King Edwin Park Public transport explained

Sources

The public records behind the story

This page cites public records that anyone can open online, where they exist. It marks on-the-ground observations, and says where a record was not located. Start with the five starting points below, or pick a question. 94 entries. The planning status and the Council’s Route 4 listing were checked on 5 November 2026; dates for other checks appear in their entries.

What this page covers. The records answer two questions: what bus service the estate was meant to have and has now, and what happened to the planned bus link. Each entry says what a record shows, whose statement it is, and where to open it.

Five good starting points

Each points to official public records. Current documents link to the Council’s own pages; older Council timetables link to copies kept by the Internet Archive, labelled as archived. Some starting points cover several documents. The full list of entries, by topic, follows.

  1. The signed 2015 planning agreement

    It describes the bus service the developer’s payments were for (every 30 minutes, 07:00 to 19:00, Monday to Sunday), the County Council’s duty to buy it, and the duty to provide the bus link. These are the terms agreed in 2015, not proof of what residents can expect today.

    Section 106 agreement dated 13 March 2015, in six parts. Planning register, original outline application HGT14/02737/EIAMAJ.

    Open the 2015 outline application’s documents, then find the “Legal Agreement/Obligation” parts (published 19 Mar 2015) · Related entries

  2. The original transport assessment

    It shows the bus-gated link and the 30-minute bus that were proposed. These were proposals, not necessarily what was legally secured.

    Environmental Impact Assessment, Chapter 6 (paragraphs 6.37–6.39). Planning register, application 26/01380/EIAMAJ.

    Open the 2026 application’s documents, then find “CHAPTER 6 - TRANSPORTATION” · Related entries

  3. The 2025 planning officer’s report

    It gives the officer’s reasons for approving the change, including that the existing bus was regular. That is an opinion, not a measurement.

    Delegated planning report, 1 October 2025. Planning register, application HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ.

    Open the 2025 application’s documents, then find “OFFICER REPORT” · Related entries

  4. The 2026 application and draft legal deed

    Persimmon asks the Council to delete Condition 8 and has filed a draft deed. The deed is a draft, undated and unsigned, not proof that anything has changed.

    Persimmon’s letter of 5 March 2026 and the draft deed. Planning register, application 26/01380/EIAMAJ. Awaiting decision, as checked on 5 November 2026.

    Open the 2026 application’s documents, then find “S.73 COVER LETTER” and “DRAFT S106” · Related entries

  5. The Council’s Route 4 timetable

    It shows the published buses from 19 July 2026 at King Edwin Park: 7 a day from Monday to Friday, with gaps of up to 2 hours 31 minutes, and 6 on Saturdays. No Sunday journeys are listed.

    North Yorkshire Council public transport information. Route 4 PDF checked on 5 November 2026. The Council’s 2024 timetables survive as archived copies.

    Open the timetable (PDF) · The April 2024 timetable (archived) · Related entries

How to read this page

  • Documented A public record says it. This shows what the record says, not always that it is true. An officer’s opinion is documented as that officer’s opinion.
  • Attributed The developer, a council or another body says it in a public record. It has not been independently confirmed.
  • Interpretation A reasonable reading, signposted as a judgement.
  • Observed An on-the-ground observation that no published record yet confirms. It is dated, and its limits are stated.
  • Unresolved The public records checked do not settle it. “Not located” does not mean “does not exist”.

Finding a document on Public Access: each entry links to the right application’s Documents tab and names the document, the date it was published there and the page or section to read. Direct file links on that site only work after the Documents tab has been opened, so these entries link to the tab instead. The signed 2015 agreement and the original decision notices are filed under the original outline application (HGT14/02737/EIAMAJ) and its 2018 variation (HGT18/01028/DVCMAJ).

Where the records come from: North Yorkshire Council’s planning register (Public Access), its committee papers and its public transport site, the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority’s published papers, Killinghall Parish Council’s published minutes, legislation.gov.uk and GOV.UK. Where the Council no longer publishes an older timetable or page, the entry links to a copy kept by the Internet Archive, and says so. Planning letters from Persimmon are on the planning register, so they are public, but they remain Persimmon’s account.

What was originally proposed?

13 entries

← Back to the story

The original assessment describes proposals. What was legally secured is set out in the signed 2015 agreement, filed with the original outline application: its documents. The assessment’s chapters are filed with the 2026 application 26/01380/EIAMAJ: its documents.

  • The scheme was for around 600 homes, a primary school, community and retail space and open space. Outline permission was granted on 13 March 2015 by Harrogate Borough Council, now part of North Yorkshire Council.

    Documented Planning officer’s report, North Yorkshire Council, 1 October 2025, application HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ, “Relevant Planning History”. The assessment also says the application was submitted to Harrogate Borough Council (Chapter 1, paragraph 1.1).

    Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “OFFICER REPORT” (published 1 Oct 2025), section “Relevant Planning History” · Open the 2026 application’s Documents tab (26/01380/EIAMAJ); find “CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION” (published 22 May 2026), paragraph 1.1

  • The Environmental Impact Assessment was written around 2013.

    Interpretation The chapters are undated. The date is judged from the 2011–2013 data in Chapter 9, paragraph 9.1 (PDF page 1), application 26/01380/EIAMAJ, filed 22 May 2026.

    Open the 2026 application’s Documents tab (26/01380/EIAMAJ); find “CHAPTER 9 - SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS” (published 22 May 2026), paragraph 9.1, PDF page 1

  • No bus served the site at that time. The Number 3 ran through Jennyfields.

    Documented Transport chapter (Chapter 6), paragraphs 6.18–6.19, PDF pages 5–6, application 26/01380/EIAMAJ, filed 22 May 2026.

    Open the 2026 application’s Documents tab (26/01380/EIAMAJ); find “CHAPTER 6 - TRANSPORTATION” (published 22 May 2026), paragraphs 6.18–6.19, PDF pages 5–6

  • The original assessment’s transport chapter proposed extending the Transdev Number 3: a bus every 30 minutes; stops within 300 metres of every home; a bus gate for buses, walkers, cyclists and emergency vehicles only; and a shrinking developer subsidy. It spoke of “a fully fledged bus service on the day they start living in their new home”, and said alternatives would be considered.

    Documented Chapter 6, paragraphs 6.37 and 6.38, PDF page 9. This is what the report proposed, not necessarily what was legally secured.

    Open the 2026 application’s Documents tab (26/01380/EIAMAJ); find “CHAPTER 6 - TRANSPORTATION” (published 22 May 2026), paragraphs 6.37–6.38, PDF page 9

  • The planned link was for walking and cycling as well as buses. The bus gate would let buses, pedestrians, cyclists and emergency vehicles through, but not private cars.

