NOT FOR PUBLICATION

North Yorkshire Council

Thirsk and Malton Area Constituency Committee

14 June 2024

Filey to Hunmanby and Crayke to Easingwold Active Travel Route Development

Report of the Corporate Director - Environment

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To ask Area Constituency Committee Members to note the outcomes of the high-level assessments undertaken for the Filey to Hunmanby and Crayke to Easingwold Active Travel route proposals and seek endorsement that they should not be progressed through the Economic, Regeneration, Tourism and Transport Project Development Fund at this time.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 A high level assessment into two active travel routes (Filey to Hunmanby and Crayke to Easingwold) was requested by the local Members. The routes were requested because people expressed the need for a healthy, safe and environmentally friendly mode choice to move between the places for various employment, education, retail and recreational activities as well as better public transport choice.

2.2 The routes have not been prioritised for development in North Yorkshire Councils existing budgets as the schemes are outside of the scope of the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans for both Scarborough and Malton. These documents set out North Yorkshire Council’s priorities for active travel infrastructure for Government and require schemes within them to be compliant with LTN 1/20 (Government’s cycle infrastructure design standards) and offer value for money (through enabling large numbers of people to travel via active mode to justify the expenditure) also because delivery is largely reliant on central government funding for active travel. Compliance with the LTN 1/20 guidance and offering value for money can be more challenging to achieve in rural areas given the topography and availability of highway space when compared to more urban areas.

3.0 Proposal

3.1 The budget would be spent on identifying and developing route options between the places.

3.2 In the case of Filey to Hunmanby the high-level assessment concluded that the scheme does not demonstrate value for money. Our data shows that there are no trips for leisure or commuting purposes occurring between the two places and the cost of delivering the route would be significant. The surfaced route is around £300,000, however, there are challenges with stabilisation of some of the land on the route which would require extensive survey work. Any remediation costs are likely to be significant. Additional costs would include signing, lining, and lighting the route.

3.3 Further in the case of Crayke to Easingwold the high-level investigation concluded that this scheme does not demonstrate value for money either. Once again it is currently estimated that there are no trips for leisure or commuting along this route and with relatively low populations in each conurbation there is a low potential uptake even when leisure trips are considered. The high-level assessment identified the need for significant land take, as there is not enough highway space to deliver a safe and fully compliant LTN 1/20 standard route. The cost to provide a 3m shared tarmac surface on the direct route (adjacent to the highway) is estimated to be around £1m. Additional costs would include land purchase, appropriate segregation between both pedestrians and vehicles, lighting, markings, signage.

3.4 More details on the proposals can be found at Appendix A – Filey to Hunmanby and Appendix B – Easingwold to Crayke.

4.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

4.1 There are no financial implications as Officers do not recommend that this work is taken forward.

5.0 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 Consideration has been given to any legal implications, however, there are no requirements at this stage.

6.0 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS

6.1 Consideration has been given to the potential for any equality impacts arising from the recommendations. It is the view of officers that at this stage the recommendations do not have an adverse impact on any of the protected characteristics identified in the Equalities Act 2010. A copy of the Equality Impact Assessment screening form is attached as Appendix C.

7.0 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS

7.1 There are no climate change issues arising from this report. A copy of the Climate Change Impact Assessment screening form is attached as Appendix D.

8.0 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 The aim of developing the schemes through the Economic, Regeneration, Tourism and Transport Project Development Revenue Fund would be to develop a bid ready business case so that we can attract capital funds required for delivery. The schemes put forward here do not demonstrate value for money, therefore are unlikely to make a persuasive business case to attract capital funding grants, therefore it is not recommended that they progress at this time.

9.0

RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1

9.2

That Area Constituency Committee Members note the outcomes of the high level assessments undertaken for the Filey to Hunmanby and Crayke to Easingwold Active Travel route proposals

That Members agree that the routes should not be progressed through the Economic, Regeneration, Tourism and Transport Project Development Fund at this time due to the low value for money assessment done to date.

APPENDICES:

Appendix A – Filey to Hunmanby Scoping and Sign Off Form

Appendix B – Crayke to Easingwold Scoping and Sign Off Form

Appendix C – EIA Screening Form

Appendix D - CCIA screening Form

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS: None

Karl Battersby

Corporate Director – Environment

County Hall

Northallerton

13 May 2024

Report author – Keisha Moore, Senior Transport Officer

Presenter of report – Keisha Moore, Senior Transport Officer

Economic, Regeneration Tourism and Transport

Project Development Fund

Project Scoping & Budget Holder Approval Form

SECTION A – PROJECT SCOPING

NYC Area Constituency Committee Name	Thirsk and Malton
Project Name	Filey to Hunmanby Cycle Route Development
Description of Project Location	Filey to Hunmanby, a 3 mile route with footpaths but no existing cycling infrastructure
NYC Division(s) in which the project is located	Malton
Project Lead Officer Details	Name	Keisha Moore
	Job Title	Senior Transport Planning Officer
	Email	Keisha.moore@northyorks.gov.uk
	Telephone	01609 536441

