Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice to Dawn Drury of Democratic Services and supplied the text (contact details below) by midday on Friday 17 May 2024, 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.
Minutes:
There was one public question from Mr Christopher Dunn, as follows:
‘I am Christopher Dunn citizen only, and failed applicant to this forum. I am also a much-qualified Draughtsman expert in Plan creation AND Revision.
“Since 2018 following extensive: visits; correspondence; meetings; research; at/with numerous NYC officers/office, also at/with county records at Wakefield; also, ref complaint 101010475003 re PROW 1565/12; also, C Dunn total PROW Killinghall survey Nov. 2022, I suggest NYC system of PROW Definitive Mapping and record are inadequate and inaccurate.
Following my Nov 22 PROW Killinghall survey, CAMS ref 68284 & 58448 (Finger post deficiencies) were issued, but now discharged by your Ms B Brown 01 05 24.
This dischargement by pure accident ONLY highlighted NYC ‘s ‘scheme’ of randomly adding paths/suffixes to paths in any or even all parishes, claiming that ‘it aided officials and public with PROW identification and/or problems’. This ridiculous system is totally at odds with NYC’ s so-called in-house NYC legal Definitive mapping AND PROW Definitive statements, these seemingly ex1952 up to date legal PROW documents are at total odds with your ‘adding’ system,why?
NYC’s by appointment only PROW legal Definitive mapping offerings, displays only an apparent COPY of a 1952 Wakefield records office ORIGINAL PROW Definitive map, (and 1952 Definitive statements?) this offering at Wakefield or North Allerton, shows NO title NOR issue date NOR change column, so if you wish to check the legality of any or every North Yorks PROW, these offerings as of 2024 are totally useless, why? “
In response, Ian Kelly thanked Mr
Dunn for his public statement and explained to Mr Dunn and Members
that the Council had recently dealt with a complaint from Mr Dunn
regarding path
numbering on the online Digital Working Copy Definitive
Map. As Mr Dunn had already been
made aware, Mr Kelly was not able to comment on complaints that
were in the process of being responded to, or which had previously
been responded to.
Mr Kelly did however inform Mr Dunn that the number of paths in Killinghall had not changed since the original Definitive Map was produced, but it should be noted that the original map did include some paths with branches (one path number with three end points), therefore, to aid identification of each part some of the branches had been renumbered.
Furthermore, the Public Right of Way network had not been modified in any way due to the renumbering, as the modification of Public Rights of Way can only be made through a formal legal process, the details of which were publicly available.
Mr Kelly thanked Mr Dunn for his public statement, and apologised if he was not happy with the approach taken by the Council but stated that his concerns had been duly noted. Mr Dunn had been advised by letter that if he was not satisfied with the Stage 1 complaint response then he could request that this be escalated to Stage 2 of the Council’s Complaints process, details of which had been provided.
Mr Dunn then asked a supplementary question in relation to the Definitive Map, to which Mr Kelly responded that the Digital Working Copy Definitive Map was available online and reiterated that no modifications to the path numbering had been made.
Beth Brown confirmed that the Definitive Map and Statement had not been amended, however, as some paths had two separate branches with the same number, officers had allocated different numbers to the Digital Working Copy Definitive Map, to make it easier for NYC officers and the public to identify the path number when reporting issues.
The Chair thanked Mr Dunn for his contribution to the meeting.