City of York Council

Committee Minutes


Decision Session - Executive Member for Transport


19 October 2021


Councillors D'Agorne





24.           Declarations of Interest


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 that he might have had in respect of business on the agenda.


The Executive Member confirmed while he didn’t have any interests to declare, he did note that item 5 on the agenda related to a area within his Ward of Fishergate and he had spoken to residents in relation to the item.





25.           Minutes


Resolved:  That the minutes of the Decision Session of the Executive Member for Transport and Planning held on 21 September 2021 be approved and signed by the Executive Member as a correct record. With the additional of the resolved to idea 23. To read ‘that officers are to consult with Ward Councillors at the  preliminary design stage’.





26.           Public Participation


It was reported that there had been eight registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme. However, two speakers withdraw before the meeting.


Cllr Melly noted that she felt that the Council needed to be more ambitious with its York Bus Service Improvement Plan. She highlighted issues of inequality raised by disability groups in the city and why the plan saw buses three times less frequent in the evening. She also raised concerns that the plans lack of ambitious as she saw it would mean the Council would miss out on some funding.


Cllr Fenton welcomed engagement on the proposed changes to Tadcaster Road and asked that Ward Councillors continue to be engaged. He welcomed the proposals for cycle paths on both sides of the road and he noted that he felt even greater residents by in could be gained for crossing proposals should miss understandings be explained in consultations.


Andrew Mortimer spoke in relation to streets that had not been included in recent residents priority parking zones. He noted that local residents were unsure what had happened or been agreed if they were not to be included within the zone and asked that communications be made to explain decisions to all residents consulted. He also noted that parking in non-included streets would get worse and asked that they reconsulted.


Roger Pierce spoke on behalf of Walk York in relation to the plans for Tadcaster Road, he raised concerns that the plans were a set backward for pedestrians but would be a benefit for cycling. He also raised concerns about shared footways. Finally he asked why nearside traffic lights were being used when he stated that more residents prefer far side lights.


Martin Emerson spoke in relation to the residents priority parking zone inclusions reported in the paper, he requested a re-consultation for those properties that were recommended for exclusion despite the low response rate in favour. This was due to the impact parking had on bus stops in the area and the spill over of traffic that could be seen from areas within the zoom, he noted concerns that cares would struggle to park when visiting residents.


Alan Robinson raised on behalf of the York Bus Forum a number of points relating to the York Bus Service Improvement Plan. This included that currently not all buses went to the station, something he felt was important to ensure seamless travel by bus and rail. He raised concerns that plans for the station frontage would not currently be capable of handling bus traffic. He welcomed more audio visual displays but asked that further work be undertaken for fare integration across operators in the city.





27.           Directorate of Place 2021/22 Transport Capital Programme – Monitor 1 Report


Officers provided a regular update on the 2021/22 Directorate of Place Transport Capital Programme. The Executive Member enquired about costs being noted in the report as higher than had been expected, officers noted that cost inflation with in the construction industry had contributed to these higher costs. In regards to the Active Travel program it was confirmed that additional resources had been secured and strong progress was expected.


The Executive Member enquired about the report in relation to the reporting of implications and equalities, offices confirmed that each programme within the Capital Programme would be assessed separately and reported in reports brought to decision sessions. 




                      i.       Approved the amendments to the 2021/22 Directorate of Place Transport Capital Programme.


Reason:     To implement the council’s transport strategy identified in York’s third Local Transport Plan and the Council Priorities, and deliver schemes identified in the council’s Transport Programme.


                     ii.       Approved the increase in budget allocation and the progression of the improvements to the footway on University Road, funded by Ward Funding and from the Pedestrian Minor Schemes budget ahead of any potential future restriction to the highway.


Reason:     To address the defective footway following a review by

the Director of Environment, Transport and Planning as indicated in paras. 26 to 29.





28.           Petition by residents of Kexby Avenue and Arnside Place seeking the introduction of Residents Parking


Officers provided an update on the R39B Residents Priority Parking Zone, it was confirmed that following a petition it was recommended to include Kexby Avenue to the zone, as well as, leaving out Thief Lane due to a low response rate was not recommended to be included and that Arnside Park could be included for visitors parking but as a unadopted road would not be fully incorporated into the zone.


