YOUR SUPPORT IS REQUESTED BY DEADLINE DATE FRIDAY 20 SEPTEMBER 2019 RE LOCAL PLAN MAIN MODIFICATIONS CONSULTATION - Introduction and Guide below

 

Local Plan – Next Stage - Introduction

You’ll all be aware that we’re in the final stage of consultation about changes or Major Modifications to the local plan. For us this means PN17 and PN19 have been removed by HBC in line with the inspector’s letter. This won’t stop others from across the borough commenting against these withdrawals, so please state you’re in favour of the removal of PN17 and PN19 too.

What still remains is a somewhat reduced PN18. This change has not been requested by the inspector but is a token gesture from HBC so that they hope they can’t be attacked on coalescence grounds as was the case with housing for PN19. In logical minds, HBC’s new PN18 is still so very close to coalescence, that as the inspector stated before, it would still be little more than a stone’s throw from Harrogate.

Inadvertently, in reducing PN18, HBC have withdrawn the only part of the site where although buildings would ruin the landscape and coalesce, they would not directly mask the view of the grade II* listed viaduct. That now means that their proposal is to place buildings where they would mask the views of the viaduct as they would be on higher ground. The parish council is attempting to prove this would be in contravention of HBC’s own ruling that the viaduct must be able to be seen from within the PN18 site and beyond and through it. We and our consultants are working on this.

Another really significant factor is that HBC included a huge flexibility factor in its employment site calculations. This was exposed (and ridiculed) at the public examination as being around double what was actually specified by the Objectively Assessed Need document. IF PN18 were excluded completely from the employment site list, this would go a long way in bringing this flexibility factor down to realistic proportions. It’s not the inspector’s job to rewrite the local plan but he gave rulings on housing which we all assumed would be followed by a similar letter on employment. The reasons for removing PN19 (coalescence, disproportionate size compared to Pannal, destruction of the SLA, etc.) should have been applied by HBC to PN18 also, just across the road. They failed to do so.

Please feel free to use this and the other reasons suggested in the help document for your comments and remember it’s the effect of the changes that are critical, not repetition of the original objections. As soon as we get additional professional information against the changes, we’ll let you know about them. However, don’t let that stop you commenting now.

The deadline for replies is 4.30pm on Friday, September 20th 2019, so you still don’t have much time with the holidays in the way. Our parishioners’ efforts carried a lot of weight for PN17 and PN19 with the inspector. There has been a slight shift by HBC on PN18 but we need all of it removed – comment now please.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us - parishclerk@pannalandburnbridge-pc.gov.uk

LOCAL PLAN MAIN MODIFICATIONS CONSULTATION GUIDE

Following the submission of the new Harrogate District Local Plan for examination in August last year and communication from the Government Inspector following the hearings that he held earlier this year, Harrogate Borough Council have made changes to the plan. These have been published for consultation within a ‘Schedule of Main Modifications’. The responses to this consultation will be considered by the Planning Inspector as part of the ongoing examination process.

As far as the modifications relate to Pannal, the main changes are the removal of the PN17 (Spring Lane) and PN19 (Leeds Road behind St Robert’s Church) housing allocations from the plan and the reduction in site area and floor area for the PN18 (Leeds Road adjacent to Mercedes) employment allocation. The very large employment allocation does however remain on Leeds Road.

The relevant documents and forms for the consultation are available from locations including:

•             The Council’s consultation portal at https://consult.harrogate.gov.uk

•             Civic Centre, St Luke’s Mount, Harrogate, HG1 2AE. Opening hours 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday to Thursdays and             8.30am to 4.30pm on Fridays

•             Libraries throughout the district. https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/local-libraries

At this stage of the process, comments can only be submitted on the Schedule of Main Modifications and certain other related documents. This is not an opportunity to make comments on other aspects of the plan. Within the Schedule of Main Modifications, text that is proposed to be deleted is indicated by strikethrough, and text that is proposed to be inserted is underlined.

If you submitted representations during previous consultations on the plan, these have already been considered and there is no need to submit them again. Comments which do not relate to the Main Modifications proposed to the plan will not be considered by the Inspector.

