evidence on behalf of Better Wetherby, Paul Crossan said that the appeal site was not in the emerging local plan and was outside the planned growth strategy. He contended that Harrogate BC had identified sufficient housing sites, therefore the Stockeld Park site was not required. He referred to letters from Leeds City Council setting out formal objection to the application. Mr. Crossan also pointed out that a large number of new houses had been built in Wetherby in recent years, many more were in the planning pipeline, and the area has yet to absorb the cumulative effect of these developments on local services and transport infrastructure. He concluded by saying that the development will cause significant adverse impact on Wetherby and that the Leeds City Council objection should carry ‘great’ or ‘considerable’ weight.
An expert planning consultant, Jonathan Dunbavin, gave evidence for the Appellants. He contended that this was a sustainable development and that the appeal should be allowed. He disagreed with the view of the witnesses for Harrogate BC about the weight that should be given to the emerging local plan.
Day 4 - 20th December Planning conditions and obligations were the subject of discussions, primarily between Harrogate Borough Council and the Appellants, during the morning session.
Closing submissions were then made by Harrogate BC, Better Wetherby and the Appellants.
Stephen Whale, Advocate for Harrogate BC, invited the Inspector to dismiss the Appeal, outlining several specific reasons why this should be the case. The points of objection included the adverse effect and harms to the landscape character, loss of agriculture land and the fact that Harrogate BC had developed and submitted an emerging Local Plan well over a year ago and the appeal scheme was in conflict with it. Mr. Whale added that the emerging Local Plan had been the subject of hearing sessions that concluded in February 2019 and the Local Plan should be given significant weight. He emphasised that to allow the Appeal would be contrary to 'plan-led' planning and would undermine the detailed planning process.
Paul Crossan of Better Wetherby, endorsed the invitation of Harrogate BC to the Inspector to dismiss the Appeal. Mr. Crossan outlined concerns and objections regarding highways and transport issues, together with the adverse effects and harms to the landscape. He emphasised the point that Harrogate BC had developed an emerging Local Plan which demonstrated provision for housing and affordable housing needs, and that the Stockeld Park site was never a consideration in that plan. Some 500 new houses had either been built or were under construction in Wetherby and 800 more had recently been approved. He said that Leeds City Council object to the application on the grounds that it will severely and adversely impact on Wetherby, adding that Leeds CC already had an adopted Local Plan with housing provision to meet future housing needs.
Andrew Williamson, Advocate for the Appellants, requested the Inspector to allow the Appeal. He referred to the evidence given by several expert witnesses called by the Appellants to support their case in respect of highways/traffic impacts, landscape character, ecology and planning. Mr. Williamson maintained that overall, to allow the Appeal would provide much needed affordable housing in a sustainable location; be an appropriately planned extension to the major settlement of Wetherby; provide safe and convenient means of access to the highways network and not cause sufficient harms to other interests, as to justify withholding planning permission.
The Inspector, Mr. Bowker, then closed the Public Inquiry.
A full list of documents relating to the Planning application and the Public Inquiry/Appeal can be found on Harrogate Borough Councils Web portal:
Planning Application - Click here
Public Inquiry - Click here