Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

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 personal interests not included on the Register of Interests or any prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interests they might have in respect of the business on the agenda. None were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the Decision Session held on 16 April 2024.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the Decision Session held on 16 April 2024 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 May 2024.

 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 9 registrations to speak at the session and 3 written representations under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

Cllr Waller spoke regarding item 4, Annex Q. He welcomed the officer recommendations for Annexes Q1 and Q2. Regarding Q3 residents had requested he make representation that the initial issue had now been resolved. He also requested a review of the TRO process to ensure swifter resolution going forwards.

Cllr Nelson spoke regarding item 4, Annex Q3. She stated that ward councillors had worked with residents to resolve the initial signage issue and that the outstanding issue concerned one particular resident’s pavement parking, which had also been dealt with informally by residents, therefore a TRO was not necessary here. She suggested that small issues could be resolved by working with people not using the council’s resources.

Christopher Tregellis spoke regarding item 4, Annex C3. He advised that the officer recommendation was universally supported among residents. He suggested residents may be minded to ask for further review but conceded that the TRO application had already taken a long time.

Susan Ayres spoke regarding item 4, Annex J2. She provided the executive member and officers with photographs to illustrate her point that there were not two road spaces outside each house in the area being considered. She advised that both she and her husband were in their 60s and relied on their daughter for support. She asked the member to reconsider this proposal.

Judith Pinder spoke regarding item 4, Annex K4.  She asserted that the proposed double yellow lines would have a detrimental effect on her as a cancer patient with mobility issues. She explained that she required her support team to be able to park outside her house, and noted that the TRO had been instigated by one prior resident who felt inconvenienced, and this person had since passed away.

Wayne Glaister spoke regarding item 4, Annex J3. He expressed concern that further enforcement action would mean residents and their relatives would be unable to park outside their own houses.

Christina Chelin spoke regarding item 4, Annex M2. She expressed frustration that her past complaint and petition had not been actioned due to a conflict with the council’s blue badge policy, but she felt this proposal addressed her earlier concerns and supported the recommendation. She encouraged the member and officers to consider further review of this TRO in the future.

Rachel Gilbert-Cornish spoke regarding item 5, in support of option 2. She represented a group of residents who opposed the R23 zone on Govt House Road/Water End slipway. She said that council parking spaces on Government House Road had not been determined and that this nullified the point of the report. She felt that the recommended option sought to revert the cul de sac into a private road which seemed wrong to her. She also pointed out concerns over parking on the slip road and dangers to pedestrians and cyclists.

Andrew Beattie spoke regarding item 5, in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

The report considers representations received, in support or objection, to the advertised proposals to amend the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) detailed in the accompanying Annexes A to R.

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.

Annex A1 – Princess Drive:

Resolved: To implement as advertised.

Reason:     The restrictions will provide clear sight lines for pedestrians and particularly children who may use the tactile crossing to access the children’s play area. Properties affected by these restrictions have private off-street parking amenity for one vehicle. Loading or unloading deliveries and collecting passengers is permitted from double yellow lines and access to Applefields school would not be restricted as long as drivers have a blue badge.

Annex B1 – Acaster Lane:

Resolved: To implement as advertised.

Reason:     The proposed restrictions will reduce but not remove parking amenity on Acaster Lane. This prioritises bus travel and pedestrian/cyclist safety with provision for further review after implementation.

Annex C1 – Cromer Street, Lady Road, Wilberforce Avenue and Surtees Street:

Resolved: To implement as advertised.

Reason:     Vehicles parking very close to the junctions lead to drivers being unable to see vehicles proceeding along Cromer Street or access Surtees Street. The proposed restrictions will provide increased sightlines when exiting the junctions. They will also provide better access to Surtees Street.The dropping off and collecting of passengers is also permitted from double yellow lines. Blue badge holders can still park, and there is a need to prioritise refuse lorries and cyclists.

Annex C2 – Little Avenue:

Resolved: To implement as advertised.

Reason:     This will provide full access to residents off-street parking and use of the turning head. Parked vehicles in this location prevent access to residents off-street parking and cause vehicles to have to reverse the 55m back to Sutton Way if they are unable to use the turning head.

Annex C3 – Rawcliffe Lane:

Resolved: To implement as advertised.

Reason:     The proposed restrictions would contribute to free flow of traffic through the junction, vehicles being able to approach the junction in their lane and less queuing further along Rawcliffe Lane when approaching the junction.

Annex D1- Horseman Lane:

Resolved: To take no further action; to be reviewed when further development is considered and tactile crossing is introduced.

Reason:     This TRO was initially proposed by the Parish Council, who have since reconsidered their request. The proposed restrictions to the junction would help to protect the crossing points when they are installed, although there is currently no date for these works to begin.

