Decision Session - Executive Member for Transport
Set out below is a summary of the decisions taken at the meeting of the Decision Session Executive Member for Transport held on Tuesday, 17 May 2022. The wording used does not necessarily reflect the actual wording that will appear in the minutes.
Members are reminded that, should they wish to call in a decision, notice must be given to Democracy Services no later than 5pm on Thursday 19 May 2022.
If you have any queries about any matters referred to in this decision sheet please contact RobertFlintoft.
4. Consideration of results from the consultation about Parking restrictions in relation to Cavendish Grove, Tranby Avenue and Moore Avenue/Osbaldwick Lane junction
Resolved:
i. Implement junction protection on Tranby Avenue at it junction with Hull Road and Cavendish Grove with its junction with Tranby Avenue and explore possibility of restrictions to maintain safety at the bus stop on street.
Reason: The Junction protection will increase safety at these
locations and also allow York Council Civil Enforcement Officers the ability to enforce obstructive parking near the junctions, which was the original complaint. This will also respect the views of the
residents and not remove their ability to park in the area if required.
ii. is recommended that approval be given to implement as proposed for the Moore Avenue/Osbaldwick Lane Junction.
Reason: The introduction of restrictions at this location will provide clearer sight lines for pedestrians using the tactile crossing while crossing this junction and improve pedestrian safety.
5. Consideration of representations received to the advertised R30 extended Residents Priority Parking scheme for East Parade
Resolved:
i. No further action is taken in relation to the advertised resident’s priority parking scheme on East Parade. In addition it is recommended that approval be given to implement the advertised No Waiting Restrictions (double yellow lines) on East Parade at the entrance to Parade Court only. The No Waiting restrictions to be implemented are annotated in Annex A, along with the advertised proposed residents parking scheme in Annex B.
Reason: To acknowledge residents objections and comments received from both, within the advertised affected area of East Parade and nearby adjoining streets, who would all be disadvantaged by the proposals. Previous responses for the whole area were against the introduction of a scheme and the received representations confirms the existing thoughts of residents relating to implementing restrictions on a partial area.
The no waiting restrictions either side of Parade Court provide the necessary junction protection for safety when vehicles are entering and exiting the junction and maintain a visibility splay for drivers vision of oncoming vehicles.
6. PROW – Copmanthorpe Level Crossing Closure, proposed diversion of Public Footpath
Copmanthorpe No2
Resolved:
i. Rejected Network Rail’s application to divert the footpath via a stepped footbridge at Beckett’s Crossing.
Reason: As the proposed footbridge would not provide provisions to allow disabled pedestrians to use the crossing. The footbridge proposal being unlight and enclosed was also considered to be an unsafe crossing particularly at night.
7. Piccadilly city living neighbourhood – Highway changes
Resolved:
i. Agreed to the implementation of Options B and C. Option B proposes to continue to work with developers and Council led projects in the area to implement the “preferred option” as set out above, with the following elements added:
· Creation of an additional “integrated”, on carriageway bus stop (with associated facilities and Kassel kerbs) in front of the Banana Warehouse site;
· Further work to assess the feasibility of implementing an alternative cycle route through quieter streets or segregated cycling provision on Piccadilly (linked to work being undertaken through the City Centre Bus Routing Study/LCWIP/LTP4 processes); and
· Review opportunities to provide additional public seating within the “preferred option”;
· Implementation of a 20mph speed limit on Piccadilly.
ii. Option C adds a Review of on street parking provision aiming to maximise Blue Badge parking provision, and to provide a taxi rank and motorcycle parking if possible.
iii. Review what action could be taken on addressing unauthorised vehicle access along Piccadilly – Pavement – Stonebow.
Reason: To support the delivery of the Castle Gateway Masterplan approved by the Council’s Executive in April 2018 and deliver the Masterplan’s vision for Piccadilly, whilst providing adequate public transport facilities, considering options to improve cycling provision and considering options to improve seating and Blue Badge parking provision. This includes consideration of the Council’s duties under the Equality Act (public sector equality duty).
8. Stadium Parking impact – Huntington Area
Resolved:
i. Approved further investigation into the match day parking on New Lane and Priory Wood Way Glade to develop a proposal on these streets for parking restrictions.
ii. Delegated approval of the proposal and authority to commence statutory consultation to the Director of Environment, Transport and Planning.
iii. Agreed that if objections are received to the statutory consultation to bring these back to a future Executive Member for Transport Decision Session
Reason: To respect the views of the residents on those streets about their requests for additional restrictions to help with issues related to match day parking.
iv. Approved a review of parking in the Huntington area, due to the concerns raised around the daily issues of vehicles parking too close to the junction and obstructive parking on Hambleton Way at School times. Add any areas that are highlighted as part of the review to the annual review process to be taken forward for statutory consultation.
Reason: The consultation was undertaken to get a clear view of
issues related to match day parking but we should not ignore other issues that were raised as part of the process.
v. To take no further action on the remaining streets within the consultation area.
Reason: The residents of the area are not in favour of restrictions due to the personal impact that the restrictions will have on their personal lives as the restrictions will reduce the ability for visitor parking.