Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive and note apologies for absence.

There were no apologies.

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 Tuesday, 22 April 2025.

Resolved:   That the minutes of the Decision Session held on Tuesday 22 April 2025 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, 9 May 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.

It was reported that there had been 16 registrations to speak at the session under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

10 people spoke on item 5 () and six people spoke on the item of Urgent Business from April 22 decision session (“Urgent Review of Parking Charges”).

·       Steve Boden spoke on item 5 supporting the scheme but discussing reasons for the low response rate and suggesting that the methodology of the officers had not been democratic.

The Executive Member noted that clearer communication of the methodology was being addressed.

·       Jacqueline Tomkinson spoke on item 5 – expressing concern at how restrictions would impact people with disabilities and those who do not own a car. She felt that daily ticketing would adversely impact people on reduced means.

The Executive Member confirmed that there were mitigations and she would ask officers to respond via email to specific concerns raised.

·       Pippa Cole spoke on item 5 – stating that she was disappointed in the recommendation not to take further action following a low response rate to the consultation. She noted that the majority of respondents had supported residents parking.

·       Michael Kearney spoke on item 5 – in support of the Respark scheme. He noted that local residents were often unable to park due to commuter parking and people attending events at the Barbican in the evening, due to the area providing free parking. He suggested that R66 would also encourage more sustainable transport usage.

·       Lucy Shaw spoke on item 5 – in favour of the scheme, suggesting that the scheme would improve pedestrian and cyclist safety as well as the congestion and traffic flow on Fulford Road and Cemetery Road. She pointed out that the area was well served by university buses and noted that where residents had objected it had largely been with regard to the perceived cost, but she felt the benefits outweighed this cost.

·       Phillip Collins spoke on item 5 - speaking as a local resident of 30 years he commented on current car parking pressures – said it has got worse in recent years. When university raised its parking prices it suggested that people come and park there. He felt with the Barbican site now being turned into 240 apartments this could only have an adverse effect on parking.

·       Hazel Qureshi spoke on item 5 – speaking against respark as unnecessary cost and not needed in her particular area, though she acknowledged that those in the R66 area closer to town generally were more in favour. She suggested the area be split on a geographic area so that the residents closer to town could have Respark and those closer to Heslington could choose not to.

The Executive Member clarified that it was possible to implement a split scheme where there is a clear geographic division of opinion. 

·       Sarah Busby spoke on item 5 – she clarified that the decision at hand was whether or not to drop the R66 plan, as opposed to whether or not to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

To consider the representations received to the statutory consultation and Notice of Proposal for the amendment of the Traffic Regulation Order, advertised on 15 November 2024, which proposed to implement Resident Parking (ResPark) restrictions (advertised as R66: Wellington Street) to include properties on Heslington Road (part), Wellington Street, Willis Street, Gordon Street, Wolsley Street, Apollo Street, Apollo Court, Alne Terrace, Belle Vue Street, Belle Vue Terrace and Barbican Road (part) along with mixed use limited waiting parking bays on Heslington Road and determine what action is appropriate following the results.

Resolved:     To approve Option 2, extending the statutory consultation period by a further 21 days. Press notices, onsite notices and residents’ letters advising of the extended consultation end date will be issued.

Anyone who responded to the previous statutory consultation will not need to submit a new representation. Details of the updated fees associated with purchasing permits for residents parking schemes will be included so that residents can make an informed decision.

Reason:        While the statutory consultation process was followed, the Executive Member felt that the level of response to both the informal and formal consultations was insufficient to make a representative decision today.

The Director of Transport, Environment and Planning introduced the item, noting that in October 2024 the Executive Member determined, pursuant to a petition, that this item should progress to formal consultation. Consequently, this report updated on the statutory consultation which was the legal process of implementing restrictions.

He began by responding to questions and concerns raised in the Public Participation section:

·       He explained that a blue badge did provide free parking within a residents’ park area and that free attendance permits for carers were also offered in these areas. 

·       He noted that there was a charge for residents to park in a resident's parking zone and this price varied based on the number of cars per residence, but the standard price was £115 per year/32p per day.

·       The Badger Hill permit had been referenced by a speaker; he explained that this was a residents parking scheme funded through the University of York's campus development and there had been an obligation they would fund that through the planning process for several years. The agreement had now expired and was under review and officers would be consulting with residents around Badger Hill on the future of that scheme.

·       Regarding the decision and concerns over methodology, he clarified that the consultation process was not a referendum, and that once advertised it was the legal duty of the Traffic Authority and Executive Member to consider all objections. In order to put those objections into context it was important to also report support for the scheme, which officers had done, and they had been guided by response rates and the level of support in putting these comments into context.

·       Once an item has been advertised, a lesser restriction could always be decided upon, but the authority could not request a greater restriction; so there may be ways to accommodate – for example – the short stay parking requested by some residents, or the parking scheme could also be applied to part of the area and not the full extent.

The Traffic Projects Officer explained the additional responses to consultation published in a supplement to the meeting’s agenda (two residents in support and one in objection).

The Executive Member acknowledged having read these written responses from residents, as well as a written submission from Cllr Whitcroft on this item.

The Executive Member conceded that the consultation process had been confusing for residents, noting the very low response rate to both informal and formal consultation. Given the difference between the number of responses she concluded there had been a misunderstanding.

Through the informal consultation carried out in January 2024 there had been 116 responses of a possible 485 sent out (72 people in favour and 44 against). While this was less than the 50% officers would normally look for to feel like there was support in an area, this was a guideline rather than a rule so the Executive Member had made the decision to continue to statutory consultation.

She felt that perhaps the significance of also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.