Agenda, decisions and 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 asked to declare at this point in the meeting any personal or prejudicial interests they might have in the business on the agenda. None were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last Decision Session of the Executive Member for City Strategy held on 7 July 2009.

RESOLVED:             That the minutes of the last meeting of the Decision Session – Executive Member for City Strategy held on 7 July 2009 be approved and signed by the Executive Member as a correct record.

It was reported that there had been nine registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.  Details of these speakers are set out under the individual agenda items.

This reports asks the Executive Member to amend the decision made at the last Decision Session in respect of the Gating Order to close the access/gap in the boundary leading onto Scarcroft Green.

RESOLVED:             That the Executive Member amends the original decision taken at the meeting on 7 July 2009 (minute 16) and resolves to:

(i)                 Authorise the Director of City Strategy to instruct the Head of Civic, Democratic and Legal Services to make a Gating Order to close the access point/gap in the boundary, leading onto Scarcroft Green from Scarcroft Road back lane, Micklegate Ward, in accordance with s129A of the Highways Act 1980 and to provide a gate at that point.

(ii)               Requests Officers to advise residents of Scarcroft View that the council may issue any person with a key to access the gate upon receipt of a reasonable deposit (amount to be determined by the Director of City Strategy).  This deposit is refundable at any time on the safe return of the key. The number of keys made available to be restricted to one per household.

REASONS:            (i)            In order that the access point/gap in the railings, leading

onto Scarcroft Green from Scarcroft Road back lane, Micklegate Ward, can be restricted to help prevent crime and anti-social behaviour currently associated with the back lane.

(ii)To allow access to those members of the public who wish to use it whilst implementing a deterrent to those who are causing the issues associated with the back lane.

The Executive Member considered a report, which sought approval to amend the decision made at the Decision Session of 7 July 2009 in respect of the Gating Order to close the access/gap in the boundary leading onto Scarcroft Green.   Following the meeting it had come to light that the Council had no power to seek a financial contribution from the public to install highway furniture.

The Executive Member referred to receipt of written representations from the following five local residents:

• Jaki Boston, of Scarcroft View in support of residents paying a deposit for a key to a gate onto the Green;
• Katherine Nightingale also of Scarcroft View and in support of the proposals and the payment of a deposit for a key;
• Lyn Kellett of Scarcroft View who had asked for further details in relation to the allocation of keys;
• Rob King of Scarcroft Road referring to recent problems encountered by residents in the area in relation to anti social behaviour and supporting the closure of the gap and the funding of the work by the Council;
• Peter Lyons, in support of the proposals and issue of keys to residents.

Councillor Merrett expressed his opposition to the proposals, as he understood stated that this was a private alley and not a public right of way and he requested Officers views in relation to this and the proposals. Officers confirmed that a private highway had the same legal standing as a public highway and that this also fell under the Highway Act.

The Executive Member confirmed that residents of Scarcroft View should continue to have access to the Green though a newly provided gate as agreed at the last Decision Session.  He also confirmed that he did however have to accept legal advice, which meant amending the decision to allow keys to be loaned to residents in return for a small deposit. He pointed out that he could see no reason to include a hardship clause, as residents were free to decide whether or not they required this type of access.

RESOLVED:             That the Executive Member amends the original decision taken at the meeting on 7 July 2009 (minute 16) and resolves to:

(i)                 Authorise the Director of City Strategy to instruct the Head of Civic, Democratic and Legal Services to make a Gating Order to close the access point/gap in the boundary, leading onto Scarcroft Green from Scarcroft Road back lane, Micklegate Ward, in accordance with s129A of the Highways Act 1980 and to provide a gate at that point. ^1.

(ii)               Requests Officers to advise residents of Scarcroft View that the council may issue any person with a key to access the gate upon receipt of a reasonable deposit (amount to be determined by the Director of City Strategy).  This deposit is refundable at any time on the safe return of the key. The number of keys made available to be restricted to one per household. ^2.

REASONS:            (i)            In order that the access point/gap in the railings,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

This report considers the future of the current gating order on the snicket between Carrfield and Chantry Close in the Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Ward.

