Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice and provided the text to Barry Khan, Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services – email: barry.khan@northyorks.gov.uk or in writing to Barry Khan, Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services, County Hall, Northallerton DL7 8AD by midday on Friday, 10 November 2023. 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 Chairman who will instruct anyone who may be taking a recording to cease while you speak.
Minutes:
There were five public questions, as follows:
1. The following public question was read out by Hazel Peacock, Oatlands and Pannal Ash Road Safety and Active Travel Campaign:
Will Cllr Keane Duncan and North Yorkshire Council, as the Traffic Authority for North Yorkshire County, make an amendment to the 20mph policy (of January 2022) to reflect the National Guidance as outlined by the Department for Transport (DfT) in “Setting local speed limits” 01/2013?
This DfT guidance states:
‘’Traffic authorities can, over time, introduce 20mph speed limits or zones on major streets where there are - or could be - significant numbers of journeys on foot where pedal cycle movements are an important consideration, and this outweighs the disadvantage of longer journey times on the motorist”.
This is in addition to residential streets, in cities, towns and villages, particularly where the streets are being used by people on foot and on bicycles, there is community support and the characteristics of the street are suitable.”
Making this amendment to the North Yorkshire Council (NYC) 20mph speed limit and zone policy would enable the approval and implementation of applications for 20mph speed limits on major streets in North Yorkshire, where they meet the DfT criteria.
The DfT guidance has enabled the implementation of 20mph on major streets in villages, towns and cities across England by other Traffic Authorities, bringing considerable improvements to safety and quality of life for their communities. It is therefore possible across North Yorkshire too.
The safety of schoolchildren and other members of the community should far outweigh the disadvantage of the perceived risk of longer journey times for motorists. It should be noted here that a comprehensive study carried out by University of West England in Bristol showed journey times in 20mph urban areas to be only 10 seconds per mile slower than in 30mph areas.
Bringing the NYC policy in line with others would enable officers to deliver 20mph on major roads in priority locations such as around schools and in other high footfall areas, particularly those with vulnerable groups.
We ask for this urgent amendment, so road safety improvements can be delivered to help save lives, reduce accidents and help modal shift towards active travel, creating a better quality of life for residents and communities across the county and delivering associated benefits to the Environment, Climate Change and Public Health.
Councillor Keane Duncan, Executive Member for Highways and Transportation, advised that it would be worthwhile to address both public question 1 and public question 3 together following the question from Mr Conlan given there was an overlap in topics.
Councillor Arnold Warneken moved that the question be referred to the Transport, Economy, Environment and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee and this was seconded.
Councillor Duncan stated that the headline point he wanted to make and further points he would make in response to Mr Conlan was that the Council’s current 20 mile per hour speed limit and zone policy did in fact already allow for implementation of 20 miles per hour on major streets as defined in the DFT guidance, therefore no amendment to that policy was required.
Hazel Peacock then asked a supplementary question, and Councillor Duncan responded.
On a vote being taken on the motion moved by Councillor Warneken 39 Members voted for the motion, 48 voted against and there were no abstentions. The motion therefore fell.
2. The following public question was read out by Steve Hill, Middleton Tyas resident:
Section 4 of the EGS deals with Infrastructure; and Priority 2 seeks to deliver sites for Growth. In Paragraph 4.19 the strategy refers to nationally significant development sites along the A1. These, we are told, include Junction 52 at Catterick and Junction 53, Scotch Corner.
We all know that Scotch Corner:
For the EGS to add to this mix a designation of ‘development site’ is irresponsible.
The EGS designation takes no account of Scotch Corner’s infrastructure constraints and overrides the current Richmondshire local plan.
The current Local plan does NOT designate Scotch Corner for general development. Scotch Corner is in open countryside, and its sites are greenfield. It is also the northern gateway to the Dales. To include this site in the EGS undermines the Local Plan and the normally transparent planning process by which planning applications are assessed.
It cannot be right that the EGS, actively seeks to override all our adopted local plans and influence the planning process in this way — however unintended.
So I request that all references to Scotch Corner be deleted from the EGS.
If unallocated sites such as Scotch Corner are not deleted from the EGS then it should be subject to a full and open consultation with all Town and Parish councils, the public and interest groups, including the Climate Coalition. Many of the development sites identified are remote from settlements and are badly served by public transport. The EGS is a rnassive traffic and CO2 generator.