    Documented Chapter 6, paragraphs 6.37 and 6.39 (“The bus-gate will allow pedestrians and cyclists to use the route”), PDF page 9. Chapter 1, paragraph 1.13, PDF page 3 (“but not private cars”). Chapter 1 numbers its paragraphs 1.11–1.20 twice, so use the PDF page.

    Open the 2026 application’s Documents tab (26/01380/EIAMAJ); find “CHAPTER 6 - TRANSPORTATION” (published 22 May 2026), paragraphs 6.37 and 6.39, PDF page 9; and “CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION” (published 22 May 2026), paragraph 1.13, PDF page 3

  • The original assessment rated the public transport effect “moderate beneficial”, on a scale of slight, moderate and major.

    Documented Chapter 10, Table 10.1, PDF page 5; the scale is in Chapter 1, PDF page 7.

    Open the 2026 application’s Documents tab (26/01380/EIAMAJ); find “CHAPTER 10: CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AND INTERRELATIONS” (published 22 May 2026), Table 10.1, PDF page 5; and “CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION” (published 22 May 2026), PDF page 7, for the scale

  • Persimmon says clause 5.2.1 of the Section 106 agreement required the bus link to be provided and operational before the 342nd dwelling was occupied.

    Attributed Persimmon cover letter dated 21 February 2025, PDF page 1, filed 25 March 2025 (application HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ). Repeated in its letter dated 5 March 2026, PDF page 3, filed 18 March 2026 (application 26/01380/EIAMAJ). The clause itself is in the signed agreement: see the entries below.

    Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “COVER LETTER” (published 25 Mar 2025), PDF page 1 · Open the 2026 application’s Documents tab (26/01380/EIAMAJ); find “S.73 COVER LETTER” (published 18 Mar 2026), PDF page 3

  • The draft deed refers to a defined “Bus Link” and to clause 5.2 of the principal agreement, dated 13 March 2015.

    Documented Draft deed, clauses 1.1, 3.4.3 and 3.4.4, PDF pages 2 and 5, filed 18 March 2026, application 26/01380/EIAMAJ.

    Open the 2026 application’s Documents tab (26/01380/EIAMAJ); find “DRAFT S106” (published 18 Mar 2026), clauses 1.1, 3.4.3 and 3.4.4, PDF pages 2 and 5

  • The signed 2015 agreement and the decision notices carrying Condition 8 are published on the Council’s planning register, under the original outline application, HGT14/02737/EIAMAJ, and its 2018 variation, HGT18/01028/DVCMAJ.

    Documented Section 106 agreement dated 13 March 2015 (Part 1, PDF page 1), filed in six parts on 19 March 2015, with the seals of Harrogate Borough Council and North Yorkshire County Council (Part 6, PDF page 14). Decision notices: 13 March 2015 (HGT14/02737/EIAMAJ); and one dated 11 January 2019 (HGT18/01028/DVCMAJ). Its Important Dates tab gives 21 December 2018 for both “Decision Made Date” and “Decision Issued Date”; the Documents tab lists the notice as published that day.

    Open the 2015 outline application’s Documents tab (HGT14/02737/EIAMAJ); find “LEGAL AGREEMENT/OBLIGATION S106 PART 1 (TO PARA 4.3.10)” (published 19 Mar 2015), PDF page 1; “LEGAL AGREEMENT/OBLIGATION PART 6 (3RD SCHEDULE CONTINUED)” (published 19 Mar 2015), PDF page 14; and “Public Decision Notice Permit” (published 13 Mar 2015) · Open the 2018 permission’s Documents tab (HGT18/01028/DVCMAJ); find “Public Decision Notice Permit” (published 21 Dec 2018) · Searched earlier: Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ) · Open the 2026 application’s Documents tab (26/01380/EIAMAJ) · Open the withdrawn application’s Documents tab (25/04316/DVCMAJ)

  • The agreement defines the “Bus Service” as one “connecting the Property with Harrogate town centre … to provide a frequency of a 30 minute service from 0700hrs until 1900hrs Monday to Sunday”. The developer was to pay a “Bus Service Contribution” of £130,000 a year, five payments in all, starting when the 60th home was occupied, “to be used by the County Council for procuring the Bus Service”.

    Documented Section 106 agreement, 13 March 2015: definitions, Part 1, PDF page 4; clause 5.1.2, Part 2, PDF page 6. Interpretation These terms describe what the payments were for. Whether they create a lasting duty to run buses that often, and what applies after the payments end, are legal questions this page does not answer.

    Open the 2015 outline application’s Documents tab (HGT14/02737/EIAMAJ); find “LEGAL AGREEMENT/OBLIGATION S106 PART 1 (TO PARA 4.3.10)” (published 19 Mar 2015), PDF page 4; and “Legal Agreement/Obligation Part 2 (para 4.3.10 to 5.10.1)” (published 19 Mar 2015), PDF page 6

  • A deed dated 3 July 2018 applied the 2015 agreement to the 2018 permission. It says the agreement “shall remain in full force and effect” as varied; its only changes are to the definitions of “Application” and “Permission”.

    Documented Deed of variation, 3 July 2018, clause 1 and the Schedule, PDF pages 3–4, filed with application HGT18/01028/DVCMAJ.

    Open the 2018 permission’s Documents tab (HGT18/01028/DVCMAJ); find “Legal Agreement/Obligation” (published 3 Jul 2018), PDF pages 3–4

  • The 2015 officer’s report says a bus gate would restrict the link to “buses, cyclists and pedestrians”. It records that officers had looked into an alternative bus route via the Jennyfield Drive/Saltergate Drive roundabout during an earlier application, and that the applicant kept the Orchid Way route “on the basis that technically this can be achieved”.

    Documented Delegated report, Harrogate Borough Council, 13 March 2015, “Sustainability and accessibility”, PDF pages 17–18. Attributed The technical view is the applicant’s, as recorded by the officer; it is not an independent assessment.

    Open the 2015 outline application’s Documents tab (HGT14/02737/EIAMAJ); find “Public Report Delegated Report” (published 13 Mar 2015), PDF pages 17–18

What changed in 2025, and why?

13 entries

← Back to the story

Application HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ. Summary · Documents · Important dates

  • The application was received on 25 March 2025 and permitted on 2 October 2025. It varies Condition 2 (approved drawings) of permission 16/05624/REMMAJ, granted on 6 October 2021.

    Documented Public Access summary and Important Dates, North Yorkshire Council, checked 8 October 2026.

