Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Samantha Perks, Naomi Guthrie, Martin Reynolds, and Councillors Robert Heseltine and David Jeffels. Councillor George Jabbour acted as substitute for Councillor Jeffels from agenda item 8.

The Chair informed Members that Naomi Guthrie had tendered her resignation from the LAF as of 31 January 2025, as she was moving out of the North Yorkshire Area.  It was highlighted that following the recruitment exercise in September 2024, the three unsuccessful applicants had requested to be placed on a reserve list, and that the interview paperwork and scores would be re-visited to allow the Council to appoint a new Member to the vacant seat on the Forum from the 1 February 2025.

Resolved

That the minutes of the meeting held on 25 September 2024 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

All Members are invited to declare at this point any interests they have in items appearing on this agenda, including the nature of those interests.

There were no declarations of interest.

Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice to Dawn Drury of Democratic and Services and supplied the text (contact details below) by midday on Friday 24 January 2025, 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.

No public questions had been received.

Purpose: To update LAF members on developments since the last meeting.

Considered –

The report of the secretary, which updated on developments since the last meeting.

Members heard that the future of the Selby Local Plan had been discussed at the Development Plan Committee and the Selby & Ainsty Area Committee, both of which took place on the 17 January 2025.  Members views had been sought on the recommendation to cease work on the preparation of the Selby Local Plan and, where possible, to use the evidence base and work undertaken to date to feed into the new local plan for North Yorkshire Council (NYC).  Members on both Committee’s had resolved to recommend to the Executive and Full Council that work on the emerging Selby Local Plan was ceased.

The Forum Members asked a number of questions in relation to the legacy districts Local Plans and whether it was the intention of NYC to have one Local Plan.  The secretary confirmed that the decision to stop work on all the other legacy area Local Plans had been made by Full Council in 2023, that only the Selby Local Plan remained from the legacy councils, and that going forward there would be just one new Local Plan for the whole of North Yorkshire.

Members noted that four formal responses had been sent out by the secretary on their behalf.  In terms of the response regarding a solar farm in Richmond, the Chair raised the Forums concern that, having read recent solar farm applications, it appeared that some of the applicants would like to use the public right of way (PROW) as the access to a number of the application sites.  Having researched other local authorities, many had a strategy or policy in place relating to solar farms and it was queried if this was the case for NYC, as the Forum felt that without one, it left PROW extremely vulnerable, and therefore the issue needed to be addressed without delay. 

Discussion took place regarding the length of time that the applicants could potentially close a PROW.  The Principal PROW Officer, Andy Brown, explained NYC were only able to close a PROW for a period of six months, however the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero had granted one applicant in the North Yorkshire area, Yorkshire Green, a development consent order which enabled the company to close a PROW for up to four years.  At present each application was being looked at on a case-by-case basis, and the Council had a very good working relationship with some of the applicants, and that the closures were not usually for a continuous period of four years.

The Head of the Countryside Access Service, Ian Kelly, provided an update on the cut-off date for the recording of historic public rights of way.  The original date set by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 had been 2026, however, this date had been repealed by the previous government and then subsequently reinstated by the current government with an extension to 2031, although no timescales  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

Purpose: An opportunity for LAF members to update the Forum on LAF representative project activity since the last meeting.

Considered –

The report of the Secretary giving LAF members the opportunity to update the Forum on Council liaison and other LAF representative project activity since the last meeting. 

It was highlighted that Naomie Guthrie had provided LAF liaison with the legacy Selby District Council planning team, and having received her resignation, this now left a vacancy for the role.  The Chair advised that he was the Forum member with responsibility for liaison with the legacy planning team at Craven District Council, but that he had no contact with them, and he mooted whether there was still a need for the legacy liaison roles as the area was now one whole as North Yorkshire Council, and that there was a conversation to be had on how the gap would be filled.

Rachel Connolly had provided an update on Sec 94(4) reports which could be seen at appendix 1 to the report.  Members queried if the process for legacy planning referrals had improved or if there had been any further meetings, Rachel confirmed that there was not a consistent approach to the communication system across the legacy planning areas at present.  The meeting which had taken place with the Head of Development Management had been very positive with some good ideas coming from the meeting, such as a tick list of questions to aid the planning team when a planning application was first received, and LAF attendance at regional planning team meetings, however nothing had been put in place at present.