For these reasons, please delete Scotch Corner from the EGS, or be straight with the people of North Yorkshire and ask us what we want and where we want it. Do not impose these development sites upon us.
The legitimacy of the EGS is at stake. So is the authority of all our local plans.
Councillor Derek Bastiman, Executive Member for Open to Business, provided the following response:
Thank you Mr Hill for that question. I would like to reassure you that is firmly the role of the development plan, currently the Richmondshire local plan, along with the relevant National Planning Policy to guide the location and quality of new developments at Junction 52 and Junction 53 of the A1M. The economic growth strategy does not form part of the local plan or replace it in any way. As you may be aware the Council has started the preparation of a new local plan for North Yorkshire which, once adopted, will replace the current Richmondshire local plan. This will be an opportunity to look afresh at local planning issues and evidence-base and to set out new sustainable growth strategy, policies and allocations across the county to address the needs of our communities and businesses over the next 15 plus years. There will be many opportunities for you and other key groups to shape the content of the plan as it evolves through rigorous stages of public consultation and independent examination and I would encourage you to do so.
The purpose of the economic growth strategy is to ensure that the new Council has a clear overview and understanding of its economic strength, challenges and opportunities as it embarks on its journey as a unitary authority. As it is appropriate for the document of this nature the economic growth strategy has been through an extensive consultation process with key stakeholders, local businesses, allied departments, neighbouring areas of elected members and whilst the new strategy considered the work of the former districts including the elements of adopted and emerging local plans it is a high level strategy for the new geography. The detailed Local Economic Action Plans will flow from it and will be developed with local input to develop existing or new projects and determine their relative priority. Given the role of the strategy a full public consultation exercise was not appropriate. We have undertaken to keep the strategy and any subsequent plans under annual review. In relation to the A1 corridor the economic strategy states that North Yorkshire has a number of large, nationally significant development sites either ready for development or in the pipeline. These include sites along the A1 corridor with the opportunities for development from Harrogate Junction 47 through Hambleton, Dalton, Leeming Bar and Richmondshire Junction 52 and 53. Figure 4.2 in the strategy shows that almost 90 development / employment sites across North Yorkshire include Junctions 52 and 53 on the A1M based upon either established sites, allocations from existing local plans, sites with planning permissions or areas with a potential for such development. Land that is not allocated or does not have the benefit of permissions will go through the same planning process as any other proposal for development and will have to comply with the current planning regulations and policy. This of course affords all interested parties the opportunities to make representation to the proposed developments, thank you very much.
Mr Hill asked a supplementary question and Councillor Bastiman responded.
3. The following public question was read out by Ian Conlan:
North Yorkshire Council is committed to Vision Zero in the York and North Yorkshire Road Safety partnership, which will become part of the remit of the new Mayoral authority in May. This aims to eliminate all deaths and serious injuries by 2040 on our roads. I am sure all councillors will be interested to ensure that swift changes are made to ensure the latest evidence is used to ensure all necessary measures are made, in a cost-effective manner, to begin this process. I am sure also that councillors will agree that this has not been a priority of this council in the past, and 2040 is conveniently too far away, we need action now. So we ask you to support the aims of 50% reduction within 3 years, and 100% within 6 years.
Last Thursday, the Vision Zero paper petition was launched covering the future combined Mayoral authority area of York and North Yorkshire. It states: "We petition City of York Council & N Yorks Combined Authority to reduce traffic harm by adopting the Vision Zero target of zero killed or serious road injuries by 2030, with an intermediate target of 50% fewer vulnerable road user KSI's 2027. We call for Safe Systems and traffic reduction; key is a 20mph default speed limit in built-up areas across the region and speed reduction on all road classes, including arterials where people are."
One simple cost-effective measure that have been proven to work, with cross party support in many English authorities, is default 20mph where people and motors mix, with exceptions only where vulnerable road users are safely segregated. This measure reduced killed and serious casualties by between 30 and 40% in Calderdale's built-up areas including main roads, and has been replicated many many times elsewhere. We know that the elderly over 70 are 5 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured as pedestrians than those under 70.