    Open the 2025 application’s Summary tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ) · Open the 2025 application’s Important Dates tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ)

  • The planning officer’s report describes the approved drawings as replacing bus access with a 3.5-metre pedestrian route. Persimmon says bollards at each end would stop vehicles using it.

    Documented The path: officer’s report, 1 October 2025, “Assessment” (“3.5m pedestrian route”). Attributed The bollards: Persimmon cover letter dated 21 February 2025, PDF page 1, filed 25 March 2025.

    Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “OFFICER REPORT” (published 1 Oct 2025), “Assessment”; and “COVER LETTER” (published 25 Mar 2025), PDF page 1

  • The 2025 drawings remove bus access but keep a walking and cycling connection. The original link already allowed walking and cycling. This describes approved plans, not what has been built.

    Documented Officer’s report, “Assessment”: “Removal of a bus link access to the Jennyfields estate … to replace with a 3.5m pedestrian route”. Compare the original assessment, Chapter 6, paragraphs 6.37 and 6.39. Persimmon letter dated 21 February 2025, PDF page 1: a “pedestrian/cycle link” 3.5 m wide, with bollards “to restrict vehicular access”.

    Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “OFFICER REPORT” (published 1 Oct 2025), “Assessment”; and “COVER LETTER” (published 25 Mar 2025), PDF page 1 · Open the 2026 application’s Documents tab (26/01380/EIAMAJ); find “CHAPTER 6 - TRANSPORTATION” (published 22 May 2026), paragraphs 6.37 and 6.39

  • No published record of the path’s completion or opening was found in the documents for the 2025 or 2026 applications. It was observed open in early October 2026 (see Path observed open: what applied?).

    Unresolved

    Records checked: Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ) · Open the 2026 application’s Documents tab (26/01380/EIAMAJ)

  • Whether emergency vehicles could use the Orchid Way connection under the 2025 drawings is not stated. The ecologist describes the replacement as “a less intrusive emergency vehicle access”. The officer’s report describes a 3.5 m pedestrian route and a separate emergency access route between plots 315 and 323.

    Unresolved Principal Ecologist comment, 30 April 2025; officer’s report, “Assessment”.

    Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “PRINCIPAL ECOLOGIST” (published 30 Apr 2025); and “OFFICER REPORT” (published 1 Oct 2025), “Assessment”

  • Persimmon says that, after talks with the Council’s Highways team, the bus link was unsuitable because a bus would have difficulty getting in: Orchid Way is a cul-de-sac dominated by on-street parking, and officers thought those parking habits would be hard to change.

    Attributed Persimmon cover letter dated 21 February 2025, PDF page 1, filed 25 March 2025. Repeated in its letter dated 5 March 2026, PDF page 3, filed 18 March 2026.

    Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “COVER LETTER” (published 25 Mar 2025), PDF page 1 · Open the 2026 application’s Documents tab (26/01380/EIAMAJ); find “S.73 COVER LETTER” (published 18 Mar 2026), PDF page 3

  • Persimmon says the Council’s ecologist supported dropping the bus link, to limit the impact on a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. The ecologist’s published comments support that point: on 30 April 2025, “ecological support for the removal of the bus link through the Site of Importance for Nature Conservation”; on 17 June 2025, “the replacement of the bus route with a cycleway is supported but further information is needed”.

    Documented Principal Ecologist comments, North Yorkshire Council, 30 April 2025 and 17 June 2025 (the 17 June email attaches an August 2023 ecology response noting “some ongoing uncertainty on the necessity for a bus route” to cross the site). Attributed Persimmon’s statement: Persimmon cover letter dated 21 February 2025, PDF page 1, filed 25 March 2025. Interpretation The ecologist’s comments concern ecology only. They do not address traffic, parking or how buses would run.

    Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “PRINCIPAL ECOLOGIST” (published 30 Apr 2025); “PRINCIPAL ECOLOGIST EMAIL” (published 17 Jun 2025); “PRINCIPAL ECOLOGIST” (published 17 Jun 2025), the attached August 2023 response; and, for Persimmon’s statement, “COVER LETTER” (published 25 Mar 2025), PDF page 1

  • An officer decided the application. The 2025 officer’s report is headed “Delegated Planning Report”, and the Council’s record shows no committee date.

    Documented Officer’s report, 1 October 2025; Public Access Important Dates (“Actual Committee Date: Not Available”).

    Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “OFFICER REPORT” (published 1 Oct 2025), heading · Open the 2025 application’s Important Dates tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ), “Actual Committee Date”

  • The 2025 officer’s report lists an objection from the Parish Council and two letters of objection from the public.

    Documented Officer’s report, “Consultation Responses” and “Local Representations”.

    Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “OFFICER REPORT” (published 1 Oct 2025), “Consultation Responses” and “Local Representations”

  • The officer wrote that the existing bus loop in the first phase “runs regularly to the town centre” and “is stated to be sufficient within the submitted documents”, called the service “regular”, and concluded the change “is not considered to be a demonstrable loss of services”.

    Documented This is the officer’s opinion, not proof that the service was sufficient. Officer’s report, “Assessment”. The report says the service is “according to the bus operator time table”.

    Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “OFFICER REPORT” (published 1 Oct 2025), “Assessment”

  • The 2025 officer’s report does not give a route number. It describes a service to the Army Foundation College, the town centre and through Jennyfields. Persimmon’s letter identifies the bus as Route 4, which it says ran hourly.

    Attributed Persimmon cover letter dated 21 February 2025, PDF pages 1–2 (“the Transdev Number 4 service … provides hourly services to Harrogate Town Centre via the Army Foundation College”).

    Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “OFFICER REPORT” (published 1 Oct 2025); and “COVER LETTER” (published 25 Mar 2025), PDF pages 1–2

  • The assessment in the 2025 officer’s report does not discuss Section 106 or Condition 8. One objector said Condition 8 should remain.

    Documented Officer’s report. Those words appear only in the list of public objections.

    Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “OFFICER REPORT” (published 1 Oct 2025), “Assessment” and “Local Representations”

  • The Parish Council’s 2025 objection said the bus link was a critical element of the original consent and suggested parking restrictions instead.

    Attributed Killinghall Parish Council response, 26 June 2025. The Parish Council’s position, not a finding.

    Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “KILLINGHALL PARISH COUNCIL” (published 26 Jun 2025)

Path observed open: what applied?

5 entries

← Back to the story

This separates what was observed on the ground from what the planning records show. A path opening while other changes are undecided raises a question; it is not, by itself, evidence of wrongdoing.

  • A walking and cycling connection between King Edwin Park and Orchid Way was observed open in early October 2026. In the Parish Council’s draft minutes of 5 October, a councillor said the return walk uphill from Orchid Way was difficult.

