North Yorkshire County Council
North Yorkshire Local Access Forum
Minutes of the public meeting held on Wednesday, 21 January 2026 commencing at 10.00 am.
Will Scarlett in the Chair plus Patricia Coulson, Stephen Clark, Mark Cunliffe-Lister, Roma Haigh, Councillor Robert Heseltine, Judith Hooper and John Toogood
Officers present: Ian Kelly, Head of Parks and Countryside Services, Louise Anne Neale, Team Leader – Transport Planning, Emily Mellalieu, Highway Development and Adoption Team Leader; and Dawn Drury, Democratic Services Officer
Other Attendees: Bruce Cutts, Senior Officer, People, Landscapes, Access and Nature – Natural England and Christopher Dunn.
Apologies: Councillor David Jeffels, Samantha Perks, Belinda Ryan and Rachel Connolly
|
Copies of all documents considered are in the Minute Book
|
|
71 |
Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence have been received from Councillor David Jeffels, Samantha Perks, Belinda Ryan and Rachel Connolly.
|
|
72 |
Declarations of Interest
There were no declarations of interest.
|
|
73 |
Minutes of the Meeting held on 24 September 2025
Resolved
That the minutes of the meeting held on 24 September 2025 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
|
|
74 |
Coast to Coast Path National Trail Update
As the public speaker was not present, the Chair revised the agenda running order and took the Coast to Coast Path National Trail update first.
Bruce Cutts, Senior Officer, People, Landscapes, Access and Nature attended the meeting remotely, on behalf of Natural England (NE) to provide an update on the ongoing work to upgrade the Coast to Coast Path National Trail (C2C).
Members noted that · The project was nearing completion, with recent work focused on repairing wildfire damage on the North Yorkshire Moors. Where there were burned peat areas, raised stone walkways had been installed, which had a significant impact on overall costs. · All major surfacing works were now complete. · Work continued on the variation report, informed by a survey of the current C2C route and reflecting changes required where the Secretary of State approved route differed from the existing alignment. · The variations had been prioritised. Priority 1 variations were changes with significant impact on the route and on user navigation; and Priority 2 variations were tasks related to routine national trail management undertaken by all National Trails. · C2C Officers were seeking suitable dates for the celebratory opening event in March 2026. · Media organisations had begun to request information on the C2C. · A drone photography company had recently been commissioned to capture aerial footage of the C2C for media use and to support the launch. · A stakeholder newsletter would be circulated during February or March 2026. · A representative from the Local Access Forum would be invited to attend the launch event.
In response to a query regarding a potential bridge on the A19 bridge, Mr Cutts advised that there was an interim route in place, but that Natural England remained hopeful of securing resources for a bridge at Ingleby Arncliffe, as it would provide a vital crossing over the A19.
Roma Haigh praised the high quality of the signage on the North Yorkshire Moors, which highlighted the Alfred Wainwright branding and reduced instances of users becoming lost. Mr Cutts added that they were one of the most prominent signs on the C2C route. Members noted that as part of the launch, a milestone marker was being installed near Keld to denote the centre point.
The Chair thanked Mr Cutts for attending the meeting . Mr Cutts thanked the LAF for inviting him and for their continued interest and support in the project.
|
|
75 |
Public Participation
There was one public question from Mr Christopher Dunn, as follows:
I wish to express my deep concern re the state of PROW's in North Yorkshire, especially the Killinghall area. The C Dunn exhaustive and exhausting PROW Killinghall survey 05/11/2022 and a multitude of complaints/conversations with NYCC/NYC has resulted in little or no improvement, in three years.
To my knowledge NYC/NYCC has only erected three finger posts, which after all is a statutory duty under the Wildlife and Countryside Act! NYC appear to have a 'hands off’, no finger posting rule where there are stroppy landowners and/or impassable paths.
NYC dutifully under Planning commitments/diversion requests warn developers/landowners not to affect any PROW without due process FIRST, but these warnings seem worthless, this is exemplified by PROW 1565/5 & 1565/3, where the path has either been totally pre-emptively diverted or totally obstructed for 75 years!