Comments should focus on whether the Main Modifications to the Local Plan are ‘sound’. That is, whether the plan (with modifications) is positively prepared (based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed requirements and consistent with achieving sustainable development), justified (the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence), effective (deliverable) and consistent with national policy. Comment can also be made on legal and procedural compliance, and conformity with Duty to Cooperate.

As far as this relates to Pannal, the Parish Council intends to comment on all our site changes PN17, PN18, PN19 and PN20 but specifically here on PN18:

•             No need whatsoever for the revised site PN18 in view of the excessive over- capacity for employment use (admitted by HBC) and no reductions elsewhere in employment sites

•             Effective coalescence of Pannal and Harrogate despite marginal reduction in size of site

•             Previous rejection of permission for Rugby Club on the same site as building then was considered inappropriate, so an industrial estate would be much worse.

•             The landscape, heritage and transport impacts – e.g. Special Landscape Area, public transport is of little use here

•             Obscuring Gateway View of Grade II* listed viaduct. Perversely, HBC’s major modification to this site would make this worse

•             There are much better places to build sheds & offices with direct access to the A1M to fulfil employment use

•             Pecuniary gain for HBC should not be the driving force for the sale of Borough Council owned land when it was designated as protection for the approaches to Harrogate

•             Cannot fill existing commercial plans, so PN18 not needed as the other sites will meet and exceed demand.

•             Traffic impacts on A61 24/7 have not been satisfactorily addressed during or since the public examination even with a reduced area for employment use.

•             Previous undertaking of HBC forefathers to protect this green lung (now SLA) since 1963 for posterity is even more relevant, given excessive employment site designation which has only marginally changed.

•             Don’t forget to reaffirm deletion of PN17 and PN19 from the plan as being a necessity.

Using the Council's Main Modifications Consultation Form is the best way (albeit complex!) to ensure that responses are structured to be consistent with the examination process. A separate form will need to be completed for every Modification you wish to comment upon. You’ll need to click on MM66 (page 261) for PN17 and PN19 and MM143 (page 427) for PN18. 

Failing that, please note comments can be emailed to planningpolicy@harrogate.gov.uk or posted to Planning Policy, Planning and Development, Harrogate Borough Council, PO Box 787, Harrogate, HG1 9RW. The revised deadline is Friday, 20th September 2019

In order to submit comments via the portal you will need to be registered and logged into the system.

All representations must include your name and postal address.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This objection has been prepared by Pannal and Burn Bridge Parish Council (the “Parish Council”) in response to the planning Appeal considered at its 10th September 2019 Planning Committee Meeting for the Permission in Principle erection of up to 5 dwellings and formation of parking at land adjacent to Pannal Methodist Church, Spring Lane, Pannal

Appeal Reference APP / E2734 / W / 19 / 3234460.

The Parish Council objects to the Appeal and now submits, as resolved at the Meeting, the grounds as set out below:

In reiteration of their case, the Parish Council requests that its consolidated objections are taken into account in relation to the above Appeal (original application made under 19 / 01889 / PIP) and in full support of Harrogate Borough Council’s (HBC) application refusal (6th June 2019) as follows:

1)     “The proposed development would cause significant harm to the landscape character of the Crimple Valley Special Landscape Area and to the character and setting of the Pannal village. Additionally, it would cause harm to the setting of Spring Lane Farm and Pannal Methodist Church, which are non-designated Heritage Assets. This harm would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policies C2, C9 and HD20 of the local plan, policies SG4 and EQ2 of the Core Strategy and policy NE4 of the emerging local plan, as well as to advice in the National Planning Policy Framework.”

The above is true now, as it was three months ago. The appellant’s documented support, made by consultants Johnson Mowat in their Appeal Statement, that a provision of, basically, some additional trees with hedges would be sufficient to negate Harrogate Borough Council’s original and considerable concerns seems extraordinary. 

