Agenda item

Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice to Elizabeth Jackson, Principal Democratic Services Officer, and supplied the text by midday on Thursday 11 December 2025, 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 Leader who will instruct anyone who may be taking a recording to cease while you speak.

 

There were three public questions and statements:

 

1.    Public Question from Andy Jefferson, Whitby resident – in relation to Minute 803 – Director of Public Health Annual Report 2025

 

Whitby has many areas with high indices of multiple deprivation, as highlighted in the 2025 data. It also has some of the lowest levels of cycling infrastructure in the county along with the lowest uptake in cycling, as well as poor quality walking/wheeling infrastructure, with investment in active travel schemes non-existent.

 

Additionally it is well below minimum standard in terms of green space availability and accessibility, with much used areas being sold off (for housing), contrary to the wishes of local residents, on a regular basis.

 

Many organisations (and indeed also the Director of Public Health) have

highlighted the demonstrable positive link between health / well-being and active travel, as well as access to local green space.

 

The Director of Public Health’s 2025 report emphasises the statutory duty of the local authority to improve the health and well-being of its residents. It also

highlights a few areas where Public Health may be influencing the decision

making process in the council.

 

WHAT influence does Public Health data, such as indices of multiple deprivation, have on

 

a). decisions around Active Travel schemes selected for funding?

b). decisions around selling off of green space?

 

and if there is no influence currently, WHEN is North Yorkshire Council going to utilise such data for such decisions (as part of its duty to improve public health)?

 

 

Response from the Executive Member for Health and Adult Services

 

Whilst I agree with some of the points made in the question, I don’t accept everything that is stated in it.  The question says Whitby has some of the lowest levels of cycling infrastructure in the county along with the lowest uptake in cycling, as well as poor quality walking/wheeling infrastructure, with investment in active travel schemes non-existent, and that it is well below minimum standard in terms of green space availability and accessibility.  I don’t accept this.

 

Public health data is regularly used, in combination with other sources of information, to support decision-making in a variety of areas across the council. This includes decisions relating to active travel and green space.  For instance, the council has developed a total of ten Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs) for the main towns across North Yorkshire over the last few years. There is a ‘long list’ of potential active travel schemes based on the corridors from all these ten LCWIPs across the county, including the Whitby LCWIP, as well as other schemes in other areas.

 

When a funding opportunity arrives, we assess all schemes against the funding criteria. For example, the Department for Transport’s Active Travel Fund Tranche 4 (ATF4) criteria included ‘targeting areas with poor health outcomes and with high levels of deprivation’, so public health data, the index of multiple deprivation, is an integral part of the decision making process to prioritise schemes.

 

In summary, public health does play a part in scheme sifting for bids, but to what degree is dependent on the funding criteria and the type of schemes the fund is available for.

 

Specifically relating to green space, the council considers a wide range of factors when deciding whether to dispose of its landholdings, including current use, potential future opportunities and the outcomes that could be achieved from each site.

 

Whilst it is recognised that green space can contribute significantly to improved health and wellbeing, the level of impact depends on various factors, so sites are assessed on a case-by-case basis.

 

Where land is classified as public open space or amenity land, the council has a statutory obligation to advertise the proposed disposal and consider any objections before proceeding. These requirements allow community users or beneficiaries to have a voice in decisions that might affect future access to green space.

 

2.    Public Question from Roger Tuckett, founder and CEO of Yorkshire Adult Autism Self-Advocacy Group (YAAAG)

 

At the launch of the North Yorkshire Autism Strategy in March 2025, a programme of action and collaborative activity with the NY Autism Community as promised for its first year. Sadly, relatively little progress has been made compared to North Yorkshire’s immediate neighbour.

 

The City of York is making major strides forward with its strategy, embracing co-production and codesign at its core and seeing the enhancement of Autism services and support in the city (including funding), advancing far ahead of any dreams of such progress in North Yorkshire.

 

Frustratingly, the Integrated Care Board continued to embarked on a period of evasion and secrecy about its plans and ideas and its refusal to fund the Autism Assessment Pathways in accordance with patient need and statutory guidance. No updates were ever provided to the NY Autism Community of Interest. Relevant internal ICB briefing were initially available under FOI Requests, but belatedly, disclosure was refused on spurious technical grounds and non-clinicians denied access to discussion workshops contrary to past ICB Collaborative Partnership practice.

 

Nationally, there have been two important Reviews: In early November, a House of Lords Select Committee on Autism produces a comprehensive Report and in early December, the Government launched an Independent Inquiry into the prevalence of Autism, ADHD and mental health and the level of unmet need for support and care.

 

Three consistent themes emerge across all of these, including the York & NY Autism Strategies themselves: (a) It is essential to work together in close partnership with Autistic people, their carers and families; (b) system level problems and obstacles are regularly implicated which require system level consensus and solutions to resolve; and (c) lifetime outcomes for Autistic people remain as bad as ever, with considerable health inequalities and unmet need. Much still remains to be done. Above all, Autism is not an illness but a lifelong neurological condition.

 

The Council has with others established a NY Mental Health and Autism Partnership Board, but this is an officer working group with no direct lived experience or third sector involvement other than through Healthwatch. Its membership and Terms of Reference remain unknown. An Autism Partnership Board is typically described as “a local, collaborative group bringing together autistic people, families/carers, and professionals from health, social care, and voluntary sectors to improve services, plan strategies, and ensure the voice of autistic individuals is heard in local decision-making, focusing on rights, inclusion, and better outcomes.”

 

Accordingly, will this Council:

1.    Support and participate in a 2026 Leadership Summit for Autism and ADHD across York and North Yorkshire. It is hoped David Skaith might agree to lead and facilitate such an event. York has already shown strong support for this approach.