I did receive a vague commitment from NYCC/NYC to proceed 'legally' with issues on PROW 1565/15,16 but absolutely nothing has happened.
Why has improvement of the PROW network around Killinghall been so poor?
In response, Ian Kelly thanked Mr Dunn for his continued commitment to highlighting issues on the public rights of way network in the Killinghall area and explained to Mr Dunn and Members that the Countryside Access Service (CAS) recognised and appreciated the considerable time and effort that Mr Dunn personally invested in surveying routes and reporting issues which contributed to officers wider understanding of the network. As a service, CAS were making steady progress in addressing reported issues across the county, including in Killinghall, and would continue to do so as highlighted in the annual CAS reports to the Local Access Forum. However, as a small team responsible for a very large and complex network, officers must prioritise their work to focus first on matters that presented the greatest risk to public balanced alongside many other demands on the service. This prioritisation approach had been discussed with, and accepted by, the Local Access Forum.
The CAS remained committed to working through the issues Mr Dunn had raised and indeed the service was actively working on diversions at Crag Hill Cottage (footpath 15.65/3) and Spruisty Grange (footpath 15.65/5) which, if confirmed, would resolve the issues on those routes. The CAS would continue to take forward the necessary legal and maintenance actions as resources allowed, although this would mean that some lower‑priority matters may take longer to resolve, but Mr Kelly assured Members that Mr Dunn’s concerns would be neither overlooked nor dismissed.
Mr Kelly thanked Mr Dunn again for his engagement and ongoing support for the rights of way network.
Mr Dunn then asked a supplementary question in relation to the installation of finger posts, to which Mr Kelly responded that there were approximately 9000 finger posts across North Yorkshire, and that in the year 2024 to 2025 the CAS had installed 436 over the County as part of an annual rolling programme. It was noted that although additional capital funding had been secured, prioritisation remained necessary due to limited resources and a small officer team.
The Chair acknowledged the financial constraints and thanked Mr Dunn for raising concerns about his particular area, and for his contribution to the meeting.
|
|
76 |
Local Transport Plan Update
The Team Leader for Transport Planning explained that with the creation of the Combined Authority (CA) they became the local Transport Authority and with this the responsibility for the Local Transport Plan (LTP) transferred to them, for which they received contributions from North Yorkshire Council (NYC) and City of York Council (CYC).
In November 2025, the CA appointed the Steer Group, an experienced transport consultancy, to prepare the LTP. A consultation draft of the LTP was expected to be completed by the end of April 2026, after which a 12‑week public consultation period would commence. Targeted stakeholder engagement would also be undertaken, including engagement with the LAF. A meeting with the LAF would be arranged for February 2026 through the LAF Secretary.
Members were informed that several subsidiary documents, to include an Active Travel Strategy, would be produced. Work on these had not yet commenced, but the officer would notify the LAF once deadlines were confirmed. A briefing session with the Mayor and Executive Members from CYC and NYC was scheduled, during which they would review the outputs from the STEER Group to date. Work was progressing at pace, and the LAF had been identified as a key stakeholder.
The Chair asked whether the timing of the public consultation, with the next LAF meeting scheduled for May, would allow sufficient time for the LAF to establish a sub‑group to contribute to the consultation. The officer advised that the timeframe would be too tight and that it would be prudent to form a sub‑group sooner.
The Chair requested that the officer attend the May meeting to provide an update on the work underway. The officer confirmed her attendance but clarified that the planned stakeholder engagement at that stage would be to gather high‑level input rather than discuss the plan document itself, which would follow later, and therefore the LAF would need to have its sub‑group established in advance of this engagement.
Members queried whether a Health Impact Assessment formed part of the plan process, it was confirmed that such an assessment was included and that engagement with the Public Health teams across both local authorities had taken place.
In response to a question regarding whether the Steer Group had seen the LAF response to the Local Plan consultation, which included elements outlining where the LAF considered improvements to rights of way were needed, the officer advised that she was not sure, but confirmed that if she were sent a copy, she would make enquiries. The Secretary was asked to forward a copy of the Local Plan document to the officer.
