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.