Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice to Democratic Services (democraticservices.east@northyorks.gov.uk) and supplied the text by midday on 10 September, three working days before the day of the meeting. Each speaker should limit themselves to three 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 Chair who will instruct anyone who may be taking a recording to cease while you speak.
Minutes:
There were eight public questions or statements submitted to the committee. Questions 2 – 6 were considered at minute 167 – Receipt of a petition to save Richmond Swimming Pool. Questions 7 and 8 were considered at minute 168 – Presentation by Yorkshire Water.
1. From Mr Kodi Sanerivi
Parent Statement re: Home to School Transport Reality Check - I came today in the hope of speaking directly to you, Cllr Les, as Leader of the Council —and to the Executive Member for Home to School Transport, my own councillor, Annabel Wilkinson. It’s a shame she isn’t here today. I know that’s just coincidence, but it does mean yet again parents like me don’t have the chance to put our concerns to her directly.
I want to tell you that trust between this council and parents has been broken — and not by accident. It has been broken by your decision to press ahead with this home-to school transport policy despite the warnings, despite the real human consequences being spelled out to you.
Three councillors on this committee — and I thank them for this — recognised the harm it would do to rural families and voted against it. But the majority either didn’t realise or chose to look the other way.
I know that in May to secure your vote at the Extraordinary Meeting many of you were told, “don’t worry, any anomalies will be sorted out in appeals.” But that was a false promise. Appeals are not the safety net we all hoped for — they have turned out to be just a box-ticking exercise. As one of your Conservative colleagues has said on the record, the whole appeals process appears to be rigged.
So let me give you just a hint of the injustices happening here, right on your doorstep and on your watch:
These are not statistics. They are children. They are families. They are your residents. And we feel short-changed by a council that isn’t listening, and that seems indifferent to the impact on families like ours.
That must change. As we speak, another year group is about to be put through the mill, and another group of parents will soon be up in arms. We need you to act now - to stop more harm being done and more council resources being wasted defending the indefensible.
It’s too late for us, but for the sake of other families, today, I ask for the support of this committee to back a request for a fully independent and, crucially, immediate policy review - starting this year. That way, improvements can be identified and implemented before next September, safeguarding the 2027 intake.
It’s worth noting - when you voted for this policy in July 2024, officers promised that the review would happen in July 2025. That was their recommendation. Without any discussion, it has quietly been pushed back a year. Parents deserve to know why, and we deserve better than delay.
No officer was able to attend the Committee to respond to the statement, so a written response was provided.
Response from Amanda Fielding, Assistant Director, Inclusion
Thank you to Mr Sanerivi for submitting his statement, the content of which is noted.
In providing a response, the council would reiterate the advice which has been provided previously about the basis for the adoption of the Home to School Travel Policy.
The Home to School Travel Policy aligns the Council’s arrangements for home to school travel with Statutory Guidance that is issued by the Department for Education (DfE). This includes the main eligibility criteria which is that assistance is provided to the nearest suitable school with available places.
In determining the nearest suitable schools to an individual pupil’s home address the council utilises information in its own mapping system, which provides measurements to the nearest 1,000th of a mile. By using this information consistently throughout the county, the council has ensured that the policy has been applied equitably.
As has been reported previously, however, the routes that are used to identify the nearest suitable schools are not necessarily the routes that are taken if a pupil is provided with assistance with transport. Transport routes are determined after consideration of the number and location of eligible pupils in a specific area, and after consideration of the possible routes that can be taken, including in consultation with transport providers. All routes are subject to risk assessment, both generally and within the context of specific hazards including bad weather conditions.
In determining the home to school distance for individual pupils the council uses information from its mapping system to measure the distance from the home address to the nearest entrance of a school. It is recognised that some schools, such as the schools referenced in Richmond, are situated close together. However, the Council considers that applying the policy accurately and consistently throughout the county ensures that all pupils are treated fairly and equitably when their eligibility for assistance is considered.
Following the adoption of the policy new information was added to the council’s website, included on the pages which related to school admissions. Parents did, therefore, have access to information and as part of the application process were asked to confirm that they had considered the implications of the Home to School Travel Policy when they submitted their online application for a school place.
A further 7 statements or questions were submitted and were heard at the appropriate items on the agenda.
2. From Stephen Saunders (read by clerk)
My main query is why the structure of the pool building is now under question, having spent money on re-roofing and new upgraded/replacement mechanical heating for the pool.
Now the future of the pool is in doubt due to the internal finish of the ceiling. I have not seen anything published about why the pool is closed. Surely the internal costs of ceiling repair would be far less than the cost of previous works?
I enjoy using the pool, which is used by various clubs for activities and general swimming and used by local schools and local residents
3. From Julie Young
If Richmond Swimming Pool closes, residents will be left without a clear alternative, and an equality and access impact assessment is essential to understand the effect on those without transport. The removal of one of the few accessible leisure facilities in the area would particularly disadvantage elderly residents and those with limited mobility, and the council must recognise that this decision undermines their ability to stay active and socially connected. Any claim that alternative facilities can meet the additional demand must be supported by clear evidence, as without it the community faces reduced opportunities and greater exclusion.
The process also raises issues of accountability and transparency. Consultation with local residents, clubs, and schools has been limited and poorly executed, with a survey that was badly publicised and failed to capture the full strength of local feeling. Closing the pool stands in direct contradiction to the council’s commitments to health, wellbeing, and community resilience as set out in Richmondshire’s local plan and policies, and the community deserves better than to see these promises set aside.
4. From Matthew Ward
Economics and Funding - The decision to close Richmond Swimming Pool cannot be made without recognising the long-term financial consequences for the NHS and social care budgets, as reduced activity levels across the community will inevitably lead to higher health costs that far outweigh the expense of keeping the pool open.