 

2.    Establish immediately a separate Autism Partnership Board for North Yorkshire as such a body is generally understood to be constituted.

 

3.    Appoint immediately a named individual as lead within the Council for the provision and commissioning of all Autism-related support, who will be answerable to such a Board.

 

Note: The second and third of these are already mandated by 2015 Statutory Guidance (paras 3.19, 4.1, 4.2, 4.24) and are also specifically emphasised in the recent House of Lords Report (paras 12, 113, 149).

 

Response from the Executive Member for Health and Adult Services

 

Question 1: Support and participate in a 2026 Leadership Summit for Autism and ADHD across York and North Yorkshire. It is hoped David Skaith might agree to lead and facilitate such an event. York has already shown strong support for this approach.

 

Answer: We would be willing to talk with partners and the community of interest group including autistic people’s networks about exploring this for the new year, however our priority is on practical delivery of our agreed actions (for example, we are expanding supported employment services and planning new supported housing options)

 

Question 2: Establish immediately a separate Autism Partnership Board for North Yorkshire as such a body is generally understood to be constituted.

 

Answer: We are not proposing to establish a separate board at this time but there are separate networks and meetings related to the strategy including the autism community or interest group and the Mental Health, PLD and Neuro-diversity Partnership Board attended by Healthwatch as a representative of community voice networks.

 

Question 3: Appoint immediately a named individual as lead within the Council for the provision and commissioning of all Autism-related support, who will be answerable to such a Board.

 

Answer: Within North Yorkshire Council we do have officers with responsibility for commissioning of care and support services for autism. From January 2026 Gavin Swankie will be the operational senior lead for under 75s, including autistic people and Natalie Smith continues to be the lead for commissioning and strategy

 

 

3.    Public Statement from Jim Bullock, Phoenix Community Park Community Interest Organisation – in relation to Minute 811 – Eastfield: Former Overdale School Site and Middle Deepdale Capital Receipts Funding

 

Dear Councillors

 

I am speaking on behalf of the Phoenix Community Park CIO, a registered charity established to deliver a new Town Park at the heart of Eastfield. Although our charitable status was confirmed only recently, the project has been under active development for more than three years.

 

The need for a wheeled sports facility is highlighted within the Scarborough South Plan. A full feasibility study and detailed designs have been completed in close collaboration with officers from North Yorkshire Council. The project is now ready to progress to the planning and construction stages, subject to confirmation of funding and our business plan supporting the asset transfer will be submitted shortly.

 

Phoenix Park enjoys strong and broad community support. Local schools, the police, and voluntary organisations have all endorsed the scheme, recognising its potential to reduce antisocial behaviour, strengthen community links between old and new

 

Eastfield, and provide a shared space for engagement and recreation. Public consultations have shown overwhelming approval for the proposals. Eastfield faces significant social and economic challenges. The town currently lacks basic amenities such as a GP service, café, dentist, or public house, and offers few opportunities for leisure or further education—particularly for young people. With a population already exceeding 7,000 and forecast to rise beyond 10,000, the absence of shared public spaces is contributing to social division. Phoenix Community Park presents a unique opportunity to address these inequalities, improve wellbeing, and foster community pride.

 

Demolition of the site has recently been completed and given the project’s readiness and strategic importance, we respectfully request that it be designated a priority element within Eastfield’s regeneration programme. The recent decision to demolish the nursery building planned to be a cafe/ community rooms has increased the capital cost. The Align estimate of £1.57m would increase to a little under £2m with rebuild costs. This would still leave significant funds available for other projects within the town. If commenced promptly this would provide a very visible early benefit and sustain local enthusiasm. Early approval would also enhance our ability to retain trustees, attract partners, and secure additional external investment.

 

Phoenix Community Park represents far more than a local amenity—it is a cornerstone for regeneration, inclusion, and civic pride in Eastfield. We therefore urge the Council to approve the necessary funding to enable it to begin without delay.

 

Response from the Executive Member for Corporate Services

 

Thank you for attending and presenting your statement. I hold a different perspective on some points. While Mr Bullock stated that Eastfield lacked shared public spaces, I do not share that view. Eastfield has excellent open spaces and the available funding should be used to make the best possible use of those spaces.

 

There might be other areas where a skate park could be more appropriate, given local concerns about proximity to housing, and we need to work with the local Member, Councillor Seston, and the Town Council to ensure that funds are allocated equitably across all age groups in Eastfield.

 

There has been a long period of inactivity and missed opportunities to progress the project more swiftly in recent years and we now need to look to the future.  The efforts of the Residents’ Association are recognised.

 

North Yorkshire Council has now reached the right conclusion, and everyone involved must have the information and skills to move forward. Community First Yorkshire was supporting local organisations to develop the project, who should work together to deliver results.  It would be important to engage with stakeholders beyond the immediate group, including the proactive local boxing club, which could play a key role in driving progress. The project should address inequalities across all age groups in Eastfield and promote leisure and well-being.

 

The Executive Member praised the efforts made so far and encouraged continued collaboration. Eastfield was one of the most deprived areas in North Yorkshire and this funding represented a rare opportunity. She urged that the money be used wisely and effectively to deliver improvements for the community.

 

Mr Bullock responded with a supplementary, acknowledging that while other open spaces existed in Eastfield, most were designed for very young children and did not attract older age groups. He added that the main sports ground was waterlogged and difficult to use for football, which was its intended purpose. Over £3 million was available and the suggested phase one of the planned project could be delivered for approximately £2 million, leaving substantial funds for the boxing club and other local initiatives.