Four flat plan for landmark pub site
The row over the future of the Yorkshire Lass continues to rumble on as the owners of the former pub apply to demolish the building.
Graycliffe Homes Ltd have applied to Harrogate Borough Council to demolish the existing pub, and build an apartment block of four homes in its place.
Last year former owners provoked an outcry when they submitted plans for 14 apartments on the site which Harrogate Borough Council’s planning committee threw out after criticising its modern design.
Since then an application to build four flats was withdrawn, which prompted a campaign group to Save the Yorkshire Lass.
Harrogate Borough Council listed the former pub as an asset of community value after 1,300 people signed a petition.
The listing was short lived, and after the buildings owner’s appealed the decision the council backtracked after a reviewing officer said that as the building has stood empty for seven years it could be classed as being used in the ‘recent past’, which is one of the requirements of the Asset of Community Value Act 2011.
The latest designs show four apartments with gardens and underground parking which developers say “will reflect the general character of buildings.”
The planning report goes on to say: “The overall scale of the building is not significantly greater than the existing building in terms of its height or footprint.
“The building has deteriorated over a number of years, and its construction does not lend itself to conversion. The building is now in such a state that its appearance is detrimental to the appearance of the conservation area. A new well-designed development will enhance the area.”
However Rachel Auty who orchestrated the Save the Yorkshire Lass campaign has lodged her opposition to the development.
She commented on the plans online and said: “ I propose that a social and community space is needed on this landmark site, not privately owned residential accommodation.
“The Yorkshire Lass is a unique landmark building on a landmark site, it is important to consider any proposal to retain the property.”