Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence have been received from Councillor David Jeffels, Samantha Perks, Belinda Ryan and Rachel Connolly.

There were no declarations of interest.

Resolved

That the minutes of the meeting held on 24 September 2025 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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.

Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice to Dawn Drury of Democratic Services and supplied the text (contact details below) by midday on Friday 16 January, three working days before the day of the meeting.  Each speaker should limit themselves to 3 minutes on any item.  Members of the public who have given notice will be invited to speak:-

·         at this point in the meeting if their questions/statements relate to matters which are not otherwise on the Agenda (subject to an overall time limit of 30 minutes);

·         when the relevant Agenda item is being considered if they wish to speak on a matter which is on the Agenda for this meeting.

If you are exercising your right to speak at this meeting, but do not wish to be recorded, please inform the Chairman who will instruct anyone who may be taking a recording to cease while you speak.

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,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

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.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

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.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

Any other items which the Chair agrees should be considered as a matter of urgency because of special circumstances

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.