|
City of York Council |
Committee Minutes |
|
|
Meeting |
Decision Session - Executive Member for Transport |
|
|
Date |
28 April 2026 |
|
|
Present |
Councillor Ravilious |
|
|
Officers in Attendence |
Dave Atkinson – Director of Environmental and Regulatory Services Darren Hobson – Highway Regulation Manager Geoff Holmes – Traffic Projects Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
45. Apologies for Absence (10:33am)
There were no apologies.
46. Declarations of Interest (10:33am)
The Executive Member was asked to declare, at this point in the meeting, any disclosable pecuniary interests, or other registerable interests she might have in respect of business on the agenda, if she had not already done so in advance on the Register of Interests. None were declared.
47. Minutes (10:33am)
Resolved: That the minutes of the Decision Session held on Tuesday, 10 February 2026 be approved and signed by the Executive Member as a correct record.
48. Public Participation (10:34am)
It was reported that there had been 11 registrations to speak at the session under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.
Cllr Taylor spoke on Annex I2 requesting not enforcing double yellow lines on the western side of Linton Street, Winchester Avenue, Garland Street. This was because the area of concern was always the junction closer to Poppleton Road school and Winchester Grove has no on street parking. He also spoke on the Annex I1 Acomb Road item, crediting objectors and officer recommendations against change.
Melinda Fox spoke in support of double yellow lines for Danebury Drive - Annex A2. She felt there was an accident waiting to happen at this junction. Wished to keep junction safe over preserving parking for local businesses.
Rebecca Lack spoke remotely on Field View/Tennyson Avenue (C2-3) in support of taking no further action here. She ciited the council’s obligation as a landlord, putting restrictions onto Field View will push parking onto neighbouring streets.
Jack Horan spoke about double yellow lines on Fordlands Road junction (E2). He felt this would push parking for elderly/people with children further away from their homes. He acknowledged that this was a dangerous junction but noted that if anything the cars parked near the corner calmed traffic from speeding. He felt care home expansion did not have enough parking and has been parking spreading onto the street.
Ian Smart spoke on Annex F2 in support of double yellow lines on Huntington Mews. He felt cars were parking in the cul-de-sac as a long term car park, making access to his driveways difficult. He was also concerned about students at Peppermill Court parking and that this issue could worsen.
Christopher Teeling spoke in support of Annex H for Straylands and Woodlands Grove. He said vehicles are currently forced onto the opposing carriageway by pavement parking, particularly when there is a rugby game or football match taking place, and that he felt the council should even consider extending the TRO.
Adrian Rodaway spoke on behalf of Holgate Methodist Church opposing Acomb Road proposal (I1). He cited the impact of not being able to park near the church for parishioners, guide groups etc as well as the need for accessible parking during its use as a polling station. Re visibility on Murray Lane junction he suggested reduction to 20 mph limit would work better.
Jack Merrett spoke on item P2 opposing double yellow lines on Front Street Naburn. He stated that the proposed plans are not what were requested. He had spoken with consultants in Road Safety who agreed with him, and he himself is a professional civil engineer. His proposal was that there should be double yellow lines on one side only rather than both.
John Jefferson on behalf of Naburn parish council supporting item P2 regarding the potential for a collision on this road on blind bend due to parking on opposite side of road. He understood the concerns of some villagers who felt they had been affected, noting the council needed to consider wider public safety. He praised the Highways teams work, noting that the revised proposals acknowledged objectors by allowing more pavement parking.
Cllr Waller spoke on proposals in Westfield Ward (O) particularly regarding Wetherby Road. He suggested these restrictions would move parking to the other side of the road. While there was a No Further Action recommendation on these double yellow lines a speed data study was recommended, and if undertaken he requested that this be shared publicly. He agreed with officers that the junction of Chapelfields road causes visibility problems.
Cllr Hook spoke on Northfield Lane (Annex M) – stating that she appreciated the plan that no yellow lines would be installed in the proposed area, but she requested no yellow lines be installed in the area at all. She explained that the Park Run directed people to park in Dobbies car park and that while problems were still caused by lorries parking on Northfield lane for statutory breaks, ward residents would not want these lorries to be displaced to near their houses by yellow lines.
49. Review of Statutory Consultation for 'No Waiting' Restrictions on Dennings Mews (10:41am)
The report was presented by the Highway Regulation Manager, who summarised the review of the Statutory Consultation for “No Waiting” restrictions on Dennings Mews.
