Agenda, decisions and 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 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 19 July 2024.

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.

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 4 October 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 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.

This report details the results of informal consultation feedback received from residents in response to a proposal to implement Resident Parking (ResPark) restrictions (to be known 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) and determine what action is appropriate following the results.

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.

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.

This report considers representations received, in support or objection, to the advertised proposal to amend the Traffic Regulation Order(TRO).

A decision on the proposal is important as it will provide the Council with the approval for an outcome and ensure the appropriate changes are made to the TRO to address the concerns raised.

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 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 leave the residents and local businesses to continue to experience obstructive parking and have a negative impact on the street environment.

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.

This report considers alternative options for restrictions following a representation made by a resident in response to the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) presented at the decision session held on 28 May 2024.

A decision on the proposal is important as it will provide the Council with the approval for an outcome and ensure the appropriate changes are made to the TRO to address the concerns raised by the residents.

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.

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.

This report details the diverting of the obstructed public footpath Acaster Malbis 3 out of a garden, on to a wider and surfaced route. The public footpath will also be upgraded to bridleway as part of the process.

The current re-development of Chestnut Farm Holiday Park means that there is a window of opportunity to restore and improve public access in Acaster Malbis at minimal cost to the council.

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.

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.