It was highlighted that the Council had a Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP), which contained a wide range of ideas to improve rights of way, and it was queried whether this would be taken into consideration. The Head of the Countryside Access Service (CAS) confirmed that it would, noting that the comments would be fed through to officers and that the ROWIP would play a part in both the Local Transport Plan and the Active Travel Strategy. The officer confirmed that a meeting had already taken place with the CA and the CAS team to discuss the ROWIP.
In relation to existing bus routes and bus stops, a query was raised as to whether it would be possible to display a plan of a circular walk at bus stops, or whether the number of bus stops could be increased to make it easier for people to access the countryside and enjoy it. The officer explained that bus‑related matters were outside her remit, but she would feed the query back to the Passenger Transport Team.
In response to a query regarding possible engagement with local landowners to provide car parking, Members noted that this did not fall within the LTP, matters related to access and impacts on the public highway lay with the Local Highways Authority (LHA). The LHA could not compel provision of private car parking; however, where there was a demonstrable highway impact, the LHA may, subject to appropriate processes, require suitable access arrangements.
It was noted that five pilot Community Partnerships were operating across North Yorkshire. A query was raised as to whether these partnerships were linked into the consultation process, as they were regarded as an effective means of engaging local communities, the officer stated that she would confirm that they were.
The Chair thanked Louise for attending the meeting.
Resolved
i) That, upon receipt of the information on the stakeholder engagement, the Secretary arrange a meeting with LAF Members and the relevant officers. ii) That a sub-group be established to look at the draft LTP consultation document and prepare a response on behalf of the NYLAF. iii) That the Secretary forward a copy of the NYLAF response to the Local Plan Consultation to the officer. iv) That the secretary invite the Team Leader for Transport Planning to attend the next meeting of the LAF taking place on 27 May 2026.
|
|
77 |
Planning Update from the Highway Development & Adoption Team Leader
The Highway Development and Adoption Team Leader had been invited to outline her team’s role as the Highways statutory consultee on planning applications, particularly in relation to parking matters, to help Members in providing more informed responses.
The officer advised that the team provided the statutory highway responses on new developments to the Planning Authority on highway matters. This function had previously been undertaken by eight separate teams, but following Local Government Reorganisation it was now delivered by a single team operating across three geographic areas within the County. It was explained that a ‘highway’ referred to a route maintained at the public’s expense, for which the authority was the custodian. The team also looked at access and considered wider transport issues, as these were closely interconnected with highways matters.
When assessing a planning application from a highway’s perspective, the officer explained that safety was the primary consideration, followed by whether the proposal would be maintainable without placing an undue burden on the public purse. This included assessing whether it could be supported within existing budgets or whether a commuted sum was required. Assessments were guided by national specifications and relevant guidance which had been made into North Yorkshire’s suite of highways standards, this set out requirements for road widths, footpaths, junction design and location. The officer also highlighted the increased focus on active and sustainable travel, which informed how neighbourhoods were planned to improve connectivity and reduce reliance on the car where possible, while recognising that car use remained essential in rural areas such as North Yorkshire.
The officer advised that while the highways team provided a recommendation on planning applications, the final decision rested with the Planning Authority. Once permission was granted, the scheme progressed through road safety audits, including external design verification and site visits, to ensure that what was delivered on the highway network was safe.
In relation to parking, Members heard that although there was a common assumption that vehicles may park on an unrestricted highway, this was only tolerated where it did not pose a danger to the public.
When a planning application was received, in terms of the parking provision, the Highways Authority sought appropriate off‑street parking provision proportionate to the size of a property, this was guided by established design standards that set out expected parking levels in urban and rural areas. As an example, for a four‑bedroom dwelling the expectation was typically three parking spaces, although developers often challenged this. The officer stated that while minimum bay dimensions were defined, proposals frequently come under scrutiny as developers sought to maximise housing numbers on a site, and therefore assessing parking demand could at times become a judgement call, as the eventual occupancy of a property cannot be known with certainty. In planning terms, unless a parking shortfall was clearly inappropriate, the Authority must be prepared to defend its position, recognising the broader housing need and the application of the ‘tilted balance’ by Planning Inspectors where impacts were not considered severe.