    Observed An on-the-ground observation, early October 2026. The exact opening date was not established.

    Attributed Draft minutes, Killinghall Parish Council, 5 October 2026, minute 2026/331, item 7.3, PDF page 5. The published copy is marked “UNAPPROVED”, as checked on 5 November 2026. The uphill comment is one person’s report, not an access assessment.

    For planning records, see: the 2026 application’s Documents tab (26/01380/EIAMAJ) · the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ). Open the Parish Council’s draft minutes, 5 October 2026 (PDF), item 7.3, page 5

  • The approved 2025 drawings include highway layouts, a signing and lining plan for the cycleway, and a specification for “mini” bollards received on 16 May 2025.

    Documented Decision notice, 2 October 2025, condition 2, PDF page 3. The signing and lining drawing is titled “CYCLEWAY SIGNING AND LINING & ROAD 2 JUNCTION”. These are approved plans; they do not show what was built.

    Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find the entry of type “Decision” (published 2 Oct 2025; it has no title), PDF page 3; and “SIGNING AND LINING PLAN” (published 30 May 2025)

  • Not established from the public records: the exact opening date; whether the path as built matches the approved drawings; whether it is, or will become, a public highway or public right of way; and whether emergency vehicles may use it.

    Unresolved None of the records checked settles these points. See also the emergency access entry.

    Records checked: Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ) · Open the 2026 application’s Documents tab (26/01380/EIAMAJ) · Open the 2015 outline application’s Documents tab (HGT14/02737/EIAMAJ)

  • A path opening while the request to delete Condition 8, and the draft change to the 2015 agreement, are still undecided raises a fair question about which approvals applied. It is not, by itself, evidence of a breach: that depends on the exact wording and legal effect of each permission, condition and agreement, and on any approvals or written agreements that are not published.

    Interpretation Based on Condition 8 in the decision notice for the 2018 permission, clause 5 of the 2015 agreement, the pending application and the draft deed.

    Based on: Open the 2018 permission’s Documents tab (HGT18/01028/DVCMAJ); find “Public Decision Notice Permit” (published 21 Dec 2018), PDF page 3 · Open the 2015 outline application’s Documents tab (HGT14/02737/EIAMAJ); find “Legal Agreement/Obligation Part 2 (para 4.3.10 to 5.10.1)” (published 19 Mar 2015), PDF pages 5–6 · Open the 2026 application’s Summary tab (26/01380/EIAMAJ)

How did the bus service change?

4 entries

← Back to the story

In order: what the 2015 agreement describes (the “Bus Service” and the County Council’s duties below), what started in 2024, the July 2026 cut and today’s timetable. These are different kinds of record: an agreement, timetables, draft minutes and the developer’s account (Persimmon on Route 4’s start).

  • The 2015 agreement also binds the County Council. Clause 6.2.5: “Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the parties the County Council shall procure the commencement of the Bus Service by no later than the date specified by the Owner … to be the estimated date of Occupation of 60 Dwellings and in procuring the Bus Service the County Council shall ensure that the Bus Service runs for a minimum period of 5 years from the date of commencement of the Bus Service”. It must give the developer, on request, yearly reports of its spending on the service, passenger numbers and fare income (6.2.7), and repay money still unspent five years after each payment (6.2.8). The payments rise or fall with a cost index (7.9).

    Documented Section 106 agreement, 13 March 2015, Part 3: clauses 6.2.5–6.2.8, PDF pages 4–5 (agreement pages 34–35); clause 7.9, PDF page 10 (page 40). Interpretation These are the terms agreed in 2015. Whether Route 4 was bought as this “Bus Service”, whether the parties agreed otherwise in writing, and how the terms apply now are not shown in the public records checked.

    Open the 2015 outline application’s Documents tab (HGT14/02737/EIAMAJ); find “Legal Agreement/Obligation Part 3 (para 5.10.1 - 9)” (published 19 Mar 2015), PDF pages 4–5 and 10

  • The Council’s Route 4 timetable “from 7 April 2024” lists 13 buses at King Edwin Park on each day from Monday to Friday (06:57 to 18:57) and 13 on Saturdays (06:57 to 18:42). Most are about an hour apart: the Monday-to-Friday gaps range from 50 to 75 minutes. It has no Sunday table, so no Sunday journeys are shown.

    Documented Route 4 timetable (PDF), North Yorkshire Council, printed “from 7 April 2024”. This copy was captured by the Internet Archive on 18 July 2024; the Council no longer hosts it. The Council’s King Edwin Park page, captured on 13 June 2024, listed it as “effective from 7th April 2024”. Persimmon dates the start of Route 4 to 8 April 2024.

    Open the archived April 2024 timetable (PDF), “Mondays to Fridays” and “Saturdays” · Open the archived King Edwin Park page, June 2024

  • The Council’s next Route 4 timetable, “from 1 September 2024”, also lists 13 buses at King Edwin Park on each day from Monday to Friday (06:53 to 18:53) and 13 on Saturdays (06:53 to 18:38), mostly about an hour apart, with no Sunday table. In August 2025 the Council’s King Edwin Park page still linked to this file, under “Timetable effective from 24th March 2025”. By 17 October 2025 the page listed a timetable “effective from 31st August 2025”, which was not found.

    Documented Route 4 timetable (PDF), printed “from 1 September 2024”; this copy was captured by the Internet Archive on 7 November 2024. King Edwin Park page, North Yorkshire Council, as captured on 4 August 2025 and 17 October 2025.

    Open the archived September 2024 timetable (PDF) · Open the archived King Edwin Park page, August 2025 · Open the archived King Edwin Park page, October 2025

  • Not established from the public records: whether Route 4 is the “Bus Service” the 2015 agreement describes; whether the parties agreed a different service in writing; the Council’s full reasons for the July 2026 reduction; how Route 4 is paid for now, and until when; and what the timetable from 31 August 2025 showed.

    Unresolved The operator’s notice of the July 2026 change was not found on its website when checked on 10 October 2026. A North Yorkshire councillor’s reported cost reason appears in the Parish Council’s draft minutes (see the July change), but no Council record giving the full reasons was found in the public documents checked. Persimmon says the 2024 service was agreed with the Council “as required by the S.106 Agreement” (cover letter, 21 February 2025, PDF page 1); that is the developer’s account.

    Records checked: Open the Council’s King Edwin Park bus page · Open the 2015 outline application’s Documents tab (HGT14/02737/EIAMAJ); find “Legal Agreement/Obligation Part 3 (para 5.10.1 - 9)” (published 19 Mar 2015) · Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “COVER LETTER” (published 25 Mar 2025), PDF page 1

What does today’s Route 4 timetable show?