2)     The Inspector – following his examination of the Draft Local Plan – judged that site PN17 “is a very prominent and exposed site in the Special Landscape Area (and that) development here would be likely to cause significant harm and harm to heritage assets”

In recognition that there was no need for development in this area, he instructed HBC to remove PN17 (in its entirety) from the Draft Local Plan. This Appeal pursuit flies in the face of the Inspector’s judgement and instruction which it is seeking to subvert. The Inspector’s comments in relation to PN17 are a material consideration.

Further, the Inspector’s letter went on to say “I would write with regard to the proposed residential allocations about which I continued to have concerns. (The requested information . . .below.) It is to be read in the context of the plan’s considerable oversupply of housing and, thus, there being no need for the harms that would be likely to arise from their allocation.”

The five-year housing supply is over-subscribed and fulfilled elsewhere therefore there is no substantive reason for this site’s development, indeed, the planning application and Appeal are in direct conflict with the carefully considered judgements of the Local Plan Inspector and Harrogate Borough Council.     

Johnson Mowat’s Appeal Statement claims (Reference 2.19) that the emerging Local Plan makes a windfall provision towards the 97 dwellings / annum and that the site in question “can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement” is insupportable when many other sites would lend themselves more appropriately to development of this provision and would not carry the constraints listed here.   They go on to say (Reference 3.12) that “It is acknowledged that the site is greenfield land and lies outside of the existing built form of Pannal”. Their accuracy here is refreshing but makes no acknowledgement to the Inspector’s recognition of HBC’s over-estimation of housing development.  

 Johnson Mowat re-state the potential provision as accommodating (Reference 2.22) a “single point of vehicular access from Yew Tree Lane” into the proposed (11-space) car park which effectively surrounds Wesley Cottage. This can only be viewed as a very real intrusion into Wesley Cottage’s privacy with associated illumination proving a highly likely nuisance factor and must therefore be taken as a material consideration.

The original statement is repeated in Johnson Mowat’s Appeal Statement (Reference 2.22) that “Provision of a 11-space car park, at the point of access, to act as a drop off/pick up and car park area for the existing Burn Bridge Nursery and Pre-School and users of Pannal Methodist Church” will be made. Given their reiteration, the Parish Council wishes to restate their original comment:

“We have discussed the car park offer with both the Church Committee and the Pre-School Nursery Head who is their tenant (with a renewable lease). They have confirmed there has been no discussion prior to this application submission with either party nor have they expressed the need for this “benefit” worthy of their approval. The Church has therefore adopted a neutral stance on this offer – neither “wanted “nor “unwanted” within the area.”

In addition, “The Nursery sees such a proposal as an impractical suggestion and an unsafe way to drop off or collect young children. Access would still need to be around the corner onto the roadside with traffic on Yew Tree Lane creating an ill thought out hazard. We consider this detail to be not only an ill-judged inducement to “court favour” but a transparent camouflage for the concept of building 5 houses in the Special Landscape Area (SLA) and PN17.”

5)     Johnson Mowat make reference to - and place much credence on - the following in their assumption that it is a material consideration:

“Appeal Decision – Land at Rossett Green Lane, Harrogate Appeal Ref: APP/E2734/W/17/3177793 3.51 Of relevance to this Appeal proposal, a planning application for the residential development of up to 14 dwellings on a site on Rossett Green Lane in Rossett Green was awarded planning permission on 28th September 2018 on appeal.”

The Parish Council deem this successful Appeal as a totally inappropriate comparison. The Appeal decision was very much based on site specific circumstances and, as such, the criteria bear no relevance to the Spring Lane Farm site which is situated in the (same) Special Landscape Area BUT within the (now recommended for removal) PN17 site.

Johnson Mowat seemingly make a direct contradiction in their (Reference 3.56) statement “The Rossett Green Lane and Spring Lane residential proposals are different in scale (Rossett Lane has been approved for up to 14 dwellings and the Spring Lane proposals amount to up to 5 dwellings) and thus a direct comparison in terms of landscape impact cannot be made”. The Parish Council rests its case on this particular point.