RESOLVED:             That the Executive Member approves Option A and that the Director of City Strategy be authorised to instruct the Head of Civic, Democratic and Legal Services to formally review the order with the purpose of revoking the gating order which exists on the snicket between Carrfield and Chantry Close, Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Ward, in accordance with s129F(3) of the Highways Act 1980.

REASON:                  The restriction imposed by the order is no longer expedient in all the circumstances for the purpose of reducing crime or anti social behaviour and because of residents’ concerns, which are detailed in the report.

The Executive Member considered a report regarding the future of the current gating order on the snicket between Carrfield and Chantry Close, Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Ward, taking into account the current levels of crime and anti-social behaviour (ASB) and the views of residents living on both streets.

The Executive Member referred to further representations received from:

• Ward Councillors – confirmation that the snicket had been a source of anti social behaviour over a number of years. They referred to the division of views on the provision of a gate and for the need for any future consultation on gating orders to specify those residents who would be eligible for a key or PIN.
• Cindy Redpath of Chantry Close in opposition to the gating order, particularly as this area was no longer a high crime area.

Representations were then received at the meeting from the following:

• Mr M Wilson of Chantry Close who confirmed that he lived adjacent to the snicket and that he was still experiencing anti social behaviour problems, which he felt, still supported the provision of a gate. He also confirmed that he had no wish to build or use the adjacent land as referred to by some residents in the report.
• Mrs Holmes of Chantry Close referred to problems she would encounter if the snicket was gated which included her key holder who used this access. She also stated that this was a public right of way which once closed would be lost and not easily returned to public use.
• Mrs Shields of Chantry Close confirmed that she had lived in the area for 24 years and that it had never been a high crime area. It was felt that gating the snicket could have the opposite affect.
• Mr John Andrews of Chantry Close stated that originally he had felt that such schemes were an excellent method of curbing anti social behaviour but he felt that this proposal would be counter productive, was in the wrong location and could not justified. He confirmed that he supported the revocation of the order.
• Mr Houghton of Carrfield Close pointed out that this was a public right of way and not a cycle track and that there should be a barrier at this point to make this clear. He did confirm that gating the snicket would be inconvenient to many residents.
• Councillor Reid confirmed that this was an unenviable decision to make but that the original petition had been collected in good faith from local residents who had, at that time, supported the gating of the snicket. She referred to the frustrations in relation to the current legislation but reluctantly she supported the revoking of the order. She finally thanked officers for their efforts and time spent on trying to alleviate this matter.

Following consideration of all comments received the Executive Member then considered the following options. He also confirmed that he felt further trials on restricting access were required in less sensitive locations but that he must take into  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

This report asks the Executive Member to consider a number of options for the reinstatement of a public transport service along Temple Lane, Copmanthorpe.

RESOLVED: That the Executive Member agrees to:

i)              For a trial period of 6 months, and subject to costs being retained within the existing budget limits, to vary the number 21 bus service in line with the timetable suggested in Annex C page 71 of the Officer report;

ii)            That consideration be given by Officers as to whether a clockwise or counter clockwise route would optimise usage of the service;

iii)          That the numbers using the service be carefully monitored and reported to an Executive Member meeting towards the end of the 6 month trial period;

iv)          In the event of this proposed revision to the 21 service proving to be unaffordable, then Officers be authorised to proceed to establish a shared hire car service to serve the Temple Lane area without the need for a further reference to a Decision Session.

REASON:                  In light of representations received these proposals potentially offer the most cost effective achievable means of providing a public transport service to meet the unmet travel demands of the residents of the Temple Lane area of Copmanthorpe.

The Executive Member considered a report that detailed a number of options for reinstatement of a public transport service along Temple Lane, Copmanthorpe.

It was reported that the following representations had been received since the agenda had been published:

• Una Dalton and Nigel Brown on behalf of residents and bus passengers around Temple Lane.  They expressed support for the reinstatement of the No 21 bus service along Temple Lane for two days per week.
• Yvonne Cook, Clerk to Acaster Malbis Parish Council, who supported the provision of a bus service on six days per week.
• Carol Green who confirmed that Bishopthorpe Parish Council would prefer the 21 service to the village to remain as a daily service.
• Christine Oldroyd, resident of Mount Pleasant and regular bus user, who referred to the change of options but who supported the provision of a car or community transport service for Temple Lane.
• Julian Sturdy, in support of the reintroduction of the No 21 Service for 2 days per week on Temple Lane as set out in the report.
• Derek Bowen, Copmanthorpe Parish Council in support of the option put forward by Mrs Dalton and Mr Brown.

