North Yorkshire Council
12 November 2025
Report of the Transport, Economy, Environment and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee regarding the Motion Referred on A64 Dualling
Report of the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal and Democratic Services)
|
1.0
|
Purpose of the Report
|
|
1.1 |
To outline the considerations and recommendation of the Transport, Economy, Environment and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny committee to full Council following its review of the Motion on A64 dualling, as referred from full Council on 16 July 2025.
|
2.0 Background
2.1 At the meeting of full Council on 16 July 2025, the Chair agreed that a Notice of Motion regarding A64 dualling should be referred to Scrutiny Board, for the purpose of determining which overview and scrutiny committee would be most appropriate to consider the Motion further and to bring back its recommendations to full Council. Scrutiny Board determined on 15 August 2025 that the Motion would be referred to the Transport, Economy, Environment and Enterprise overview and scrutiny committee.
2.2 The Notice of Motion referred to the committee was proposed by Councillor Keane Duncan and seconded by Councillor Derek Bastiman. The wording of the Motion was as follows:
2.3 This council:
o Reiterates its support for the dualling of the A64;
o Agrees to write to the Mayor of York & North Yorkshire and the Members of Parliament for York Outer, Thirsk & Malton and Scarborough & Whitby requesting confirmation of their support for this essential upgrade;
o Commits to working on a cross-party basis with national and local political representatives to secure this essential upgrade at long last.
2.4 Under section 11 of the Council’s Procedure Rules, where a Motion is referred from Council to a committee (such as overview and scrutiny), the committee considers the Motion and reports back with its recommendations. As such it is the committee’s recommendations which then become the substantive Motion put before the Council and not the original Motion.
2.5 The Constitution also guides that at full Council, “there will be no moving of amendments in relation to, questions upon or any other discussion of or questions on the Motion prior to the vote upon it.” As such it is important that the committee provides clear, concise recommendations in its report, including any necessary amendments made to the Motion.
2.6 The Transport, Economy, Environment and Enterprise overview and scrutiny committee met on 22 October 2025 to consider the Motion further, with a view to reporting back with its recommendation(s) to full Council on 12 November 2025.
3.0 Consideration of the Motion by the Transport, Economy, Environment and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3.1 The papers for the meeting of the Transport, Economy, Environment and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny committee meeting on 22 October 2025 can be accessed via the following link (see Item 6)
3.2 As part of the debate on the motion text, committee members acknowledged that the dualling of the A64 has been the subject of discussion for decades. It was also noted the road carries significant volumes of freight and visitor traffic, yet remains largely single carriageway, contributing to delays, a poor accident record and negatively impacting on local economic growth and tourism.
3.3 Ahead of the full Council meeting in July, two amendments were submitted and were included in the officer report to the Transport, Economy, Environment and Enterprise overview and scrutiny committee. The first amendment submitted by Councillor Liz Colling aimed to broaden the scope of the motion to include sustainable transport options such as rail, bus, and active travel. Members expressed differing views in the meeting on this proposal: supporters argued that investment in rail and bus services would deliver greater long-term benefits and align better with environmental objectives, whilst opponents stressed the urgency of addressing traffic congestion and safety risks on the A64 through dualling schemes. When put to a vote to include it as a recommendation back to full Council, this proposal was lost.
3.4 The second amendment submitted by Councillor Steve Mason sought to make the first bullet point of the motion text more specific, by prioritising dualling from York to Malton as a first phase and then from Malton to Scarborough, subject to a positive cost benefit analysis. Supporters of this proposal highlighted that the existing road layout includes short sections of dual carriageway interspersed with single carriageway stretches, creating numerous bottlenecks and accident black spots such as Whitwell-on-the-Hill. They suggested that a phased dualling approach targeting these problematic sections would strengthen the economic case and improve safety more effectively than a piecemeal dualling upgrade between Hopgrove and Barton le Willows. The discussion also touched on the potential for improved access to regional services from this approach, and the role of the A64 in supporting strategic employment sites and future housing growth both in the Ryedale and Scarborough areas. However, concerns were raised by committee members that specifying locations in the motion text could limit flexibility in the future and complicate lobbying efforts to central government. When put to the vote, this proposal was also lost.
4.0 Recommendation of the Transport, Economy, Environment and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4.1 Returning to the original motion text submitted, and having reviewed the officer report and debated and voted on the two submitted alternative proposals, the committee then resolved to recommend the following to full Council:
That the Motion referred, as written, is upheld.
5.0 Financial Implications
5.1 The update received from National Highways in the covering report to the Transport, Economy, Environment and Enterprise overview and scrutiny committee notes that “The final decision on schemes rests with government. It’s important to note that all schemes in the pipeline programme remain uncommitted, with no guarantee they’ll be taken forward into construction.”
6.0 Legal Implications
6.1 There are no significant legal implications arising from the motion text submitted.
7.0 Equalities Implications
7.1 There are no significant equalities implications arising from this report.
8.0 Climate Change Implications
8.1 As part of the debate on the motion text and the first submitted amendment, the Transport, Economy, Environment and Enterprise overview and scrutiny committee considered the benefits to the environment of improving the frequency and reliability of public transport services and promoting active travel options to help reduce car usage and ease congestion on the A64. Furthermore, the damage caused to the environment from the construction of new roads and the increases in traffic on new routes was referenced, whist acknowledging the existing harm to the environment caused by vehicles idling on the current A64 route due to the bottlenecks and traffic congestion at pinch points.
Background Documents:
Constitution of North Yorkshire Council – Part 4 – Rules of Procedure – 1. Council Procedure Rules – Section 11: Motions on Notice (f), (g), (h), and (i)
Barry Khan
Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services
County Hall
Northallerton
30 October 2025
Report Author: Will Baines, Senior Scrutiny Officer
Note: Members are invited to contact the author in advance of the meeting with any detailed queries or questions.