6)     It is interesting that Johnson Mowat make no reference to the Outline Application (19 / 00318 / OUT) for 5 no dwellings at Rossett Green Lane which was refused by Harrogate Borough Council in March 2019 because “The proposal would have a significant adverse impact on landscape character and visual amenity, creating a prominent and intrusive incursion of built development into the Crimple Valley Special Landscape Area; contrary to saved policies HD20, C2 and C9 of the Harrogate District Local Plan and policies SG4 and EQ2 of the Harrogate District Core Strategy DPD, along with supplementary planning guidance contained within the Council’s Landscape Character Assessment (2004).

 

7)     Reference 3.27 of the Johnson Mowat Appeal Statement states “Furthermore, the proposals would also comply with the emerging Local Plan Policy NE4 which seeks to ensure that development proposals are linked to existing settlements and are designated to integrate the urban edge with the countryside and where appropriate enhance the appearance of the urban fringe”.  An extraordinary statement.  There can be no “linkage” with an existing settlement – the proposed 5 dwellings and 11-space car park would simply intrude into and between the Methodist Chapel and Wesley Cottage with Spring Lane Farm. The current “urban fringe” is quite perfect as it is with no enhancement possible.

 

8)     Reference 4.21 “As with any greenfield site, development will introduce changes to the area, have some urbanising effects and it will involve the loss of some agricultural land; however, this is to be expected. . .” The Inspector recognised these facts clearly stated by Johnson Mowat which is why he recommended to Harrogate Borough Council that Site PN17 be removed from the Local Plan.

 In their 5.3 conclusion Johnson Mowat state “the Appeal site can make an immediate contribution towards boosting the five-year housing land supply. . .”, curious that this is reiterated in their Appeal Statement when, duplicated for convenience, the Inspector’s statement was “It is to be read in the context of the plan’s considerable oversupply of housing and, thus, there being no need for the harms that would be likely to arise from their allocation.”

 

1The landowner is progressively giving notice to take back sections of PN17 from the tenant farmer – the most likely purpose of which would seem to be to seek development of the whole area over time.   This is the “thin end of the wedge”.

 

 In summary, the Parish Council makes a plea for recognition that there are no exceptional circumstances that should apply for this application and refusal would be consistent with other recent refusals of permission of residential development on the edge of the Crimple Valley SLA which have been firmly supported not only by the Planning Inspectorate but also by the Inspector in his recommendation that PN17 be removed in its entirety from the Local Plan.

 Additionally, local people, acting as independent groups and through the Parish Council, with their in-depth knowledge of local conditions, are best positioned to comment on whether their areas are able to absorb new developments.  The amount of local opposition generated by this application, supported by the local action group’s professional advice, supports the Parish Council’s view that the site is not suitable for development and permission should be refused.

 

Signed:           J Marlow (Parish Clerk)

17th September 2019

For D Oswin, Chairman, Pannal and Burn Bridge Parish Council Planning Committee

 

NYCC RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY RESIDENTS FROM 16 MAY 2019 CONGESTION MEETING

 

Pannal and Burn Bridge parishioner questions:

“I’m here because I’m fed up with the congestion in our area” (West of Harrogate) (100%). It became apparent that there exists a considerable and common feeling of frustration and anxiety – not just arising from the congestion difficulties experienced currently but also a feeling of great despondency that with the 3-4000 new houses to be built in the western arc area that if no effective measures are implemented the situation will become intolerable on a daily basis - but also doubt (based on practical experience) that any remedial measures will actually prove effective – even if their concerns are listened to.

Of the replies to reasons why congestion is a problem, responses were split –

Effects of new housing ignored by NYCC / continuing rat runs need improvement / environmental damage and air quality are issues for us too and not just for those in Harrogate and Knaresborough. Insufficient parking at stations increases congestion. 

Sustainability measures (for our patch) were considered unviable by many unless direct links to train and bus services were available. This has not been planned.

Key questions were:

1)              Why was there no representation from any public body or community group having views concerning the West of Harrogate in the original congestion study when self-interest groups were deemed to be key consultees?

