Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive and note apologies for absence.

There were no apologies.

The Head of Highways and Transport advised that he would be presenting reports on behalf of the Director of Environment, Transport and Planning.

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 the 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 Thursday, 5 December 2024.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the Decision Session held on 5 December 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 Thursday, 16 January 2025.

 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.

During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates (www.york.gov.uk/COVIDDemocracy) for more information on meetings and decisions.

It was reported that there had been 7 registrations to speak at the session under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

Dr William Owen spoke on item 5 as a 20-year resident of the area; despite owning a car and not walking far, he voiced his opposition to the proposed Respark scheme because he believed the changes would make things worse.

Emily Green spoke on item 5 as a resident of the area; supporting the Respark Scheme, noting that the majority of residents had supported the scheme, but there had been insufficient turnout to reach 50% the threshold.

Joanne Pearson spoke on item 5 as a resident of the area; supporting Respark. She expressed concern over the number of student lets and Airbnb in the area, and said she felt this transient population played into the fact that 50% of residents did not vote on the Respark decision.

Lindsay Walter spoke on item 5 as resident of the area; supporting Respark. She said that it was problematic for families or those in ill-health to live in the area and a large amount of strategy must be employed over taking a car out since the parking space is likely to be occupied on the residents return. She cited Nestle, York Hospital, Nuffield Hospital, and the new Rowntree development as primary contributors during the day, but said the free parking in the area was also abused by commuters who parked, then caught buses and onward trains to work, and attendees at Rowntrees theatre in the evenings were often inconsiderate.

Anda Baraskina spoke on item 5 as resident of the area; supporting Respark. She said that she had stayed at home to await her annual gas check, which required all appliances to be turned off. The gas man was unable to park due to the overcrowding on the street  and did not attend. Ms Baraskina claimed that she feared eviction if she could not satisfy the landlord that the gas certificate had been issued.

Peter Baren spoke on item 7 as a local resident; he highlighted concerns regarding road safety on Black Dike Lane, caused by traffic, and people using the lane as a rat run through Poppleton. He illustrated a number of the accidents and incidents that had taken place caused by this traffic.

Cllr Hook spoke on item 7, in favour of officer recommendations, reiterating the previous speaker’s concerns and thanking officers for their work in the report to deter larger vehicles. She highlighted the sharp bend in the road being a hazard particularly for wheelchair users, families with buggies, horse riders, especially with no pavement.

This report presents results of an informal consultation and representations received from residents regarding a proposed Respark area to be known as R67: Huntington Road, which includes properties on Huntington Road, Kitchener Street, Oakville Street, Ashville Street, Oakville Court and Yearsley Crescent.

The report also considers representations received from residents of Haley’s Terrace and Somerset Road regarding their views on being added to the proposed scheme if progressed.

Resolved:   To approve Option 3, advertising an amendment to the Traffic Regulation Order to introduce new Resident’s Priority Parking restrictions to the whole consultation area, and to also include Haleys Terrace within the proposed scheme, and to operate 24 hours Monday to Sunday.

Reason:      From the response received, a majority (60%) of respondents were in favour of the proposal but the low response rate meant it was not possible to interpret non-engagement as either supporting or opposing the proposal. The Executive Member will work with Ward Councillors to increase the response rate on the statutory consultation for a clearer view of local residents views on this matter.

The Traffic Project Officer summarised the report, explaining that following petitions in 2019 and 2020 there had been an informal consultation with 267 properties, resulting in a 60:40 split of respondents in favour of the Respark scheme, but the response rate had not exceeded 50%, meaning the threshold laid out by the Council had not been met. Officers were therefore recommending to take no further action and remove the area from the waiting list.

The Executive Member thanked officers for their work and acknowledged the public participation, noting the depth of feeling and cautioning that the low response rate itself could not directly be interpreted as either a sign of support or opposition for the scheme.

She acknowledged the clear issues with parking in the R67 area, preventing residents from parking near their home or engaging in activities or receiving tradespeople, ambulances and other services to their homes.

She also spoke about how parking in the R67 area impacted the bus route through the area, as well as persistent obstruction to a cycle route through the area. She acknowledged the need to take action to benefit residents but also avert impacting these wider transport concerns.

The options available in these situations would be to pursue either a Traffic Regulation Order or the already proposed Resident’s Parking; given the number of residents who had spoken in favour of resident’s  parking the Executive Member was minded to approve the latter.

The Executive Member therefore

Resolved:   To approve Option 3, advertising an amendment to the Traffic Regulation Order to introduce new Resident’s Priority Parking restrictions to the whole consultation area, and to also include Haleys Terrace within the proposed scheme, and to operate 24 hours Monday to Sunday.

Reason:      From the response received, a majority (60%) of respondents were in favour of the proposal but the low response rate meant it was not possible to interpret non-engagement as either supporting or opposing the proposal. The Executive Member will work with Ward Councillors to increase the response rate on the statutory consultation for a clearer view of local residents views on this matter.

This report concerns an application, made by the land owner, to divert a section of the public bridleway Heworth (Without) 1 and 2 away from Cow Moor Farm buildings, on to a wider and longer route mainly passing through mixed woodlands.

Resolved:   To approve Option 1, which authorises the making of a public path order to divert part of public bridleway Heworth (Without) 1 and 2, by creating a new public path and extinguishing the current public path, that public notice of the making of the order be given and if no objections are received within the period specified, or if received objections are subsequently withdrawn, authorises the confirmation of the order. If objections are received and not withdrawn, then the matter will be referred back to the Executive Member to decide whether it is sent to the Secretary of State for a final decision.

