Agenda and draft minutes

Councillor Goodrick proposed and Councillor Taylor seconded that Councillor Nigel Knapton be elected Chair of Thirsk and Malton Area Committee.

Councillor Donohue-Moncrieff proposed and Councillor Mason seconded that Councillor Sam Cross be elected Chair of Thirsk and Malton Area Committee.

Upon being put to the vote 5 members voted for Councillor Nigel Knapton and 6 members voted for Councillor Sam Cross.

Decision

That Councillor Sam Cross be appointed as Chair of Thirsk and Malton Area Committee until the first meeting of the Committee following the Council’s Annual General Meeting in 2027.

Councillor Sam Cross took the Chair.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Alyson Baker, Gareth Dadd and Greg White.

Councillor Lindsay Burr explained that she was unable to attend the last meeting of the Committee held on 27 March 2026, due to an urgent request to attend a meeting of the Combined Authority held on the same day.

Councillor Keane Duncan joined the meeting 10:05am.

Councillor Sanderson proposed and Councillor Taylor seconded that Councillor Caroline Goodrick be elected Vice Chair of Thirsk and Malton Area Committee.

Councillor Sladden proposed and Councillor Burr seconded that Councillor Michelle Donohue-Moncrieff be elected Vice Chair of Thirsk and Malton Area Committee.

Upon being put to the vote 6 members (plus the Chair’s casting vote) voted for Councillor Donohue-Moncrieff and 6 members voted for Councillor Caroline Goodrick.

Decision

That Councillor Michelle Donohue-Moncrieff be appointed as Vice Chair of Thirsk and Malton Area Committee until the first meeting of the Committee following the Council’s Annual General Meeting in 2027

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

Resolved

That the minutes of the previous meeting of the Thirsk and Malton Area Constituency Committee held on 27 March 2026 be confirmed and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

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.

For the purposes of transparency Councillor Cross declared an interest in the discussion regarding the update from Kevin Hollinrake MP, as his daughter is a nurse at Scarborough General Hospital.

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 Officer (details below) no later than midday on 9 June 2026, three working days before the day of the meeting. Each speaker should limit themselves to three 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.

From Will Oxley

The devolution deal with the removal of the District Councils, the election of a regional Mayor and a combined authority for York and North Yorkshire was supposed to have many advantages. More money to the region and controlled in York / North Yorkshire rather than London, York and North Yorkshire working more closely together, a reduction of costs to run the new NYC compared to NYCC and seven District Councils and the pushing down of responsibilities and decisions to Town and Parish Councils to maximise local involvement and control.

All this to benefit the residents and empower progress and development in key areas to achieve a better future for the region.

But has it worked and delivered the planned benefits?

Well, we have a Mayor, and other associated roles, with a Combined Authority and the District Councils have gone. However, has this just been a deckchairs on the Titanic exercise with staff? Have real savings and efficiencies been realised? Are the residents better served with the new arrangements?

Is there differential impact in York versus North Yorkshire?

Lots of headlines tell us there is more funding coming in through the Mayor’s office, but I guess this was a given as it was the key selling point of the deal. Are people content with how it is being invested?

Decisions about spend are made here, within guidelines, which must be good, mustn’t it? But there seems to be little happening in terms of the roll out of powers and responsibilities to Town and Parish Councils, or is it a lack of appetite from them?

Yes, it is complex and still evolving but was it the right decision? Should we have left well alone? Is there public support?

I was an advocate but am unconvinced after two years what about you?

Response from the Chair

The matters of measuring the effectiveness of the move to a unitary authority and the introduction of a regional mayor and combined authority is not a task for this area committee such as ours, but that of the NYC Corporate and Partnerships Scrutiny Committee.

I will pass on your question to the Clerk and Chair of that committee and will ask them to let you know when such issues may be debated. I will also pass on your question to Councillor Heather Phillips, in whose portfolio this scrutiny lies.

As regards to individual Councillors’ opinions on the progress of these matters, all members of the committee have had a written copy of your question, so do feel free to email any one of us if you wish to have our personal observations.

Kevin Hollinrake, MP for Thirsk and Malton and Sir Alec Shelbrooke, MP for Wetherby and Easingwold.

The Committee received a written update from Kevin Hollinrake MP.

Concerns were raised regarding references by the MP to funding for the Filey Bus and “surrounding areas”. Members reported unsuccessful attempts to engage with the Combined Authority following recent correspondence issued by the MP’s office. It was noted that there has been a lack of direct communication between the MP and relevant local councillors and parish councils, particularly in relation to locality budgets and proposed projects.

Councillor Caroline Goodrick advised that she and Councillor Lindsay Burr had recently attended a meeting of York and Scarborough Hospital Trust and learnt of the possibility of significant funding cuts over the next two years.