 

(Responses in “red” made by NYCC Highways)

As part of the initial development of the congestion study in 2017 WSP (then Mouchel) on behalf of the County Council consulted over 100 local interest groups in the Harrogate and Knaresborough whether by e mail or through offers of a face to face meeting. This included residents’ associations from across the whole of Harrogate including the west of Harrogate. Unfortunately, due to a technology fault the exact details of who was contacted at each of the residents’ associations has been lost.

2) Why was a Western bypass summarily dismissed by NYCC? The congestion problem to the West of Harrogate existed more than 20 years ago and it has worsened and will continue to do so.

A western bypass option was considered, but the amount of traffic relief it provided to the A61 and associated ‘rat runs’ was very low (generally less than 5%) and the costs would potentially be high (we estimate c£100m). On that basis it would not be a viable option (cost to benefit would be low) and funding would be unlikely from DfT. One of the main issues is that the potential diversion that would be required to go ‘around’ Harrogate on a western bypass would take longer than the shorter but slower route through the town

3) Why then, has not one single measure been proposed to mitigate congestion to the West of Harrogate? To suggest a park and ride be sited at the former Dunlopillo site is ridiculous and therefore unsupportable!

Most of the measures suggested (with the exception of the relief road) would be implemented across the towns and would therefore have a beneficial impact to some extent on the west of Harrogate. Whilst the Dunlopillo site may not now be available for P&R we would investigate other potential sites adjacent to the A61. In addition, we have already given a commitment at the exhibitions to ‘have a look’ at possible shorter bypass routes linking A61 to Otley Road area.

It is also relevant that the West of Harrogate National Productivity Investment Fund (NPIF) scheme on Otley Road will reduce congestion on Otley Road and hence probably / possible reduce rat running through the SW of Harrogate area.

4) It would appear that the cost profile of the Western bypass, in its original form, was the only measure considered by NYCC. A shorter road or alternative has not even been considered by NYCC. Why not? Even WSP consultants were unaware of the reports generated by other traffic consultants showing that the current road system already has junctions “operating” at over 100% capacity.

See above. The benefits to cost ratio for a western route would be very low and so DfT would be unlikely to fund it. However, as noted above, we have already made a commitment at the exhibitions to ‘consider’ possible shorter bypass routes linking A61 to Otley Road area.

5) Why has NYCC or its traffic consultants ignored the fact that - whatever improvements to roadways may be made to the lanes to the west of Pannal and Burn Bridge - there are pinch points that cannot be mitigated as they involve single lane bridges?

NYCC have not investigated at this time the details of any improvements to the lanes west of Pannal. However single lane bridges are not necessarily an unsurmountable problem as they can be widened or new bridges provided.

6) How does NYCC plan to accommodate traffic from 3000 to 4000 homes on the Western side of Harrogate attempting to get to Leeds and Bradford? This is the equivalent of a new settlement!

Our plan, as it stands, does not accommodate traffic from currently unapproved developments. It is for HBC / developers to demonstrate how the impact can be mitigated but we will, and are, working with HBC on this.

7) Why is a relief road to the North/East of Harrogate/Knaresborough even considered for 7% of vehicles when a far higher percentage of drivers cannot negotiate lanes to the West of Harrogate without severe delays?

The relief road that we are putting forward as an option is intended to deal mainly with the internal redistribution of internal traffic (which is approximately 48%), or traffic which starts or ends in Harrogate and Knaresborough, but also goes out of the district (c 45%) rather than the quoted 7% totally external traffic. Please see above for Western Bypass comments and shorter A61 to Otley Road route.

8) Is it true that the already costed and agreed roundabout at the junction of the A61 and Burn Bridge Lane has been cancelled because there hasn’t been a death or serious injury at the junction for a couple of years? There have been plenty of accidents but maybe few or none with emergency service involvement, hence they’re not recorded in accident statistics.

You will be aware, from my previous comments that indications are that the latest ghost island and deceleration lane scheme has reduced the injury accidents significantly and that a roundabout scheme is no longer needed. The ‘issue’ with a roundabout scheme (apart from affordability) is that it is likely to encourage more rat running as it would remove the disincentive of a priority junction and long queues to get out onto the A61. It would also interrupt the A61 flows causing more delays to A61 traffic. With regards to the NPIF funds, which you had also requested an update on, the likely enhancements are an improved junction arrangement at Harlow Moor Road. This provides greater capacity and is therefore a longer-term solution. In addition, it will also allow provision of more TOUCAN crossings on the Otley Road cycle track and minimise the need for ‘on road’ sections of cycle route.

