Agenda, decisions and minutes

At this point in the meeting, the Executive Member is asked to declare:

·        any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests

·        any prejudicial interests or

·        any disclosable pecuniary interests

which he may have in respect of business on this agenda.

The Executive Member was asked to declare, at this point in the meeting, any personal interests, not included on the Register of Interests, or any prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interests that he might have had in respect of business on the agenda. He confirmed he had none.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 15 November 2018.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the Decision Session of the Executive Member for Transport and Planning held on 15 November 2018 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. The deadline for registering is 5.00pm on Wednesday 19 December 2018.  Members of the public can speak on agenda items or matters within the Executive Member’s remit.

To register to speak please contact the Democracy Officers for the meeting, on the details at the foot of the agenda.

Filming, Recording or Webcasting Meetings

Please note that, subject to available resources, this meeting will be filmed and webcast, or recorded, including any registered public speakers who have given their permission. The broadcast can be viewed at http://www.york.gov.uk/webcasts or, if recorded, this will be uploaded onto the Council’s website following the meeting.

Residents are welcome to photograph, film or record Councillors and Officers at all meetings open to the press and public. This includes the use of social media reporting, i.e. tweeting. Anyone wishing to film, record or take photos at any public meeting should contact the Democracy Officers (contact details are at the foot of this agenda) in advance of the meeting.

The Council’s protocol on Webcasting, Filming & Recording of Meetings ensures that these practices are carried out in a manner both respectful to the conduct of the meeting and all those present.  It can be viewed at

https://www.york.gov.uk/downloads/file/11406/protocol_for_webcasting_filming_and_recording_of_council_meetings_20160809

It was reported that there had been 11 registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

Two residents had registered to speak on issues within the general remit of the Executive Member.

Katherine Crocker, a local resident, urged the Executive Member and officers to proceed without delay with consideration of a petition from residents which had been handed in by Cllr D’Agorne  3 days previously in support of the introduction of residents parking on part of Alma Terrace and on Alma Grove. Officers advised that it was likely that this petition would be considered by the Executive Member around February time.

Lucie Wake, also a local resident, spoke to advise the Executive Member of problems that residents  had encountered with access to their properties on Slingsby Grove, off Tadcaster Road.  She stated that it was a narrow road with commercial properties at the end of it and, on a number of occasions, ambulances, delivery vehicles and refuse lorries had not been able to access properties on the street. She explained that she had canvassed the whole street and the majority of residents supported the introduction of a residents parking scheme and asked that this be considered by the council. Officers confirmed that they had received the request but were unable to confirm a date at this point when this could be considered.

There were 4 registrations to speak in relation to agenda item 6 (2016-17 Speed Management Programme – Relocation of Speed Limits – Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders)

Stuart Kay, addressed the Executive Member, on behalf of Dunnington Parish Council and Dunnington Playing Fields Association and Sports Club. He voiced their objections to the current trial in Dunnington which had moved the 30mph speed limit signs closer to the built up areas. He expressed concerns that traffic was now travelling faster past the entrance to the sports club  and stated that the suggestion to extend the 40mph stretch so that the 30mph limit started closer to the village green was unacceptable.

Councillor Carr spoke as Ward Member for Copmanthorpe and Parish Council Member to express the views of Copmanthorpe residents with regard to the experimental traffic regulation order at Tadcaster Road, Copmanthorpe. He advised that residents wished the 30mph sign to be returned to its original position at the start of the built up area as there was no evidence that the new experimental position of the sign had had any effect on vehicle speeds. He asked the Executive Member to agree to move the signs back to their original positions, warning that if the experimental TRO position was agreed as permanent, access to a development site on land adjacent to Tadcaster Road, where 170 houses were proposed, would be outside the 30mph limit.

Cllr Warters spoke as Osbaldwick and Derwent Ward Councillor and expressed dismay that the council had proceeded with the experimental location for the start of the 30mph limit at Common Lane, Dunnington after opposition from Dunnington Parish Council. He suggested that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

This report provides a response to the petition received from Members of York Golf Club in support of a Traffic Study and Road Safety Report drafted by Strensall with Towthorpe Parish Council.

Resolved:  (i)That option 3 be approved and the receipt of the petition be noted and Strensall with Towthorpe Parish Council and York Golf Club be informed by officers in relation to the procedures and policies currently in place to address the points raised.

Reason:     To inform the Golf Club and Parish Council how road safety matters are assessed and prioritised across the city.

The Executive Member considered a report that provided a response to the petition received from Members of York Golf Club in support of a Traffic Study and Road Safety Report  which had been prepared by Strensall with Towthorpe Parish Council.