10 entries

← Back to the story

The Council publishes bus timetables on its public transport site, which its own Bus timetables page links to. Page footer: © North Yorkshire Council.

  • The Council lists two bus services for King Edwin Park: Route 4, “Harrogate – King Edwin Park Circular”, timetable effective from 19 July 2026; and S3, Penny Pot – Rossett High School, effective from 29 April 2024. Both are shown as operated by The Harrogate Bus Company.

    Documented “Bus services serving King Edwin Park”, North Yorkshire Council public transport information, checked 5 November 2026.

    Open the Council’s King Edwin Park bus page

  • On Monday to Friday, Route 4 buses leave Harrogate bus station at 06:15, 07:15, 09:40, 12:10, 14:10, 16:40 and 17:50, and reach King Edwin Park at 06:31, 07:32, 09:57, 12:27, 14:27, 16:58 and 18:08. The 07:15 starts from stand 5; the others from stand 3. On Saturdays, buses are timetabled at King Edwin Park at 07:32, 10:27, 12:27, 14:27, 16:27 and 18:07; the first Saturday gap is 2 hours 55 minutes. No Sunday Route 4 journeys are listed, as in the archived 2024 timetables.

    Documented Route 4 timetable (PDF), North Yorkshire Council, “Mondays to Fridays” and “Saturdays” tables (there is no Sunday table), printed “from 19 July 2026”, checked 5 November 2026.

    Open the Council’s Route 4 timetable (PDF), “Mondays to Fridays” and “Saturdays” tables

  • At the Parish Council’s 5 October meeting, a parish councillor said the Route 4 departure times did not suit parents dropping children at secondary school. The councillor listed examples and asked that the concerns be sent to County Councillors.

    Attributed Draft minutes, Killinghall Parish Council, 5 October 2026, minute 2026/331, item 7.3, PDF pages 5–6. The published copy is marked “UNAPPROVED”, as checked on 5 November 2026. This is one councillor’s report, not a survey of parents.

    Open the Parish Council’s draft minutes, 5 October 2026 (PDF), minute 2026/331 (item 7.3), pages 5–6

  • The gap between the 09:40 and 12:10 departures from Harrogate bus station is 2 hours 30 minutes. At King Edwin Park the same two buses are timetabled at 09:57 and 12:27, also 2 hours 30 minutes. The gap between the 14:10 and 16:40 departures is also 2 hours 30 minutes (timetabled at King Edwin Park at 14:27 and 16:58, which is 2 hours 31 minutes). Between 07:15 and 16:40, every gap between departures from Harrogate is at least two hours. At King Edwin Park the gaps between the seven timetabled buses are 61, 145, 150, 120, 151 and 70 minutes; the longest is 2 hours 31 minutes.

    Documented Arithmetic on the Monday-to-Friday times in the Council’s Route 4 timetable, effective 19 July 2026. The PDF gives one time for “King Edwin Park” on each trip, so these are timetabled times at that stop, not arrival times. This is the time between scheduled buses, not every passenger’s wait or journey time. Saturdays were not used for the visual.

    Open the Council’s Route 4 timetable (PDF), “Mondays to Fridays” table

  • Route 4 is a different service from the Number 3 extension in the original assessment. The Route 4 timetable gaps are not a comparison with the proposed 30-minute bus.

    Documented Original assessment, Chapter 6, paragraph 6.37 (Number 3); Persimmon letter dated 21 February 2025, PDF page 1 (“Transdev Number 4 service commenced on the 8th of April 2024”).

    Open the 2026 application’s Documents tab (26/01380/EIAMAJ); find “CHAPTER 6 - TRANSPORTATION” (published 22 May 2026), paragraph 6.37 · Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “COVER LETTER” (published 25 Mar 2025), PDF page 1

  • Persimmon says it worked with the Council to agree an alternative bus service for the estate, and that Route 4 then began on 8 April 2024 as an hourly service via the Army Foundation College.

    Attributed Persimmon cover letter dated 21 February 2025, PDF page 1, filed 25 March 2025. The Council’s own 2024 timetables, which survive as archived copies, show buses about once an hour (see the April 2024 timetable).

    Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “COVER LETTER” (published 25 Mar 2025), PDF page 1

  • The 2025 officer relied on a regular existing bus. The Council’s timetable effective from 19 July 2026 shows long gaps in the day. The later timetable does not by itself invalidate the 2025 decision, which judged the service as it was described then.

    Interpretation Compares the officer’s report (1 October 2025) with the Council’s timetable (effective 19 July 2026). A fair question, not a finding.

    Based on: Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “OFFICER REPORT” (published 1 Oct 2025), “Assessment” · Open the Council’s Route 4 timetable (PDF)

  • Killinghall Parish Council’s draft minutes of 6 July 2026 record a plan to reduce Route 4 to about one bus every two hours. Its 5 October draft minutes record a North Yorkshire councillor’s account (the minutes call this role “County Councillor”): the service cost about £275,000 a year, and the proposed reduction was intended to lower that cost to about £174,000. The councillor said they would seek passenger-use figures. The Council’s Route 4 timetable took effect on 19 July 2026.

    Attributed Draft minutes, Killinghall Parish Council, 6 July 2026, minute 2026/132, PDF page 3, and 5 October 2026, minute 2026/327, PDF page 4. Both published copies are marked “UNAPPROVED”, as checked on 5 November 2026. The October cost figures and reason are one councillor’s report. The public records checked did not give the Council’s full reasons for the cut.

    Open the Parish Council’s draft minutes, 6 July 2026 (PDF), minute 2026/132, page 3 · Open the Parish Council’s draft minutes, 5 October 2026 (PDF), minute 2026/327, page 4 · Open the Council’s Route 4 timetable (PDF)

  • S3 runs on school days only. It leaves Penny Pot Lane at 07:49, passes King Edwin Park (Ingleborough Drive) at 07:52 and reaches Rossett High School at 08:30. In the afternoon it leaves Rossett High School at 15:25 and reaches King Edwin Park (Ingleborough Drive) at 15:59.

    Documented S3 timetable (PDF), North Yorkshire Council, “Monday to Friday”, note “SD – Schooldays only”, checked 8 October 2026.

    Open the Council’s S3 timetable (PDF)

  • The Council’s Route 4 timetable from 31 August 2025, passenger numbers, how Route 4 is funded and until when, the Council’s full reasons for the July 2026 change, and what a more frequent service would cost were not located in the public documents checked.

    Unresolved The 2024 timetables survive as archived copies (see April 2024 and September 2024). The Council’s transport site lists other timetables numbered 4 (for example in Scarborough and Selby), which are different services. A councillor’s reported cost reason appears in draft Parish Council minutes (see the July change); the Council’s full reasons were not found in the public documents checked.