We are delighted that 20mph have now begun to be enforced by the York/North Yorkshire police authority, starting with Bishopthorpe Rd in York. But the York/North Yorkshire police authority was one of only 2 nationally (there are 50 forces) that refused a Freedom of Information request for releasing data on speed limit enforcement.
We welcome speed limits being reduced in rural areas, and other measures such as safe road crossings, cycle paths, better footpaths. But tinkering around the edges will not make any meaningful reductions, with York and North Yorkshire in the bottom quarter for killed and seriously injured, with no sustained improvements: quoting one outlying year, 2019, and one figure, just deaths in 30mph areas, is not going to cut it anymore.
Even with all the fuss over Wales, the first week saw 3mph average reduction on new 20mph roads, from 22 to 19mph in the first week over a range of roads from GpS data. According to DfT each 1mph reduction equates to 6% estimated fewer killed and seriously injured, so on that basis that is 18% in 1 week! Evidence from longer running schemes back this up. This move to default 20mph in urban areas had cross party support from ALL the parties in votes in the Welsh Sennedd when this was planned, and local authorities were able to identify exceptions where it was judged safe to retain the 30mph on a small number of roads where vulnerable road users were segregated. It remains the law that English local authorities have the legal power bring in default 20mph with exceptions, such as what is happening now in Conservative Controlled Cornwall.
Action Vision Zero and 20s plenty is not political: we are asking City of York as well as North Yorkshire to fully support these measures where they have not yet been implemented, to make better places to live in. 20mph is 50% quieter than 30mph, safer, more enjoyable, and fair to all users of our roads, our children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, disabled, cyclists, mobility scooters, wheelchairs, visually impaired, those who cross busy main roads every day to catch a bus, walk to school, cycle to work, shop, exercise.
Councillor Keane Duncan, Executive Member for Highways and Transportation, provided the following response:
Thank you, Mr Conlan, for your question. I have to be very clear Mr Conlan we are not adopting a blanket 20 mile per hour or a one-sized fits-all approach to speed limits in North Yorkshire. Instead our new approach is designed to reflect the diversity of North Yorkshire and the wishes of the communities we represent. We will consider the nature and circumstances of each location and we will always consult local councillors and the public. Any other approach risks dividing this Council, dividing North Yorkshire and undermining our concerted efforts to improve Road Safety.
The proposed Pannal Ash and Oatlands 20 mile per hour zone in Harrogate shows the scale of what we are achieving and what we can achieve elsewhere. This is a zone of unprecedented scale yet targeted in nature and with strong local support this zone is a significant achievement for North Yorkshire Council and for campaigners. I thank all of those who have been involved in that effort, there is still more work to do of course and we are committed to reviewing speed limits in every town and village on every inch of our 5,750 mile road network. We will back this renewed focus on road safety with resources and investment. Action of this significant ambition has never been done by this Council before, it will of course take time and effort but I believe strongly that this targeted effective action working with communities rather than dictating to them is absolutely right. This is the inclusive democratic approach every member of every political grouping on this Council should be proud of. Let's continue making progress and delivering action rather than revisiting this topic of a blanket 20 mile per hour time and time again. Our approach has the ability, Mr Chairman, to unite this County rather than divide it with a blanket 20 mile per hour, thank you.
Councillor Rich Maw moved that the question be referred to the Transport, Economy, Environment and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee and this was seconded.
On a vote being taken 36 Members voted for the motion, 52 voted against and there were no abstentions. The motion therefore fell.
4. The following public question was read out by Helen Tomlinson – Sowerby Gateway community infrastructure:
A whole new community is growing on the Sowerby Gateway but people making their homes desperately need the services and facilities they, and the wider area, were promised. There is nowhere for the Gateway community to gather, no recognisable neighbourhood centre, no bus service through the estate and there has been no expansion of GP or dental services there or in the wider area.
There has been a monumental failure by local government to ensure that these important services and facilities are provided.
That failure dates back more than 13 years. People have the right to know why it happened, what will be done to put it right and to be confident that the developers are held to account and made to fulfil their obligations.
As a Unitary authority, North Yorkshire Council now has direct access to all the relevant information.