1. PROJECT DETAILS
Please outline why the budget is required and what are the current barriers to project development it will help overcome?	The budget will be spent on identifying and developing an active travel route between Filey/Hunmanby which was requested as a priority by the local Member. Further, to support the request Sustrans have expressed ambitions to realign the existing National Cycle Network 1 Route so that it is much safer and more attractive than it currently is and in keeping with being part of the North Sea Cycle Route giving it a much more coastal feel including passing through Filey. However, officers do not recommend that this scheme is taken forward for development at this time. Traditional feasibility methodology, focused on anticipated commuting trips for this scheme, will not make a persuasive funding case for any of the proposed active travel infrastructure grants from central government for delivery. When considered as a leisure route, leisure usage indicates little to no users at all in 2023 between Filey and Hunmanby. A high-level assessment of a potential route, using the Centenary Way, would seemingly be a relatively low-cost way (£300k) to deliver a large proportion of the route however the upgrades that would be required to A165/A1039 roundabout to ensure a connected and safe route was available would bring a significant cost. Also, if Centenary Way was the most viable option, then extensive survey work would need to be carried out to understand the stability of the ground there. Additional costs on any route would also include lightings, markings signage etc. This significant lack of demand coupled with the large costs to create a coherent and direct route indicate that the schemes is unlikely to offer a value for money given the cost of the scheme relative to the propensity to cycle. As this route is not identified in the LCWIP (because it is outside of the study area) or on the Active Travel long list it is unlikely that this would be prioritised for development and subsequent delivery in the near future. A feasibility study will not overcome the issues that surround the development of this route at the current time.
Please detail what specific costs the budget will be spent on?	It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time
Please describe the future project that this activity will help to unlock.	It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time
2. STRATEGIC FIT
Detail how the project will contribute to the North Yorkshire Council ‘Council Plan’ and the Economic Growth Strategy or the Destination Management Plan (Reference should be made on how a future project will help deliver the respective strategies)	It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time
3. LOCAL FIT
Detail how this project meets local priorities including linkages with local regeneration plans and strategies.	It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time
4. FINANCE
Will the service area be making a financial contribution to the project development costs? If so, please detail.	It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time
Please confirm the amount of money required. Please provide a breakdown of costs / estimates where available and how these have been calculated.	The scheme would indicatively cost around £50,000 to design
5. DELIVERY, TIMESCALES AND MONITORING
What is the staffing resource within NYC required / how will it be resourced? Has the capacity to complete the activity been confirmed with the relevant service manager? Dependencies on other NYC services	It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time
Please outline the anticipated timeframe for delivery of the activity? Please include details of how the activity will be procured (if required).	It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time
Can the proposed work to be funded delivered within the allocated financial year?	It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time
How will progress and the outcome of the project be reported to the ACC to aid effective monitoring?	It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time
6. BENEFITS
What are the benefits of undertaking this work now? What opportunities / estimated economic, social or environmental benefits could be derived for the future project outlined above?	It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time
AREA COMMITTEE SIGN OFF
ACC Meeting Date When Project Scope Agreed			Draft Minute Number
Signed (ACC Chairman)			Date

SECTION B – PROJECT EVALUATION
Using the details in the Economic, Regeneration, Tourism and Transport Project Development Fund Guidance Note please comment on how the proposed project meets the identified criteria for the Fund.
Project Name
SECTION		FIT WITH CRITERIA
1	Project Details
2	Strategic Fit
3	Local Fit
4	Finance
5	Delivery, Timescales and Monitoring
6	Benefits

Evaluation Completed By			Signed
			Name
			Job Title
			Email
			Telephone

SECTION C – BUDGET HOLDER (CORPORATE DIRECTOR) SIGN OFF

NYC Area Constituency Committee
Project Name
Lead Officer
Requested Budget Allocated?			Yes / No	Value

Signed
Name
Job Title
Date

Economic, Regeneration Tourism and Transport

Project Development Fund

Project Scoping & Budget Holder Approval Form

SECTION A – PROJECT SCOPING

NYC Area Constituency Committee Name	Thirsk and Malton
Project Name	Crayke to Easingwold Cycle Route
Description of Project Location	Crayke to Easingwold, 2.5km (1.5miles long) with no safe opportunity for cycling/walking.
NYC Division(s) in which the project is located	Easingwold
Project Lead Officer Details	Name	Keisha Moore
	Job Title	Senior Transport Planning Officer
	Email	Keisha.moore@northyorks.gov.uk
	Telephone	01609 536441

