Agenda and draft minutes

To note apologies for absence.

The Committee noted apologies from Cllr Vassie who was substituted by Cllr Widdowson.

Cllr Clarke was welcomed as a member of the committee, replacing Cllr Baxter.

At this point in the meeting, Members and co-opted members are 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.

Members were asked to declare any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests, any prejudicial interests or any disclosable pecuniary interests which they may have in respect of business on the agenda.

Cllr Wells confirmed that she had a non-prejudicial interest as she is a blue badge holder.

Cllr Healey confirmed that he had a non-prejudicial interest as he is a resident of Micklegate ward.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

To approve and sign the minutes of the Place Scrutiny Committee held on the 26 Janaury 2026.

Resolved:   Members noted that the final sentence of paragraph 24 in the 26 January 2026 minutes contained missing words and this needed correcting for the record.

Once this was complete, the minutes would be signed as a correct record of the meeting.

The report seeks the views of scrutiny members regarding potential options and considerations associated with the Rougier Route project following recent public consultation.

The report was presented by the Head of Active and Sustainable Transport, assisted by the Executive Member for Transport. The report followed a consultation on the proposals. The committee was asked to provide views on the report presented, which included potential exemptions, ways of addressing the issues highlighted by Bishophill and Micklegate residents and businesses and that's to enable our views as scrutiny members to inform the recommendation that is made to executive.

The Head of Active and Sustainable Transport thanked public participants for their comments on this matter. He explained that the proposals were developed following the Bus Service Improvement Plan funding allocation to improve bus priority through York City Centre. He noted that the extended public consultation, undertaken between 19 Nov 2025 and 12 Jan 2026 had prompted useful, identifying five key considerations in terms of taking the project forward:

1.    Hackney carriages: Officers had met with Hackney carriage providers twice in the past year, established the impact of not exempting hackney carriages through the bus gate. 

2.    Blue badge holders: Officers spoke with York Access Forum twice in the past year and got a strong steer that they would like to see blue badge holders allowed through the bus gate. Officers also engaged with other disabled groups as part of the consultation, hearing about how bus reliability affected people where significant delays occurred – to the point that the uncertainty this generated dissuaded some residents from travelling at all.

3.    Private hire taxis: Officers spoke with private hire taxi providers twice in the past year and understood there were particular implications for SEND contracts operated in partnership with CYC, in terms of potential extended journey times.

4.    Bishophill Resident and local Business Access - Victor Street and Victoria Bar: Officers organised a number of drop-in events in this area. The critical issue was how to enable resident access through Victoria Bar, so officers revised proposals to retain the residents-only exemption utilising Automatic Number Plate Recognation (ANPR).

5.    Micklegate Resident and local Business Access – Fetter Lane / Bishophill Junior: Proposals without any sort of change or exemption would potentially increase the number of journeys across the front of the rail station and the number of miles travelled, so officers sought to revise the design in a way that brought a local ANPR gate on Fetter Lane, allowing people in the Micklegate area to go south into Bishophill with a proposed permit-based scheme based on Residents Parking areas. Use of taxis and blue badges in the area would further reduce additional trips around the rail station and Nunnery lane area and allow better access to local residents.

He further explained that officers had included the option of 20mph on the corridor. This had been pushed back to a later date, since without more work on the city centre strategy, the city centre area itself would need to be signed off as 30mph through to the next gate corner, which was not something officers wished to consider. Their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

To receive a report from the Director of City Development updating the committee on the Council’s Local Transport Strategy, including on how this interacts with work being undertaken by the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority in this area. (Report to follow)

The report was presented by the Head of Transport Policy and Travel Behaviour (Tom Horner) and the Head of Transport Projects (Joshua Singer).

Before beginning, the Head of Transport Projects highlighted one correction in point 2 of the report – which stated more inclusive cycle parking had been installed at Blake Street; this work was in fact incomplete at the time of the meeting. 

He explained that this update intended to provide delivery and progress updates towards the Local Transport Strategy (LTS) and to address challenges faced by the authority, especially with regard to implementation following the creation of the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority. He singled out progress with regard to the rollout of real-time information screens with audio description at 127 bus stops, wider progress of bus stop accessibility and securing of a £1.9million transport funding grant from the Mayoral Combined Authority, covering cycle storage, speed reduction, active travel and pedestrian crossings, all commencing this financial year.

He also discussed emerging issues – advising that officers were working alongside the Combined Authority to develop a multi-year programme to commit to more enhanced corridor projects. The Combined Authority had provided headlines to apportion this funding as active travel, bus access/punctuality, rail stations, road safety, congestion reduction and integrated corridor and play schemes. He noted that whilst the Combined Authority were producing their own Local Transport Plan, they recognised that York’s LTS was already well developed and would be a key part of that plan.

He highlighted challenges, with the key areas being delivery resource – his team had not existed at the start of the LTS and this was mitigated through dedicated transport capital project function, they had recently undertaken recruitment to bolster this further. He also discussed client resource – taking concept ideas into feasibility, modelling data to form a meaningful and impactful project. He noted that disruption was posed by the creation of the Combined Authority – previously money had been received directly from the Department for Transport, and had needed to switch to working with the Combined Authority to bid for external grants.

He then asked the ommittee to consider the format and frequency of future updates on the Local Transport Strategy and its implementation, given the information set out by the report and presentation.

The chair thanked him for his report and his work alongside the Combined Authority. He then requested an update on the Movement and Place plan.

The Head of Transport Projects answered that the tender for this was now live, and interested parties were bidding as part of the procurement exercise. Following the conclusion of the procurement exercise he expected to have more information as the plan emerged. He anticipated the tender process to take another three months, adding that he would confirm this with procurement colleagues.

Members acknowledged the tender approaching completion – asking how much later the plan would then come back to the scrutiny committee, what was likely to be in it, and what actions were likely to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

To consider the Place Scrutiny Committee Work Plan.

Members considered the committee’s work plan for the current municipal year.

      i.          Members noted Cllr Steward’s request to establish a cross-party task and finish group looking at Section 106 agreements, confirming they would respond to this in due course and this would be tabled to the next committee agenda.

     ii.          The Chair confirmed that he and the Vice-Chair had looked over items in the outstanding workplan, setting out where they would like these to go. The Scrutiny Officer committed to following up on this and preparing a draft of allocations for the next meeting. It was agreed items would be added to the unallocated list and then the Chair and Vice-Chair would work on allocation within the coming year’s work plan, in consultation with officers.

   iii.          To ensure consistent engagement, the Chair and Vice-Chair committed to meeting with relevant Directors of Portfolio across the council prior to the next meeting, to discuss what the committee requires from them in the next 12 months and what they expect their directorates to be delivering.