Agenda and draft minutes

At this point Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on this agenda.

Members were invited to declare at this point in the meeting any personal or prejudicial interests they might have in the business on the agenda. No interests were declared.

It is at this point in the meeting that members of the public who have registered their wish to speak can do so. The deadline for registering is by 5.00pm on Friday 6 November 2009.

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

Dee Bush, spoke as a resident of Beckfield Lane and made representations against the extension of the cycle route. She expressed concern over the proposals for the continuation of an off road cycle route on Beckfield Lane with the added risks of conflict between vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists. She referred to disability groups who did not advocate the provision of shared use pavements. She pointed out that all other forms of traffic calming should be examined as an alternative to this scheme.  

Linda McElroy made representations on behalf of the York Access Group and Peter Pagliaro. She confirmed that they supported the extension of the cycle path but pointed out that the scheme should not be delayed whilst investigations were undertaken on the crossings proposals. She confirmed that there were difficulties with sight lines but that these could be overcome. She felt that expenditure on this scheme was worthwhile and well thought out and would provide a safe route not only for pupils at Manor School but to cyclists and those with Special Needs.

Mary Fairbrother, made representations on behalf of York Blind and Partially Sighted Society. She referred to the number of vulnerable users of this stretch of road. She pointed out that shared use facilities were unnerving for the visually impaired and that such schemes should only be used as the last resort as they caused friction between pedestrians and cyclists. She pointed out that there appeared be a lot of opposition to the scheme.

Sonia Tate, also spoke as a resident of Beckfield Lane. She referred to the traffic survey recently undertaken, details of which had been set out in the Officers report. She felt that this was incorrect information and that the user opinion survey was not representative of the Ward. She referred to the petition which she had submitted from those Beckfield Lane residents directly affected by the proposals and to their overwhelming objections to the scheme. She confirmed that there were numerous elderly residents that used this section of the path and she felt that they could lose their independence if the scheme went ahead.  

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 26 October 2009.

RESOLVED:             That the minutes of the Scrutiny Management Committee (Calling In) meeting held on 26 October 2009 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

To consider the decisions taken by the Executive Member for City Strategy on the above item, which have been called in by Councillors Simpson-Laing, B Watson and Horton in accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Constitution. A cover report is attached setting out the reasons for the call-in and the remit and powers of the call-in procedure, together with the original report to and decisions of the Executive Member.

Consideration was given to a report, which asked Members to consider the decisions made by the Executive Member for City Strategy at the Decision Session held on 20 October 2009.

Details of the Executive Members decisions were attached as Annex 1 to the report. The original report to the Decision Session was attached as Annex 2. The decisions had been called in by Councillors Simpson-Laing, B Watson and Horton on the grounds that:

“The Executive Member:

·        Pre-judged the issue and failed to take into consideration the numerous objections of local residents

·        Failed to respond to the financial justification arguments

·        Failed to respond to legal highway arguments

·        Showed ignorance of the layout of Beckfield Lane and its geometry

·        Failed to take notice of the City Council's Cycle Champion's comments and those of the Cycle Campaign Group.”

Members were invited to decide whether to confirm the decisions of the Executive Member (Option A) or to refer them back to the Executive Member for re-consideration and/or amendment (Option B).

Councillor B Watson addressed the meeting on behalf of the Calling In Members. He pointed out the dangers of shared use facilities and particularly to the speed of cyclists. He referred to the poor sight lines on Beckfield Lane, which were obscured by trees and hedges, and to the dangers posed to cyclists with drivers reversing and accessing the numerous drives and side roads. He also referred to the pedestrian islands which had previously been provided for safety reasons, following accidents in the area and which it was now proposed to remove.  He pointed out that this was a badly thought out scheme which took no account of residents and other consultees views.

In response to Cllr B Watson’s comments and Members questions, Officers confirmed that shared use paths were potentially less safe but that Department of Transport guidelines provided support and advice on how they could be provided in a safe manner. It was pointed out that similar shared facilities were used around the city with no problems being encountered.

After a full debate, Cllr Horton moved that Option B be approved and that the decisions be referred back to the Executive Member for consideration and that he be asked not to progress the scheme in its current form but give consideration to it later in the programme. Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded the motion, which was then put to the vote and declared CARRIED and it was therefore

RESOLVED: That Option B be approved and that the decisions be referred back to the Executive Member for City Strategy for reconsideration, and in doing so the Executive Member be asked to:

a)     not progress the scheme in its current form and

b)     give further consideration to a revised scheme later in the programme, following the completion of other more well supported cycling schemes.

REASON:                  In accordance with the procedures set out in the Council’s Constitution for dealing with called-in decisions, and to address the points raised by the Calling-in Members.

Councillors Orrell, R Watson  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.