Resolved

i)               That the additional information provided at the meeting be noted, alongside the written update provided in the report. 

ii)              That the secretary requested an update from the Planning department, directed around the “blueprint” report that the LAF had sent to the Assistant Director for Planning following LGR, to come to the next Forum meeting in May 2025.

iii)             That the secretary arrange a meeting with Planning officers for the Chair, Vice Chair and Rachel Connolly to discuss communication with the legacy planning departments, and also ways in which the Forum could assist with the preparation of the emerging Local Plan for North Yorkshire Council.

To consider, agree and adopt the revised Terms of Reference put forward by the LAF Terms of Reference Sub-Group.  (Document shown with the amendments requested at the September 2024 meeting highlighted for ease of reading).

Members considered the draft revised Terms of Reference (TOR) for the NYLAF.

The TOR had been before Members at the last Forum meeting in September 2024 when five additional amendments had been requested, these changes had been made and the amended document now formed part of the agenda pack for discussion, agreement and adoption.

Members identified that there remained two references to NYCC on the second page of Annex B of the TOR, and requested that these be amended to read NYC, and then the document be subject to one final proofread.

Resolved –

i)               That subject to the above amendments and final proofread, the NYLAF Terms of Reference, Version 2, be adopted.

ii)              That the Terms of Reference item be added to the 2025/26 NYLAF Forward Plan on 21 January 2026, for the annual review.

The Senior Officer, People, Landscapes, Access and Nature to attend, to provide a verbal update to Members.

Bruce Cutts, Senior Officer, People, Landscapes, Access and Nature attended on behalf of Natural England (NE) to provide an update on the ongoing work to upgrade the Coast to Coast Path National Trail.

Members noted that

• The first two years had been focused on the legal work required to gain statutory access to underpin the National Trail route, and to ensure that the Trail was secure in perpetuity for all users.
• Of the 66 major pieces of legal work on the Trail, 24 were complete, 36 were not complete but there was no risk to the continuity of the route and would be complete by the end of the project; and 6 required monitoring.  Two of these were situated in North Yorkshire at Wray House, East Harlsey and Northfields in Brompton.
• In the last 12 months a huge amount of work had been put into the erection of finger-post signage in the North York Moors National Park.
• Monitoring of the Coast to Coast Walk Facebook page had shown that users of the Trail had uploaded pictures of the new infrastructure and signage and were enjoying the tangible improvements in the quality of the route. 
• In the Lake District, flags had been laid on some of the high fells, it had taken three months to airlift and re-assemble the machine which carried out the work.
• NE had engaged with Leonard Cheshire on an accessibility audit and looked at how and what the opportunities were for increasing accessibility and removing barriers on the Coast to Coast.
• Work had focused on access to the north side of Ennerdale Water in the Lake District National Park, where accessible bridges without steps had been installed, along with improvements to surfaces and waymarking.
• Work was underway at the Nine Standards Rigg Route where six to eight miles of recycled mill flag stones have been airlifted and will be laid on the eroded bare peat at that section of the Coast to Coast.
• In terms of the A19, DEFRA had been working with an external engineering company to produce a technical appraisal report on a set of shortlisted options for safe solution to a crossing over the A19, however with the financial pressures on the Country at present and understanding the priorities for the new government, the A19 crossing had been put on hold. 
• NE had been working with the NYC PROW team to develop an interim route which provided a safe pedestrian crossing point of the A19, but this added another five miles to the user’s route.  National Trail funding would be utilised to maintain the interim route, and there would be signage erected at both sides of the A19 which stressed the importance and desirability of users crossing the A19 at this point for safety reasons.
• There had been some community engagement on the Trail in terms of the wider benefits for economic development of local businesses and are engaging with some of the local groups to help with the maintenance and monitoring of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

The Senior Specialist: Public Access, Recreation and Rights of Way to attend, to provide a verbal update to Members.

Andrew Mackintosh, Senior Specialist: Public Access, Recreation and Rights of Way at Natural England (NE) attended the meeting to provide a verbal update on the Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELM's).  He confirmed that

·       There had been an announcement in autumn 2024 following the Yorkshire Farming Conference that support would be available for agriculture in general. 

·       There were a number of options available within the Landscape Recovery component of ELM’S which included the reintroduction of permissive access.  More details had been published in December 2024 which detailed the payments that landowners and managers would receive through land use for permissive open access, bridleway and cycle route access, and access for users with reduced mobility.  Educational access would continue to run as a capital item.

·       The schemes where only for five year agreements, which would have implications on matters of access after this period.