The Executive Member enquired about parking on Thief Lane and whether there would be an impact for cares attending residents on the street, officers noted that Cares were entitled to apply for a city wide parking permit which would grant access to the Zone. It was also requested that as was pointed out in public participation, that the Council write to those balloted but not going to be included within a scheme to be updated on the outcome, in the same way those that would be included would be. 




                      i.       Approved the drafting of a further Order to extend the R39B Residents’ Priority Parking Zone to include properties in Kexby Avenue.


Reason:     This recommendation is supported by the majority of

people from Kexby Avenue who signed the petition were in favour and is supported by the outcome of the further consultation.


                     ii.       To not include 13-57 Thief Lane within the R39B Residents Priority Parking Zone.


Reason:     This was not contained within the petition. The response to the consultation is low with four responses, 3 in support and 1 against from 23 properties.


                    iii.       Arnside Place and Thief Lane be granted permission to purchase visitors parking permits within the R39B Resident’s Priority Parking Zone.


Reason:     R39B Residents Priority Parking Zone cannot not cover Arnside Place as it is a private street. It was decided that residents would benefit from being able to access visitors passes and equally residents from the Zone could also park in Arnside Place.





29.           Tadcaster Road Sustainable Modes Improvement Scheme


Officers introduced the report and noted that 500 responses had been received during the consultation period. It was noted that officers felt that the proposed recommendations would provide for the corridor the best use of available funding, it was noted that a larger scheme could have considerate costs which did not currently have funding.


The Executive Member considered the plans outlined with the report, discussions covered potential impact to bus travel times, which were assessed to be minimal, nearside/farside traffic light crossing signals which officers noted was set for a review. LTN1/20 guidance was also raised and it was noted that the Council had incorporated but that the whole of the scheme could not within budget meet the criteria set out in the guidance.




Approved Option C - to support the officer recommendations for design revisions as summarised in the table at para 119 with the following amendments and additions:

a) Review light segregation provision;

b) Review removal of right turn pockets;

c)  Review Bus Stop Bypass at Slingsby Grove;

d) Review Sim Balk Lane – Moor Lane R/B area;

e) Review proposed repositioning of Northbound Bus Stop at Slingsby Grove Shops;

f)   Review position of controlled crossing Between Horseshoe and Slingsby Grove Shops;

g) Review cycle lane provision and potential for off-road route between Pulleyn Drive and Ainsty Grove;

h)Review provision of raised tables and cycle lane priorities for minor side roads off the Mount.


Reason: To address the comments raised during the consultation.


                      i.       Approved the progression of the detailed design with approval of the final layout to be brought to a future meeting of the Executive Member for Transport Decision Session.


Reason:     To ensure the final design addresses the comments raised in the consultation.


                     ii.       Approved the procurement of the works with the Tadcaster Road core works maintenance scheme and delegate to the Director of Place (in consultation with the s151 Officer and Director of Governance or their delegated officers) the authority to take such steps as are necessary to procure, award and enter into the resulting contracts.


Reason:     To ensure best value for money and to minimise disruption to local residents.


                    iii.       That the scheme once detailed design and further costing work has been undertaken a report to the Executive Member for Transport will be prepared to determine priorities.


Reason: To determine the priorities for delivery as the budget may not be sufficient to deliver the whole scheme.


                   iv.       Approved entering into a Funding Agreement with West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) in respect of the Transforming Cities Funding (TCF) and delegate to the Director of Place (in consultation with the s151 Officer and Director of Governance or their delegated officers) the authority to take such steps as are necessary to negotiate and enter into the final agreement.


Reason:     To enable the scheme to be funded by the Transforming Cities Fund.





30.           York Bus Service Improvement Plan


An update was provided on the National Bus Strategy set out from government in March of 2021, it was noted that Council was required to submit its plan to the Department for Transport (DfT). Officers also noted that they were still awaiting on the government to announce the investment pot for the strategy. The Councils proposed plan was outlined and the Executive Member welcomed the opportunity to work with bus operators.


The importance of sustainable and convenient last mile travel and times of bus services were discussed. It was noted that continued monitoring could be undertaken over when buses were in demand and that post covid travel patterns could reflect a change in demand.




                      i.       Approved the programme set out in the Plan, delegating authority to the Head of Highways and Transport to submit the plan to the Department for Transport.


Reason:     To allow for a timely delivery of York’s Bus Service Improvement Plan.








Cllr A D’Agorne, Executive Member for Transport

[The meeting started at 10.02 am and finished at 12.01 pm].




























1a)                                                                                                                                                         FIELD_TITLE






1b)                                                                                                                                                         FIELD_TITLE