    Checked: Open the Council’s King Edwin Park bus page · Open the Council’s Bus timetables page

What has not been found?

6 entries

← Back to the story

Each item below was not located in the public planning documents checked on 8 October 2026. That does not mean it does not exist. It may be held elsewhere, or not published.

  • The 2 November 2022 email that Persimmon’s 2025 letter cites as “Appendix 1” for the parking point. In the public copy of the letter, Appendix 1 is a house-type register.

    Unresolved Persimmon cover letter dated 21 February 2025, PDF pages 1 and 6 (“COVER LETTER”, filed 25 March 2025).

    Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “COVER LETTER” (published 25 Mar 2025), PDF pages 1 and 6

  • The November 2022 swept path (bus-turning) analysis, reference LTP/4536/T2/03.01, which Persimmon’s 2025 cover letter says found the new bus loop in the first phase efficient and practical for operators. It concerns the first-phase loop, not the Orchid Way link.

    Unresolved Persimmon cover letter dated 21 February 2025, PDF page 1.

    Cited in: Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “COVER LETTER” (published 25 Mar 2025), PDF page 1

  • A Highways recommendation to drop the bus link, with its reasons. The Highways responses on the public files cover road surfaces and rumble strips (14 August and 24 September 2025), or give one line (18 December 2025 and 15 April 2026). A National Highways response says the change would not affect the strategic road network.

    Unresolved Documents “HIGHWAYS” (14 August 2025; 24 September 2025, letter dated 19 September 2025); “HIGHWAY AUTHORITY” (19 June 2025, the National Highways response, PDF page 3), application HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ; “NYC HIGHWAYS” (15 April 2026), application 26/01380/EIAMAJ.

    Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “HIGHWAYS” (published 14 Aug 2025); “HIGHWAYS” (published 24 Sep 2025); and “HIGHWAY AUTHORITY” (published 19 Jun 2025), PDF page 3 · Open the 2026 application’s Documents tab (26/01380/EIAMAJ); find “NYC HIGHWAYS” (published 15 Apr 2026)

  • The bus operator’s view on removing the link.

    Unresolved No operator response is listed among the consultee documents for the 2025 or 2026 applications.

    Consultee documents checked: Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ) · Open the 2026 application’s Documents tab (26/01380/EIAMAJ)

  • An assessment of alternatives to removing bus access, or of access to jobs and services beyond the officer’s short reasoning.

    Unresolved The 2025 officer’s report gives short reasoning, based on the existing bus service, in its “Assessment”.

    Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “OFFICER REPORT” (published 1 Oct 2025), “Assessment”

  • Why the 2025 notice dates and the “neighbour consultation” entry appear as they do on the register (see How was the change publicised?).

    Unresolved

    Open the 2025 application’s Important Dates tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ)

Which questions are still open?

← Back to the story

These are not entries in the index. The label under each question says how far the public record checked goes. “Partly explained” means the record gives some reasons, but not a full assessment.

  1. Is Route 4 the bus service the 2015 agreement describes, and why was it cut in 2026?Attributed The agreement describes a half-hourly service, and a County Council duty to buy it for at least five years unless the parties agreed otherwise in writing. Route 4 started at about once an hour. One North Yorkshire councillor’s account of the cost reason appears in the Parish Council’s draft minutes; no Council record giving the full reasons was found in the public documents checked. Records: the County Council’s duties · the 2024 timetable · the cost account · what is not known
  2. Who in Highways recommended dropping the bus link, and when?Attributed Persimmon says talks with Highways showed the link was unsuitable. No Highways recommendation or reasons were located. Records: Persimmon’s account · the Highways responses on file
  3. What parking, turning and accessibility evidence supported that?Not located Persimmon cites a 2022 email and a bus-turning study. Neither was located, and the study concerns the first-phase loop. Records: the 2022 email · the bus-turning study
  4. Were alternatives, or the bus operator’s views, considered?Partly explained The officer gives short reasoning. No operator response or assessment of alternatives is listed. Records: the officer’s reasoning · the operator’s view · alternatives
  5. What transport assessment shows access is still adequate, given the Council’s current Route 4 timetable?Partly explained The officer relied on the existing bus in 2025. No later assessment was located. Records: the officer’s reasoning · the current timetable
  6. What approvals and conditions applied when the walking and cycling connection opened?Not located Condition 8 still stands unless it is deleted, and no approval under it, or under the footpath/cycleway condition, was found. No explanation from the Council was found. Records: the observed opening · Condition 8 · the register search · why it is a question
  7. Were residents near the link told directly about the 2025 change?Partly explained A site notice and a newspaper notice are recorded, of the kinds national rules list. No letters or wider engagement were found, and how many people knew is not recorded. Records: the 2025 notice dates · the notice rules · wider engagement
  8. Has anyone assessed what a more frequent Route 4 would cost, and how it could be paid for?Not located The funding papers found are general. None covers Route 4. Records: what is not known about Route 4 · funding rules

How was the change publicised?

9 entries

← Back to the story

  • The Council’s online record for the 2025 application shows: received 25 March 2025; last site notice posted 2 April 2025, expiring 26 April 2025; advertised in the press 10 April 2025, expiring 4 May 2025; consultee consultation from 3 June 2025, expiring 27 June 2025.

    Documented Public Access, Important Dates, HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ, checked 8 October 2026 and again on 9 October 2026. The decision notice (2 October 2025, PDF page 5) also says: “The Council posted a site notice publicising this application.”

    Open the 2025 application’s Important Dates tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ) · Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find the entry of type “Decision” (published 2 Oct 2025; it has no title), PDF page 5

  • The documents listed for the 2025 application do not include a site notice or a note of where notices were put. The Important Dates tab also lists a “Latest Neighbour Consultation Date” of 2 October 2025, the day of the decision. The record does not say what that covers, and no conclusion is drawn from it.

    Unresolved Public Access, Documents and Important Dates tabs, HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ, as checked on 8 October 2026.

    Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ) · Open the 2025 application’s Important Dates tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ)

  • The Council’s online record for the 2026 application shows: consultee consultation from 26 March 2026, expiring 19 April 2026; last site notice posted 3 June 2026, expiring 3 July 2026; last press advertisement 11 June 2026, expiring 11 July 2026. It gives no neighbour consultation date.

    Documented Public Access, Important Dates, 26/01380/EIAMAJ, checked 8 October 2026 and again on 9 October 2026 (“Latest Neighbour Consultation Date: Not Available”).