·       All Landscape Recovery projects would have a public access improvement element to them, but there would be flexibility as to what those improvements would entail.

·       Each project would be required to demonstrate how they would engage with the local communities and met the public access needs of a particular area.

·       There had been two calls for bids to develop landscape recovery projects, and NE were currently assessing Site Access Plans for Round 1 project applications.  These applications had primary and secondary objectives, of which public access was a secondary objective, but it was a compulsory objective with each of the respective projects expected to detail how they intended to improve access within their project area. 

·       24 project applications had been received in Round 1, with a further 34 project applications for Round 2.

·       Some of the projects showed that there was much potential to make a range of access improvements via this scheme for the areas involved.

·       From the Round 1 applications the project local to the NYC area which had received funding was the Three Dales Project, and from Round 2 there were three projects local to the area: the Heart of the Dales, the Ure Dales, and finally, Linking Levisham.  

·       There was a requirement for each project to liaise with the local Highways Authority and the Local Access Forums.

·       Although on DEFRA’s agenda, as yet, it had not been agreed how the permissive access sites would be publicised.

A query was raised around the basic payment scheme, and what was intended to replace the scheme as it was being phased out.  The scheme had been accessible to the majority of landowners to help them manage their land and included incentives to aid in keeping PROW open for users.  The scheme had been beneficial to the Council in its day to day delivery of keeping PROW’s open and clear of obstruction and encouraged landowners allow access.  Mr Mackintosh stated that there was no replacement at the moment.

The Chair thanked Mr Mackintosh for attending the meeting and it was

Resolved

i)               That the update be noted.

ii)              That the Chair and Mark Cunliffe-Lister compose a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Item as requested by Members at the meeting in September 2024.  The RoW Improvement Plan briefing paper outlines the current position and thoughts on its future development.  Officers would welcome Members views on the topic and any strategic advice that may help to inform NYC’s approach going forward.

The Principal PROW Officer, Andy Brown, shared a presentation with Members which outlined the current position of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) and thoughts on its future development.

It was noted that the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 had introduced the requirement for Highway Authorities to produce a ROWIP which was to be reviewed on a 10-year basis. North Yorkshire Council’s current ROWIP was due for review in 2027, at which time the Council could determine to continue with the existing ROWIP or produce a new one.

Mr Brown explained that North Yorkshire County Council’s first ROWIP published in 2007 ran to 147 pages and took two full time members of staff 5 years to compile. It contained a significant amount of research into the existing PROW network and the challenges and opportunities associated with improving it.  Extensive public engagement was carried out which identified 1005 potential improvement projects.  At the time NYCC made significant funding available to maintain and improve the PROW network following the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak when closing the entire network brought into sharp focus the economic benefit it brought to rural areas.

In contrast the current North Yorkshire Council ROWIP, 2017 to 2027, which was contained within the North Yorkshire Local Transport Plan (LTP) 2016 to 2045 ran to just five pages, was generic and mainly focused on the Council’s core statutory function to maintain the PROW network.  It was confirmed that the ROWIP would remain within the LTP going forward.

Mr Brown informed Members that the Council held data collected from the public consultation in 2007 which had identified potential projects and the improvements each project would bring, along with the costs, and demand and feasibility, it also revealed common themes, however there was a need to streamline and analyse the data.  Members noted that there was no dedicated funding for this work, but the Countryside Access Service (CAS) worked in conjunction with Natural England and Coast to Coast partners to secure external funding which allowed the Council to deliver and enable the work to bring benefits to the PROW network.

In conclusion Mr Brown stated that officers would welcome Members views on the topic and any strategic advice that may help to inform NYC’s approach going forward, and should the LAF be minded to, consider the formation of a sub-group to look into the matter in more detail.

The Chair stated that he felt that the formation of a sub-group was an excellent opportunity for the LAF to contribute and that it fit the LAF remit perfectly.  Further discussion took place regarding the work which had been done in other areas of the Country, and it was agreed that the group would seek volunteers for a sub-group later in the meeting, when considering the NYLAF Forward Plan at agenda item 12.

Resolved – That the briefing paper be noted.

Members are asked to note the response to Natural England’s proposals to designate a new Yorkshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); and to consider any additional pressures within the Countryside Access Service resource that creation of the Wolds AONB may incur.

