North Yorkshire County Council
Executive
8 November 2022
Area Constituency Committee Feedback
|
1.0
|
Purpose of the Report
To bring to the attention of the Executive key issues considered at recent meetings of the Area Constituency Committees. |
2.0 Skipton and Ripon Area Constituency Committee – 1 September 2002
2.1 The meeting was attended by the Rt Hon Julian Smith MP. Some of the key issues raised in his update were as follows: recognition that the local authorities in North Yorkshire are all working well together to deliver on the new unitary authority and the devolution deal; looking forward to the next iteration of the Area Constituency Committees and how they will work to support local delivery and accountability; the support provided to Ukrainian refugees has been extremely well organised; and the Cost of Living Crisis poses a greater financial and economic challenge to the government than the pandemic.
2.2 The committee received presentations on the North Yorkshire Cultural Framework and the priorities, challenges and opportunities relating to economic development in the Craven District Council area. The synergies between culture, tourism and the local economy were noted, as was the role that access to a range of cultural experiences had to play in attracting and retaining younger people and families in the area and so helping maintain a flexible and skilled workforce. The committee resolved to review the economic development ‘masterplan’ for Ripon at their next meeting and, where possible, conduct a site visit of some of economic assets identified in the plan.
2.3 The committee received an overview of some of the key issues relating to fuel poverty in their area. This item had been requested due to concerns about the impact of the cost of living crisis, particularly in the more rural parts of the Dales.
2.4 An update was received on the first 12 months of the pilot of the Digital Demand Responsive Bus Service. In general, the need for a pilot was acknowledged and the move to look for innovative solutions for rural transport was welcomed. There were concerns, however, regarding the financial viability of the scheme and whether the money would better be spent subsidising an existing, timetabled bus service.
3.0 Richmond (Yorks) Area Constituency Committee – 5th September 2022
3.1 An update on the development of the Catterick Integrated Care Campus was provided by Lisa Pope CICC Programme Leader and Deputy Director (Primary Care), North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board. Issues discussed included:-
· The timeline for the development and the nature of the development (buildings and services)
· Transport to and from the facility, particularly from remote areas
· Dental Service provision and the potential for MoD facilities to be used for the community.
· How costs would be divided (NHS, MoD)
· The possible location of ambulance and pharmacy facilities at the Campus.
3.2 The development was expected to start in 2023 and Members asked that an update be provided to the Committee when the construction had commenced.
3.3 Area Highways Manager, Jayne Charlton, presented an update on the North Northallerton Bridge development, which highlighted
· The Highway Authority were currently awaiting the results of the safety audit by the developer, which was required by the end of the week;
· No opening date could be provided until the results of the safety audit were known;
· Approval of the safety audit was also required from Network Rail.
3.4 Members noted their disappointment that the bridge was yet to open it was noted that, ultimately the opening of the bridge was in the hand of the developer and could not be opened until the safety audit was completed satisfactorily. It would be determined whether the bridge could be opened for pedestrians in the interim. It was noted that much of the funding for the project came from external sources and was not able to be held back until completion.
3.4 Peter Stockton, Head of Sustainable Development, Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority
gave a presentation in respect of the Yorkshire Dales Local Plan 2023 to 2040, and it was noted:
• The need to control the number of developments for second homes and holiday lets to ensure that the local community had access to housing in the area.
• Ensuring that land was available for suitable development for homes for the local community.
• Addressing carbon issues and climate change concerns through suitable development and development controls.
• Exploring devolution as a possible means to obtain land for suitable local development.
• Considering the development of HMOs to address concerns in respect of the availability of workers in rural locations.
• Concerns regarding the possible reduction of Members on National Park Authorities and the disparity in respect of the current representation of the population by Members.
3.5 At the request of members an urgent item was agreed by the Chair in respect of the street furniture and temporary outside Accommodation for bars/restaurants/cafes/etc. and the forthcoming cessation of the relaxation of the regulations, which had been introduced at the time of the COVID restrictions. It was noted that the temporary legislation had now been extended to the end of Spring 2023, which would allow an opportunity for establishments to apply for permanent orders, if they required these.
4.0 Harrogate and Knaresborough Area Constituency Committee – 12 October 2022
4.1 The Committee decided to refer a Public Question or Statement from Pannal and Burn Bridge Parish Council, together with the response provided by officers at the Committee’s meeting, to both:-
· NYCC’s Executive, as members wish to obtain a clear policy from the Executive about its view concerning the urban expansion to the west of Harrogate; and
· Harrogate Borough Council, because the Parish Council has asked for the Maltkiln survey to be shelved until the matters regarding the lanes and former cart tracks to the west of Harrogate have been solved. This survey is a Harrogate Borough Council planning consultation.
