There is a Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) for Harrogate & Knaresborough (H&K) published in 2019. It consists of a Phase 1 report and a Phase 2 report.
In fact the walking element is a separate report and network map.
A Ripon LCWIP was prepared by consultants and published in 2025.
The H&K Phase 2 report has designs for cycle routes along four corridors.
7.1) Analysis of the H&K LCWIP
The H&K LCWIP is a very general document, with a large number of pages covering the demographics and topography of the towns, and cycle infrastructure in general. This is not very useful.
A key element is a Cycle Network Map, which we’ve turned into a Google map.
According to the LCWIP guidance, a key output of an LCWIP is a Programme of Cycle Infrastructure Improvements, summarising the improvements needed to bring routes on the cycle network map up to a suitable standard. The guidance doesn’t say that the improvements should be limited to selected routes.
Improvements should then be prioritised, with short-, medium- and long-term priorities. There should also be a high-level appraisal and costing of schemes.
The gaps in the H&K LCWIP and Phase 2 report are:
- no comprehensive Programme of Cycle Infrastructure Improvements
- no short-, medium- and long-term priorities
- no high-level appraisal and costing of schemes
7.2) Our LCWIP Zone Plans
We wanted to ensure that there was a comprehensive Programme of Cycle Infrastructure Improvements, so we prepared Zone Plans for the whole of Harrogate (the town, not the District). For all of the routes on the Cycle Network Map, we suggest the type of infrastructure or intervention required.
We then worked with an NYC transport planner who analysed our zone plans, and prioritised schemes. The result was cycling priorities for Harrogate and for Knaresborough.
The work produced some agreed Quick Wins.
It would be up to the Area 6 Highways team to do the work on these items, but they have broadly point-blank refused to progress any of them. This calls into question the definition of a Quick Win.
They did manage to remove one barrier in 2022.
Whatever transport planning work is done on the LCWIP, there is no reliable delivery mechanism.
7.3) Practical Application of the LCWIP
The existing LCWIP should form the basis of applications for active travel funding, but so far no application has been made in relation to the four routes identified by the consultants. The H&K Area Committee of Councillors did agree to fund the design of one of the routes in May 2024.
NYC’s ATF3 bid made reference to the LCWIP, but in fact none of the bids in Harrogate District was based on the LCWIP. The bid was rejected.
For the LCWIP to serve its intended purpose, officers must have read it and know what it is in it, then use it as the basis of bids.
The LCWIP should be embedded in the planning process, but it is not.
In the transport proposals for West Harrogate Urban Expansion, there is no reference to the LCWIP. Further, the officers involved in West Harrogate have all seen our Zone Plans, yet the Zone Plans have been completely ignored in the transport proposals.
The off-site transport proposals are almost exclusively focused on expanding capacity for motor vehicles at a swathe of junctions.
The LCWIP needs to be embedded in the Local Transport Plan. The council says it is going to produce a new LTP. Will it be a long wait? Almost certainly. Will it be worth the wait? Unlikely.