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 Executive.

Please note that our registration deadlines are set as two working days before the meeting, in order to facilitate the management of public participation at our meetings.  The deadline for registering at this meeting is 5.00pm on Friday, 27 February 2026.      

To register to speak please visit www.york.gov.uk/AttendCouncilMeetings to fill in an online registration form.  If you have any questions about the registration form or the meeting, please contact Democratic Services.  Contact details can be found at the foot of this agenda.

Webcasting of Public Meetings

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

The Leader of the Council reported that four written representations had been submitted in advance of the meeting. The representations were all in relation to agenda item 10, ‘City Centre Events and Permanent Anti-Terrorism Traffic Regulation Order’. These had been taken into account and published on the Council’s website.

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

Flick Williams spoke remotely in relation to agenda item 10, ‘City Centre Events and Permanent Anti-Terrorism Traffic Regulation Order’. It was emphasised that Coppergate car park did not have a ground floor. Dundas Street was far away from the foot streets. Improvements within the city centre would assist those disabled people already able to get there, but if vehicles were not permitted into the foot streets, then there would be disabled people for whom there was no mitigation, and they would be excluded.

The report made eight references to co-design. It was pointed out that sitting disabled people in a room and asking what their solution was to an intractable set of circumstances was not co-design. That it may be well-meaning, but it was managing expectations and making them complicit in their own exclusion. This had been exacerbated by the lack of a remuneration policy and expecting disabled people to give their time and expertise for free. There was reference to co-production. This was considered a gross misrepresentation. Co-production was about power sharing, making decisions on an equal basis. Yet, disabled people were not even part of the safety advisory group and had to rely on a council officer to represent them.

Paragraph 25 of the report was considered insulting. That talking about better mapping of lived experience was nonsense. Disabled people had reported in every consultation about access needs. It was predicted that once in place, far from lying dormant, a permanent ATTRO would be used for more events, including protests. And with the UK terror threat level now certain to rise from substantial to severe, it meant the prospect of a permanent blue badge ban.

Councillor Baxter spoke in relation to agenda item 9, ‘Recycling Review’. She thanked Councillor Kent, Executive Member for Environment and Climate Emergency and officers for all the work that had gone into this area of work. Waste and recycling was a complex service to run, especially with the continual balancing act across the city with different priorities. Recycling collections was an issue that had an impact on residents as soon as it happened, whether it was a recycling box that had blown over or materials that had spilled into the street. It had an impact on how people felt about their neighbourhood and the council’s approach to dealing with these matters seriously was welcomed.

Reference was made to Hull Road with the mix of housing types, and that three boxes could be challenging in some areas. The proposal to start engagement on moving to wheeled recycling bins for many households could bring huge practical improvements. This included better containment of materials, better capacity or a simpler system for people to navigate. It could also reduce littering on windy days.

Councillor Baxter also wished to pay tribute to the late Martin Emerson who was Chair of the local residents’ association and who it was reported had e-mailed on a regular basis on this issue. It was felt that although he wasn't here to see it through, he would be pleased with this development.

Diane Roworth spoke remotely in relation to agenda item 10, ‘City Centre Events and Permanent Anti-Terrorism Traffic Regulation Order’. Reference was made to the ambition of the council to provide full independent access for all to the city centre. An ambition that was applauded and no less than should be expected of a human rights city. Getting to grips with ATTRO was one factor in achieving this. ATTRO may be necessary at times but needed to be implemented in a way that upheld the council's plans for accessibility for all. The council plan with a core objective of equality of opportunity, the local transport plan, economic strategy, and city centre 10-year plan all embedded inclusivity and access for all. But there was a need to be more ambitious in achieving access for all because disabled people were being left behind.

The report was not considered robust enough in explaining the complete exclusion of some people from the city centre when the ATTRO was in place. The human rights and equality impact assessment was confusing as it identified the actions proposed as

positive for disabled people. It was not considered positive for those disabled people for whom their mitigation such as closer parking was insufficient. They would be excluded and that needed to be publicly acknowledged because it was an important factor in how the ATTRO was to be enforced in future.

The report had not identified that disabled people were not a static

cohort. There were over 8,000 blue badge holders, but 1,600 new blue badges had been issued over the last 12 months. That was 1,600 people who were unable to go into the city when an ATTRO was in place unless it was applied differently.

Proposals in the report had been described as co-designed and co-produced with York Disability Rights Forum and York Access Forum, which was stated to be a generous description. Two meetings had been held to seek disabled people's views on what could be done to mitigate the impacts of the ATTRO. However, this report was the first time they had seen what had been taken from those meetings despite asking to see it before it went into the report.

There was a need to develop a common understanding of what co-design and co-production involved before it was applied. Thousands of people were being marginalised, including the 1,600 new blue badge holders. 24% of the population were disabled people, which in social model terms meant disabled by society not their impairments.

Andy D’Agorne spoke in relation to agenda item 9, Recycling Review and agenda item 10, City Centre Events and Permanent Anti-Terrorism Traffic Regulation Order. He welcomed the

recycling review and plans to consult residents on proposals for recycling bins to replace boxes wherever possible. This should reduce injuries and minimise street litter on windy recycling days.

The main concern was the limited outside storage space for houses with yards or smaller gardens. Other ideas could be explored, which included encouraging residents to share one or more bins and allowing residents to swap to a smaller slimline residual waste black bin, such as those that had been used on the ‘Bags to Bins’ project.

In relation to inclusive access to the city centre, the proposed permanent ATTRO needed to be consulted on urgently. In relation to paragraph four of the report, concern was expressed that cycle use as a mobility aid was still banned throughout the year when provision had been made for car users with blue badges to access various routes. Paragraphs five and nine suggested a completely unacceptable three-to-five-year time scale for mitigating the impact of the measures despite work having started in 2021 to consider new disabled parking bays.

Councillor Fisher spoke in relation to agenda item 11, ‘Consultation on a York Wide Smoke Control Area’. He expressed concern that the proposed measures were considered a solution to a problem that was negligible. He stated that PM2 particles was an issue in medium to high concentrations, but the additional areas had very low concentrations and that most of it blew away. 

He also expressed concern that many older residents used open fires or older wood burning stoves. That many could not afford new appliances. In addition, it was highlighted that the consultation showed that there was 64.7% opposition to the proposed measures.