The Executive Member stated that she had considered this report and the written representation from the ward councillor. She recognised the benefits of removing obstructive parking, including the creation of a safer environment for pedestrians and cyclists and better access for emergency and waste collection vehicles.
She clarified that residents would continue to be able to load and unload vehicles in this area, since the proposed double yellow lines permit this. She declined to implement an additional loading/unloading ban but asked officers to monitor progress after implementation, and if for any reason there was a persistent problem with loading, it will be reassessed in a future review.
She noted that double yellow lines would prevent parking, and would specifically prevent the area being used as a parking place for the school run.
The Executive Member therefore
Resolved: To implement the TRO as advertised
Reason: The proposed restrictions will help remove the obstructive parking that has been reported through the consultation process. The installation of the proposed restriction will also stop the redeveloped street from becoming used by commuters, which will remove danger and allow waste services collection and access to the cycle path unhindered, which will facilitate the passage on the road for all classes of traffic including pedestrians.
50. Consideration of representations received during the Statutory Consultation for the proposed amendments to the York Parking, Stopping and Waiting Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) (10:45am)
The Executive Member considered the original proposals for each issue together with representations received and made her decision from the options given on each Ward via individual Annexes:
A1 – Ouseburn Avenue:
Resolved: To implement as advertised with Speed Data Radar surveys completed before implementation and 3-6 months after.
Reason: The restrictions will lead to a displacement of parking. However, the parking will no longer be taking place in a dangerous location on the bend. The restriction will provide greater visibility for all road users and provide full pedestrian access along the footpath.
A2 – Danebury Drive:
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: The proposed restrictions will provide increased visibility in both directions when exiting Rosedale Avenue and are in line with the highway code. A section of unrestricted carriageway will remain for one vehicle and loading/unloading is permitted from double yellow lines providing the activity is continuous.
B1 – Copmanthorpe Lane/Appleton Court:
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: The advertised restriction extends to the projected boundary line of 46/48 Copmanthorpe Lane, this is in line with the end of the dropped kerbs shared by the residential properties. The restriction would help to maintain clear access/egress for the properties of concern. It would also provide increased visibility for the cycle path and footpath ensuring the access/egress is kept clear.
C1 – Bede Avenue:
Resolved: To implement a lesser restriction.
Reason: The Waste Services team were contacted for comments on any reported access issues but did not respond with any comment.
Implementing a lesser restriction than advertised addresses the access issues within the turning head and ensures space for residents and visitors to park is maintained.
Blue badge holders can park on double yellow lines for up to 3 hours providing they are not causing an obstruction. In addition, loading and unloading can take place from the proposed yellow lines providing the activity is continuous.
C2 – Field View:
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: This proposal will only displace 2-3 parking spaces and will make access to driveways on the opposite side of the road easier.
The current parking is hazardous to drivers and pedestrians, as residents cross the road from between parked cars.
The new restrictions will free the pavement for walkers and wheelers.
Loading and unloading/blue badge parking will still be permitted under the proposed restrictions.
C3 – Tennyson Avenue:
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: This resolves the issue of parking within the turning head, with minimal impact on parking amenity.
While pavement parking would remain, this proposal allows for the Combined Authority mayor’s plan to address pavement parking at a later date.
D1 – Nelsons Lane:
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: The proposed restriction provides full visibility through the bends for all highway users.
Introducing no waiting at any time restrictions to the north side and a small section on the south side would not address the issue of vehicles approaching each other in the centre of the carriageway. It would also still restrict visibility for pedestrians crossing from south to north side as parked vehicles would remain on the bends.
Implementing no waiting at any time restrictions to the full length of Nelson’s Lane would be excessive and is not currently deemed required under highway safety grounds.
An access only restriction is a moving traffic offence and can only be enforced by North Yorkshire Police. This is very low on their list of priorities for enforcement and are not supported by NYP.
D2 – Nidd Grove:
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: Parked vehicles are restricting access to, and use of, the turning head.
The services provided to the properties will be unaffected as loading/unloading is permitted from double yellow lines providing the activity is continuous.
When trades materials are unloaded, vehicles would need to park elsewhere.
D3 – Wains Road:
Resolved: To take no further action.
