|
City of York Council |
Committee Minutes |
|
|
Meeting |
Decision Session - Executive Member for Transport |
|
|
Date |
8 October 2024 |
|
|
Present |
Councillor Ravilious |
|
|
Officers in Attendance |
James Gilchrist – Director of Transport, Environment and Planning Annemarie Howarth – Traffic Projects Officer Geoff Holmes – Traffic Projects Officer Lauren Grindley – Definitive Map Assistant, Rights of Way Alison Newbould – Public Rights of Way Officer |
|
12. Declarations of Interest (10:00am)
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 the respect of business on the agenda, if she had not already done so in advance on the Register of Interests. None were declared.
13. Minutes (10:00am)
Resolved: That the minutes of the Decision Session held on 19 July 2024 be approved and signed by the Executive Member as a correct record.
14. Public Participation (10:00am)
It was reported that there had been 5 registrations to speak at the session under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme, 4 of these speakers were in attendance.
Cllr Whitcroft spoke on item 4 in support of officers recommendations; he noted that residents should be able to park outside their own houses. He asserted that visitors should use paid car parks, park and rides etc instead of free on-street parking spaces outside residents houses.
Lucy Shaw spoke on item 4 as a resident, advising that non-resident parking in the area had increased. She stated that these were not just students but people commuting, attending events in the Barbican, working on construction sites, HMO residents or those who lived in neighbouring areas which had Respark who did not wish to pay for more than one car.
Pippa Cole spoke on item 4 as a resident, stating that this scheme had failed to meet 50% support and was unlikely to, given the short term interest of many people in the area due to the location between the university and holiday lets. She highlighted the significant cost to low-income families.
Andy D’Agorne spoke on item 4; speaking as someone who had represented people in Fishergate for 20 years. He felt that the scheme was no longer fit for purpose. He pointed out that the concept of a 50% threshold had no basis in law, and was the creation of a previous council leader put in place over a decade ago. He also called for further spending on sustainable/active travel.
15. Consideration of results received from the consultation to introduce residents’ priority parking restrictions within the Heslington Road area to be known as R66 Wellington Street (10:18am)
The Director of Transport, Environment and Planning and The Traffic Projects Officer presented the report.
Taking into consideration the Officer’s recommendations and the feedback from Public Participation, the Executive Member discussed the possibility of switching the sides of Heslington Road allocated to parking and Traffic Enforcement near St Lawrence’s School and requested this be explored before proceeding to formal consultation.
The Executive Member also requested exploration of the remaining usage levels of parking on Heslington Road if these recommendations are adopted, stating that she wished to review this to ensure all parking remains in laybys so as not to not excessively impede uphill cycle traffic and key bus routes to the university.
With these concerns expressed, the Executive Member
Resolved: To approve Option 2 - Advertise an amendment to the Traffic Regulation Order to introduce new Residents’ Priority Parking restrictions for the whole of the consultation area, to be known as R66, to operate 24hours Monday to Sunday. In addition, progress the proposed separate restrictions on Heslington Road to statutory consultation and legal advertisement, as outlined on the decision plan, included as Annex D.
Reason: The Executive Member believed that the only way to establish the level of support for the scheme in this location was through statutory consultation.
16. Mansfield Street TRO Consultation (10:26am)
The Director of Transport, Environment and Planning and The Traffic Projects Officer presented the report.
The Executive Member queried how how quickly it would be possible to implement the action, given that problems with access were already occurring?
Officers indicated that a notice of making would need to be put in place and instructions given to the lining contractors, but as the single yellow line was already in place and the signage there for the current restriction, this would be relatively straightforward.
The Executive Member noted that this was another anomaly where free parking was available close to the city centre. Access to the street must be maintained, however, the gym located in the area required some parking availability.
The Executive Member felt that this was a reasonable compromise and therefore
Resolved: To approve Option C, as outlined in paragraph 13 of the Decision Report – Implementation of a lesser restriction than advertised to respond to the objections received; to leave in place a section of single yellow lines on the north side of the road and to keep the area under review to monitor if there is any misuse of hotel parking.
Reason: This option removes the obstructive parking from the south side of the road, which was occurring and creating the original issue on the street, whilst still providing an availability of evening parking to access nearby facilities in the area.
Implementing as advertised would potentially have had a negative impact on a nearby business operation, which would also be outside of the scope of the original issue on the street.
Taking no further action would have left the residents and local businesses to continue to experience obstructive parking and have a negative impact on the street environment.
17. Stockton Lane/Seymour Grove TRO Consultation (10:29am)
The Director of Transport, Environment and Planning and The Traffic Projects Officer presented the report and options.
The Traffic Projects Officer advised that this item had been deferred in May to allow consultation regarding a disabled parking bay with a resident who had made representation at that time; officers advised t transpired that this resident did not qualify for a bay due to having off-street parking amenity for two vehicles.
The Executive Member noted that there was available parking for residents in Seymour Grove and unrestricted parking about 40 metres away for visitors. The proposed TRO would also allow for drop off outside residents homes.
It was therefore
Resolved: To approve Option 1, outlined in paragraphs 22-23 of the Decision Report – implementation of the originally advertised proposal.
Reason: This option removes the obstructive parking that is currently occurring, which is reducing visibility of vehicle exiting Seymour Grove. Vehicles parking between Seymour Grove and the roundabout are also leading to vehicles approaching the roundabout in the centre of the carriageway and into the path of vehicles exiting the roundabout.
18. Proposed diversion and upgrade of public footpath Acaster Malbis 3 (10:31am)
The Definitive Map Assistant, Rights of Way and Public Rights of Way Officer presented the report and options.
The Executive Member asked whether the route would also permit vehicle access if upgraded to a bridleway, and whether it would create a new route for vehicles, which did not currently exist.
Officers stated that they did not anticipate any greater vehicle access to the caravan park, but they had spoken to landowners about instating a bridleway gate to mitigate this if this were to become an issue in the future.
On this basis it was
Resolved: That the Executive Member approve Option 1 as outlined in paragraph 26 of the Decision Report, authorising the making of a public path order to divert and upgrade to bridleway public footpath Acaster Malbis 3.
Reason: This is the best option for the public because it reopens a long obstructed route and allows more classes of user to enjoy it.
This benefits the landowner because it removes the existing public footpath from their garden. This is the best option for the council because it discharges the council’s duty as Highway Authority to ensure public highways are not obstructed whilst costing the least amount of money.
The new route will be laid out as part of the redevelopment of the site. The route will have a smooth hard surface. The council will ensure that the new route is made available for public use, to the agreed standard, before the Order is confirmed.
Cllr K Ravillious, Executive Member
[The meeting started at 10.00 am and finished at 10.35 am].