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 are set as 2 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 20^th March 2025.

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.

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

Flick Williams spoke on item 5, discussing the implications of the Rougier Route for disabled people. She suggested the report did not contain adequate data to enable members to carry out their scrutiny function, challenging the premise that this scheme would reduce journey times and suggesting assumptions had been made by officers. She cited case law that stated hackney carriages to be public transport, and suggested people reliant on taxis often needed to switch between hackney carriages and private hire cabs purely based on availability. She noted that while the report focused on blue badge holders’ parking rights, it did not acknowledge their right to access the foot streets by taxi. She highlighted the continued absence of an Equalities Impact Assessment, which should be created at the start of a proposal and maintained as a living document. She concluded by urging members to strongly recommend exemptions for taxis and blue badge holders, in order to avoid potential legal challenges to this proposal.

Roger French spoke on item 5 in support of the proposal, on behalf of York Bus Forum (YBF). He stated that the initiative was a crucial step toward creating a more reliable, inclusive, and sustainable transport system for the city’s growing population and visitors, who were currently delayed by traffic congestion. He stated that YBF believed this congestion to be primarily due to an absence of enforcement measures, and the volume of ordinary cars negatively impacted the bus services that the Rougier Route was intended to benefit. He said the Rougier Route should be implemented as part of a more comprehensive strategy across the city centre to alleviate traffic congestion, and doing nothing was not an option. He fully endorsed the Rougier Route and committed the YBF to working alongside the council to reduce congestion.

John Iredale spoke on item 5, as chair of the local residents association, specifically regarding the effect the proposed changes would have on the residents of Bishophill. He noted that a recent meeting of the residents association had highlighted concerns such as the possibility of creating a “rat run” along Victor Street (especially for taxis leaving Bishophill); concerns about exit and entry into Bishophill if the Victoria Bar were closed, suggesting this would cause a major problem. He noted that the residents association welcomed the amended scheme’s numberplate recognition, and that overall people felt this would improve public transport.

Robyn Jankel spoke on item 5 on behalf of the York Cycle Campaign (YCC), supporting the route. She asked the committee to recommend the scheme proceed without dilution. She advised that YCC supported a full-time bus gate for simplicity and safety reasons. Regarding exemptions, she urged the council to reserve the bus gate for buses, cycles and emergency vehicles, as allowing more traffic through the gate would dilute the scheme, discouraging residents from switching to bus or active travel. She supported immediate introduction of a 20mph speed limit as part of the trial for the core area of the scheme and suggested that the minor inconvenience to drivers represented a significant increase to the safety of active travel users.

Anthony May spoke on item 5 in strong support of the proposal, on behalf of York Civic Trust. His only criticism was that he did not understand why the 20mph speed limit was now a longer term project. He supported the inclusion of hackney carriages but expressed concern regarding private hire vehicles. He agreed regarding blue badge holders where there were reasonable adjustments. He stated that he hoped the committee would support the scheme. Professor May also made a point regarding item 6 on the Local Transport Strategy – which referred to the mayor’s Local Transport Policy. He said he worried this was not reflective of the Council’s priorities, especially with regard to movement and place, suggesting the committee review the Local Transport Policy as it was being developed.

Andy D’Agorne spoke on item 5 on behalf of York Green Party, he supported the scheme but posed some specific points. He suggested applying the 20mph limit as a part of the trial, regardless of longer term. He stated that a short section of Tanner Row should remain two-way, so as not to send cars all around the loop, or across in front of the Grand Hotel. He agreed regarding proposals for hackney carriages. He felt there was a strong case for 7am-7pm hours of operation, since this would facilitate evening access for hospital and the nighttime economy. If 24/7 hours of operation were adopted, this would present issues with the Spurriergate barriers or Coney Street could become an alternative route. In summary he stated the scheme was a welcome measure for bus services in the city.

Janice Gray spoke on item 5, discussing the timing of the questionnaire; suggesting that the consultation should not have been put out in November/December.  She felt that there had been more hold ups due to the four-way traffic lights, and that Rougier street was often otherwise empty. She mentioned she had suggested reopening Micklegate to two-way traffic, though she conceded this was unlikely to happen. She conceded that the scheme would likely mean more traffic using Nunnery Lane and Skeldergate, and didn’t have any strong views on this.

Arshad Mahmood spoke on item 5, as Chair of the York City Taxi Association. He noted that many residents relied on taxis every day, and stated that the YCTA supported the council’s aims to improve bus reliability and reduce congestion. However, he suggested that the council risked creating new problems while solving others. He advised that closing Rougier Street would divert around 7000 journeys a day, leading to more congestion elsewhere and longer journey times. This would impact taxi passengers with a fare rise of £5-6 per trip from St Saviourgate to station, as well as increased journey time. He stressed that his vehicles were not just traffic but rather a key part of public transport system for people who can’t use buses. He noted that many YCTA vehicles were electric or hybrid. He referred to the proven model in Leeds – which allowed hackney carriages without compromising bus performance. He suggested that this protected accessibility, prevented delays and fare increases whilst still achieving wider transport goals. Many people support this scheme but only a minority had said they would switch to buses.