Reason: Implementing the restriction on the north side would remove parking but could lead to an increase of parking on the south and lead to vehicles approaching each other in the centre of the carriageway.
The area will be re-introduced to the next review to further investigate the parking issues with a view to propose a lesser amount of restrictions to both sides of the carriageway
D4 – Hunters Way/Middlethorpe Grove
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: The reasoning for extending the proposed restriction beyond the minimum of 10m at the junction was due to the parked vehicles restricting access to the tactile crossing points.
Implementing the restriction provides access to, and visibility from, the tactile crossing points and junction.
E1 – Crosslands Road/Garths End
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: The sections of carriageway that approach the turning heads of each street are too narrow to accommodate any parked vehicles. Garth’s End is 3.15m wide and Crosslands Road is 3.5m wide.
Parking within the turning heads is restricting access to off-street parking and vehicles being unable to use the turning head for its intended use.
E2 – Fordlands Road
Resolved: To implement as advertised, with a commitment to undertaking a speed survey on this junction.
Reason: Vehicles parking close to the junction are leading to vehicles approaching the junction in the centre of the carriageway and into conflict with vehicles entering Fordlands Road from Main Street.
The restriction removes parking close to the junction only. There are sections of unrestricted carriageway further along Fordlands Road away from the junction that remain unrestricted.
The proposals implement the highway code in terms of it not being safe to park on the junction itself.
While officers would investigate the possibility of making this into a no through road in the future, this would need to be considered in the longer term and is not within the scope of this review.
E3 – Heslington Lane
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: Currently vehicles are approaching each other in the centre of the carriageway due to parked vehicles. This also brings them into conflict with cyclists.
The restrictions provide a free flow of traffic in each direction along a bus route and ensure adequate carriageway width to also accommodate cyclists safely along an advisory route for cyclists.
The restrictions opposite the junction of Fulfordgate provide greater accessibility and visibility, and bring this junction in line with other proposals for all junctions on Heslington Lane.
E4 – Heslington Lane/Nevinson Grove/Stirling Grove/Heathmoor Drive/Wilsthorpe Grove
Resolved: To implement a lesser restriction; as advertised but with a shorter 10m restriction (to the end of the grass verge) on the Heathmoor Drive junction.
Reason: Parked vehicles on the north side of the Heslington Lane are leading to vehicles rounding the bend in the centre of the carriageway and into conflict with cyclists passing the parked vehicles and vehicles travelling in the opposite direction.
This proposal implements a lesser restriction on Heathmoor Drive
Any parked vehicle between 81/83 Heathmoor Drive is restricting access to, and visibility from, the tactile crossing point.
All properties adjacent to the proposed restrictions have off-street parking amenity for a minimum of two vehicles.
E5 – Fulfordgate
Resolved: To take no further action.
Reason: Fulfordgate and Eastward Avenue have been added to the Resident’s Priority Parking (Respark) waiting list for consultation on implementing a scheme in this area. Permit and parking restrictions will be considered for both streets during the consultation.
15m of the proposed 25m restriction currently has H-Bar marking in front of 12 and 14 Fulfordgate and the junction of Eastward Avenue has no waiting at any time restrictions. This provides full visibility from the junction.
F1 – Maplehurst Avenue
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: Vehicles parking on the corners and cul-de-sac area are restricting visibility when accessing/egressing the junction and access to the designated off-street parking areas. They are also restricting access to the cycle path located along a recognised cycle route.
This restriction addresses these previously raised concerns.
F2 – Huntington Mews
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: Reinforcement of the highway code is required due to current parking on the street.
Parked vehicles are restricting access to the cul-de-sac end of Huntington Mews and the designated parking areas within it.
These restrictions will provide visibility from the junction of the cul-de-sac and access to the designated off- street parking.
F3 – Thomas Street
Resolved: To take no further action.
Reason: Thomas Street and Lansdowne Terrace have been added to the Resident’s Priority Parking (Respark) waiting list for consultation on implementing a scheme in this area.
Permit and parking restrictions will be considered for both streets during the wider consultation.
F4 – Lansdowne Terrace
Resolved: To take no further action.
Reason: Thomas Street and Lansdowne Terrace have been added to the Resident’s Priority Parking (Respark) waiting list for consultation on implementing a scheme in this area.
Permit and parking restrictions will be considered for both streets during the wider consultation.