Annex E1 – Gower Road:

Resolved: To implement as advertised.

Reason:     Vehicles parking close to the junction leads to vehicles having to approach the junction in the centre of the carriageway.

Annex E2 – Highmoor Road/ Highmoor Close:

Resolved: To implement a lesser restriction than advertised;

Reason:     To continue with junction protection on the junction of Highmoor Road and Highmoor Close but not to implement double yellow lines on the opposing roadside. To monitor area and consider review at a later date. Vehicles parking close to the junction of Highmoor Close are leading to restricted visibility and manoeuvrability when entering or exiting the junction. Removing the proposed restriction on the north side of Highmoor Road will provide parking amenity for residents.

Annex  ...  view the full decision text for item 55.

Officers introduced the item, explaining that the Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) detailed in the agenda have now been advertised and it was the executive member’s responsibility to consider each one, including officer recommendations and public representations, before making a decision on each proposal. Her decisions were as follows:

Annex A1 – Princess Drive:

Resolved: To implement as advertised.

Reason:     The restrictions will provide clear sight lines for pedestrians and particularly children who may use the tactile crossing to access the children’s play area. Properties affected by these restrictions have private off-street parking amenity for one vehicle. Loading or unloading deliveries and collecting passengers is permitted from double yellow lines and access to Applefields school would not be restricted as long as drivers have a blue badge.

Annex B1 – Acaster Lane:

Resolved: To implement as advertised.

Reason:     The proposed restrictions will reduce but not remove parking amenity on Acaster Lane. This prioritises bus travel and pedestrian/cyclist safety with provision for further review after implementation.

Annex C1 – Cromer Street, Lady Road, Wilberforce Avenue and Surtees Street:

Resolved: To implement as advertised.

Reason:     Vehicles parking very close to the junctions lead to drivers being unable to see vehicles proceeding along Cromer Street or access Surtees Street. The proposed restrictions will provide increased sightlines when exiting the junctions. They will also provide better access to Surtees Street.The dropping off and collecting of passengers is also permitted from double yellow lines. Blue badge holders can still park, and there is a need to prioritise refuse lorries and cyclists.

Annex C2 – Little Avenue:

Resolved: To implement as advertised.

Reason:     This will provide full access to residents off-street parking and use of the turning head. Parked vehicles in this location prevent access to residents off-street parking and cause vehicles to have to reverse the 55m back to Sutton Way if they are unable to use the turning head.

Annex C3 – Rawcliffe Lane:

Resolved: To implement as advertised.

Reason:     The proposed restrictions would contribute to free flow of traffic through the junction, vehicles being able to approach the junction in their lane and less queuing further along Rawcliffe Lane when approaching the junction.

Annex D1- Horseman Lane:

Resolved: To take no further action; to be reviewed when further development is considered and tactile crossing is introduced.

Reason:     This TRO was initially proposed by the Parish Council, who have since reconsidered their request. The proposed restrictions to the junction would help to protect the crossing points when they are installed, although there is currently no date for these works to begin.

Annex E1 – Gower Road:

Resolved: To implement as advertised.

Reason:     Vehicles parking close to the junction leads to vehicles having to approach the junction in the centre of the carriageway.

Annex E2 – Highmoor Road/ Highmoor Close:

Resolved: To implement a lesser restriction than advertised;

Reason:     To continue with junction protection on the junction of Highmoor Road and Highmoor Close but not to implement double yellow lines on the opposing roadside. To monitor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

This report discusses the results of the informal consultation feedback received from residents in response to a proposal to extend Resident Parking (ResPark) zone R23 (Westminster Road) to include properties on Government House Road, and determine what action is appropriate following the results.

It also considers implementation of limited waiting restrictions on Water End slip road, to limit car parking on the slip road to a maximum of 2 hours, to restrict long term parking and better support recreational users of the river area.

Resolved:  That this decision be deferred.

Reason:     In order for the proposal to be revised and brought back to a future decision session.

Officers introduced the item, a joint consideration of resident parking and parking on the slip road. They explained that the proposal addressed both issues together since addressing parking on just the slip road would displace parking onto Government House Road. This decision was simply whether or not to advertise these changes.

The executive member expressed concern regarding pavement parking on the slip road restricting access from Water Lane to the Riverside path/Orbital route, citing Google maps data and information submitted via public participation.

She stated that any parking being provided must guarantee access for pedestrians and cyclists, and expressed her desire to defer the decision in order to revisit parking/traffic on the Water Lane slip road to ensure pedestrian safety and consistency with other equivalent roads throughout the city, before bringing the item back to a future decision session to determine the residents parking issue within the full wider context.  

Resolved:  That this decision be deferred.

Reason:     In order for the proposal to be revised and brought back to a future decision session.