Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all those present to the meeting.

Tribute was paid to former Councillor John Duggan, who had recently passed away. In his memory, the meeting observed a one-minute silence.

Apologies were received from Councillors Mark Crane, Melanie Davis, Tim Grogan and Jack Proud.

Resolved

a)     That the minutes of the meetings held on 26 June 2025 are confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Councillor Stephanie Duckett declared an interest as Vice-Chair of the Appeals (Home to School Transport) Committee and noted that she had participated in the hearing of the public speaker. She stated that she would leave the room should any discussion on the Home to School Transport Policy arise during the meeting.

Councillor Andy Paraskos declared an interest as a substitute member of the Appeals (Home to School Transport) Committee.

Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice and provided the text to Democratic Services (democraticservices.central@northyorks.gov.uk ) no later than midday on 15 September 2025, three working days before the date of the meeting. Each speaker should limit themselves to 3 minutes on any item. 

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

One public statement was received before the deadline of midday on Monday, 15 September 2025.

Dr Ruth Jones made the following statement.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee members.

My name is Ruth Jones (Dr Ruth Walker). I am a GP in Selby, a mother, and the GP lead for health inequalities in this area. I work with council colleagues and schools on projects to improve children’s health, wellbeing, and attendance, and I sit in Local Care Partnerships where poor rural transport — and its impact on health — comes up constantly.

So, there is more than a little irony that I am here today, fighting the consequences of this Council’s own transport policy. We talk about prevention, tackling disadvantage, and the importance of school attendance — yet this policy is undermining those goals. Getting children safely and happily to school is prevention. Blocking it widens inequalities for already underserved rural communities — just as the Council’s own equality impact statement warned it would.

Let me share with you an example of how absurd things have become:

At Tadcaster Grammar there is a pedestrian gate, in daily use for 5 years. Yet the Council’s mapping system missed it off. For many that incorrectly makes Milthorpe School in York marginally closer - as few as 6 meters but enough for the computer to say no. Officers admit the error and promised it would be corrected when the system was next updated. Meanwhile children this year still been incorrectly denied transport.

To make matters worse, we discovered yesterday that the system was updated just last week and yet the missing gate is still missing. That means another year of children living in villages in and around Appleton Roebuck for example, are about to be wrongfully denied transport.

And this is not an isolated case of injustice. Mistakes in communication, double counting of available school places in neighbouring councils, and inaccurate route calculations are common.

Families are dragged through appeals that are slow, stacked against them, and now even restrict councillors like Cllr Warneken and Cllr Lee — who have stepped up in support— from fully representing parents in their hearings. This action undermines the principles of natural justice under which all appeals should run, and quite honestly it reeks of a council that are desperate to win at all costs.

So, I came here today to say two things. First, thank you to those councillors who have stood shoulder to shoulder with parents — we are grateful.

Second, to those who have stayed silent: please speak up. Don’t sit on your hands hoping this will blow over. It won’t. We need you to do your bit. Stand up for North Yorkshire’s children. Do your job, so parents like me can get back to doing ours.

The Tadcaster Grammar Gate injustice seems like a perfect place to start. And so, the question that I would like an answer to today — is this: 

Will this committee urgently write to the Executive Member and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 157.

The Chair introduced the item and Members made the following comments regarding the work programme.

It was queried whether Area Committee meetings could be held virtually in instances where no formal decisions are being made. Other Members highlighted the importance of holding meetings in public.

Members repeated their interest in receiving an update on housing and requested that officers attend a meeting in person.

A discussion on the Home to School Transport Policy took place and the following points were raised.

·        The financial savings of the policy were highlighted.

·        It was suggested that the gate at Tadcaster Grammar School, which had not been included in the Council’s system, is used often.

·        It was noted that while one may support the Home to School Transport Policy at a strategic level, it is also important to acknowledge that the policy may raise issues in certain situations and therefore could require amendments. Members suggested that such amendments should be made promptly and proactively when issues are identified.

·        That where issues arise, appeals should be looked at on an individual basis.