Officers updated that a further response had been received from Bishopthorpe Parish Council reiterating their earlier expression of preference for retention of a six day a week service on a standard route, in the interests of simplicity and meeting the needs of the majority of passengers.

Mrs Dalton, made representations on behalf of users of the service. She referred to a number of elderly residents who had previously used the service and who now found it difficult to visit the doctor and local shops and to continue to lead independent lives. She confirmed that provision of a service on two days per week would be a vast improvement and that hopefully this could be agreed for a six month trial period.

Councillor Healey, confirmed that since the bus service had ceased residents of Temple Lane had contacted him in supporting the option to provide a two day service.

The Executive Member then gave consideration to the following options:

Option (a)       Provide a two or three day a week public transport link from Acaster Malbis to either Askham Bar or York City Centre using either bus or shared car options.

Option (b)       Extend First York Service 13, either in whole or part, to a new terminus in Temple Lane.

Option (c)       Join First York Service 13 (Monks Cross – Copmanthorpe) to Service 11 (Ashley Park – Bishopthorpe) via Temple Lane and Appleton Road.

Option (d)       Divert some or all Yorkshire Coastliner services from Hallcroft Lane/Top Lane via Copmanthorpe and Bishopthorpe to and from Tadcaster Road.

Option (e)       Revise the new Service 21 to run along Temple Lane and return between Acaster Malbis and Bishopthorpe.

Option (f)        Revise the new Service 21 to run some journeys each day via Bishopthorpe and some journeys via Copmanthorpe.

Option (g)       Revise the new Service 21 to run via Bishopthorpe on some days  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

This report presents the results of initial survey information and options in response to the two petitions received regarding the change in traffic conditions due to work being carried out on Water End earlier in the year.

[Annex G to this report will follow setting out the scrutiny task groups views (and those of the parent Scrutiny Committee members) on those elements of an ongoing CCfA (Councillor Call for Action) which may impact upon this report being considered by the Executive Member]

RESOLVED:             That the Executive Member agrees to:

i)Approve the course of action detailed in Options A and B of the report be approved which will allow:

a.      Further surveys to be undertaken once the road humps on Westminster Road have been replaced and the results reported to a future Decision Session meeting

b.      Progress the introduction of a 20 mph limit and undertake a review of the School Travel Plan

(ii)               Options G and H in the report be given further consideration as part of the reporting of the above;

(iii)             That the option of introducing build outs or chicanes as a method of controlling both traffic speed and volumes also be evaluated;

REASON:                  These options to take forward for further works to alleviate traffic problems encountered by residents in the Westminster Road and The Avenue are considered to be the most appropriate options to progress at this time.

The Executive Member considered a report that presented the results of initial survey information and options in response to the two petitions received regarding the change in traffic conditions due to works carried out on Water End earlier in the year.

The Executive Member referred to the additional comments received from the Economic and City Development Overview and Scrutiny Committee Task Group, which had been republished with the agenda. The group had set out their comments in relation to the following options detailed in the report:

Option A – Further Survey  (paragraph 25 of the report)

Option B – 20 mph Speed Limit/School Travel Plan Review (paragraph 26 of the report)

Option C – Access Only Order (paragraph 28 of the report)

Option D – Banned Turning Manoeuvres (paragraph 29 of the report)

Option E – One Way Traffic (paragraph 30 of the report)

Option F – Banned turning manoeuvres with junction alterations (paragraph 32 of the report)

Option G – Point Closure along Westminster Road or The Avenue (paragraph 33 of the report)

Option H – Residents’ Consultation (paragraph 37 of the report)

The Task Group stated that whichever option was ultimately chosen that there needed to be careful consultation as all the options offered advantages for some residents and disadvantages for others.

