Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

To receive and note apologies for absence.

 

There were no apologies.

At this point in the meeting, the Executive Member is asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary interest, or other registerable interest, they might have in respect of business on this agenda, if they have not already done so in advance on the Register of Interests. The disclosure must include the nature of the interest.

 

An interest must also be disclosed in the meeting when it becomes apparent to the member during the meeting.

 

[Please see attached sheet for further guidance for Members].

 

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.

To approve and sign the minutes of the Decision Session held on Tuesday, 10 February 2026.

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.

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, 24 April 2026.

 

Since there is a statutory limit of ten speakers for this session, a maximum of one public speaker will be allowed for each proposal in Item 6, on a first come, first serve basis, at the Executive Member’s discretion.

 

Members are encouraged to submit written representations for this item if possible.

 

 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.

 

 

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

This report reviews the representation received in response to the statutory consultation for a proposed amendment to the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to introduce ‘No Waiting’ at any time restrictions on Dennings Mews following the redevelopment of the area.

 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

This report considers representations received, in support or objection, to the advertised proposals to amend the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), which have been considered as part of the annual review process.

 

A decision on each proposal is important as it will provide the Council with the approval for an outcome and ensure the appropriate changes are made to the traffic restrictions to address the concerns raised if required.

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 3-6months after.

 

 Reason:    In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

A2 – Danebury Drive:

 

Resolved:   To implement as advertised.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

B1 – Copmanthorpe Lane/Appleton Court:

 

Resolved:   To implement as advertised.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

C1 – Bede Avenue:

 

Resolved:   To implement a lesser restriction.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

C2 – Field View:

 

Resolved:   To implement as advertised.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

C3 – Tennyson Avenue:

 

Resolved:   To implement as advertised.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

D1 – Nelsons Lane:

 

Resolved:   To implement as advertised.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

D2 – Nidd Grove:

 

Resolved:   To implement as advertised.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

D3 – Wains Road:

 

Resolved:   To take no further action.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

D4 – Hunters Way/Middlethorpe Grove

 

Resolved:   To implement as advertised.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

E1 – Crosslands Road/Garths End

 

Resolved:   To implement as advertised.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

E2 – Fordlands Road

 

Resolved:   To implement as advertised, with a commitment to undertaking a speed survey on this junction.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

E3 – Heslington Lane

 

Resolved:   To implement as advertised.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

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:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

E5 – Fulfordgate

 

Resolved:   To take no further action.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

F1 – Maplehurst Avenue

 

Resolved:   To implement as advertised.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

F2 – Huntington Mews

 

Resolved:   To implement as advertised.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

F3 – Thomas Street

 

Resolved:   To take no further action.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

F4 – Lansdowne Terrace

 

Resolved:   To take no further action.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

G1 – Station Road and Hall Rise

 

Resolved:   To implement as advertised.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

G2 – Headland Close

 

Resolved:   To implement a lesser restriction.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

G3 – Mill Lane

 

Resolved:   To implement a lesser restriction.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

G4 – Moor Lane/Southlands

 

Resolved:   To implement as advertised and to undertake speed surveys before and after implementation.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

G5 – Oaken Grove

 

Resolved:   To implement as advertised.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.

 

 

H1 – Straylands Grove/Woodlands Grove

 

Resolved:   To implement as advertised.

 

Reason:      In accordance with published officer recommendations.  ...  view the full decision text for item 50.

 The report was presented by the Traffic Projects Officer who detailed the representations received, in support and objection, to advertised proposals to amend Traffic Regulation Orders across the city, to be considered by the Executive Member as part of the annual review process.

 

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.