Members noted that planning conditions must be enforceable under the Town and Country Planning Act and should not be used where matters could be addressed through the Highways Act or other enforcement routes. The officer explained that parking obstruction was enforceable by North Yorkshire Police, which was separate from parking provision, though the two were inter‑related. It was stressed that inadequate parking provision could lead to unsafe parking on the highway. The Highways Authority did not wish to impose Traffic Regulation Orders or residents’ parking schemes retrospectively, and therefore sought to ensure appropriate provision at the planning stage.
The officer explained that as policy moves toward active and sustainable travel, some developers use this to justify reducing parking provision, and while this may be reasonable in urban areas, it was not appropriate in rural North Yorkshire, where residents remained dependent on cars. Even where homes were within ten minutes of a supermarket, households would still require cars for commuting and leisure, meaning parking demand remained high and the argument for reduced provision was flawed.
The officer highlighted that Senior Transport Planners were currently revising the parking guidance. While the core principles would remain broadly unchanged, the updated guidance would introduce greater flexibility to reflect areas with good public transport provision or access to rail services. The officer confirmed she would be happy to share the draft guidance with the LAF for comment prior to publication.
The Chair asked whether, when considering a planning application affecting the Rights of Way network, the Highways team would deal with the matter directly or consult other Council departments. The officer confirmed that such cases would be referred to colleagues in the Public Rights of Way team, and that any subsequent recommendations to the Planning Authority would depend on the impact on the publicly maintainable highway.
A query was raised regarding whether the provision of green open space on developments was a firm requirement or simply desirable, the officer advised that this matter fell within the remit of the Planning team and would need to be referred to planning colleagues.
A Member informed the officer that the LAF had submitted a response to the Local Plan consultation and asked whether the priorities for enhancing public access, as set out in the LAF’s response to that consultation, would be taken into account by the Highway Authority. The officer replied that the Local Plan sat with the Council’s Planning team and that the Highways team only commented on planning matters from a technical highways perspective and focused on what was appropriate for the Highway Authority’s interests. She confirmed, however, that she was happy to keep the LAF updated and to note the points raised.
A member commented that, in his experience, parked cars could help slow the flow of traffic. He asked whether some on‑street parking could be provided where safe, and whether yellow lines might be applied where necessary. The officer explained that on street parking was a tolerated behaviour not a formal right and that, under current development specifications, the Highways Authority would not accept on‑street parking as a planned element of new developments. While parked cars could slow traffic, most residential roads were not designed with sufficient width to accommodate this safely. Introducing on‑street parking could also create additional issues, such as difficulties with bin collections and access. The officer noted that traffic‑calming and parking considerations should be addressed through the original design of new estates, rather than relying on subsequent traffic regulation orders.
The Chair thanked the Highway Development and Adoption Team Leader for attending the meeting.
Resolved - That the officer attends a future meeting of the LAF to share the draft parking guidance for comment prior to its publication.
|
|
78 |
Secretary's Update Report
Members were informed of the Coast to Coast Walk Passport Scheme which enables walkers to record their progress traversing the 192 mile route. The complete edition passport, available to order through the Welcome to Coast to Coast website is pocket-sized and contains 140 pages of route information together with designated stamping pages, or alternatively there is a 24 page mini edition available.
There are 30 official stamping locations along the route, supported by a wide range of local businesses and organisations including pubs, cafés, shops, accommodation providers, historic sites, research centres and churches. The passport remains valid indefinitely, allowing walkers to complete the route in stages as required.
Complete edition passport holders may also be eligible for discounts at participating venues along the route, offering opportunities for refreshment and accommodation while supporting rural communities.
Resolved – That the update be noted.
|
|
79 |
LAF Sub-Group and Individual Project Updates
The report of the Secretary giving LAF members the opportunity to update the Forum on District Council liaison and other LAF representative project activity since the last meeting.