The Executive Member reported that the former Chief Executive had received five emails from residents in support of a point closure on Westminster Road and three from residents who were opposed to the closure. He also referred to the written submission received from Cllr Scott, copies of which had been circulated at the meeting. Councillor Scott asked the Executive Member to support Option G or at least a temporary interim closure to assess the impact, in addition he had asked for the left turn lane to be reinstated at Clifton Green.

It was reported that additional information on comparative traffic volumes had been provided by Officers and republished with the agenda.

Officers updated that the road humps in Westminster Road had today been reinstated and that, weather permitting, the white lines would be applied tomorrow.

Representations in support of point closure on Westminster Road were received from Mr Paul Moran who stated that neither road humps nor signage would have any affect on through traffic in this area. He requested the Executive Member to take account of resident’s wishes and stated that point closure was the only solution to these problems.

Mr Begley, a resident of Westminster Road, referred to the increased volume and speed of through traffic on every day of the week. He went on to point out that residents felt that point closure was the only lasting method of resolving this traffic problem. He stated that the recently replaced road humps were less robust than those that had previously existed. The Executive Member confirmed that, if the replacement humps were not to the same specification,  he would ensure replacements were constructed to the same standard. ^1.

Councillor King confirmed that the recommendation failed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

This report sets out progress to date on schemes in the 2009/10 City Strategy Capital Programme and makes adjustments to scheme allocations to align them with latest cost estimates and delivery projections.

RESOLVED:             That the Executive Member:

(i)Approves the adjustments set out in Annexes 1 and 2 of the report;

(ii)               Approves the changes to the allocation of the Cycling City funding, subject to the approval of the Executive.

REASON:                  To enable the effective management and monitoring of the council’s capital programme.

The Executive Member considered a report which set out progress to date on schemes in the 2009/10 City Strategy Capital Programme, and made adjustments to scheme allocations to align with latest cost estimates and delivery projections.

It was reported that the current approved budget for the City Strategy Capital Programme for 2009/10 was £5,786k, which included £3,374k of Local Transport Plan (LTP) funding.

It was reported that the proposed key changes were:

• Reduced allocations for the Access York Phase 1, Blossom Street Multi-Modal and Fishergate Gyratory Schemes;
• The addition of an allocation for the implementation of the Beckfield Lane Phase 2 cycle route in 2009/10;
• Inclusion of the details of the School Cycle Parking schemes in the programme;
• Reduction of the overall budget by £516k due to the virement of funds to Neighbourhood Services.

Councillor Merrett referred to the need for flexibility in Year 3 in relation to the Cycling City schemes, and questioned the air quality position and the need for a review.

The Executive Member confirmed that it was still early in the year for the capital programme likely outturn to be forecast accurately but that good progress was being made with scheme development and consultation. He went onto state that some of the schemes would as planned slip into 2010 in order to stay within budget.

RESOLVED:             That the Executive Member:

(i)Approves the adjustments set out in Annexes 1 and 2 of the report; ^1.

(ii)               Approves the changes to the allocation of the Cycling City funding, subject to the approval of the Executive. ^2.

REASON:                  To enable the effective management and monitoring of the council’s capital programme.

This report is in response to the Executive Member’s request at the Executive meeting in April 2009 for a further report on the wider issues of highway adoption.

RESOLVED:             That the Executive Member:

i)        Approves Option A, as set out in paragraphs 34 to 36 of the Officer report;

ii)      Requests the Executive Member for Neighbourhoods to review the arrangements for, and costs of adopting, those streets in the City which historically have not been maintained by the Council.

REASON:                  To allow officers to present details of the progress being made on outstanding developments and provide the basis for informed judgement.  This option also proposes to establish a forum with developers in York, which it is hoped will help to promote highway adoptions more quickly.

The Executive Member considered a report on the adoption of highways on new estates.  The report had been prepared in response to his request at the Executive Meeting in April 2009. 

The report provided a background to the issues, including some of the obstacles to be overcome, and suggested a number of initiatives and proposals to improve the service.