    Open the 2026 application’s Important Dates tab (26/01380/EIAMAJ)

  • For the 2026 application, four site notices were posted on 3 June 2026 and expire on 3 July 2026: at the Jubilee roundabout (Penny Pot Lane and Oaker Bank); two on Ingleborough Drive, one by the site compound; and Orchid Way near the roundabout.

    Documented “CASE OFFICER SITE VISIT NOTES”, 3 June 2026, application 26/01380/EIAMAJ. Also on the register: “EIAAPP EIA PRESS NOTICE” (3 June 2026) and “MAJOR DEVELOPMENT SITE NOTICE” (26 March 2026).

    Open the 2026 application’s Documents tab (26/01380/EIAMAJ); find “CASE OFFICER SITE VISIT NOTES” (published 3 Jun 2026); also “EIAAPP EIA PRESS NOTICE” (published 3 Jun 2026) and “MAJOR DEVELOPMENT SITE NOTICE” (published 26 Mar 2026)

  • The officer’s report for the 2025 application lists an objection from Killinghall Parish Council and two from the public. So people did respond.

    Documented Officer’s report, 1 October 2025, “Consultation Responses” and “Local Representations”.

    Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ); find “OFFICER REPORT” (published 1 Oct 2025), “Consultation Responses” and “Local Representations”

  • National rules say a major application must be advertised in a local newspaper, and either by a site notice for at least 21 days or by notice to adjoining owners or occupiers. An application with an environmental statement needs a site notice for at least 30 days and a newspaper notice. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (February 2024) sets out the same choices in its Table 5.

    Documented Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, article 15, paragraphs (1A) and (4), legislation.gov.uk, latest revised version, read 9 October 2026; Statement of Community Involvement, North Yorkshire Council, February 2024, Table 5, PDF page 23. Interpretation Both applications concern a scheme of hundreds of homes, and the 2026 site notice says that application is “classified as major development”. On their face, the recorded notices are of the kinds these rules list. Whether each notice was displayed where and for as long as required cannot be checked from the published documents.

    Open article 15 on legislation.gov.uk, paragraphs (1A) and (4) · Open the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (PDF), Table 5, PDF page 23

  • No consultation statement, leaflet drop or public event about the 2025 change was found in the documents published for that application. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement says that, depending on a proposal’s nature and impact, applicants making major proposals “will need to carry out their own pre-application public consultation” and send a consultation statement. It does not say, in the sections checked, how this applies to a request to change an existing permission.

    Unresolved Statement of Community Involvement, paragraphs 3.17–3.18, PDF page 21. Not found is not proof that no engagement took place.

    Open the 2025 application’s Documents tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ) · Open the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (PDF), paragraphs 3.17–3.18, PDF page 21

  • For the original scheme, the 2015 officer’s report summarises the developer’s consultation: leaflets to “some 800 houses”, mainly at the western end of the Jennyfields Estate, a notice in the Harrogate Advertiser, and a public exhibition on 24 January 2013 attended by about 62 people.

    Documented Delegated report, 13 March 2015, PDF page 9. This is the officer’s summary of the developer’s Statement of Community Involvement, first made for an earlier application.

    Open the 2015 outline application’s Documents tab (HGT14/02737/EIAMAJ); find “Public Report Delegated Report” (published 13 Mar 2015), PDF page 9

  • Whether notices on site and in a newspaper gave real awareness to the people most affected.

    Interpretation A fair question, not a finding. The public records checked do not establish whether every legal requirement was met.

    Based on: Open the 2025 application’s Important Dates tab (HGTZC25/01014/DVCMAJ) · Open the 2026 application’s Documents tab (26/01380/EIAMAJ); find “CASE OFFICER SITE VISIT NOTES” (published 3 Jun 2026)

Who pays for buses, and who decides?

17 entries

← Back to the story

The Council’s limit of one bus every two hours applies to services it pays an operator to run. It is not a rule for every bus, and these papers do not say how it applies to Route 4 or explain its timetable. The developer’s payments under the 2015 agreement are a separate arrangement: see the “Bus Service” terms and the County Council’s duties.

  • A December 2015 report to the former North Yorkshire County Council’s Executive said: “we will not specify a service frequency which is more than one journey every two hours.”

    Documented “Reduction in Bus Subsidies”, North Yorkshire County Council Executive, 8 December 2015, section 3.3, PDF page 1. A large file that also contains appendices.

    Open the December 2015 Executive report (PDF), section 3.3, PDF page 1

  • An October 2015 committee report says: “The maximum frequency we will specify for a tendered service is one journey every two hours.”

    Documented “Proposed Reduction in Bus Subsidy”, Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee, 14 October 2015, section 3.11, PDF page 4.

    Open the October 2015 scrutiny report (PDF), section 3.11, PDF page 4

  • A 2024 North Yorkshire Council report lists the same limit (“the maximum frequency specified for a tendered service is one journey every two hours”) among the criteria it “has adopted” to prioritise funding for supported bus services. It says spending on tendered buses, community transport and concessionary travel is partly funded from developer contributions, government grants and parking enforcement income, and that around a third of bus services have seen timetable reductions since the pandemic or needed extra financial support.

    Documented “Bus Services in North Yorkshire”, Overview and Scrutiny Committee, 1 February 2024, paragraphs 4.4, 5.1 and 5.2, PDF page 3. These are statements about bus services across the area, not about Route 4.

    Open the 2024 scrutiny report (PDF), paragraphs 4.4, 5.1 and 5.2, PDF page 3

  • The 2015 and 2024 wording is a ceiling on what the Council will specify for tendered services. It is a policy choice, not a law. Neither paper says an hourly bus is prohibited, and neither says how the limit applies to a bus paid for by a developer.

    Interpretation Based on the plain wording of the December 2015 Executive report, the October 2015 scrutiny report and the 2024 scrutiny report.

    Based on: Open the December 2015 Executive report (PDF) · Open the October 2015 scrutiny report (PDF) · Open the 2024 scrutiny report (PDF)

  • The minutes recording the Executive’s December 2015 decision were not located. How the limit applies to a service paid for by a developer is not stated in the papers checked.

    Unresolved

    Related record: Open the December 2015 Executive report (PDF)

  • On 11 September 2026 the Combined Authority’s Cabinet resolved unanimously to approve and adopt a draft Bus Service Improvement Plan for 2027–32, and to develop a new Enhanced Partnership covering the whole Combined Authority area.

    Documented “York and North Yorkshire Bus Services Improvement Plan and Enhanced Partnership”, Cabinet, 11 September 2026, item CA26-39 (minutes text).

    Open the Combined Authority decision, 11 September 2026, item CA26-39

  • The plan says: “We will seek to achieve a minimum frequency on key rural services of one bus every two hours during daytimes”, and “For rural, rural connector and contracted routes, our target frequency is one bus every two hours as a minimum.” It does not say which kind of route Route 4 is.