Stephen Clark presented the report which set out the Forums formal agreement, by correspondence, to a response to Natural England's proposals to designate a new Yorkshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

At the last meeting of the NYLAF in September 2024, Mr Kelly had drawn Members attention to a proposal for a new Natural England Yorkshire Wolds AONB which was due to go out to public consultation on the 8 October 2024.  The purpose of the consultation had been to seek views on whether the Yorkshire Wolds had the qualities required for designation as an AONB, whether they should be designated, and if so, where the boundary should be.  Mr Clark had volunteered to research and draft a response on the proposals on behalf of the Forum as the consultation ended on the 13 January 2025, prior to the next meeting of the Forum. 

A draft response was formulated by correspondence between forum members in November and December 2024, with the final response, which could be seen in the Appendix to the report, being agreed by email in December 2024.  In addition, following a conversation with the team leading the consultation, it had been agreed that a cover letter would be considered as a part of the LAF formal response, and Mr Clark had also added comments based on the cover letter to an online consultation portal.

The Chair thanked Mr Clark for the excellent work he had done in researching and formulating the formal consultation response on behalf of the NYLAF.

While drafting the response, Members had pointed out that the creation of new duties for NYC to support the new AONB had the potential to lead to resources being diverted from existing Council activities.  This had raised concerns around the possibility that the extra workload could lead to additional pressure on the Countryside Access Service (CAS); the point had also been made to DEFRA and Natural England as part of the Forum’s response.

A discussion took place regarding the positives and negatives of the area being awarded AONB status in terms of economic development and tourism, and although CAS would receive no additional financial support for the scheme through NYC, Mr Kelly remarked that there would hopefully be opportunities available to secure funding externally through DEFRA. 

Forum Members appreciated the difficulties, and queried how they could best help the CAS.  One suggestion was that a formal letter was sent to NYC to request that consideration be given to the resourcing of any new pressures on the CAS as part of the Council's budgeting process for 2026-2027, as the benefits associated with any new resources would support the tourism, economic and well-being agendas of NYC.  However, following further debate Members were of the opinion that as the point had been made as part of the response to DEFRA, and as there would be further public engagement on the proposals, that the matter be left in abeyance at the present time. 

Resolved – that the report be noted.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

To consider the proposals set out within the report and adopt a forward plan for future LAF meetings.

Stephen Clark presented the report and Appendix which set out proposals for what NYLAF might consider in its meeting agendas for the next two years.

As part of the discussion at the Forward Plan item during the NYLAF meeting in September 2024, a sub-group had been formed.  The group consisting of Roma Haigh, John Toogood and Stephen had met several times since that meeting and had developed the report, which had also benefitted from constructive input from Ian Kelly.  Mr Clark explained the approach the sub-group had taken; with limited resources the group had set the goal of wanting to make a difference by focussing on strategic items.

The proposals for future content were set out on pages 44 to 47 of the agenda pack and included the purpose of the item, the possible outcomes and timing and priority.  It was felt that if progress was to be made then it was essential that there was good quality engagement between the Forum and those officers responsible within North Yorkshire Council for areas to include tourism, leisure, planning, environment, transport and highways.

Members discussed how best to start a dialogue with the Council, external stakeholders and landowners, and the problems that they had encountered to date.  Councillor Jabbour highlighted that the Council wanted to drive change and improve services for the local communities, but it was sometimes confronted with a lack of resources.  To effect positive change there was a need to attend meetings, make a case and prepare a report, but the subject had to be comprehensive, well researched and be simple to implement, and if the subject could be seen to bring about more footfall, more PROW and better access within North Yorkshire then it was beneficial to the Council.

Mr Brown stated that the Forum had a lot of experience to offer, and as a rural Council the environment, health and rural travel were all high priorities on their agenda, however funding would not be diverted from the core statutory functions such as schools and social care, therefore it was important that the correct services were targeted, for example, Highways had a dedicated highways improvement budget and officers.  It was suggested that the Forum may wish to invite officers at a higher level to attend future meetings to showcase how the Forum could help and complement their service.

Mr Kelly reminded Members that the statutory duty for producing a Local Transport Plan (LTP) now sat with the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority.  Guidance from central government on the development of LTPs was expected and once received the Highways service would be working with colleagues from the Combined Authority to produce a document that meets the needs of the people who live in, work in and visit North Yorkshire.

Members were assured that the Highways service did want to work with the LAF and as part of the development of the LTP there would be engagement and then at a later date, formal consultation with the LAF.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

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

There were no other items.