Agenda item

The report of the Secretary giving LAF members the opportunity to update the Forum on District Council liaison and other LAF representative project activity since the last meeting.

 

The Chair had provided a list of actions undertaken on behalf of the Forum since the last meeting in September 2025, as set out in Appendix 1.  He reported back on his attendance at a Town Investment Plan session and noted that, with 32 sessions scheduled, it was not feasible for the LAF to engage with each individually. After consulting with other Members, he had prepared a general statement outlining the Forum’s position.  The final paragraph of the draft statement asked that “all plans take into account any existing public rights of way (PROW) and public open space and work towards maximising the opportunities for achieving a well-maintained network with good connectivity thought the creation of new PROW if necessary.  The LAF also encouraged schemes that addressed inequalities to access to the countryside and green space and to increase opportunities for car free travel”.  The Chair noted that while the statement was brief, it represented a clear and constructive contribution and if something specific arose within one of the Investment Plans which was relevant to PROW then the LAF could offer advice and support at that time.

 

Councillor Heseltine agreed that the statement accurately reflected the LAF’s principles.  Members confirmed that the statement should apply to each of the Town Investment Plans and agreed that it be forwarded to Faye Snowden, Regeneration Officer, via the Secretary.

 

Members were advised that Appendix 2 had been provided by Mrs Connolly, who was unable to attend the meeting. The Chair reported that she continued to experience intermittent contact with the planning team regarding the PROW network. As a previously suggested tick list for planning case officers had not been implemented, Mrs Connolly sought Members’ agreement to develop a checklist covering the PROW network, public open space, connectivity and accessibility to support the planning process.

 

Members agreed that a tick list should be produced and forwarded to the Development Management Team via the Secretary.

 

Mrs Connolly had also highlighted that NYC’s PROW team typically responded to development proposals by focusing on route disruption and public access, but Members noted that the Council also had a statutory duty under Section 130 of the Highways Act 1980 to “assert and protect the use and enjoyment” of public rights of way.  They emphasised that the enjoyment and amenity value of paths, particularly where large developments such as solar farms significantly diminished the experience for users, should be more strongly reflected in PROW responses.  Mrs Connolly questioned whether the Forum, as an advisory body, should write to NYC PROW to request greater weight be given to this duty when assessing such applications.  Concerns were also raised that the absence of an interim NYC energy policy had led to inconsistencies and difficulties for planning bodies handling these proposals.

 

Mr Kelly clarified that the query regarding the impact of solar farm developments should be directed to the planning team rather than the PROW team, as these issues related more closely to planning principles.  Mr Kelly confirmed that the PROW team did consider amenity but that the key priority was to ensure the existence and continuity of PROW, regardless of whether a solar farm was built; they focused on maintaining a route through or around any proposed development.  As solar farms were becoming more common, it was suggested that they be added to the planning check list to ensure consistent consideration.

The Chair agreed to relay Members’ views to Mrs. Connolly, and together, they would develop a checklist from a LAF PROW perspective to ensure these issues were properly addressed within the planning process.

Mark Cunliffe-Lister updated Members on a recent briefing with Environmena, a developer that both built and operated solar sites.  With solar farm proposals increasing and the Government seeking a 5 fold increase in solar generation, he questioned whether a clear policy was needed to guide how such developments should be managed.

 

All sites are now legally required to deliver at least a 10% biodiversity net gain, but Environmena reported that they aim for a 100% increase at their installations, often resulting in ecological enhancement. They also confirmed that they respect PROW and would incorporate any necessary improvements into their improvement plan for implementation where possible.  Asked if they had diverted any footpaths on site during or post construction, they said they had rarely had to divert any paths.

 

John Toogood noted that while the engagement with Environmena had been positive, they represented only one developer, and solar farms would continue to be proposed widely.  He raised concerns about site selection, as developers tended to choose locations based on grid connectivity, meaning proposals could appear almost anywhere and therefore, questioned whether guidance was needed to set clear expectations for all developers, and that the Forum could play a useful role to help shape it.

 

Members agreed that more solar farm proposals were likely and stressed that the aim should not be to create a narrow ginnel through a site, but to ensure proper amenity value rather than just a basic passageway.  In response to a question regarding whether the CAS had the authority to determine the specifications of an existing PROW, Mr Kelly confirmed that it did not; such decisions, at present, rested with the Planning team. The PROW team would be consulted and would assess proposals on a case‑by‑case basis, but stated that once buildings were constructed over PROWs, they became very difficult to manage.

 

The Chair highlighted that two members of the public with an interest in solar farms had attended the meeting and asked whether a Definitive Map Modification Order

(DMMO) application submitted within a proposed development site would affect the decision on whether that development proceeded.  Mr Kelly confirmed that he would discuss the matter with the Principal Definitive Map Officer and update Will once he had a response.

 

Mr Cunliffe-Lister then gave a short verbal update on the North Yorkshire Landscape Character Assessment Stakeholder Workshop that he had attended virtually on behalf of the LAF.  North Yorkshire Council were required to replace previous Landscape Character Assessment Studies undertaken prior to local government reorganisation with a single Landscape Character Assessment which would store information on the Landscapes, influences and factors for change that affect them.

The aim of the workshop was to outline the work undertaken so far to gather views on what people valued about the landscape and to identify the issues affecting it now and in the future.  Participants were informed that there were 15 national Character Areas, defined largely by underlying geological rock formations.  North Yorkshire was then further subdivided into more detailed local areas based on human history and geographical characteristics.  The last assessments had been carried out ten years ago, and this review also aimed to identify changes, drawing on the knowledge of those familiar with the landscape.  Mr Cunliffe‑Lister commented that he had been surprised, as work was already under way on the Local Nature Recovery Strategy for NY and he had assumed the two pieces of work would have been connected. 

 

The Chair informed Members that he had received the presentation following the meeting and questioned whether this work was truly relevant to the LAF.  While it was positive to be consulted, he was unsure how directly it related to the Forum’s remit.  Mr Cunliffe-Lister added that he struggled to see where public access featured within the work.  The Chair concluded that, while the topic should remain on the Forum’s radar, no further time should be committed to it at present, to which Members agreed.

 

Judith Hooper and Stephen Clark informed Members that, in relation to their work on the Maltkiln Development Plan and the NY Local Plan Consultation, meetings had been arranged with the respective Council Officers for early February, after which they would provide an update to Members at the meeting in May 2026.

 

Resolved

 

i)               That the additional information provided at the meeting be noted, alongside the written updates provided in the report.

ii)              That the LAF’s Town Investment Plan statement be forwarded to Faye Snowden, Regeneration Officer, via the Secretary.

iii)             That the Chair and Mrs Connolly develop a tick list from a PROW perspective, to be forwarded to planning officers, via the Secretary.

iv)             That Mr Kelly would discuss the implications of a DMMO application, and whether it could influence whether a development proceeded, with the Principal Definitive Map Officer, and update the Chair once he had a response.