Councillor Goodrick advised that she had written to Kevin Hollinrake MP and asked him to look into this as she was deeply concerned that residents will not get the services they need.

Councillor Burr raised her concern over what she viewed as disproportionate funding in North Yorkshire compared to areas such as Teesside. Whilst it was acknowledged that there may be areas of deprivation in the Northeast, there are also areas of deprivation in North Yorkshire, with an ageing population, increasing demand on not only the National Health Service but also on adult social care.

Councillor Burr proposed that the Area Committee invites Kevin Hollinrake MP and Mayor of York and North Yorkshire to attend the committee todiscuss Members’ concerns and to lobby for the protection of local hospital services, including Malton Hospital.

Resolved

That the Mayor of Mayor of York & North Yorkshire and Kevin Hollinrake MP be invited to a future meeting of the Committee to discuss Councillors concerns over significant funding cuts to York and Scarborough Hospital Trust.

The Committee considered the following petition submitted by Philip Hall and contained over 500 signatures of people who live, work or study in the county.

Petition signatories respectfully request that North Yorkshire Council:

1.          Provide a clear update on the current position.

2.          Publish a realistic timetable for any remaining investigations and remedial works.

3.          Explain the next steps required to achieve a permanent solution.

4.          Ensure that affected residents and businesses receive regular and meaningful updates.

5.          Give urgent consideration to the concerns expressed by the community through this petition.

6.          Provide transparency regarding the cost of the temporary traffic management arrangements to date and any anticipated future costs should the matter remain unresolved.

7.          Confirm how North Yorkshire Council intends to support affected businesses and residents whilst the issue remains ongoing.

8.          Commit to ongoing engagement with affected stakeholders, including residents, businesses and petition representatives, until a permanent solution has been implemented.

Petition signatories are seeking clarity, transparency and a defined route to resolution rather than simply an acknowledgement that the issue remains under investigation.

Mr Hall presented the petition to the committee and drew Members attention to the prolonged disruption on Birdgate, Pickering, which had lasted since October 2025. While recent temporary works by North Yorkshire Council to remove barriers and traffic controls were welcomed, they did not resolve the core issue – the ongoing uncertainty about future works.

Mr Hall advised that the report referred to a proposal that was said to have been rejected by the owners of the Black Swan, which he did not consider to fully reflect the position at the time. However, the petition was not about the Black Swan’s internal matters or assigning blame but about the wider impact on residents, businesses and visitors.

Key concerns included the lack of clear communication, timelines and transparency regarding when further works would occur, how long they would last and how disruption would be managed.

The uncertainty was particularly damaging in a seasonal tourist town, affecting business income and planning for major events. Petitioners were seeking clarity, a defined plan, and confidence that disruption would be minimised and properly communicated.

In short, although the visible disruption had been reduced, the community’s main concern - uncertainty about what happens next - remained unresolved.

The Area Highways Manager gave assurances that the Council was continuing to work towards a permanent solution. The local Member, Town Council and other interested parties would be regularly updated on the next steps, ensuring the least impact on planned events in Pickering.

The Chair advised that due to the fact that there were ongoing legal proceedings, the Committee would be unable to debate the matter.

Resolved

a.     That a regular update is provided to this Committee.

b.     That a regular update be provided to Mr Hall, even if there is nothing of any significance to report.

The Community Safety and CCTV Manager provided an update on the work of the community safety and CCTV teams. Key information included:

Work was underway to standardise approaches and align Community Safety Hubs across the county, as former district councils previously operated different models. This included closer partnership with North Yorkshire Police. A new model would attach Police Constables (PCs) to hubs in a more consistent way. There were currently some vacancies in the Scarborough/Ryedale area, but it was expected that most would soon be filled. A Joint Delivery Group had been established to improve coordination, share best practice and expand multi-agency collaboration.

Multi-agency problem-solving meetings, especially for children and young people, had been updated and aligned countywide to support prevention and early intervention. A new ASB framework and policy had been developed, setting out a structured approach from early intervention through to enforcement. Staff had been trained to use relevant legal powers consistently. Current monitoring arrangements varied by area and any future changes would depend on the outcome of that review. The work aimed to create a more consistent, collaborative and effective community safety approach across the county.

An independent, countywide review of CCTV was due to take place, examining current coverage, funding arrangements and future need. Officers advised that the review would consider differing legacy arrangements across former district areas, the role of town and parish council contributions and the overall requirement for CCTV based on evidence of need, although it was not yet possible to confirm whether this would result in additional cameras.

Members expressed strong support for CCTV as a means of improving community safety and tackling antisocial behaviour, while also recognising the significant ongoing costs associated with installation, maintenance and monitoring, the majority of which are currently borne by the council. It was acknowledged that CCTV must be deployed proportionately as part of a wider problem‑solving approach rather than as a standalone solution.