He considered three options as detailed in the report:

Option 1 – to take no further action

Option 2 – to allocate funding to investigate the issues raised in the 2015 “Traffic Study and Road Safety Improvements Proposals” report.

Option 3 – to note the receipt of the petition and instruct officers to inform the parish council of the procedures currently in place to address the points raised (the recommended option).

He  noted that, since the report had been submitted to the council in 2015, the city council had been in discussion with the parish council and York Golf Club with regard to traffic and safety concerns and that a number of safety improvements had been undertaken in the Strensall area.

He acknowledged that there were procedures and policies in place which were used to address road safety matters across the city using an evidence based approach, in order to be able to prioritise issues and noted the need to follow these procedures into order to allocate resources fairly. He assured those present that the road safety issues raised would be dealt with in the correct way and would not be ignored.

With regard to the point raised by the parish council regarding the Vehicle Activated Sign and speed indicator devices, he advised that he had asked officers to prepare a report to enable him to consider their use and to be funded from council or parish council funding.

Resolved:  (i)That option 3 be approved and the receipt of the petition be noted and Strensall with Towthorpe Parish Council and York Golf Club be informed by officers in relation to the procedures and policies currently in place to address the points raised.

Reason:     To inform the Golf Club and Parish Council how road safety matters are assessed and prioritised across the city.

This report requests authority to undertake a review of the access arrangements for school transport vehicles into Fulford School to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the Germany Beck development and positive initial discussions with key stakeholders (School, Parish Council, Developer).

Resolved:  (i)      That option 2 be approved and that an allocation of funding provided from existing developer contributions/s106 funds be used to undertake a feasibility study on potential access options to the school.

(ii)      That a report on options be considered by the Executive Member at a future meeting.

Reason:     To understand more fully the options for the delivery of a potential new access route to the school from the south to reduce congestion and improve road safety in the area.

The Executive Member considered a report that requested authority to undertake a review of the access arrangements for school transport vehicles into Fulford School to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the Germany Beck development and positive initial discussions with key stakeholders including the school, parish council and developer)

The Executive Member acknowledged that something needed to be done to address access arrangements into the school and noted that the proposal was for the feasibility study to include the existing arrangement and two main potential options as follows:

1.   Retain the existing access but provide improved pick/up and drop off capacity and review mitigation measures to reduce the impact of school traffic on the adjacent highway network.

2.   One way bus transport access using a new route from the south and the existing highway network to the north with a new drop off/pick up facility. The one way could operate in one direction for ingress and exit or operate in a tidal manner.

3.   All bus transport to access and exit the school from the south with a turn around and pick up facility provided. 

He acknowledged the two written representations received from Mr Gamston on behalf of Fulfordgate residents who welcomed the recommendation to undertake a feasibility study and from Ward Councillor Aspden who welcomed the recommendation and stressed the importance of all the partners working together towards a resolution.

Resolved: 

(i)      That an allocation of funding provided from existing developer contributions/s106 funds be used to undertake a feasibility study on potential access options to the school.

(ii)      That a report on options be considered by the Executive Member at a future meeting.

Reason: To understand more fully the options for the delivery of a potential new access route to the school from the south to reduce congestion and improve road safety in the area.

This report seeks approval to make permanent the experimental Traffic Regulation Orders at two sites on the 2016/17 speed management programme and to further consider the speed limits at two other locations in light of the results of these experiments.

Resolved:

(i)      That the results of the experiment along with the objections and comments received be noted.

(ii)      That approval be given to make the traffic regulation order to relocate the start of the 30mph speed limit at Hopgrove Lane South, Hopgrove permanent.

Reason: To maintain the reduced speeds and improved compliance with the 30mph speed limit within the built-up areas.  

(iii)     That the decision be taken not to make the traffic regulation order to relocate the start of the 30mph speed limit at Tadcaster Road, Copmanthorpe permanent and for it to be moved back to its original location.

          Reason: Due to the concerns raised by Cllr Carr under public participation about the amount of opposition from Ward and Parish Councillors and residents in relation to the position of the experimental TRO.

(iv)    That  officers investigate the possibility of the addition of 30 roundel road markingsat the signs’ original location.

Reason: To further reinforce the start of the 30mph speed limits.

(v)     That the location of the start of the 30mph limit at Common Road Dunnington be reconsidered, in consultation with local representatives, to determine whether to retain the current experimental location or to revert to the previous location. The experimental location can be retained until August 2019.

Reason: To reconsider the most effective location for speed management near the sports club and within the village.

(vi)    That changing the existing 30mph speed limit start point on Murton Way, Murton, be re-considered in the 2019/20 speed management programme.