1. PROJECT DETAILS
Please outline why the budget is required and what are the current barriers to project development it will help overcome?	The budget would be spent on identifying and developing an active travel route between Crayke and Easingwold. The population of Crayke is around 400 people and there are just over 4000 people living in Easingwold which is the choice local destination for various employment, education, retail and recreational activities as well as better public transport choice. Trips to Crayke are typically to attend the Sports Ground, Church and Village Hall and hospitality offerings and to access the Fosse Way. It is understood that local people want a healthy, safe and environmentally friendly mode choice to move between the places. However, officers do not recommend that this scheme is taken forward for development at this time for a number of reasons. Firstly, this route is not identified in the LCWIP (because it is outside of the study area) nor has it been listed on the Active Travel long list. These documents list NYC’s scheme development and delivery priorities and essentially inform NYC’s investment plans for active travel. It is useful for readers to note that schemes included on the long list are subject to sifting against specific criteria that give officers a high-level indication of their deliverability. Secondly, traditional feasibility methodology, focused on anticipated commuting trips for this scheme, will not make a persuasive funding case for any of the proposed active travel infrastructure grants from central government for delivery. A high-level assessment, which identified the need for significant land take, as there is not enough highway space to deliver a safe and fully compliant LTN 1/20 standard route, identified that the scheme is unlikely to offer value for money given the cost of the scheme relative to the propensity to cycle. There are currently 0 people using this route and with relatively low populations in each conurbation there is a low potential uptake even when consider leisure trips are considered. The high-level cost for the tarmac alone, for a 3m shared surface on the direct route (adjacent to the highway) is around £1m. Additional costs would include land purchase, appropriate segregation between both pedestrians and vehicles, lighting, markings, signage etc. Finally, it should be noted that although other schemes, that are rural with a poor business case, have been endorsed by this Membership they were recommended to proceed on the basis of having much greater populations than Easingwold and Crayke and there are more significant opportunities for leisure trips. A feasibility study will not overcome the issues that surround the development of this route at the current time.
Please detail what specific costs the budget will be spent on?	It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time
Please describe the future project that this activity will help to unlock.	It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time

2. STRATEGIC FIT
Detail how the project will contribute to the North Yorkshire Council ‘Council Plan’ and the Economic Growth Strategy or the Destination Management Plan (Reference should be made on how a future project will help deliver the respective strategies)	It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time
3. LOCAL FIT
Detail how this project meets local priorities including linkages with local regeneration plans and strategies.	It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time
4. FINANCE
Will the service area be making a financial contribution to the project development costs? If so, please detail.	It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time
Please confirm the amount of money required. Please provide a breakdown of costs / estimates where available and how these have been calculated.	It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time
5. DELIVERY, TIMESCALES AND MONITORING
What is the staffing resource within NYC required / how will it be resourced? Has the capacity to complete the activity been confirmed with the relevant service manager? Dependencies on other NYC services	It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time
Please outline the anticipated timeframe for delivery of the activity? Please include details of how the activity will be procured (if required).	It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time
Can the proposed work to be funded delivered within the allocated financial year?	It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time
How will progress and the outcome of the project be reported to the ACC to aid effective monitoring?	It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time
6. BENEFITS
What are the benefits of undertaking this work now? What opportunities / estimated economic, social or environmental benefits could be derived for the future project outlined above?	It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time
AREA COMMITTEE SIGN OFF
ACC Meeting Date When Project Scope Agreed		Draft Minute Number
Signed (ACC Chairman)		Date

