Agenda item

At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered to speak can do so. Members of the public may speak on agenda items or on matters within the remit of the committee.

Please note that our registration deadlines have changed to 2 working days before the meeting. The deadline for registering at this meeting is at 5.00pm on Friday 8 September 2023.

 To register to speak please visit www.york.gov.uk/AttendCouncilMeetings to fill out an online registration form. If you have any questions about the registration form or the meeting please contact the Democracy Officer for the meeting whose details can be found at the foot of the agenda.

Webcasting of Public Meetings

Please note that, subject to available resources, this public meeting will be webcast including any registered public speakers who have given their permission. The public meeting can be viewed on demand at www.york.gov.uk/webcasts.

During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates (www.york.gov.uk/COVIDDemocracy) for more information on meetings and decisions.

It was reported that there had been 10 registrations to speak at the session under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

Councillor Warters spoke on agenda items 4 - Acknowledgement of Petitions and the lack of discussion with ward Councillors. He also spoke on 5 - Annual Review of Traffic Regulation Order Requests where he objected to annex P1, explaining that the parking issues at this location were created by the Council and that the planned action would just displace the problem elsewhere. He requested that this item be rejected and called for Officers to consult with ward and parish Councillors to find a solution.

Councillor Warters then read out a statement on behalf of Dunnington Parish Council on item 8 - Speed Limit Traffic Regulation Order Amendments - Pre Consultation who objected to the Officer recommendation for a number of reasons, including that the item did not receive any due consideration and that there was no logic in waiting 12 months for the Bishopthorpe Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) to be completed, amongst others.

Gwen Swinburn spoke on unlawful spending and the issue of Officer delegation, which were rarely reported. She stated that Officers pick and choose what to record and this keeps Members and residents in the dark, namely on the suspended Highways Design Guide. She then asked for a written reply on the results of the adoption of Government House Road in 2021.

John Young also spoke on agenda item 4, namely the Race Day petition, and explained that residents were not notified of the erection of the barriers and road closures. He explained that the area had never previously had any issues with race day traffic and that the barriers were often not taken down in time. He noted that there was no support for the barriers from local residents and asked Officers why there was no notification nor consultation for them.

Councillor Nicholls questioned the length of the proposed changes detailed in annex B1 of agenda item 5 before welcoming the Officer recommendations detailed in agenda item 8 in regards to the Bishopthorpe ETO. He explained that without this decision, the partial 20mph speed limits would cause confusion and an increase in road signs. He then stated that the village speed watch and Parish Council supported the recommendations before commenting on some of the objections raised. He concluded by asking for further support for the village speed watch.

Andy D’Arogne spoke on the delay of the transport strategy and the local cycling and walking infrastructure plan. He commented on the need for a basic funded bus priority measures and warned that the stalling of the active travel programme may result in undermined funding bids. He then spoke on agenda item 8, stating that the trials for Bishopthorpe and Dunnington should go ahead and then commenting on agenda item 4, namely the Farrar St petition, stating that the wishes of long term residents should not be ignored.

Christopher Tregellis also spoke on agenda item 5, namely on annex Q4. He supported the Officer recommendations which proposed that the existing no waiting 8am-6pm restriction be extended. He explained that this would alleviate traffic issues and improve pedestrian access on the footpath.

Councillor Smalley spoke on agenda item 7 - Response to Granary Estate Road Adoption Petition and explained that this had created difficult experiences for residents. He stated that residents were not aware that the roads weren’t adopted and the issues that this could cause. He concluded by supporting the Officer recommendations, requesting that the Council updates residents on negotiations between parties every 6 months and supported the comments made by Christopher Tregellis.

Councillor Myers spoke on agenda item 4, namely on the Respark scheme detailed in annex B, and asked Officers to check if the existing zones in Clifton were large enough before asking for a timeframe on the consultation process. He then spoke on agenda item 5, namely annex on C, and detailed his support for the proposed changes.

It was reported that there had been 9 written representations received by the Executive Member.

Peter Rollings, Chairman of Rufforth with Knapton Parish Council, wrote in regards to agenda item 9 - Speed Limit Traffic Regulation Order Amendments (Post Public Consultation), namely on the two items concerning the village of Rufforth. He supported the proposal for a 20mph limit on Wetherby Road but expressed disappointment with the Officer recommendation in relation to Bradley Lane. He explained that a 40mph buffer would improve compliance with the 30mph restrictions and reduce speeds around nearby dangerous bends before asking the Executive Member to reconsider the proposal.

Diane and Dennis Sugden wrote in relation to agenda item 5, namely annex J7. They wrote in support of the recommendation and explained that they have had difficulties when exiting from their driveway due to vehicles that were parked outside, limiting their visibility.

Carlton Owen wrote in relation to agenda item 5, namely annex Q5. He explained that there was a large number of vehicles parked on the pedestrian path and stated that the no waiting at any time restrictions should be painted on the north side instead. He noted that these issues arose from a house in multiple occupation on the street and asked for a parking permit for each household in Mitchell Way.

Councillor Orrell wrote in regards to agenda item 8, namely on the two items in Huntington. For New Lane, he stated that traffic calming measures were required and asked to move the 30mph sign towards Malton Road. For North Lane, he noted that there was a speeding issue in the residential area of the road and asked for a 30mph sign towards the ring road.

Max West also wrote in relation to annex Q5 in agenda item 5. They noted that the nuisance parking predominantly occurred on the north side of the road and this was also where foot traffic was highest, which caused problems for pedestrians. They asked for the restrictions to be implemented on the north side before stating that the parking problems arose due to the house in multiple occupation. They concluded by asking Officers to consult with residents before any decision was made.

Ann-Marie Richards also wrote in relation to annex Q5 in agenda item 5. She explained that the parking on the north side caused visibility issues and asked for the no waiting at any time restriction to be implemented on the north side.

A resident also wrote in relation to annex Q5 in agenda item 5. They explained that the parking issue was with the north side of the road and asked for the restrictions to be implemented there. They also stated that the volume of vehicles from the house in multiple occupation was the cause of these issues. They also noted that these vehicles caused oil leaks along the road before stating that the parking was a safety hazard.

Mr and Mrs Sheehan Gibbons wrote in relation to agenda item 5, namely on annex T4. They wrote in objection to the recommendation and explained that there was no parking issues in the cul-de-sac, there was no public alleyway or right of way as mentioned in the background information. This restriction would mean that other vehicles, e.g. delivery, would not be able to park outside their property and asked that the no waiting at any time restrictions do not extend in front of their property or driveway.

Councillor Pearson wrote in relation to agenda item 5, namely on annex I. He supported the proposals detailed in annexes I1, I4, I5, I6, I7 and I8 and asked that the restrictions in I2 and I3 still be advertised. He explained that the proposals in I8 were important to local residents and was currently creating accessibility and visibility issues. On I2, he explained that pavement parking was an issue and was causing problems for residents and pedestrians before asking that no waiting at any time restrictions were imposed on the western side of the road or in the location originally requested. On I3, he asked that it be advertised and that a final decision was made on consultation feedback. He noted parking issues in the area and asked that no waiting at any time restrictions were extended and filled in on the northern side of Back Lane/Greenshaw Drive.