9) Why is the A61, Harrogate’s primary route from the South, such a disgrace?

The County Council from various sources spends approximately £50m per year on maintaining the 9000k network of roads in the County. This is substantially more than our ‘allocation’ from Government as the County Council has been very successful in seeking additional funding for Highway maintenance. The A61, like all other roads in the County is maintained to an appropriate standard given the available funding levels. It should be noted that it is likely that there will be a major maintenance scheme on the A61 south of Harrogate included in next year’s programme  

10) Despite apparently only one person in the whole of Harrogate thinking the Oatlands A61 / Leadhall Lane junction works satisfactorily, why has nothing been done to improve it other than tinkering with traffic light sequence timing changes? Even HBC’s own traffic consultants state it cannot be mitigated in its present form.

The signals at the junction of Leeds Rd / Hookstone Rd were installed in 2014.  Vehicle detection at this junction is via inductive loops installed in the carriageway surface and using above-ground video units. The Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation (MOVA) signal control strategy is used, so that signal timings adapt and vary continuously throughout the day in response to traffic conditions/demand to maximise efficiency. The junction is continually monitored by the NYCC traffic signals team and timings can and are changed as and when there is an identified need to do so.

The current junction layout is designed as the best possible to maximise capacity given the highway extents and physical constraints.  Any substantial improvement to the junction would require major financial investment and land take, both of which are not achievable at this time.

In addition: questions arising from HAPARA (Harlow & Pannal Ash Residents Association):

1. The material presented at the road show sessions gave no indication whatsoever of the real benefits that could be expected to accrue from any of the incursions. Everything was high level, and the (NYCC) questionnaire was constructed in such a way as to almost lead people to a conclusion, which we in Harlow & Pannal Ash Residents Association (HAPARA) believe to be Package B.  So how can people really be expected to provide constructive answers to the study questionnaire when there are no real facts available?

The consultation is an early stages consultation and intended to gather people’s views on what they would like us to do in general terms, not on specific schemes. The suggested interventions could all be implemented area wide, and as such, none are location specific.

2. The relief road incursion contained in Package E has resulted in a level of opposition that has, to a large extent, swamped all other debate. How will you ensure that the views contained in the letter sent to you, on behalf of the western arc of Harrogate, in April of this year, are accounted for?  As we see it Packages B & E will do very little to resolve traffic problems on the western arc.

All views submitted as part of the consultation will be reported to the County Council’s decision makers. Any response from HAPARA will be reported to elected members.

3. At the Local Plan hearings held in January and February of this year, Harrogate Borough Council (HBC) Traffic Department seemed to indicate that discussions were at an advanced stage concerning Park & Ride and additional bus services to help offset the anticipated increase in traffic resulting from the nearly 4000 houses to be built on the western arc. However, the congestion questionnaire gives the impression that we are at an early stage on these improvements. So where exactly do matters stand on these improvements, given that public transport is not within the council`s gift?

Under existing legislation, as you point out, the County Council can generally only procure the operation of general bus services (under subsidy) where it can be proven there is an established social need to do so. However, we are able to commission and run Park and & Ride services. However, with regards to the specifics around the Harrogate Borough Council proposals, I am not aware of what stage the discussions are at, as they have not included NYCC in these. On this basis, it might be wise for a discussion to be set up with HBC’s local plan team.

4.  Can you ensure that in future we do not have to go through a similar process to the one we experienced concerning the Otley Road cycle path? No prior consultations took place with the immediate residents and businesses, and we were in effect presented with a fait accompli. Surely, if cycling is to play a part in helping to reduce congestion in Harrogate, then the residents need to be involved - and not just the cycling fraternity! After all, this is what Department for Transport (DfT) guidance on the introduction of cycling paths states should be done.