·        It was suggested that the appeals process may require a review, particularly in relation to how exceptional circumstances are defined and applied. This concern was raised in the context of the gate at Tadcaster Grammar School, with some members expressing surprise that the situation had not been considered an exceptional circumstance.

·        It was acknowledged that the Area Committee does not have the authority to review or amend the Home to School Transport Policy directly. However, when issues are identified, they can be raised either by individual Members or collectively by the Committee and fed back to the relevant officers or decision-making bodies.

It was proposed and seconded that officers be invited to attend the November meeting to discuss specific issues related to the Home to School Transport Policy. This would help the Committee to gain a clearer understanding of how the policy is implemented in practice and its impact on individuals. The issues raised by Members are laid out below.

·        Clarification on whether North Yorkshire Council has acknowledged an error regarding the gate at Tadcaster Grammar School not being included in the Council’s system. If an error has been acknowledged, whether any cases potentially affected will be reviewed.

·        An outline of the remit of the appeals committee, particularly the circumstances under which an appeal may be upheld.

·        An explanation of how the process for appeals is reviewed and updated. In addition, consideration of whether the local Member can have greater involvement in appeals cases.

·        Information on the post-implementation review.

·        Information on the feedback received from parents regarding the Home to School Transport Policy.

The proposal was put to a vote and carried unanimously. Councillors Stephanie Duckett and Andy Paraskos had declared an interest and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 158.

The Chair introduced the item and confirmed that a written update had been received from Sir Alec Shelbrooke MP. Keir Mather MP joined the meeting remotely to provide a verbal update which covered the below topics.

·        Keir informed Members that an update on road safety would be provided at the extraordinary meeting scheduled for 24 October 2025.

·        Regarding SEND provision, it was reported that the contract for the SEND school in Osgodby has been awarded and that work will begin on site soon. The school is expected to open in Easter 2027. Keir also highlighted that he was aware of the purchase of the Holy Family school and is looking to meet the purchasers to discuss their plans.

·        Regarding public transport, Keir highlighted that, following discussions with Arriva, the Leeds Road bus service is being reinstated, with 4 buses per day. Continued work will be undertaken for areas identified by councillors as lacking adequate transport provision.

·        Regarding mobile phone signal, Keir reported that Vodafone have made improvements and that Virgin media and O2 have put a plan in place for improvements. It was reported that a new mast is proposed to be put in place near the canal in Selby. Residents have been encouraged by Keir’s office to report any noticeable improvements.

Members raised the following queries regarding the verbal updates.

·        A question was raised about how motorcycles are considered within the new transport policy, particularly in relation to the Motorcycle Action Group. Keir clarified that this does not fall within his current role, but he would be willing to take forward any specific concerns in his capacity as MP.

·        A question was asked about whether the Leeds Road bus route includes Thorpe Willoughby, and if route details could be shared by email. Keir confirmed that the service would run to Fox Lane in Thorpe Willoughby and agreed to circulate the full route information to councillors.

No queries arose out of the written update.

Resolved

a)     That the updates be noted.

To update and consult the Selby and Ainsty Area Committee on the Inspector’s Report on the Examination of the New Settlement (Maltkiln) Development Plan Document (DPD) and the recommendation for adoption of the DPD.

Kate Exley, Planning Policy & Place Officer, provided a presentation which summarised the report. The following additional points were made.

·        Consideration has been given to how the Maltkiln development would integrate with the surrounding villages.

·        One of the Inspector’s Main Modifications was to revise the policy boundary. The new boundary would facilitate an alternative vehicular access, which would ensure that delivery of the earlier phases of development would not be dependent on further negotiations and/or CPO. The revised boundary would also facilitate the relocation of an existing plant nursery business (Johnsons of Whixley).

·        It was confirmed that the second recommendation in the report serves as a contingency, allowing for minor amendments if required.

Following the presentation, Natasha Durham, Delivery and Infrastructure Manager, briefly discussed a letter which had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting.