4.2 The statement from Pannal and Burn Bridge Parish Council, together with the response provided by officers at the Committee’s meeting, are at Appendix 1 to this report.
4.3 Other Public Questions and Statements put to the Committee’s meeting were from:
· Harlow and Pannal Ash Residents’ Association regarding concerns about the Otley Road Cycleway scheme.
· Harrogate and District Cycle Action regarding a lack of progress on three schemes and their suggestions to address this.
· Harrogate Civic Society, who wish to play an active and constructive role with the new North Yorkshire Council.
· 20’s Plenty for North Yorkshire Harrogate, seeking support for making 20mph the default speed limit in towns and villages in the Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency area.
4.4 The committee considered a report on the existing 20mph Speed Limit and Zone Policy and decided to advise the Executive “that the Harrogate and Knaresborough Area Constituency Committee wishes a 20mph speed limit to be piloted throughout towns and villages in the constituency area where a need has been identified, and that the Executive be asked to recommend the Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee, when it considers the County Council’s 20mph Speed Limit and Zone Policy on 19 January 2023, to consider appropriate amendments to the existing policy to enable such a pilot to be introduced”.
4.5 Officers advised that the introduction of 20mph across the Harrogate and Knaresborough area, was likely to cost more than £1million and would take 12-18 months for options testing, surveys and analysis, assuming that various tasks were run concurrently. Engineering measures to support 20 mph limits, and enforcement of 20mph limits, were discussed.
4.6 Key points made by committee members who supported the motion in the first paragraph of 4.3 were:
· 20mph limits would:- improve the environment, air quality and the well-being of residents; reduce traffic by getting more people to walk and cycle safely; support a modal shift, which was a key objective of the existing policy.
· More evidence was now available to show that traffic pollution potentially caused cancers. Particulates were a key issue in changing speed between 20mph and 30mph.
· A 20mph limit was needed throughout a journey, rather than only around a school.
· The new Maltkiln development would be exemplar in terms of active travel but this would be “useless” if cycling was less user-friendly at the Maltkiln boundary marked on the planning application.
· The current policy was self-fulfilling, ie by considering requests on a case-by-case basis, and there needed to be a culture change.
· 20mph should be introduced now rather than in 20 or 40 years’ time.
· The benefits for pedestrians and cyclists, of having 20mph limits, need to be treated with greater importance.
· Many parish councils within the Harrogate Borough Council area had said they wanted 20mph limits in their parishes.
4.7 Key points made by members who did not support the motion were:
· Existing 20mph limits with only “signs and lines” did not necessarily result in reduced traffic speeds. Therefore, the issue came down to the arguments of enforcement and capital spend.
· There was reluctance to ask for anything which would have a revenue spend because there were items relating to local Divisions that Highways needed to look at, which had been requested a long, long time previously, but there had been no money to get them done. Members wanted money spending to remedy those items first.
· The motion put to the committee’s meeting had been contradicted by statements made by members who supported it, namely, the motion referred to 20mph speed limit being piloted throughout “towns and villages” but members who supported the motion had referred to a 20mph limit at Maltkiln being “useless” beyond the Maltkiln boundary. In any event, the whole area would need to be reviewed to determine where the ‘red line’ for a 20mph limit was, and there would be a cost associated with carrying out such a review.
· No framework had been put forward for identifying “a need” within the phrase “… 20mph speed limit to be piloted throughout towns and villages in the constituency area where a need has been identified …”
4.8 The majority of members supported the Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee being asked to approach Oxfordshire and Lancashire about how their 20mph limits were going.
4.9 Progress of stage 2 of the Harrogate Transport Improvements Programme was reported to the committee. This programme builds on the findings of the extensive Harrogate Congestion Study public engagement of 2019. The findings and recommendations will be reported back to the committee at the conclusion of the study i.e. in the first half of 2023. Committee members expressed various points which they asked the officers to take into account.
4.10 The committee considered the Cultural Framework for North Yorkshire as part of an on-going conversation to provide an overarching direction of travel, and to act as a catalyst for conversation, partnership brokering and investment. Committee members expressed several criticisms regarding the Framework, in particular its top-down approach and its many omissions. The committee sought details of the procurement process through which Mustard& had been commissioned, and how much the Framework had cost the County Council, and for a written response to be sent to all committee members.