As a result of the Otley Road cycle route scheme the County Council are looking at how it can amend its consultation processes to engage with local communities at an earlier stage whilst not raising unnecessary expectations or concerns about schemes which may never get funded.

5. Given that our local MP has come out strongly against the relief road incursion, and strongly for sustainability, then are we facing an inevitable final congestion study decision based on Package B? 

The decision on which, if any, of the elements we develop further will be based on the findings of the congestion study engagement. This will be reported to elected members and they will ultimately decide what our next steps will be. Whilst the views of the local MP will be included in the analysis of the engagement, they are only one of many.

6. Whatever the final decision on the congestion study, what `groundwork` has been carried out by North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) to ensure that monies will be forthcoming? Or will this be yet another study left to collect dust? It is appreciated that cases have to be made to obtain such monies, but can we assume that some initial inquiries have been made?

There are a number of funding streams for major schemes (TfN, Major Road Network, Large Local Majors) and a relief road package would meet the criteria for these in principal. DfT will not normally give advice on acceptability prior to submission of an SOBC. For the smaller-scale options, funding is likely to come from a series of bids into ad hoc opportunities (e.g. National Productivity Investment Fund (NPIF)) for packages of c£5m. NYCC in the past have been very successful with such bids. NYCC will also discuss with DfT the potential to develop a package approach to a major scheme of smaller measures – this would be somewhat innovative, but is another option for funding which we will explore.

7. School trips contribute significantly to congestion at peak times.  Where in the package of measures is any intervention designed to reduce these?

It is our view that the impact of school trips is, in general, overstated. This is demonstrated in the evening peak which is as bad, or worse, as the morning peak but has no school trips in it. Reduced traffic during school holidays is also as a result of commuters being on holiday. Nevertheless there is little if anything NYCC can do about school trips as ‘parental choice’ is a legal right. It is our understanding that all schools in Harrogate and Knaresborough are academies so NYCC has minimal influence.

8. Regarding the role of the MP in all this, some interventions, e.g. to increase bus services and school bus entitlement, require central government action. What lobbying is being done by NYCC to get the necessary powers?

Currently no specific lobbying is being undertaken – however, should there be a sufficient level of support through the engagement for improvements to bus services, this is something that will be reported to elected members.

In addition: questions from North Rigton Parish Council

1. A Park and Ride in the Pannal area will not serve the housing planned for the West of Harrogate. It may alleviate some traffic movements from Leeds & Bradford, but how many of these journeys will culminate on the bus route or the bus station? Was this question asked in the surveys of drivers?

The roadside interview surveys did ask exact origins and destinations of drivers so we can if we need to determine what trips would be in scope for a P&R. In addition to this, should there be a level of support for park and ride identified through the congestion study engagement, this is something that we will investigate further, and will look at a variety of possible sites throughout the study area.

2. There is no evidence of where the traffic goes to or comes from beyond the junctions assessed in the mapped area. Where is the evidence gathered from the wider study which we were assured had been undertaken?

Much of this is available in the Stage 1 Report, Options Assessment Report and Options Assessment Report Addendum, which is available on our website, and also on the ‘Further Information’ section of the Harrogate Congestion Engagement web pages. The level of information gathered through the roadside interview surveys is so detailed that it is not feasible to present it all but it is all included in the traffic model.

3. The entire study is about Harrogate and to a lesser extent Knaresborough. Footpaths which do exist, are not maintained and in places are impassable. If people are to be encouraged to walk, run, or cycle to work, the maintenance of existing infrastructure might be a good start. Who could safely run, walk or cycle along the A658 between Huby & Buttersyke Bar?  But this is outside the area of study! Many experienced runners and cyclists would not contemplate taking such actions.

The main purpose and focus of the study has always been about addressing congestion on the main routes into and through Harrogate. However, as indicated, we will consider the issue of rat running in the ‘western arc’. Footways / footpaths on the A658 corridor are less pertinent to this study as their impact on congestion would be negligible. However, we will raise this with our Area Office team, as an operational issue.

P&BBPC / HAPARA / NRigtonPC

JM030619