Update provided by Rachel Connelly on Sec 94(4) reports.

District Planning

Not a lot has moved forward. The tick list we hoped would be helpful for planning officers has not materialised, nor has the expected liaison with the policy makers.  The LAF needs to have a clearer understanding on how NYC 'open spaces' team evaluate public open space, so that we can be stronger together. Planning areas still have a consistency issue in how they advertise their applications and the information they put on the portal. There is a continuing tension between density of provision, car parking and open spaces.

The A66 dualling upgrade.   

I attended a meeting with Andy Brown and Helen Watson (major projects manager) to discuss the connections in the East Layton area where there will be an equestrian route incorporated into the existing local access road.  There are constraints in the scheme, but it is hoped that it might be used by the local riders as well as cyclists previously unable to connect across this busy trunk road.  In the absence of anyone in North Yorkshire Council with the knowledge or role of safety for riders and cyclists, it was hoped that my local knowledge and experience was constructive.

Submitted for Members consideration. (Deferred from the September 2025 meeting)

Planning consultation has been very patchy but, but lists are coming through more often.  However, it is apparent that too many developments fail the guidance within the National Planning Framework for public open space and ignore North Yorkshire Council (NYC) standards for parking which impacts on the safe usage of estate roads for cyclists, walkers and wheelchairs.  In previous discussion with planning manager’s, it was suggested that all planning offices should use an access tick list in order to achieve Best Practice, but this hasn't been implemented.  It seems time has come for the Forum to be proactive (as our remit requires) taking the initiative by providing this simple tick list.  Do members agree?

North Yorkshire Council public rights of way (PROW) has traditionally provided a proforma response to public paths affected by development, focusing on the disruption of the route and its availability to the public.   However, one of the duties of NYC as highway authority is to 'assert and protect the use and enjoyment' (HA 1980 sec 130) of public rights of way, and it is a fact that the pleasure of using public paths is a massive factor, an aspect to be robustly defended, not overlooked or downplayed.  This has particular relevance in responding to large developments, such as solar farms, where a right of way runs directly through the site and much of the amenity value is lost to the public. Do we agree that as an advisory body, could the forum write to NYC PROW and ask they give weight to this aspect of their duty when responding to these applications.?  That NYC has declined to provide an interim policy on energy development has created considerable inconsistencies and difficulties for the various planning bodies dealing with these applications.

Rachel