5.0 Scarborough and Whitby Area Constituency Committee – 23 September 2022
5.1 The committee considered a statement from a representative from Scarborough’s Civic Society in which they expressed concern about the future structure of local government in North Yorkshire especially in the unparished parts of Scarborough. They also queried whether:
· All current services be maintained at the same level;
· There would still be a planning department based in Scarborough as well as locally based Ecology Officers and Conservation Officers;
· What would happen to the Town Hall which is an important cultural asset packed with historical artefacts
· There would be asset stripping by NYC with the sale of Scarborough SBC properties and the transfer of revenues such as parking charges from Scarborough to NYC
5.2 In response it was confirmed all the assets and services that were currently provided by Scarborough Borough Council and North Yorkshire County Council would become the responsibility of North Yorkshire Council on 1 April 202, and all staff would be transferred across with be no gap in service provision. Also, whilst no decisions had been made as yet, including in respect of Scarborough’s Town Hall, the Council was committed to retaining offices in all areas of the County in order to administer services locally. Attention was also drawn to an ongoing public consultation, currently underway to identify whether there was interest in and support for the establishment of parish councils for the unparished areas in Scarborough and Harrogate.
5.3 The Committee received a verbal update on performance at Scarborough Hospital - the first since July 2021, which provided an overview of the key issues, including:
· The hospital had invested in additional nursing staff but it was still a struggle to attract staff to the east coast - agency staff were still being used together with an internal bank system – the hospital was desperate to recruit more substantive staff;
· the volume of demand at the front door, and back door discharges – there were currently 90 patients awaiting some form of package of care and ways to expedite discharges were being explored
· an upturn in Covid-19 numbers, with a return to the use of masks in clinical areas;
5.4 In regard to previous standards of care issues considered by the committee, Simon Morritt confirmed that in the main they had been addressed and that a peadiatrically training doctor in emergency was expected to be in place within the next couple of months. He also agreed to provide data on:
· The number of consultations taking place online - he confirmed that face to face outpatients would not disappear;
· Response times for blood results from labs
5.5 Director of Public Health presented a progress update on Coastal Health and drew attention to the nine themes arising from the report, the three recommendations, and the ongoing work to address them. Members also received an overview of the public health advice available to address the many challenges.
5.6 The Committee noted the need for equity in access to care services and agreed there were multiple ways to address the wider determinants of health. However they were disappointed to note that 80% of poverty in North Yorkshire was in the Scarborough borough area.
6.0 Thirsk and Malton Area Constituency Committee – 30th September 2022
6.1 Daniel Harry (Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager) and Chris Phillipson (Principal Democratic Services Officer), who provide clerking services to the Scrutiny of Health Committee, attended the meeting to assist with the Committee’s scoping of issues related to NHS Services, specifically GP services, dentistry and Ambulance waiting times, with a view to obtaining information on these issues from a local perspective. Details of issues considered by the Scrutiny of Health on these matters were outlined.
6.2 A public question/statement outlined the difficulties currently being experienced within the NHS by staff in terms of higher numbers using services with less staff available, and asked how this was to be addressed. A response from NHS Communications and the Yorkshire Ambulance Service emphasised that everything was being done to try and address the issues raised whilst acknowledging the current issues being experienced by staff and patients.
6.3 Members highlighted the following:-
· The delays being experienced in local hospitals with long wait times transferring from ambulances to A&E, then further long waits, without any supervision, in A&E itself.
· A huge amount of people in the area covered by one GP practice that was not delivering effectively for its patients.
· Local access to NHS dentistry is very limited with many people on waiting lists and unable to access services.
· The need to compare local data to determine the service level being delivered against performance indicators and consider where services are not being provided effectively.
6.4 Appropriate data would be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee to enable a comprehensive analysis of the provision of NHS services in the Constituency area to be undertaken.
6.5 Graham North (Strategy and Performance Officer, Policy, Partnerships and Communities) provided an overview of the North Yorkshire County Council and Ryedale District Council Levelling Up Fund round two submissions, consisting of two schemes within the Thirsk and Malton constituency area, relating to improvements at Thirsk and Malton Railway Stations.
6.6 Members highlighted the following:-
· The need for the improvements highlighted for the benefit of the two towns, and, should the bids be unsuccessful, that other funding opportunities be sought to deliver the proposals.
· Ensuring that the project in Malton is appropriate for what is required, including the provision of adequate car parking and linking in to Norton.
· The need for improvements to the standard of trains, particularly those serving the east coast.
6.7 Members discussed the format of meetings and considered utilising remote and hybrid meetings occasionally, to encourage increased participation.
6.8 Finally, an update was provided by the Area Highways Manager in respect of the annual maintenance taking place on Sutton Bank.