G1 – Station Road and Hall Rise
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: The restrictions on Station Road will provide clear sightlines and improved road safety for families and children during the peak school hours, bringing the area in line with existing restrictions on the north side of Station Road.
The restriction to Hall Rise will remove any parking close to the junction at all times.
Restrictions in one area will lead to a displacement of parking to another but will remove the parking on Station Road during the busiest period of the school day.
G2 – Headland Close
Resolved: To implement a lesser restriction.
Reason: Providing a small section of unrestricted carriageway between the driveway accesses will provide some parking for residents and visitors and still provide full access to the turning head.
G3 – Mill Lane
Resolved: To implement a lesser restriction.
Reason: The issue of parking associated with the sports and social club has been resolved since the original request was received..
The revised restrictions will protect access to the tactile crossing points at the junctions.
G4 – Moor Lane/Southlands
Resolved: To implement as advertised with Speed Data Radar survey conducted prior to implementation and 3-6 months following with the data assessed.
Reason: Overflow parking from the care home will be subject to the same restrictions as all other vehicles.
Loading and unloading is permitted from double yellow lines providing the activity is continuous and does not cause an obstruction.
There will be no access to a tradesmen permit as there is currently no Respark zone in place. They would be expected to park in the first available unrestricted area.
G5 – Oaken Grove
Resolved: Implement a lesser restriction than advertised
Reason: A lesser restriction at the junction of the entrance to the cemetery and on the right side will provide access to the entrance with a section of parking still available.
H1 – Straylands Grove/Woodlands Grove
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: Currently vehicles parking on the bend and close to it are preventing the free flow of traffic and leading to vehicles rounding the bend in the centre of the carriageway.
A partial restriction would still create safety issues with oncoming traffic due to the tightness of the bend.
Loading/unloading is permitted from double yellow lines providing the vehicle is not causing an obstruction and the activity is continuous.
The installation of bollards on the bend is not within the scope of this review. However, if restrictions are implemented the need of vehicles to pull onto the verge should be resolved.
H2 – Whitby Avenue
Resolved: To Implement as Advertised.
Reason: Vehicles parking on the bend, and footpath of the bend are leading to vehicles rounding the bend in the centre of the carriageway and also obstructing the footpath.
A lesser restriction would not resolve this issue.
I1 – Acomb Road
Resolved: To take no further action.
Reason: The existing no waiting restrictions on the junctions of New Lane and Murray Street provide sufficient visibility when exiting the junctions.
The 30m section of unrestricted parking on the south side of Acomb Road provides an important amenity to the church and associated community organisations.
I2 – Berkeley Terrace/Amberley Street/Linton Street/Garland Street and Chatsworth Terrace
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: Vehicles parking close to the junctions are obstructing access to, and visibility from, the tactile crossing points at each junction. This is also leading to pedestrians being unsighted when using the crossing points, particularly pedestrians using mobility aids and children.
The Waste Services team confirmed access issues remain.
Restrictions in one area will likely lead to a displacement of parking but the proposed restrictions will provide access to the junctions and increased safety for all highway users using the tactile crossing points.
I3 – Barlow Street/Dodgson Terrace and Barlow Street/Inman Terrace
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: Vehicles parking close to the junctions are restricting visibility and accessibility for all road users.
The Waste Services team confirmed vehicles parking within the areas of proposed restrictions do cause access issues for vehicles collecting waste.
I4 – Martins Court
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: The proposed restriction permits the dropping off and collecting off passengers from the double yellow lines.
The Waste Services team confirmed access issues remain.
J1 – Avon Drive
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: Blue badge holders can park on double yellow lines for up to 3 hours providing they are not causing an obstruction.
Reducing the restrictions on the south side of Avon Drive would not have improved the issue of vehicles rounding the bends in the centre of the carriageway and into conflict with vehicles travelling in the opposite direction.
J2 - Linden Close/Strensall Road
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: The proposed restriction provides clear sightlines when exiting the junction. There will be a large section of unrestricted carriageway available on Linden Close and Strensall Road which will not obstruct visibility when using the junction.
K1 – Albemarle Road/Curzon Terrace/Knavesmire Crescent/Campleshon Road and Knavesmire Road
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: These restrictions remove any parking on the bend of Knavesmire Road/ Campleshon Road.
