North Yorkshire Council (NYC) have published their 2025 Active Travel Capability Self-Assessment.
They asked to be upgraded from Level 1 to Level 2, but Active Travel England (ATE) decided that their performance means they must remain at Level 1.
The self-assessment has five main sections:
- Organisational Context
- Leadership and Organisational Capability
- Network Planning
- Delivery
- Overall Capability Rating
1) Organisational Context
This short section reveals that NYC believe they have:
- an active travel budget in the current year of £43,673,012 out of a total transport budget of £140,043,562
- 43.48 full time equivalent staff working on active travel out of total transport staff of 545
The estimate of full time equivalent staff working on active travel is over-generous. If there are really that many, why aren’t they getting more done?
2) Leadership and Organisational Capability
NYC claim they are Level 2 for leadership and organisational capability.
In support of this, they say that full council has recently backed a motion to develop an Active Travel Strategy.
They boast about Beechwood Grove School Street in Harrogate, without mentioning that they refused to fund enforcement of it, so that it would in effect become voluntary.
They say that they commissioned Sustrans to refresh two older LCWIPs to LTN 1/20 standards – Scarborough and another one which is not mentioned.
The other LCWIP must be Harrogate & Knaresborough, and it is intriguing to know why they are keeping it secret.
NYC claim to have delivered 14 active travel schemes in the last three years – 8 low-complexity and 6 medium-complexity. One of the medium-complexity schemes was resurfacing a canal towpath between Kildwick and Silsden.
They say that all 90 Councillors were invited to attend an online active travel training session, and 20 of them attended.
3) Network Planning
NYC say they are Level 2 for network planning, but award themselves Level 4 for development and publication of LCWIPs, because they have published them for all population centres above 10,000.
They may have published a lot of LCWIPs, but the context is important.
Harrogate & Knaresborough’s LCWIP is a very long and general report written by consultants in 2019. It then sat on a shelf for 5 years gathering dust while the council did nothing about any of the plans in it.
The context for that LCWIP and others is:
- they are written by consultants
- NYC appears to regard the writing of the report as the end of the process
- there is no commitment to implementing the plans, so the LCWIPs do not truly represent the council’s network plans – they are just a box-ticking exercise
The self-assessment is a bit more honest where it says that NYC have only just started identifying strategic active travel routes that can be delivered through new development.
NYC mention the West Harrogate Urban Expansion, with the claim that Phase 3 of Otley Road Cycleway is a top delivery priority.
The Transport Strategy for West Harrogate is a car-centric disaster. Phase 3 of the cycleway is to be delivered to poor standards, ignoring ATE’s advice, and will not link to the town centre due to NYC abandoning Phase 2.
The self-assessment says that NYC have secured £1,556,719 in developer contributions for active travel over the last 3 years. It does not say whether anything has actually been done with the money.
4) Delivery
NYC rate themselves Level 2 for delivery.
They claim to have delivered most capital schemes (66% to 90%) on time, which cannot be true.
NYC’s flagship scheme appears to be resurfacing 2km of canal towpath between Kildwick and Silsden. They class it as medium complexity.
It was delayed and NYC had to get an extension to the YNYCA Net Zero Fund deadline for using the money. Does this mean it counts as being delivered on time? Yes, according to NYC.
5) Overall Capability Rating
Overall, NYC rate themselves Level 2.
‘Strong local leadership and organisational capability, with clear plans that form the basis of an emerging network with a few elements already in place’.
They say that ‘construction is also advancing on Transforming Cities Fund initiatives in Selby, Harrogate and Skipton…’
In the case of Harrogate, that is simply not true. Construction has not started.
NYC also say:
‘It is anticipated that future rounds of Local Transport Grant funding will support the delivery of LCWIP priority corridors, further strengthening the region’s commitment to sustainable and inclusive tranport development’.
NYC claim to have ‘a strong track record in active travel delivery over the past three years…[with]…strong leadership support for active travel schemes…[and]…a firm commitment to high-quality design standards…’
This could not be further from the truth.