Reason:     This option is in the interests of the landowner, and the council is satisfied that the legislative requirements have been met. Those in support of the order have commented that the new section of bridleway will be more pleasant for horse riders and walkers, although some may be wary of using a circuitous woodland path for personal safety reasons. The increased length of the bridleway is seen as a positive change as is the increased width which will enable all users to safely pass one another while using the path – an ongoing issue with the existing path. There were no objections at pre-order consultation stage.

The Assistant Public Rights Of Way Officer presented report, assisted by the Definitive Map Officer. She explained that the movement of the bridleway had been proposed following an application from the landowner, due to the existing route being prone to nettle growth and waterlogging. There had been no objections throughout the initial 28 day consultation and the application was supported by outside bodies. Costs for the application and the diversion work would be covered by the landowner and officers recommended that the bridleway be diverted.

The Executive Member asked whether it would cost more to keep the bridleway open – officers advsed that the Public Rights Of Way team were responsible for maintaining the path, and while the cost of maintaining nettles may be slightly higher for the new route, the expense on waterlogging would be greatly reduced so the cost to the authority would even out.

On this basis the Executive Member

Resolved:   To approve Option 1, which authorises the making of a public path order to divert part of public bridleway Heworth (Without) 1 and 2, by creating a new public path and extinguishing the current public path, that public notice of the making of the order be given and if no objections are received within the period specified, or if received objections are subsequently withdrawn, authorises the confirmation of the order. If objections are received and not withdrawn, then the matter will be referred back to the Executive Member to decide whether it is sent to the Secretary of State for a final decision.

Reason:     This option is in the interests of the landowner, and the council is satisfied that the legislative requirements have been met. Those in support of the order have commented that the new section of bridleway will be more pleasant for horse riders and walkers, although some may be wary of using a circuitous woodland path for personal safety reasons. The increased length of the bridleway is seen as a positive change as is the increased width which will enable all users to safely pass one another while using the path – an ongoing issue with the existing path. There were no objections at pre-order consultation stage.

This report provides feedback and officer recommendations following a feasibility study into residents’ concerns over the “risk of a serious accident due to vehicles driving at an inappropriate speed and the increasing volume of large vehicles using the lane”, as well as from a subsequent consultation exercise.

Resolved:        To approve Option 1, comprising:

(i)             A complete refresh of all road markings along Black Dike Lane and replacement of all faded or damaged signs, as well as hedge trimming to improve visibility of the signage;

(ii)            The introduction of additional signs and road markings to further reinforce the existing signs and markings and better highlight existing hazards to ensure motorists drive appropriately in compliance with the signed speed limits, and to dissuade larger goods vehicles from using Black Dike Lane; and

(iii)          The reduction of the 60mph speed to 30mph under an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order for up to 18 months, after which a further decision will be sought about whether to make the ETRO permanent.

(iv)          The reduction of the 30mph speed limit to 20mph under an ETRO for up to 18 months, after which a further decision will be sought about whether to make the ETRO permanent.

Reason:               To carry out a number of complimentary measures to improve road safety on Black Dike Lane and Manor Close.

The Highway Engineering Design Manager presented the report, explaining that this had been produced following receipt of a petition from residents presented to full council in 2021, and a full feasibility study had been undertaken.

The scheme proposed to reconcile danger reduction methods such as reinforcing current restrictions on Black Dyke Lane by adding further signage and making the Station Road junction more obvious. The study considered vehicle speeds in conjeunction with the Highway Regulation team, including the 40mph on A59 being extended into the top of Black Dyke Lane which had been approved and would be further dropped to 20mph. Officers had endeavoured to take account of people’s concerns, and the rural setting and weight limit of the road and could provide enforcement options without needing to escalate to North Yorkshire Police. It was also proposed that satellite navigation companies could be contacted to request removal of this route from their systems to discourage its use as a short cut or “rat-run”.

The Executive Member asked if the scheme was to be implemented, what monitoring could be done to ensure its success? The Highway Engineering Design Manager answered that the intention would be to let the scheme bed in, and then a speed survey could be undertaken. Officers could also work with North Yorkshire Police to expand the database record of accidents including damage only ones (recognising that some of these are not reported). A traffic survey could be undertaken for speed monitoring purposes.

The Executive Member said that while she was comfortable to progress with officer recommendations, she still wished to monitor progress going forward to ensure this remains a liveable place, and disincentivise use as a short cut.

She therefore

Resolved:        To approve Option 1, comprising:

(i)             A complete refresh of all road markings along Black Dike Lane and replacement of all faded or damaged signs, as well as hedge trimming to improve visibility of the signage;

(ii)            The introduction of additional signs and road markings to further reinforce the existing signs and markings and better highlight existing hazards to ensure motorists drive appropriately in compliance with the signed speed limits, and to dissuade larger goods vehicles from using Black Dike Lane; and

(iii)          The reduction of the 60mph speed to 30mph under an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order for up to 18 months, after which a further decision will be sought about whether to make the ETRO permanent.

(iv)          The reduction of the 30mph speed limit to 20mph under an ETRO for up to 18 months, after which a further decision will be sought about whether to make the ETRO permanent.

Reason:               To carry out a number of complimentary measures to improve road safety on Black Dike Lane and Manor Close.