The Executive Member confirmed that this was a useful report, which detailed progress being made in adopting, for maintenance purposes, recent developments. He pointed out that the backlog in adoptions appeared to be reducing but that there was scope for regular review reports as suggested by Officers.

He then gave consideration to the following options:

Option A – to note the contents of the briefing report and request that officers prepare a further interim progress report in the final quarter of the year, which would set out highways adoptions completed and current work programme/site activity.  In addition a subsequent annual progress report could be brought to the Executive Member on the service.  Officers would make further contact with other local authorities to establish if improvements could be made to current systems/procedures.  Arrangements would be made to establish a local developer forum, which would aim to meet twice a year, with officers and the Executive Member with the objective of discussing current development progress and future schemes.

Option B – to undertake a detailed review of highway adoption procedures.

RESOLVED:             That the Executive Member:

i)        Approves Option A, as set out in paragraphs 34 to 36 of the Officer report; ^1.

ii)      Requests the Executive Member for Neighbourhoods to review the arrangements for, and costs of adopting, those streets in the City, which historically have not been maintained by the Council.  ^2.

REASON:                  To allow officers to present details of the progress being made on outstanding developments and provide the basis for informed judgement.  This option also proposes to establish a forum with developers in York, which it is hoped will help to promote highway adoptions more quickly.

This report presents scheme options to be considered as part of Blossom Street Multi Modal Study. The study was commissioned to investigate options for improving the Blossom Street, Queen Street, Micklegate, and Nunnery Lane junction and enhancing the streetscape of Blossom Street between this junction and its junction with Holgate Road.

RESOLVED:             That the Executive Member authorises the further development of the following aspects of the Officer report:

i)                    Options 1a and 1b;

ii)                  Arrangement to give westbound cyclists priority access through Micklegate Bar (para. 43 of the Officers report);

(iii)             Provision of alternative quiet routes for cyclists to avoid the Blossom Street junction including access through the Station car park to Holgate Road (paras. 40,41 and 42 of the Officer report);

(iv)              That representations be made to the Department of Transport that, recognising York’s pioneering role as a Cycling City, they agree to the trial introduction of an advanced cycle green traffic light phase of 10-15 seconds at this junction (para. 46 of the Officer report);

(v)                That the option of banning daytime loading within 30 metres of the Blossom Street junction be further evaluated;

(vi)              That the other proposals included in Options 2 – 4 and which involve the reduction in the number of traffic lanes, together with the proposals included in paragraphs 38,39 and 44, and including a “do nothing” option, be subject to public consultation through Your City and other channels. The consultation results to be reported to a future Executive Member Decision Session.

REASON:                  To enable officers to progress the scheme sufficiently to be able to present an option to be taken forward to detailed design for further consideration prior to construction.

The Executive Member considered a report that presented options to be considered as part of the Blossom Street Multi Modal Study.  The study was commissioned to investigate options for improving the Blossom Street / Queen Street / Micklegate / Nunnery Lane junction and enhancing the streetscape of Blossom Street between this junction and its junction with Holgate Road, with the aim of improving accessibility and safety for all road users, particularly pedestrians; cyclists; and public transport users.

Mr Sydes made representations as a resident of Dringhouses and as a regular cyclist on this route. He made the following points;

• Questioned why the narrow focus of the study had concentrated on the Blossom Street area as a wider solution he hoped would take in the Mount and Tadcaster Road;
• Encouraged the making of brave decisions to gain maximum benefit for cyclists;
• Disputed the need to pursue an alternate cycle route to avoid the Blossom Street junction as cyclist’s would prefer to have a direct through route at this point;
• Need to obtain a joined up approach.

Councillor Merrett confirmed his agreement with Mr Sydes comments. He stated that this was a difficult issue to address and that a wider view should be taken. He confirmed that he spoke on behalf of the 3 Ward Members and made points on the following issues:

• Queen Street crossing arrangements at Option 1a displaced the pedestrian crossing away from the desire line;
• Options 1a and 1b delivered virtually nothing and even in some cases disadvantages and were not value for money;
• Hoped for increased consultation in relation to any future proposals;
• Any partial closure of Micklegate Bar would require extensive consultation with local businesses and users.