The council must also account for whether external funding sources such as Sport England, Levelling Up funds, or public-private partnerships have been properly and actively pursued to secure the pool’s future. A full cost-benefit analysis should be available to demonstrate the balance between refurbishment and closure, because the value of this community asset extends well beyond numbers on a balance sheet.
The future of the site itself must also be considered carefully. Its cultural and community worth is significant and cannot be measured solely against potential land value.
Transparency is vital, and the financial modelling used to justify closure – including subsidy and user comparisons with other leisure facilities – must be open to public scrutiny so that the community can see that the decision-making process is fair, evidence-based, and accountable.
5. From Rachael Simpson, read by Julie Young
Health and Children - Closing Richmond Swimming Pool would have a serious impact on public health, particularly for older adults, children, and people with disabilities, and an assessment of these consequences must be recognised. The council has a responsibility to demonstrate how it will offset the loss of physical activity opportunities if the facility is withdrawn, because with NHS pressures and rising health costs, removing this resource clearly conflicts with the duty to promote healthier lifestyles and reduce long-term health inequalities.
For children, swimming provision must be maintained since it forms part of the National Curriculum. Many local children rely on Richmond Pool to learn this essential life skill, and guarantees are needed that lessons will still be provided locally. In addition, a clear plan is required to ensure that water safety education continues, so that closing the pool does not leave a critical gap in both health and education for the community.
6. From David Chefneux
In the last full year of operation under Richmondshire Leisure Trust, there were over 60,000 recorded visitors/users to the Pool, from a very broad range of the community including Schools, Swim Academy, RDASC, Richmond Triathlon Club, Swaledale Outdoor Club, Aquafit, Military, Waterbabies, Casual Swims and other regional clubs. The Pool also complimented activities at the neighbouring Liberty’s facility.
With the River Swale and other water activities in the area, it is crucial that people of all ages are provided with an opportunity to learn to swim.
In addition to enhancing the tourism offering for the area, Covid clearly demonstrated the role the Pool plays in people’s daily lives, physical health and mental well-being.
With all the pressures and challenges faced by us all in these current challenging times, this last point cannot be under-estimated and potentially reduces costs to the health and social care system, by keeping people active and healthy.
The Pool has been through three recent closures, including Covid and capital improvements and has bucked the national trend by recovering usage more quickly than elsewhere. This further emphasises the local demand as also evidenced by the number of responses to the local petition and Council survey.
Given that Richmond Pool is the only publicly owned leisure facility in the former Richmondshire Council area, can I ask the local members whether they are committed to seeing the facility continue in its present location.
Collective response from Jo Ireland, Assistant Director Culture, Arts and Leisure.
Thank you very much to everybody for coming today. As the Assistant Director for Culture and Leisure, it’s really heartening to see the support that Richmond Pool has, so thank you for coming.
It’s probably worth giving a little bit of background which many of you will know. The pool came into North Yorkshire Council in March and in April it was closed on safety grounds following a serious issue with the ceiling. The wooden battens had become
loose and some had fallen.
Given the costs and the extent of the repairs that were required, and because we know that wasn’t the only issue with the pool, we took the decision to pause to undertake a full options appraisal in relation to the future of the pool and what the options might be. That has covered many of the things that you have said today. We did include public consultation, and we had a really great response to that – over 2,200 responded - in addition to separate dialogue with clubs and with schools. I think the strength of feeling from the local community about the importance of that facility was really clear and Members listened to that. We also looked at issues around supply and demand, and the impact of the alternative facilities in the area, obviously including Catterick, which is very close. We also did financial modelling around the options.
I think many of you will have seen in the press the recommendation, which is due to be discussed at Overview & Scrutiny this week and will then be considered by the Council’s Executive in October, is that we undertake the repairs to Richmond Pool and that the pool reopens to the public. That is the recommendation that will be considered by Members in October. Previously we expected this to go to the Executive in November along with the wider Leisure Investment Strategy however, given the recommendation, we brought that forward so there wouldn’t be any further delay before that formal decision is made. Arrangements will then be made for the works to be undertaken and the pool to be reopened.
The works that are required are quite extensive. Obviously, the ceiling works are the biggest single item and that will require scaffolding but there are other works required that we will be doing at the same time. It is also recommended as part of the broader Leisure Investment Strategy, that the gym equipment at Liberty, which is quite old, is replaced as part of a wider programme to replace that equipment, and we will be programming that in, following consideration by the Executive in November.
7. From Hilary Plews
On 29/8/25 Richmondshire Today stated that YW is investing £3m in Leyburn STW to improve the quality of the River Ure. The Environment Agency and SOS have pointed out numerous concerning operational issues at Richmond STW and its adverse impact on the River Swale, yet we understand there is to be no investment in Richmond STW 2025-2030.
Why is this?
Response from Sarah Robinson, Corporate Affairs Manager, Yorkshire Water
Regarding Richmond, I did speak to the Asset Manager, effectively the site manager, last week who shared some data with me. The site is currently operating within in all of its permitted levels but if you share your concerns in more detail I can look into them. At present the site is operating within its biological, oxygen dissolve, phosphorus levels and so on but I can look into your concerns in more detail if you let me know exactly what they are.
8. From Deborah Meara
Can Yorkshire Water guarantee that the 31 percent increase to consumers’ bills in 2025-26 will be kept within the regulated water and sewerage company to be used, within its entirety, for enhancement work only, not for remediation of past underinvestment in base work, and not taken out to pay unjustified dividends to shareholders or inflated bonuses to senior managers?
Response from Sarah Robinson, Corporate Affairs Manager, Yorkshire Water
Regarding finances I couldn’t comment on what dividends are planned for the upcoming year. The remuneration package is fully published on our website in our accounts every year.