The Chair had provided a list of actions undertaken on behalf of the Forum since the last meeting in September 2025, as set out in Appendix 1. He reported back on his attendance at a Town Investment Plan session and noted that, with 32 sessions scheduled, it was not feasible for the LAF to engage with each individually. After consulting with other Members, he had prepared a general statement outlining the Forum’s position. The final paragraph of the draft statement asked that “all plans take into account any existing public rights of way (PROW) and public open space and work towards maximising the opportunities for achieving a well-maintained network with good connectivity thought the creation of new PROW if necessary. The LAF also encouraged schemes that addressed inequalities to access to the countryside and green space and to increase opportunities for car free travel”. The Chair noted that while the statement was brief, it represented a clear and constructive contribution and if something specific arose within one of the Investment Plans which was relevant to PROW then the LAF could offer advice and support at that time.
Councillor Heseltine agreed that the statement accurately reflected the LAF’s principles. Members confirmed that the statement should apply to each of the Town Investment Plans and agreed that it be forwarded to Faye Snowden, Regeneration Officer, via the Secretary.
Members were advised that Appendix 2 had been provided by Mrs Connolly, who was unable to attend the meeting. The Chair reported that she continued to experience intermittent contact with the planning team regarding the PROW network. As a previously suggested tick list for planning case officers had not been implemented, Mrs Connolly sought Members’ agreement to develop a checklist covering the PROW network, public open space, connectivity and accessibility to support the planning process.
Members agreed that a tick list should be produced and forwarded to the Development Management Team via the Secretary.
Mrs Connolly had also highlighted that NYC’s PROW team typically responded to development proposals by focusing on route disruption and public access, but Members noted that the Council also had a statutory duty under Section 130 of the Highways Act 1980 to “assert and protect the use and enjoyment” of public rights of way. They emphasised that the enjoyment and amenity value of paths, particularly where large developments such as solar farms significantly diminished the experience for users, should be more strongly reflected in PROW responses. Mrs Connolly questioned whether the Forum, as an advisory body, should write to NYC PROW to request greater weight be given to this duty when assessing such applications. Concerns were also raised that the absence of an interim NYC energy policy had led to inconsistencies and difficulties for planning bodies handling these proposals.
Mr Kelly clarified that the query regarding the impact of solar farm developments should be directed to the planning team rather than the PROW team, as these issues related more closely to planning principles. Mr Kelly confirmed that the PROW team did consider amenity but that the key priority was to ensure the existence and continuity of PROW, regardless of whether a solar farm was built; they focused on maintaining a route through or around any proposed development. As solar farms were becoming more common, it was suggested that they be added to the planning check list to ensure consistent consideration. The Chair agreed to relay Members’ views to Mrs. Connolly, and together, they would develop a checklist from a LAF PROW perspective to ensure these issues were properly addressed within the planning process. Mark Cunliffe-Lister updated Members on a recent briefing with Environmena, a developer that both built and operated solar sites. With solar farm proposals increasing and the Government seeking a 5 fold increase in solar generation, he questioned whether a clear policy was needed to guide how such developments should be managed.
All sites are now legally required to deliver at least a 10% biodiversity net gain, but Environmena reported that they aim for a 100% increase at their installations, often resulting in ecological enhancement. They also confirmed that they respect PROW and would incorporate any necessary improvements into their improvement plan for implementation where possible. Asked if they had diverted any footpaths on site during or post construction, they said they had rarely had to divert any paths.
John Toogood noted that while the engagement with Environmena had been positive, they represented only one developer, and solar farms would continue to be proposed widely. He raised concerns about site selection, as developers tended to choose locations based on grid connectivity, meaning proposals could appear almost anywhere and therefore, questioned whether guidance was needed to set clear expectations for all developers, and that the Forum could play a useful role to help shape it.