The Executive Member gave consideration to the following options:

• Option 1 (as detailed in paragraphs 17-19 of the report)
• Option 2 (as detailed in paragraphs 20-22 of the report)
• Option 3 (as detailed in paragraphs 23-26 of the report)
• Option 4 (as detailed in paragraphs 27-29 of the report)

RESOLVED:             That the Executive Member authorises the further development of the following aspects of the Officer report:

i)                    Options 1a and 1b;

ii)                  Arrangement to give westbound cyclists priority access through Micklegate Bar (para. 43 of the Officers report);

(iii)             Provision of alternative quiet routes for cyclists to avoid the Blossom Street junction including access through the Station car park to Holgate Road (paras. 40,41 and 42 of the Officer report); ^1.

(iv)              That representations be made to the Department of Transport that, recognising York’s pioneering role as a Cycling City, they agree to the trial introduction of an advanced cycle green traffic light phase of 10-15 seconds at this junction (para. 46 of the Officer report); ^2.

(v)                That the option of banning daytime loading within 30 metres of the Blossom Street junction be further evaluated; ^3.

(vi)              That the other proposals included in Options 2 – 4 and which involve the reduction in the number of traffic lanes, together with the proposals included in paragraphs 38,39 and 44,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

This report outlines the development of York’s Third Local Transport Plan (LTP3) to cover the period from 2011 onwards and in particular outlines the proposals for consultation.

RESOLVED:             That the Executive Member for City Strategy:

(i)Notes the content of the report, particularly Table 1 which outlines the proposed activities and timescales for producing LTP3.

(ii)               Approves the process proposed in Table 1, subject to the presentation of the consultation strategy to the Executive Member for a decision at a future date, prior to the commencement of consultations.

(iii)             Approve the “LTP3 Draft Vision” as the initial founding principle for consultations on LTP3, which may be subsequently amended as a result of the consultations and

(iv)              Requests Officers to present the long-term transport strategy to the Executive Member for a decision at a future date, prior to the commencement of consultations.

REASONS:            (i)            To determine the process for producing LTP3 in

                                    compliance with Government guidance.

(ii)               To enable the subsequent long-term transport vision and consultation strategies to be presented to the Executive Member for decision at a future date, prior to the commencement of the initial consultation.

The Executive Member considered a report that outlined the development of York’s Third Local Transport Plan (LTP3) to cover the period from 2011 onwards, and in particular outlined the proposals for consultation.  The aim of the consultation was to, firstly, identify issues and priorities for a long-term (20-year) transport strategy and shorter term policies and implementation plans required for LTP3 and, secondly, to generate support and agreement for the strategy and range of policies and measures to be included in LTP3.

The report also included a summary of the latest guidance for producing LTPs and the other national, regional and local policies, strategies and plans that would influence the production and content of LTP3.

It was reported that the only comment received since the publication of the report had been from Councillor Gillies. He pointed out that although the reports sentiments could not be argued with that there was a fine balance between encouraging the points and lifestyles mentioned and acting as ‘Big Brother’.

Officers updated that there may be some delays in the October start date mentioned in the Preparation Dates in Table 1, paragraph 41 of the report.

The Executive Member confirmed that this was the first step in updating the Local Transport Plan and that it would not be until after the outcome of the General Election that a clearer idea of available resources was known.

RESOLVED:             That the Executive Member for City Strategy:

(i)Notes the content of the report, particularly Table 1 which outlines the proposed activities and timescales for producing LTP3.

(ii)               Approves the process proposed in Table 1, subject to the presentation of the consultation strategy to the Executive Member for a decision at a future date, prior to the commencement of consultations. ^1.

(iii)             Approve the “LTP3 Draft Vision” as the initial founding principle for consultations on LTP3, which may be subsequently amended as a result of the consultations and ^2.

(iv)              Requests Officers to present the long-term transport strategy to the Executive Member for a decision at a future date, prior to the commencement of consultations. ^3.

REASONS:            (i)            To determine the process for producing LTP3 in

                                    compliance with Government guidance.

(ii)               To enable the subsequent long-term transport vision and consultation strategies to be presented to the Executive Member for decision at a future date, prior to the commencement of the initial consultation.