A lesser restriction between Curzon Terrace and Albermarle Road of 10m in each direction would only provide parking for one vehicle due to the alleyway at the rear of the properties. Parking close to the junctions is leading to restricted visibility when accessing and exiting the junctions.
The proposed restriction does not remove the cycle lane as the cycle lane would remain, and with no vehicles parked within it.
K2 – Queen’s Staith
Resolved: To implement as advertised, but to delay implementation of double yellow lines until an arrangement has been reached over how non-liveried rescue boat volunteer vehicles will be accommodated.
Reason: The proposed restriction does not prevent legitimate operational activity for the hotel or public house at this location; loading/unloading of deliveries, the boarding and alighting of passengers, including coach drop-off and pick-up, remains permitted on double yellow lines where the activity is continuous, and therefore the needs of the Queens Hotel and coach operators can still be accommodated.
Blue Badge holders also retain the ability to park on double yellow lines for up to three hours where it is safe to do so and no loading restrictions apply, ensuring that accessibility for disabled visitors is maintained.
The removal of long-stay evening parking will improve conditions by increasing available space and reducing obstruction, making manoeuvring and short-duration stopping easier for all users, including those with mobility needs. It will also support improved access for emergency and service vehicles in what is a constrained riverside environment.
In relation to York Rescue Boat, the council is supportive of facilitating their operational requirements using its existing parking waiver system or similar arrangements for designated vehicles.
Reducing the volume of parked vehicles on the Staith creates a safer, more accessible and better-managed space for all users.
L1 – Eastholme Drive
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: The proposed restrictions will displace parking but will remove parking close to, and opposite the junctions.
L2 – Tatton Close/Arlington Road
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: Parking on this bend is leading to vehicles approaching each other in the centre of the carriageway.
Visibility is restricted when approaching the bend and this restriction will increase visibility for all road users.
The lesser restriction requested would not improve the visibility sight lines.
M1 – Northfield Lane, Upper Poppleton
Resolved: To defer the decision.
Reason: The reason for implementing this TRO needs to be more clearly established. Consequently, a deferral will allow the Executive Member to make visits to the area at different times of day and to speak with residents and the ward councillor to determine the best way forward.
N1 – Kirklands, Strensall
Resolved: To implement a lesser restriction.
Reason: Following discussions with the ward Councillor, Parish Council and local residents, and taking into account objections received, this revised restriction will restrict vehicles parking in front of the dropped kerbs of 2/4 Kirklands and opposite 7 and will also provide access to the turning head.
O1 – Chapelfields Road/Barkston Avenue
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: There are tactile crossing points on the junction. The junction is just before the bend of Chapelfields Road, and visibility of oncoming vehicles is required when exiting the junction.
The proposed restrictions remove the vehicles currently parking on the footpath and provide clear sightlines when travelling on Chapelfields Road or exiting the junction of Barkston Avenue
O2 – Wetherby Road
Resolved: To take no further action.
Reason: This will allow the Executive Member to coordinate with local councillors regarding future steps.
P1 – Church Lane, Elvington
Resolved: To implement as advertised.
Reason: Parking close to, or on the bend is leading to vehicles rounding the bend on the opposite side of the carriageway and into conflict with any vehicles coming in the opposite direction, which are often large agricultural vehicles and wagons.
Blue badge holders can park on double yellow lines for up to 3 hours providing they are not causing an obstruction.
Wedding and funeral vehicles are permitted to stop in order for passengers to dropped off and collected.
P2 – Front Street, Naburn
Resolved: To implement a lesser restriction.
Reason: The current volume of pavement parking forces vulnerable walkers and wheelers into the highway, as well as
This decision considers the needs of all highway users, including groups with protected characteristics under the Equality Act of 2010
The introduction of double yellow lines removes the identified footway parking issue; if double yellow lines were introduced only on one side of the road, this would simply displace parking to the other side and would not prevent collisions.
The lesser restriction on the west side provides some parking amenity.
P3 – Ruffhams Close, Wheldrake
Resolved: To take no further action.
Reason: Concerns were raised by a resident about parking at the end of the cul-de-sac causing an obstruction and potential danger for emergency services in the area.
The ensuing proposal received a large number of objections from residents of the cul-de-sac who would be most affected by restrictions. Following further reviews of the area no obstructive parking was taking place.
, Chair
[The meeting started at 10.01 am and finished at 12.34 pm].