Members agreed that more solar farm proposals were likely and stressed that the aim should not be to create a narrow ginnel through a site, but to ensure proper amenity value rather than just a basic passageway. In response to a question regarding whether the CAS had the authority to determine the specifications of an existing PROW, Mr Kelly confirmed that it did not; such decisions, at present, rested with the Planning team. The PROW team would be consulted and would assess proposals on a case‑by‑case basis, but stated that once buildings were constructed over PROWs, they became very difficult to manage.
The Chair highlighted that two members of the public with an interest in solar farms had attended the meeting and asked whether a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) application submitted within a proposed development site would affect the decision on whether that development proceeded. Mr Kelly confirmed that he would discuss the matter with the Principal Definitive Map Officer and update Will once he had a response.
Mr Cunliffe-Lister then gave a short verbal update on the North Yorkshire Landscape Character Assessment Stakeholder Workshop that he had attended virtually on behalf of the LAF. North Yorkshire Council were required to replace previous Landscape Character Assessment Studies undertaken prior to local government reorganisation with a single Landscape Character Assessment which would store information on the Landscapes, influences and factors for change that affect them. The aim of the workshop was to outline the work undertaken so far to gather views on what people valued about the landscape and to identify the issues affecting it now and in the future. Participants were informed that there were 15 national Character Areas, defined largely by underlying geological rock formations. North Yorkshire was then further subdivided into more detailed local areas based on human history and geographical characteristics. The last assessments had been carried out ten years ago, and this review also aimed to identify changes, drawing on the knowledge of those familiar with the landscape. Mr Cunliffe‑Lister commented that he had been surprised, as work was already under way on the Local Nature Recovery Strategy for NY and he had assumed the two pieces of work would have been connected.
The Chair informed Members that he had received the presentation following the meeting and questioned whether this work was truly relevant to the LAF. While it was positive to be consulted, he was unsure how directly it related to the Forum’s remit. Mr Cunliffe-Lister added that he struggled to see where public access featured within the work. The Chair concluded that, while the topic should remain on the Forum’s radar, no further time should be committed to it at present, to which Members agreed.
Judith Hooper and Stephen Clark informed Members that, in relation to their work on the Maltkiln Development Plan and the NY Local Plan Consultation, meetings had been arranged with the respective Council Officers for early February, after which they would provide an update to Members at the meeting in May 2026.
Resolved
i) That the additional information provided at the meeting be noted, alongside the written updates provided in the report. ii) That the LAF’s Town Investment Plan statement be forwarded to Faye Snowden, Regeneration Officer, via the Secretary. iii) That the Chair and Mrs Connolly develop a tick list from a PROW perspective, to be forwarded to planning officers, via the Secretary. iv) That Mr Kelly would discuss the implications of a DMMO application, and whether it could influence whether a development proceeded, with the Principal Definitive Map Officer, and update the Chair once he had a response.
|
|
80 |
Nidderdale & Howardian Hills National Landscape Management Plan 2025-30 - Action Plan The Chair introduced the item and explained that, although the deadline for the Sub‑Group to comment formally on the Management Plan (MP) had passed, the Action Plan was still available for review. He asked the three Sub‑Group members, Mark Cunliffe‑Lister, Roma Haigh and John Toogood, to consider the documents from an access perspective and provide comments. Mr Toogood observed that, having read the MP, while the document was well written, it lacked clear baselines or measurable goals. The Chair asked Members to examine it further, noting that Mr Cunliffe-Lister had already provided comments on the Nidderdale National Landscape Management Plan, particularly concerning existing bus routes. Mr Cunliffe‑Lister confirmed that Nidderdale considered their document complete and had already shared their objectives, which were organised under several themes, including “Understanding and Enjoyment,” a section that addressed access particularly well. The Chair commented that perhaps there was something from the Nidderdale National Landscape Management Plan that could be feedback for the Howardian Hills Action Plan. Other Members sighted practical considerations, including whether other additional circular walking routes or supporting infrastructures, such as parking, might be needed, or additional bus services. The Chair suggested that elements of the Nidderdale National Landscape Management Plan might offer useful feedback for the Howardian Hills Action Plan, while