Harrogate Spring Water has confirmed that individual postcode data was not collected for the 200 respondents in a private market research survey used to support its planning application to extend its water bottling facility (Ref: HGT20/01539/REMMAJ).
The information was disclosed in a formal statement to The Harrogate Informer ahead of the statutory planning deadline. The survey data has been a point of discussion among local interest groups, as a sample size of 200 within the Harrogate adult population carries a statistical margin of error of approximately 7%.
The proposed expansion has attracted considerable local feedback, including 1,079 public objections submitted to North Yorkshire Council and a previous unanimous refusal by local councillors on the planning committee.
The Corporate Statement
In documentation provided by parent company Danone, the corporate affairs team defended the methodology of the online research panel, stating it represents a valid segment of local opinion.
Harrogate Spring Water Spokesperson:
Our November 2025 survey was commissioned to provide an independent snapshot of opinion from a broad section of Harrogate residents. Its aim was to help us understand the perspectives of all residents, including those who do not typically participate in planning consultations or public campaigns. The survey shows that opinion in Harrogate is not one-sided. While some residents object to the proposal – and they have exercised their right to participate in the planning process – more than 80% of respondents had a positive impression of it and more than 90% supported business expansion where environmental impacts are appropriately managed. These are significant majorities, even with a small margin for error. We believe it is important to acknowledge the views of this “silent majority”, not just those of individuals and groups who are actively campaigning against development.
The company stated that the research was carried out by Censuswide, an accredited member of the British Polling Council. However, corporate communications officials confirmed that specific postcode sectors—such as HG1, HG2, or HG3—were not recorded during data collection, noting that respondents verified their Harrogate residency before the survey topic was revealed.
Survey Data Breakdown
The internal logs outline the exact phrasing and results of the questions asked across two separate surveying periods in 2025:
Question 1 (June 2025 compared with November 2025)
“How would you describe your overall impression, if any, of Harrogate Spring Water’s planning application to extend its water bottling facility?”
- November 2025 Sample Size (N): 199 respondents
- Positive (Net): 80.90% (161 respondents)
- Very Positive: 12.56% (25)
- Somewhat Positive: 68.34% (136)
- Neutral: 16.08% (32 respondents)
- Negative (Net): 2.51% (5 respondents)
- Somewhat Negative: 2.51% (5)
- Very Negative: 0.00% (0)
- Unsure: 0.50% (1 respondent)
Comparative figures from the earlier tracking window (2 June 2025 – 9 June 2025) indicated that net positive sentiment stood at 71.36% (142 respondents), whilst neutral responses accounted for 25.63% (51 respondents).
Question 2 (Introduced in November 2025)
“Do you think local land should be made available to allow businesses to expand, as long as steps are taken to compensate for any environmental impact?”
- Sample Size (N): 200 respondents
- Yes (Net): 93.00% (186 respondents)
- Yes, definitely: 31.50% (63)
- Yes, somewhat: 61.50% (123)
- No, not at all: 3.50% (7 respondents)
- Unsure: 3.50% (7 respondents)
Independent Local Survey Comparison
The findings in the Censuswide poll contrast with data previously collected within the district. As recorded in the archives of The Harrogate Informer, an independent survey conducted by the civic platform Suffrago returned different results.
The Suffrago poll gathered over 500 responses from verified local residents in Harrogate and Knaresborough within a 24-hour period. In that survey, more than 85% of respondents expressed explicit opposition to the bottling facility expansion plans.
Methodological Variations
The divergence in results highlights the structural differences between commercial market research and formal civic feedback loops:
- Geographic Representation: Without specific postcode tracking, it is not possible to verify whether the 200 panel participants live in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development at Rotary Wood or in outlying areas. Harrogate Spring Water maintains that screening for broader town residency ensures a balanced general perspective, whilst objectors argue that proximity to the site is a critical factor.
- Participant Recruitment: The private survey utilised an online consumer panel where participants are independently registered and often receive incentives for completing questionnaires. Conversely, the 1,079 council objections required residents to manually submit their full names and verified home addresses to the local authority.
- Question Context: Question 2 addressed the principle of business expansion under general environmental compensation, which functions as a broad baseline metric. Critics suggest that abstract phrasing does not necessarily reflect how participants would view the specific, local removal of established woodland.
Planning Merits
Harrogate Spring Water’s compliance team emphasised that the survey was structured to minimise bias through randomised options, balanced scales, and quality screening to remove substandard entries. The company noted that Censuswide operates strictly under the Market Research Society Code of Conduct, adding that independent council planning officers ultimately reviewed the proposal on its technical planning merits and recommended it for approval.