Introduction

East Parade bike lane
East Parade bike lane gives way to a bin

This is an assessment of cycle provision in Harrogate District by North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) in the context of the DfT’s Decarbonising Transport Plan and Cycle Infrastructure Design (CID). It is intended to provide local knowledge to Active Travel England (ATE) when it assesses provision here.

We would like ATE to assess NYCC as soon as possible, because provision for cycling in Harrogate District is poor. Worse, new housing developments are being built without making proper provision for active travel.

NYCC often has a very negative attitude to requests for crossings, faster responses from pedestrian lights, safer speed limits, School Streets, and cycle provision. Requests for 20mph limits are all rebuffed. Safe crossings near schools are refused on the basis that motorists might not see them and so might not stop.

Investment, officer time, and political capital are all overwhelmingly invested in provision for motor traffic, not in active travel.

On 9th May 2020, the Secretary of State instructed councils to give more space and priority to cycling and walking. At the time of writing (mid-October 2020), NYCC has done nothing – nothing – for cycling. Nothing at all. There has been a token gesture for walking in Harrogate town centre.

Congestion Survey – 77% in favour of better cycling & walking infra, but their response was to suggest more roads. They have made no attempt to implement the conclusions of the Survey.

The Minister’s Foreword to Cycle Infrastructure Design says that ‘cycling must no longer be treated as marginal, or an afterthought’, but often that is exactly how it is treated by NYCC.

Link to CID for NYCC and CID for HBC.

Harrogate District Cycle Action (HDCA) submission on Decarbonising Transport

HDCA’s submission on Decarbonising Transport in April 2020 was in response to the DfT’s Decarbonising Transport: Setting the Challenge document. It has information about local cycle infrastructure, including photos, in Section 3 National Government, Section 5 Local Authorities, and Section 6 Housing Development.

Housing Developments

A number of housing developments have just been built or are being built at the time of writing (October 2020) on the edge of Harrogate. Cycle provision is woeful or non-existent; the developments are totally car-centric, and will exacerbate existing congestion and pollution problems in Harrogate.

A few case studies follow, with specfic information about certain developments.

King Edwin Park, Persimmon Homes, Penny Pot Lane

Penny Pot Lane - Young's Drive
Penny Pot Lane – Young’s Drive

This development on the western edge of Harrogate is a little far from key destinations for walking to be a routine option. It’s within easy cycling distance; it’s hilly, but electric bikes make this less of a problem.

Penny Pot Lane is a narrow and twisty lane which is used as an alternative to the A59 Skipton Road. Levels of traffic are quite high. The speed limit changes from 50 to 40 to 30mph as the road approaches Harrogate.

The only cycle infrastructure is a shared use pavement (2m70) for a very short distance from the development to Young’s Drive. It then stops, and there is no cycle infrastructure for the next stretch towards Harrogate. The road is not suitable for inclusive cycling in mixed traffic due to the high volume of vehicles.

The other cycle path is a mud and gravel affair through Killinghall Country Park to the Jennyfield housing area on the north western periphery of Harrogate. There are a couple of trip generators here (Jennyfield Coop and Hydro swimming pool), but the main destinations (schools, town centre shopping) are accessed via Penny Pot Lane.

The development has not involved any improvement to the cycle network. It is 99.9% car-centric.

More details are in this correspondence with Harrogate Borough Council.

Dunlopillo site in Pannal (Bellway)

A59 Skipton Road development

Bellway development, Skipton Road
Bellway development, Skipton Road

There is a large housing development on the A59 opposite the Jennyfield area, on the northern edge of Harrogate. A shared use path runs along the front of the development; there is a signal-controlled crossing, and on the opposite side of the road the pavement is divided into cycling and walking by a white line. Both of these are Paths to Nowhere – they don’t go anywhere, and simply stop.

Divided pavement, A59
Divided pavement, A59

An obvious destination from this development is Oak Beck Park, with a DIY store and supermarket – but there is no bike path, and the road you have to take to get there is the busy and hostile A59.

When you get to Oak Beck Park, there is a 13 metre long shared use path, with a CYCLISTS DISMOUNT sign at one end and an END OF ROUTE sign at the other. Rarely has there been a more isolated and useless facility.

Very short, isolated cycle facility
Very short, isolated cycle facility

Beyond Oak Beck Park are more destinations (schools, town centre) along A59 Skipton Road and A61 towards Harrogate, but few people will access them by bike because there is no cycle route.

The only cycle route in the vicinity is alongside Jennyfield Drive, but:

  • a single route is not a network
  • it fails the ‘Direct’ Core Design Principle for many destinations
  • the route itself is not in line with CID guidance, as it is a shared pavement divided by a white line, and it gives way at all minor side roads

Junctions

Follifoot

Follifoot junction
Follifoot junction

The Follifoot junction is a problem on National Cycle Network Route 67, where it crosses the A658 south eastern bypass to Follifoot. (Route 67 can be seen on this map). The bypass severed the older Pannal Road link to Follifoot.

In 2013, Harrogate Rugby Club moved to a site just on the Harrogate side of the A658. It was a planning condition that the developer would improve the Follifoot Underpass, as a way of crossing the A658. Instead, £10,000 was paid to NYCC, then passed to HBC, and they were to do the work.

After 7 years of going round and round in circles, some work was finally done on the Underpass. It had been very muddy and waterlogged. Some drainage was added, and a fairly soft, crushed stone surface that is likely to deteriorate quickly – especially as the Follifoot riding school is adjacent to the Underpass and uses it routinely.

Follifoot Underpass
Follifoot Underpass

On the Follifoot side of the Underpass, there’s a 60-90cm wide mud and gravel path, which has not been improved. The Underpass also represents a detour for cyclists.

Follifoot path
Follifoot path

The real solution would be a light-controlled crossing of the A658, but NYCC currently refuses to do this. The details of the problems with the junction, and the solution, are set out in this Follifoot document.

The story of this junction is representative of NYCC’s approach to active travel in two ways:

  • delay – 7 years of delay to carry out basic work on the Follifoot Underpass, even when a sum paid by the developer was being held
  • failure to make proper provision for cycling – a focus on motorised transport only, with no priority or investment in quality provision for walking and cycling

Sainbury’s Wetherby Road