    Documented Bus Service Improvement Plan, Appendix 1, Combined Authority, 11 September 2026, PDF pages 6 and 50.

    Open the draft Bus Service Improvement Plan (PDF), PDF pages 6 and 50

  • A minimum frequency (a floor) and a maximum frequency the Council will specify (a ceiling) are different policy tools. Both are policy choices.

    Interpretation Based on the 2015 and 2024 Council reports and the Combined Authority’s 2026 draft plan.

    Based on: Open the 2024 scrutiny report (PDF) · Open the draft Bus Service Improvement Plan (PDF)

  • The York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority is a regional body led by the Mayor. Its devolution deal gave the Mayor “considerable powers over bus services” previously held by North Yorkshire Council and City of York Council. A report to its 27 March 2026 meeting recommended delegating those powers back to the two councils until 31 March 2027, and said “the financial budgets that fund day-to-day bus services reside with NYC and CYC”.

    Documented A recommendation, not a decision. “Delivering the Mayor’s Bus Powers in 2026/27”, Combined Authority report, 27 March 2026, paragraphs 2.1, 3.1 and 4.2 (filed by the Council as Appendix A to its Executive item 878, 31 March 2026).

    Open the March 2026 bus powers report, paragraphs 2.1, 3.1 and 4.2

  • At its 27 March 2026 meeting the Combined Authority resolved unanimously to delegate the powers to the two councils from 1 April 2026 until 31 March 2027, “subject to constituent councils’ acceptance”. The minutes say City of York Council had accepted the day before.

    Documented A decision. Minutes of 27 March 2026, minute CA25-108, as published in the Combined Authority’s agenda pack for 1 May 2026 (item 2), PDF page 16.

    Open the Combined Authority papers, 1 May 2026 (PDF), item 2, minute CA25-108, PDF page 16

  • On 31 March 2026 the Council’s Executive resolved unanimously to recommend that the Chief Executive manage buses as before but defer accepting the Mayor’s powers until 31 March 2027, until budget and decision-making questions were clarified. The minutes say a two-year funding package was proposed, a shortfall of £200,000 a year remained, and services were being subsidised by the Council. They do not mention Route 4 or developer contributions.

    Documented A recommendation, not the final decision. Executive, North Yorkshire Council, 31 March 2026, item 878 (minutes text).

    Open the Council Executive item, 31 March 2026, item 878

  • The Chief Executive’s final decision on accepting the delegation was not located in the public records checked.

    Unresolved As checked on 8 October 2026.

    Related record: Open the Council Executive item, 31 March 2026

  • Section 14 of the Bus Services Act 2025 (in force from 1 April 2026) requires enhanced partnership plans to list socially necessary local services, and requires the authority to consider alternatives when a listed service is cancelled or varied with a material adverse effect. Plans must be updated within one year.

    Documented Bus Services Act 2025, section 14, legislation.gov.uk.

    Open section 14 of the Bus Services Act 2025

  • Government guidance gives 31 March 2027 for updating plans, and says the measure is “not a mandate on LTAs to provide unfunded services”. LTA means local transport authority.

    Documented “Bus enhanced partnerships”, GOV.UK, section “Socially necessary services”.

    Open the GOV.UK guidance, section “Socially necessary services”

  • The Combined Authority’s September 2026 report says an update to minimum standards is expected in March 2027, including an obligation to set out socially necessary local bus services and a process for alternatives if they are withdrawn or varied.

    Documented BSIP and Enhanced Partnership report, Combined Authority Cabinet, 11 September 2026, paragraph 6.1, PDF page 5.

    Open the September 2026 Combined Authority report (PDF), paragraph 6.1, PDF page 5

  • No list of socially necessary services that includes or excludes Route 4, and no decision on whether Route 4 qualifies, was found in the public documents reviewed.

    Unresolved As checked on 8 October 2026.

    Related records: Open the September 2026 Combined Authority report (PDF) · Open section 14 of the Bus Services Act 2025

  • On 2 October 2026, the Combined Authority approved the first step towards a study of bus franchising in York and North Yorkshire. The Mayor then issued a notice to prepare an assessment. The announcement does not set out a decision about Route 4.

    Documented “First step towards greater local control of bus services across York and North Yorkshire approved”, York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, 2 October 2026. Interpretation The announcement describes a regional study, not a change to the Route 4 timetable.

    Open the Combined Authority’s announcement, 2 October 2026

Words used in the story

Approved drawings
The plans the Council has said yes to. Changing them needs a new application.
Condition
A rule attached to a planning permission.
Section 73 application
A request to change or remove a condition on a permission that already exists.
Section 106 agreement
A legal deal between a developer and the Council. It can require things like roads, school money or bus links.
Deed of variation
A legal document that changes an existing Section 106 agreement.
Site notice
A paper notice put up on or near a site to say that a planning application has been made.
Outline permission and reserved matters
Outline permission agrees the idea of a development. “Reserved matters” is the later stage where the detailed layout and design are agreed.
Environmental Impact Assessment
A report on how a big project could affect its surroundings.
Site of Importance for Nature Conservation
A local designation for land that matters for wildlife. Often shortened to SINC.
Highways team
The Council’s Local Highway Authority. It advises on road safety and design.
Delegated decision
A planning decision made by a Council officer rather than by the Planning Committee.
EIR
The Environmental Information Regulations. They let anyone ask a public body for information about things like planning and transport.
Bus gate
A point on a road that only some vehicles, such as buses, may pass.
BREEAM
A rating scheme for how sustainable a building is. The 2026 application also asks to change building standards of this kind.
Subsidy
Money paid to help run a bus service that does not cover its costs from fares.
Tendered service
A bus service that a council pays an operator to run.
Bus Service Improvement Plan
A plan, set by a local transport authority, for how it wants to improve local bus services.
Local transport authority
The public body responsible for transport planning and local bus services in an area.
Enhanced partnership
A formal agreement between a local authority and bus operators about how local buses are run.
Socially necessary bus service
A service that lets people reach essentials, jobs or social activities, and whose loss would seriously affect them.

About this page

Independent information about King Edwin Park’s planned bus link and its public transport. It is not produced by North Yorkshire Council, Persimmon Homes, The Harrogate Bus Company or Transdev, and it is not legal advice. Each entry cites a publicly accessible record (an official page, or a labelled archived copy where the Council no longer hosts it), or the records searched where something was not located. Parts marked “Observed” rest on an on-the-ground observation; interpretations and unresolved points are marked.

Back to the story