7.0 Selby and Ainsty Area Constituency Committee – 19th October 2022
7.1 Two public questions were submitted in respect of the recent reductions in bus services in the area, with some communities not receiving any services, as a result and highlighted the detrimental impact this was having on those communities.
7.2 The Committee undertook a discussion on the reductions in bus services and were assisted by Michael Leah (Assistant Director – Travel Environmental and Countryside, Transport, waste and Countryside Services) who provided details as to why the services had been removed, together with action that had been taken to try and mitigate the impact.
7.3 Members highlighted the following:-
· The need for public transport services to enable local communities to access essential services.
· The lack of funding received by operators from concessionary fares reduced their capacity to operate cost effectively, leading to the reduction in services.
· Services were operating up to the North Yorkshire boundary from outside the area, but were then turning around, preventing access to areas where many obtained health services, shopping, etc.
· Details were provided as to how some of the service reductions were being addressed by NYCC, but it was emphasised that all the services could not be replaced.
· Alternative community transport options were required and community leaders should consider how to best develop these through Passenger Transport Services.
· The issue of bus services would remain on the agenda for meetings, going forward.
7.4 The Leader of the Council, county Councillor Carl Les, led a discussion with Members of the Committee on a range of issues, including the following:-
· Investment Zones – it was noted that expressions of interest had been required quickly and District Councils had assisted in identifying potential areas for submission. The process for the appointment and development of these Zones was not yet known and the ACC would have a role in determining how these would be best utilised, going forward.
· Area Constituency Committees were expected to evolve as the unitary authority was put in place, with local decision making being paramount for many issues, including planning and licensing. The exact framework for this was currently being developed through the Member Working Groups.
· Further developments would continue to be fed into the ACCs.
7.5 Members considered the details of the report highlighting the Cultural Framework that was being developed for North Yorkshire. Mark Kibblewhite, Senior Policy Officer, North Yorkshire County Council and Danielle Daglan, Cultural Services Manager, Craven District Council, presented the report and assisted Members with their consideration of the issues within the report. Members highlighted the following:-
· The presented report was out of date and incomplete in respect of the details provided for the Constituency area.
· Members considered that many of the details from the various local communities were missing from the report, despite many cultural activities taking place in those areas, with Selby town being the main focus. It was emphasised that this was the initial development of a framework and this would be enhanced as the Authority transformed into a unitary authority. Members suggested that a future, updated report, taking account of the issues raised, be submitted to a future meeting of the ACC.
7.4 Members noted a response from the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner in respect of the potential closure of the Fire Control Room back-up service, and agreed to keep Police, Fire and Crime resource issues on the agenda.
7.5 The Constituency MP, Nigel Adams, submitted a report highlighting current issues in the area which was noted by the Committee.
8.0 Recommendation
8.1 That the Executive notes the report and considers any matters arising from the work of the Area Constituency Committees detailed above, that merit further scrutiny, review or investigation at a county-level.
Barry Khan
Assistant Chief Executive (Legal and Democratic Services)
County Hall
Northallerton
APPENDIX 1
Statement from Pannal and Burn Bridge Parish Council for Harrogate and Knaresborough Area Constituency Committee - Wednesday 12 October 2022 at 10.00AM
Relating to item 7 on the agenda, Pannal and Burn Bridge Parish Council wish to make the following comments:
For the first time, to our knowledge, (HTIP recap 3.3) reference has been made in the public domain to the plight of Pannal and Burn Bridge relating to the explosion of housing and projected employment sites to the west of Harrogate. It is amazing that, despite our making NYCC aware of this prior to 2019, there is at last some recognition and realisation that, apart from tinkering at the edges, nothing of significance has been planned to mitigate what will be gridlock in Harrogate’s Western Arc.
We believed that all relevant factors were taken into account but it appears the wheel is being reinvented. In HTIP recap 3.1, it refers to the conclusion of the first stage of HTIP. We’re still awaiting the second stakeholder meeting (promised for October) concerning the fully costed and detailed implementation plan that was missing from the West of Harrogate Parameters Plan. So how can the first stage of HTIP be complete? The Otley Road cycle path, increased bus frequency and active travel were meant to be the panacea for all ills to mitigate congestion into Harrogate. None of these plans would have any real effect on the huge increase in traffic through Pannal and Burn Bridge arising from the Western Arc developments.
Consultations with, and consultants from, developers and others seem to have delivered next to nothing since 2019. The timescales in points 4.1 to 4.4 allude to kicking the can further down the road as if there is something new and unforeseen that has arisen since 2019. There isn’t anything other than what we in the Western Arc have been telling NYCC and HBC for years.