The letter from Veritas Planning Ltd, on behalf of a landowner within the proposed settlement boundary, stated that a portion of the land remains unavailable, as was the case during the Examination in Public. It noted that the Inspector’s report does not assess the sustainability of the settlement if compulsory purchase fails. The letter argued that the Council has not shown it can deliver a CPO that meets the necessary legal and policy tests, and suggested that failure would render a significant part of the settlement undeliverable, undermining its overall sustainability. It also recommended that the sustainability appraisal should consider the implications if the land were to remain unavailable.

It was reported that officers have reviewed the letter and do not consider any of the arguments to have merit. On the deliverability of Maltkiln and the potential use of a CPO, officers reported that the Council has received legal advice indicating a compelling case could be made if required. It was highlighted that the Inspector has concluded that the land in question is a valid part of the allocation, and its inclusion remains justified. Officers highlighted that concerns about the sustainability appraisal (including whether it should have considered an option excluding the land) were addressed during the examination and in the Inspector’s report. It was confirmed that the Council is confident the appraisal process was sound, and the independent Inspector has agreed. Officers concluded by saying that there is no evidence of unfairness, and that nothing in the letter alters the report’s recommendations.

A discussion followed and the below points were raised.

·        It was confirmed that the proposed settlement spans land owned by multiple parties, and that Veritas Planning Ltd’s client appears to be acting as a representative for the wider group of landowners.

·        Concerns were raised that the Council had not sufficiently assessed the impact of a failed CPO. Officers responded that the land was deemed necessary, and therefore on 12 December 2023, the Executive agreed in principle to pursue a CPO, based on legal advice indicating a compelling case. It was confirmed that the DPD considers the settlement as a whole and does not explore scenarios where a CPO might fail.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 160.

No officer could attend and so David Smith, Senior Democratic Services Officer, read a statement out on their behalf. The statement read as follows.

Members should note that an informal, fact-finding exercise was carried out in January this year by a member of the Tenant Involvement Team. This involved direct engagement with the various management committees and has helped to inform our approach to date.

Looking ahead, we intend to undertake a more detailed review of current usage as part of the individual options appraisal for each building. The findings from this review will be shared with members in due course.

Members will also be aware from the contents of the report that these buildings are funded entirely by the Housing Revenue Account. Therefore, any savings that may arise from this exercise will be recycled within that budget and directed towards the priorities identified in the Housing Improvement Plan, ensuring our homes continue to be maintained to a high standard.

Members raised the following points in the discussion.

·        Members expressed frustration that the relevant officer was unable to attend and requested that they be invited to a future meeting.

·        Concerns were raised that the Area Committee had not been consulted prior to the decision to delegate authority to assess alternative options for each centre, aimed at reducing the financial burden on the Housing Revenue Account.

·        Members felt that local councillors, parish councils, and residents had not been adequately informed or involved in efforts to improve centre usage.

·        It was noted that the centres are underused, and informal usage may not be fully captured, meaning officers may be unaware of the true level of community activity.

·        Members highlighted the value of the centres as spaces for councillors and officers working locally – for example, as places to meet residents.

·        Questions were raised about the report’s reference to discussions with management committees, including how many meetings took place, when they occurred, and whether local members were informed.

·        Concerns were expressed about the effectiveness of management committees, the condition of the buildings, and the lack of promotion. A suggestion was made to explore the creation of a community interest company, endorsed by NYC, to assess and improve the viability of the centres.

·        Members asked who would ultimately decide the future of the centres. It was noted that no formal decision has yet been made, and local members still have an opportunity to influence the outcome.

·        Questions were raised about the future use of the buildings if the centres were to close, and members hoped that communities would be actively involved in shaping any decisions.

It was proposed and seconded to recommend that no decision regarding the future of the centres be made until an officer has attended a meeting of the Area Committee and there has been meaningful consultation with the local Members, Parish Councils and communities. A vote took place and this was caried unanimously.

Resolved

a)     That the Area Committee recommend that no decision regarding the future of the centres be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 161.

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

There were none.

Friday, 24 October 2025 at 2.00pm in Selby Civic Centre.

Friday, 24 October 2025 at 2.00pm in Selby Civic Centre.