another Member raised practical considerations, such as whether additional circular walking routes or supporting infrastructure, including parking or improved bus services, might be required. Concerns were raised that planning officers did not always apply their own Local Plan policies when determining applications, and it was suggested that the LAF should strengthen its engagement with planning teams. The Chair explained that he had invited an officer from Development Management to attend the meeting, but no one had been available. He confirmed that he would extend the invitation again for the May meeting, after which Members discussed compiling a list of issues previously raised by the LAF, highlighting where planners had or had not taken these points into account, to support a more open and constructive dialogue. Resolved i) That the Sub‑Group provide their response on the Howardian Hills Action Plan by mid‑February, with all responses sent to the secretary for collation prior to submission to the Manager of the Howardian Hills National Landscape. ii) That the Secretary requests the attendance of a member of the Development Management Team at the meeting in May 2026. |
|
81 |
Annual Review of the NYLAF Terms of Reference
Members discussed the scope of the Forum’s role, noting uncertainty over how far their comments should extend beyond ensuring PROW were functioning properly and fit for purpose. Questions were raised about potential conflicts within Annex B, its relevance to planning matters, and the subjective nature of assessing changes to the character of routes. Some members felt the overlap between appendices added to the confusion, though it was acknowledged that the document was not necessarily incorrect.
Councillor Heseltine stated that the LAF Terms of Reference clearly set out that the LAF was an advisory body with no decision‑making powers and that its influence relied on constructive, balanced advice and positive relationships with Council officers to ensure the recommendations were listened to and potentially acted upon.
Members agreed that the document provided a workable basis, and that any guidance offered should remain proportionate and subjective.
The Forum agreed to accept and adopt the document as written.
Resolved
i) That the NYLAF Terms of Reference, Version 2, be adopted. ii) That the annual review of the NYLAF Terms of Reference be added to the NYLAF Forward Plan 2026/27 on 27 January 2026.
|
|
82 |
Humber Carbon Capture Pipeline Consultation
Members heard that the Chair had been informed by the East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull Joint LAF that they had been consulted on the proposed Humber Carbon Capture Pipeline and had submitted a comprehensive response, which they shared with the Chair for awareness. NYLAF had not been notified of the consultation and therefore had not contributed at the time; however, after contacting the organisation, it was confirmed that the LAF were still able to submit comments.
The Chair explained that since being made aware of the consultation he had asked Pat Coulson to review the proposal. Mrs Coulson reported that the project involved an onshore pipeline running from Drax Power Station near Selby then eastward through North Lincolnshire and East Yorkshire to Easington. Its purpose was to transport carbon dioxide from the region, where it would then be compressed into a dense phase and taken offshore for safe storage. The pipeline would be buried to a depth of 1.2 metres and would pass primarily through agricultural land. Only a small section of the route lay within North Yorkshire, though several PROWs near Drax, including a crossing of the River Aire, would be affected.
Mrs Coulson advised that if the LAF were to respond, we would need detailed information on specific PROW diversions where the pipeline intersected with existing routes. She suggested requesting that any temporary or permanent diversions be defined by the applicant in consultation with NY CAS, and that these be in place before work began. Where diversions were not possible, any temporary closure of a PROW should be kept to an absolute minimum, with the LAF able to suggest what it considered an appropriate duration. She also emphasised the need for reassurance that construction would progress in a rolling fashion throughout the project.
She further stressed the importance of obtaining a firm commitment from the applicant, or any future owners of the pipeline, to take medium to long‑term responsibility for restoring PROW surfaces where ground disturbance occurred and stated that she would discuss with Mr Kelly what period of monitoring would be appropriate to ensure settlement and restoration were properly managed.
In response to a query about whether the project might offer an opportunity to create a PROW crossing of the River Aire for non‑motorised users, Pat explained that there were currently no existing paths in the area to connect into but agreed that it was an excellent suggestion. The Chair advised that the LAF could still put this forward to the applicant, asking whether any opportunities existed to create new PROWs that would link with the wider network for the benefit of local communities.
Members agreed that Mrs Coulson prepare a draft response to the consultation on behalf of the LAF.
