Last week councillors voted to defer a decision to sell council owned land to a local company - Bentleys. In an awe inspiring display of prevarication and fence-sitting after 2 earlier policy committee decisions to sell the land - members decided that sitting on a decision for another 3 months was the best way forward(ie the preferred approach to making a difficult decision is not to make one at all). I am well aware of reports on this issue that might have, should have, been read - they were available for all. I was certainly well briefed and ready to make an informed decision on the night.
Decisions already taken are outlined below -
Council Meeting of 22nd January, 2008, the Council:
Resolved – That the recommendations in the following minutes are confirmedMinute POL.75 (Relocation of Successful Local Business – Land at Gargrave Road, Skipton) – Recommendation (2) to read as amended below:“That the Council agrees in principle to Option 1, subject to suitable restrictions because of concerns that ad hoc development will cause problems with the infrastructure; that the motion is deferred until the Gargrave Road Task Group and the consultants to be employed have had time to consider the full effect of developing the area and how it relates to the forthcoming Local Development Framework; and that a report back is made to the Council Meeting on 15th April’.”
Policy Committee recommendation of 19th December 2007 which stated:
“RESOLVED – (1) That the offer made by J N Bentley’s Ltd. for the field OS 5707, Gargrave Road, Skipton is noted.”
“RECOMMENDED – (2)That field OS 5707, Gargrave Road, Skipton is disposed of to J N Bentley Ltd., subject to the Council at least achieving the market valuation for the land as set out in the Valuation Report at Appendix C to the Director of Community Services’ report (exempt from publication) and planning permission being obtained.”
Even with a full study and the following conclusion was arrived at -
Conclusion
8.1 The desk study report by Arup highlights no conclusive constraints to development. All the risks raised in the report have methods to mitigate against them and would be covered through the planning process. Development of land to the south of Gargrave Road, including field OS5707 is seen to be appropriate and the economic benefits it provides would offset any loss of landscape or visual amenity.
8.2 With regard to the north of Gargrave Road Arup do not identify any other major constraints not highlighted in Appendix 1 but this would be entirely dependant on the nature of the proposals submitted.
8.3 Members should be aware that disposal of the site to JN Bentley’s Ltd is subject to securing planning permission and, therefore, is not guaranteed to be delivered.
The overriding conclusion was that The development of the site as the headquarters for an important local business would support the corporate priorities of building a Prosperous District. The original Policy Committee recommendation will retain a major local employer which will also support the economy and vitality of Skipton. There are significant risks to the Craven economy if important and large local employers have to relocate from the District. JN Bentley’s Ltd currently employ around 650 people, the loss of the company would have a seriously detrimental effect on the Craven economy through the loss of income, supply chains, types and ranges of jobs, training opportunities and the contribution the business makes as a corporate contribution to the well-being of the area. There are significant risks regarding loss of credibility of Craven District Council with local employers and reputation risks.
With overwhelming evidence to support the land sale it seemed the need to make a difficult but important decision was shelved for politically expendient reasons - why make an unpopular decision when it is election time? Bending over backwards to get a few votes from nimbys is ducking the issue. I am certain that those same councillors would not think twice about voting for this in snaygill or south craven - to move the problem where it will not lose them votes or upset the “preserved in aspic” brigade. Skipton is a vibrant and growing town it needs to prosper - to provide employment for not only the next generation but others to come. There was no real reason to delay this decision. Lets hope that this does not backfire on us and this district loses yet another major business and employer.