There are now so many acronyms that we have lost track of what is going on. Some clarification is needed please – HTIP (Mk 1 or 2), WHIDP, WHIDS, IDS, IDP, WoH (that's brand new for us), WHPP, etc. Does HTIP v 2 include WHIDS as it would appear to concentrate on the A61 rather than what is needed to Harrogate's west? Has the costed and detailed plan for traffic on the west of Harrogate that was promised, been shelved, delayed - once again - or incorporated into HTIP v 2 or WoH or both?
We’re sure a detailed response to our comments will be provided by NYCC but, as HBC will cease to exist within a few months, has it given up the ghost with its participation with NYCC but continues with its liaison with developers? Efforts are being made to have a complete plan for Maltkiln, which is probably many years away – something that was sadly lacking for the Western Arc of Harrogate. Please shelve the Maltkiln survey until you have solved the urgent matters for what is happening now in the lanes and former cart tracks to the west of Harrogate.
We come to item 9 in the report where recommendation is made to merely “consider this update and note its content”. Our recommendation is for Members to effect the equivalent of a kick up the backside (immediate action) to get meaningful results now rather than procrastination and excuses.
Howard West
Chairman, Pannal and Burn Bridge Parish Council
Response to the statement from Pannal and Burn Bridge Parish Council from Louise Neale (Team Leader Transport Planning, Highways and Transportation)
There are two main workstreams which are separate but very closely linked. HTIP is the Harrogate Transport Improvement Programme which is being lead by NYCC as the Local Transport Authority, the focus of which is “…to improve facilities for all road users, but would particularly seek to improve provision for pedestrians and cyclists, provide bus priority to enhance the experience of using passenger transport, and also seek to tackle some of the most problematic junctions in the study area.” This workstream seeks to address existing congestion issues and promote more sustainable modes of transport. Upon completion of the study work, it is anticipated that a business case will be submitted to the DfT to secure funding to deliver the works on site.
The other workstream is focussed on mitigating the impacts of the developments in the West of Harrogate urban expansion, which seeks to deliver 2500 new houses, two schools, local centres and employment land. The promotors have commissioned a transport consultant to prepare a transport study, which looks at the cumulative impact of all of the developments, as well as other committed developments in the study area and identifies junctions and links which require mitigation as a result of these developments. This work will be funded by the developers through Section 106 contributions and delivered by the Local Highway Authority. Should the bid for funding for HTIP be unsuccessful, then there would still be an intention to deliver these improvements through the Section 106 contributions.
As such, the workstreams are separate, but intrinsically linked, and any delay in one work stream can unfortunately impact the other. Much of the relevant information is being worked up by consultants representing different development companies, plus planning officers from HBC working with our own officers to understand the assessment of highway impact and then consider potential approaches to mitigation. Due to the complexity of the planning matters involved, including the number of developers, the timelines to which they are working, and the cumulative effect of the developments overall, that work in itself has been extremely time consuming and complex, and much of the detail relevant to HTIP has only recently become available.
NYCC have engaged with an external consultant, RPS, to undertake a buildability and costing exercise on their behalf. Since the mitigation works are being constructed by the Local Highway Authority (LHA) and funded through S106 contributions, the LHA requires certainty that enough funding will be secured, and also that the proposals being brought forth by the promotors can be delivered. This workstream is also still ongoing, though good progress has been made and it is nearing its conclusion. The outcome from this work and the cumulative transport strategy will feed into the West Harrogate Infrastructure Delivery Strategy.
NYCC and HBC are working closely on all West of Harrogate workstreams and this will continue after local government reorganisation.
Supplementary Question from Pannal and Burn Bridge Parish Council
Parish Councillor Howard West commented that there were actually 4,000 new houses, rather than 2,500 as mentioned in the response.
Parish Councillor Howard West asked where, in all the work carried out by the County Council, Borough Council and developers, was there any clarity or commitment on deliverables that would truly off-set the effects of the excessive developments proposed for the western arc of Harrogate. So far, everything the Parish Council was seeing constituted tinkering around the edges, is process driven, and lacks real solutions. Compare this with what has happened in Maltkiln. Two totally different worlds.
Allan McVeigh (Head of Network Strategy, Highways and Transportation) responded that a huge amount of work was already in progress regarding junction mitigation. This is the RPS study mentioned by Louise Neale. Officers are also pushing the process very hard in relation to Active Travel and Sustainable Transport. Proposals were coming forwarded which included bus service improvements too. An awful lot of work is on-going but, at the moment, it is still ‘work in progress’