Resolved
That Mrs Coulson prepare a draft response for LAF approval and seek advice from Mr Kelly on monitoring periods prior to submission.
|
|
83 |
NYLAF Forward Plan Programme
The Chair noted that there was little additional work to allocate at this stage, as Members were already engaged in reviewing the Howardian Hills National Landscape Action Plan, the Maltkiln Development Plan, the new NYC Local Plan, and the Humber Carbon Capture Pipeline consultation.
The Chair highlighted that one area of work was to raise the LAF’s public profile. He offered to lead this, together with Belinda Ryan and Samantha Perks (subject to their availability), as part of a small Sub‑Group to review the LAF’s presence on the NYC website and explore any opportunities to improve visibility, explain the Forum’s role and celebrate the achievements of the LAF. He added that as NYC also used Facebook, this could provide an additional platform.
Members agreed to the establishment of a Sub-Group to look at ways to raise the profile of the LAF.
Resolved
i) That the Forward Plan document be updated and noted. ii) That the Chair contact Belinda Ryan and Samantha Perks to confirm their availability to form part of a Sub‑Group, alongside the Chair, to explore opportunities to increase the LAF’s profile on the NYC website and potentially on Facebook.
|
|
84 |
Any Other Items
Judith Hooper had earlier informed Members about the five pilot Community Partnership schemes in North Yorkshire. The Community Partnership she was involved with, Uredale, was established in 2024 and had wide representation with several working groups, including one focused on culture, green spaces, and the environment. Dr Hooper asked where the other four Community Partnerships were located and whether the LAF could approach them to offer support and advice on access matters. The Chair asked Dr Hooper to raise this with her local group to gauge their views and, if appropriate, to identify the remaining partnerships so that the LAF could make contact.
Will reminded Members that the next meeting in May would include the election of a Chair and Vice‑Chair. He confirmed that he was willing to stand again as Chair, but that Pat Coulson would not be standing and hoped that this advance notice would give Members time to consider whether they might wish to take on a role. The secretary was asked to notify those Members who were not present at the meeting.
The Chair informed Members that he had received an email from the Government regarding the Environmental Improvement Plan, launched in December 2025 and comprising 181 pages. The Plan included a section specifically on access to nature, and he advised Members that elements of it may be of interest to the LAF. He queried whether the Council was aware of the Plan and what implications it might have for them, noting that some actions may arise for the LAF in due course. The Plan also referenced potential funding opportunities linked to its delivery.
Mark Cunliffe‑Lister asked how signage and waymarking were managed. Mr Kelly explained that the CAS had previously brought a Waymarking Principles document to the LAF, outlining the Council’s position. He noted that waymarking was not a statutory duty and practices varied between organisations. The Chair recalled that a Sub‑Group had been established on the topic at the time. Mr Kelly confirmed that he would share the document with Mr Cunliffe‑Lister via the Secretary.
Roma Haigh asked for an update on the volunteering group, noting that volunteers often assisted with putting up signs. Mr Kelly reported that the group was doing very well and that a new co‑ordinator had been appointed, who was actively working to expand volunteer groups and was currently talking with Hampsthwaite Parish Council to see how they could engage. He confirmed that there were still over 100 active volunteers. Mrs Haigh asked whether any volunteers operated in the Killinghall area, and Mr Kelly confirmed that they did, adding that the work of the volunteers would be covered in the annual report. Mrs Haigh advised Mr Dunn that he may wish to contact the CAS team regarding support in Killinghall.
Resolved
i) That Dr Hooper make Uredale Community Partnership aware of the LAF and gauge their views on the Forum offering support and advice on access matters and, if appropriate, to identify the remaining partnerships so that the LAF could make contact. ii) That the secretary would inform Members not present at the meeting, that the agenda for the meeting in May 2026 would include the election of a Chair and Vice‑Chair. iii) That Mr Kelly would share the Waymarking Principles document with Mr Cunliffe‑Lister, via the secretary.
|
The meeting concluded at 12.39 pm.