Initial equality impact assessment screening form This form records an equality screening process to determine the relevance of equality to a proposal, and a decision whether or not a full EIA would be appropriate or proportionate.
Directorate	Environment
Service area	Highways and Transportation
Proposal being screened	Filey to Hunmanby and Crayke to Easingwold Active Travel Route Development
Officer(s) carrying out screening	Keisha Moore
What are you proposing to do?	· To ask Area Constituency Committee Members to note the outcomes of the high-level assessments undertaken for the Filey to Hunmanby and Crayke to Easingwold Active Travel route proposals and seek endorsement that they should not be progressed through the Economic, Regeneration, Tourism and Transport Project Development Fund at this time
Why are you proposing this? What are the desired outcomes?	· To develop schemes which encourage active travel contribute to healthier, more decarbonised places.
Does the proposal involve a significant commitment or removal of resources? Please give details.	No the proposal is recommending no further action is taken at this time.
Impact on people with any of the following protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010, or NYCC’s additional agreed characteristics As part of this assessment, please consider the following questions: · To what extent is this service used by particular groups of people with protected characteristics? · Does the proposal relate to functions that previous consultation has identified as important? · Do different groups have different needs or experiences in the area the proposal relates to? If for any characteristic it is considered that there is likely to be an adverse impact or you have ticked ‘Don’t know/no info available’, then a full EIA should be carried out where this is proportionate. You are advised to speak to your Equality rep for advice if you are in any doubt.
Protected characteristic		Potential for adverse impact				Don’t know/No info available
		Yes		No
Age				X
Disability				X
Sex				X
Race				X
Sexual orientation				X
Gender reassignment				X
Religion or belief				X
Pregnancy or maternity				X
Marriage or civil partnership				X
NYCC additional characteristics
People in rural areas				X
People on a low income				X
Carer (unpaid family or friend)				X
Does the proposal relate to an area where there are known inequalities/probable impacts (e.g. disabled people’s access to public transport)? Please give details.		No.
Will the proposal have a significant effect on how other organisations operate? (e.g. partners, funding criteria, etc.). Do any of these organisations support people with protected characteristics? Please explain why you have reached this conclusion.		No
Decision (Please tick one option)		EIA not relevant or proportionate:	ü		Continue to full EIA:
Reason for decision		The schemes do not demonstrate value for money and would not make a good business case proposal when bidding to central government funding opportunities for delivery therefore it is not recommended that they progress at this time.
Signed (Assistant Director or equivalent)		Barrie Mason
Date		24/05/2024

Climate change impact assessment

The purpose of this assessment is to help us understand the likely impacts of our decisions on the environment of North Yorkshire and on our aspiration to achieve net carbon neutrality by 2030, or as close to that date as possible. The intention is to mitigate negative effects and identify projects which will have positive effects.

This document should be completed in consultation with the supporting guidance. The final document will be published as part of the decision making process and should be written in Plain English.

If you have any additional queries which are not covered by the guidance please email climatechange@northyorks.gov.uk

Title of proposal	Filey to Hunmanby and Crayke to Easingwold Active Travel Route Development
Brief description of proposal	To ask Area Constituency Committee Members to note the outcomes of the high-level assessments undertaken for the Filey to Hunmanby and Crayke to Easingwold Active Travel route proposals and seek endorsement that they should not be progressed through the Economic, Regeneration, Tourism and Transport Project Development Fund at this time
Directorate	Environment
Service area	Highways and Transportation
Lead officer	Keisha Moore
Names and roles of other people involved in carrying out the impact assessment
Date impact assessment started	13/05/2024

Options appraisal

Were any other options considered in trying to achieve the aim of this project? If so, please give brief details and explain why alternative options were not progressed.

No alternative options were considered at this time as the scheme does not represent value for money

What impact will this proposal have on council budgets? Will it be cost neutral, have increased cost or reduce costs?

Please explain briefly why this will be the result, detailing estimated savings or costs where this is possible.

The scheme will not impact council budgets

How will this proposal impact on the environment? N.B. There may be short term negative impact and longer term positive impact. Please include all potential impacts over the lifetime of a project and provide an explanation.		Positive impact (Place a X in the box below where relevant)	No impact (Place a X in the box below where relevant)	Negative impact (Place a X in the box below where relevant)	Explain why will it have this effect and over what timescale? Where possible/relevant please include: · Changes over and above business as usual · Evidence or measurement of effect · Figures for CO₂e · Links to relevant documents	Explain how you plan to mitigate any negative impacts.	Explain how you plan to improve any positive outcomes as far as possible.
Minimise greenhouse gas emissions e.g. reducing emissions from travel, increasing energy efficiencies etc.	Emissions from travel	*
	Emissions from construction		*
	Emissions from running of buildings		*
	Other		*
Minimise waste: Reduce, reuse, recycle and compost e.g. reducing use of single use plastic			*
Reduce water consumption			*
Minimise pollution (including air, land, water, light and noise)			*		Active Travel infrastructure will encourage active travel therefore minimising pollution relating to GHG emissions and tyre and brake contaminants.
Ensure resilience to the effects of climate change e.g. reducing flood risk, mitigating effects of drier, hotter summers			*
Enhance conservation and wildlife			*
Safeguard the distinctive characteristics, features and special qualities of North Yorkshire’s landscape			*
Other (please state below)			*

Are there any recognised good practice environmental standards in relation to this proposal? If so, please detail how this proposal meets those standards.

N/A

Summary Summarise the findings of your impact assessment, including impacts, the recommendation in relation to addressing impacts, including any legal advice, and next steps. This summary should be used as part of the report to the decision maker.

Accepting the recommendation will have no impact on council budgets.

Sign off section

This climate change impact assessment was completed by:

Name	Keisha Moore
Job title	Senior Transport Planning Officer
Service area	Highways and Transportation
Directorate	BES
Signature
Completion date	13/05/2024

Authorised by relevant Assistant Director (signature): Barrie Mason

Date: 24/05/2024