As a matter of urgency, will you:
Councillor Derek Bastiman, Executive Member for Open to Business, provided the following response:
Thank you for the question and and firstly thank you for exercising your right as a member of the public and look forward to you being able to continue to have the right for many years to come. In answer to your question the planning application 10/02373/OUT application for outline permission for Sowerby Gateway was for a mixed use development including in the region of 1,000 dwellings, employment uses, neighbourhood centre, hotel, extra care facility and medical centre. A primary school, community uses included recreation and playing pitches and allotments. The consent was accompanied by a Section 106 agreement which sought to deliver a variety of measures in terms of affordable homes, improvements to public transport, community facilities and education provision, amongst other matters. It is noteworthy that the development has successfully delivered a supermarket, hotel, extra care facility and a new school along with the Sowerby Sports Village. The council will be reviewing the section 106 agreement and the requirements of the planning permission in order to ensure that the deliverables set out in the permission are achieved.
Helen Tomlinson asked a supplementary question and Councillor Bastiman responded.
5. The following public question was read out by Alison Hume:
Councillors will be aware of the situation regarding the closure of the Alpamare Waterpark in Scarborough and the community resource being placed into administration by Benchmark Leisure Ltd.
I understand the financial situation is murky and making waves – unlike the water in the pool which is currently being kept clean by the pool manager.
I am not therefore seeking clarification regarding the loan made to Benchmark Leisure by the former Scarborough Council as I expect this to be the subject of a legal investigation.
I would like to know what North Yorkshire Council are doing to ensure at least the Alpamare indoor pool is re-opened as soon as possible?
After spending time talking to staff and customers of Alpamare Waterpark & Spa, it's clear that the leisure facility is far more than an important tourist attraction - it's an essential part of the community.
With Alpamare’s closure, Scarborough is now reduced to one pool for a population of 109,000.
Living in a coastal area means it's critical our children learn to swim, but, with the closure, hundreds of children have been left without lessons.
For your information, the Scarborough Sports Village pool is oversubscribed for swimming lessons and cannot cater for demand.
140 people regularly attend the aquafit classes including elderly and disabled people who attend to support their mobility as well as those managing mental health conditions who are encouraged to use swimming as part of their recovery. There is an opportunity to double the aquafit classes due to their popularity.
In addition, staff have been left uncertain about the future, and the self-employed swim school instructors have lost the opportunity to earn money as well as to teach tots and children to swim.
Also closed to its customers is the wonderful spa, which has some of the best facilities in Europe including something called a Hay Bath, which is the only one of its kind in the UK and consists of beds of hay imported from the Alps and suspended from the ceiling giving a feeling of complete weightlessness – something I am sure hard-pressed councillors would appreciate must be a fantastic feeling!
Nine staff (therapists, reception staff and cleaners) are completely in the dark about what the future holds for them.
If you can secure the building – you already own the land I believe – then you have a great opportunity to create a sustainable community pool as well as an important tourist attraction.
To reduce the high cost of running particularly the outdoor pools will you consider retrofitting the building by installing the latest in energy capturing technology? This transition to green energy could be met either through the new zero devolution monies or through a Labour’s government’s GB Energy Local Power Plan.
Other council run swimming pools in Yorkshire have been given grants from the government. Is this something this council is pursuing?
It is vital Alpamare Waterpark and Spa are saved for Scarborough by North Yorkshire Council.
Please can you reassure me that you are in intense talks with the administrators to find a solution to reopen Alpamare as soon as possible?
Thank you in advance for answering my question.
Councillor Gareth Dadd, Executive member for Finance and Resources, provided the following response:
Thank you Chairman and I'm going to be very careful with the response I give for reasons that you will be aware of. Because this situation as you will appreciate is now sub judicious and therefore I am very sadly limited to what I can state. Those issues and concerns that you have rightly raised will be answered at a time when we can, without fear of damage to the potential judicial process. I will make a pledge that the investigation and report the Chief Executive has requested from our internal auditors Veritau will be made available to all Members and the public when appropriate and once completed. Finally we are committed to delivering the best outcome from a situation we have inherited from Scarborough Borough Council for the residents and businesses of Scarborough and the wider North Yorkshire communities. Please understand how delicate and sensitive at this time this is. I am also aware of a question from Councillor Cunliffe-Lister later in the agenda which I will simply, if put, refer her to this response.