Concerns were raised regarding the effectiveness of existing cameras in addressing specific incidents, including repeated vandalism, highlighting the challenges associated with reviewing large volumes of footage, limited staffing in control rooms, and the absence of precise timeframes for incidents. Officers advised that these factors could limit the ability to identify perpetrators and indicated that more targeted camera placement or additional measures may be required in some cases.

Discussion also noted inconsistencies in data ownership and reporting, particularly where CCTV systems are operated by external partnerships, and the importance of accessing performance information to justify expenditure. Members raised concerns about the sustainability of current funding arrangements and queried whether additional financial contributions could be secured from policing partners, with officers confirming that this would form part of the wider review.

The Committee recognised that while CCTV could support enforcement and provide reassurance, it did not in itself prevent crime, and that effective use relied on appropriate resourcing, clear operational processes and integration with wider community safety measures.

Inspector Martin Dennison and Superintendent Rachel Wood of North Yorkshire Police presented a summary of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Members received an update on the development of Town Investment Plans (TIPs) across the Committee area, noting that the programme covers seven towns across different service tiers, with principal service centres led by the Regeneration team and other centres led by the Localities and Communities team.

Extensive stakeholder engagement had taken place in Malton and Norton, leading to the agreement of a shared vision and objectives. A long list of approximately 100 projects had been refined through a structured appraisal process to around 40, with further prioritisation ongoing to produce a deliverable programme within a five-year timeframe. Members noted that the emerging project list included both council-led and externally led schemes, subject to funding and identification of delivery partners. It was acknowledged that a number of significant infrastructure issues, including flooding, transport, and air quality fell outside the five-year delivery window and would instead be identified as longer-term strategic priorities within the plan.

The Thirsk plan was progressing, supported by strong public and stakeholder engagement, including a survey with significant response levels. A draft vision and objectives were in development, with a number of emerging priorities focusing on strengthening the market town identity, revitalising the town centre economy and improving transport, cultural provision and digital infrastructure. Further work was underway to refine and prioritise projects, with consultation and plan finalisation scheduled over the coming months.

In Filey, engagement activity has been extensive and positively received, including surveys, stakeholder sessions and targeted work with local schools, generating detailed and practical feedback on youth provision, housing, environment and heritage. This evidence, alongside existing studies and audits, would inform project development. In Pickering, the plan was progressing through the vision and project identification stage, supported by a high level of community engagement, including surveys and public drop-in sessions.

Early-stage work was noted for Easingwold, where initial engagement activity is being rescheduled and existing evidence, including tourism data and previous community work, would inform the plan. Emerging plans for Helmsley and Kirkbymoorside were also noted, with Helmsley having commenced initial stakeholder engagement and Kirkbymoorside scheduled to begin at a later date.

Members noted the progress of the development of Town Investment Plans across all locations, with varying stages of maturity and that further consultation, refinement and formal adoption of the plans would take place over the coming months

Members raised a number of questions in relation to the Town Investment Plans. Clarification was sought on whether additional projects could still be incorporated into the Malton and Norton plan, and it was confirmed that it was not too late to submit a proposal, subject to prompt provision of full details and without reopening the wider project identification process.

Discussion also focused on the importance of project sustainability, particularly in relation to long-term viability and the need to avoid schemes requiring ongoing revenue support without secure funding. It was confirmed that legacy and deliverability considerations, including longer-term sustainability, formed part of the project assessment criteria, with the current shortlist largely favouring capital schemes with enduring benefits.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The updates were noted.

Members considered the Committee’s current work programme.

Following discussion Members requested information on the following topics:

1.     A six monthly update on Town Investment Plans (schedule for the December meeting).

2.     Concern was raised about how paid bus passes are allocated (currently understood as first-come, first-served). It was agreed to seek clarification from officers and refer the issue to the Children and Families Overview & Scrutiny Committee, noting that a wider review of school transport was already underway.

3.     Request to invite representatives (York & Scarborough Hospital Trust, Mayor, MP) to a future meeting to obtain further information on proposed service cuts.

4.     It was noted that the Cauwood Day Centre petition has exceeded 1,000 signatures and would be presented to a future meeting of the committee. The committee agreed that the Area Committee should consider the issue before any Executive decision is made, to ensure a fair and proper process.

Resolved

That the report be noted.

As requested by Members.

Members were advised to contact the Senior Democratic Services Officer if they required a more detailed report to the committee on any of the information items provided.

Resolved

That the reports be noted.

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

There were no items of urgent business.

Friday, 25 September 2026 at 10am.

The date of the next meeting was confirmed as Friday 29 September 2026 at 10:00am.