Reason: To determine whether a speeding problem still exists and to then reduce speeds within the village of Murton by moving the start of the 30mph limit in line with the findings of this experiment.

The Executive Member considered a report that sought approval to make permanent the experimental Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO’s) to relocate the start of the 30mph speed limit closer to the built up areas at Hopgrove Lane South, Hopgrove and Tadcaster Road, Copmanthorpe in order to reduce traffic speeds, and to agree minor improvements to further enhance the effectiveness of the revised speed limit locations with the addition on 30 roundel road markings and the removal of vegetation at Tadcaster Road, Copmanthorpe local to the sign adjacent to the A64.

The report also asked him to reconsider the location of the 30mph speed limit at Common Road Dunnington  and the 30mph speed limit on Murton Way, Murton in light of these results.

He considered the options available to him, taking into account the comments made under public participation on behalf of Dunnington Parish Council and by the Companthope and Osbaldwick & Derwent Ward Councillors.

The Executive Member agreed that as no comments had been received in relation to Hopgrove Lane, Hopgrove, there was no reason not to make the experimental order permanent. With regard to Tadcaster Road, Copmanthorpe however, he acknowledged the opposition of residents and the Ward Councillor to the experimental position of the 30mph signs and agreed that this should not be made permanent. He asked officers to look into the possibility of introducing 30 roundel road marking at the original location as requested.

With regard to the location of the start of the 30mph limit at Common Road Dunnington he acknowledged the amount of opposition but agreed  that there was still further time for consultation and then a decision would be taken as to the best location for the 30mph limit. The Executive Member noted Ward Councillors concerns with regard to changing the existing speed limit start point on Murton Way in Murton and noted that this would re-considered in the 2019-20 speed management programme.

Resolved:

(i)      That the results of the experiment along with the objections and comments received be noted.

(ii)      That approval be given to make the traffic regulation order to relocate the start of the 30mph speed limit at Hopgrove Lane South, Hopgrove permanent.

Reason: To maintain the reduced speeds and improved compliance with the 30mph speed limit within the built-up areas.  

(iii)     That the decision be taken not to make the traffic regulation order to relocate the start of the 30mph speed limit at Tadcaster Road, Copmanthorpe permanent and for it to be moved back to its original location.

          Reason: Due to the concerns raised by Cllr Carr under public participation about the amount of opposition from Ward and Parish Councillors and residents in relation to the position of the experimental TRO.

(iv)    That  officers investigate the possibility of the addition of 30 roundel road markingsat the Tadcaster Road, Companthorpe signs’ original location.

Reason: To further reinforce the start of the 30mph speed limits.

(v)     That the location of the start of the 30mph limit at Common Road Dunnington be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

The Executive Member is asked to consider the representations received to the recently advertised proposal to reduce the length of two resident parking bays on Howard Street.

Resolved: That option one be approved, and that

                   (i)      the full proposal be implemented as advertised to remove the development from the R20 ResPark zone.

                   (ii)      That approval be given to implement, as advertised, to shorten two parking bays in Howard Street to provide better vehicle access to the development and a passing area.

Reason:     To introduce required measures identified within the planning process to provide better vehicle access to the development at 79 Fulford Road and to provide a better passing facility on Howard Street.

The Executive Member considered the representations received to the recently advertised proposal to reduce the length of two resident parking bays on Howard Street.

He considered two options. Both options included implementing the proposal as advertised to remove the development from the R20 ResPark zone. Option 1 however involved implementing, as advertised, to shorten two parking bays on Howard Street to provide better vehicle access to the development and a passing area, whereas option 2 agreed to uphold the objection but take no further action to reduce the parking bays.

He noted Mr Hamill’s comments made during public participation on behalf of the developer in support of the proposals and the written representation received from Cllr D’Agorne which supported the recommended option but asked for a review of parking provision across the main road frontage of 79 Fulford Road.

Resolved: That option one be approved, and that

                   (i)      the full proposal be implemented as advertised to remove the development from the R20 ResPark zone.

                   (ii)      That approval be given to implement, as advertised, to shorten two parking bays in Howard Street to provide better vehicle access to the development and a passing area.

Reason:     To introduce required measures identified within the planning process to provide better vehicle access to the development at 79 Fulford Road and to provide a better passing facility on Howard Street.

This report asks the Executive Member to consider the objections received within the legal consultation period and to request a decision from options given in this report.

Resolved:

(i)      That approval be given to implement the advertised proposal to amend the York Parking, Stopping and Waiting Traffic Regulation Order to introduce a Residents’ Priority Parking Area for Rosedale Street as outlined in Option One (Annex A & Annex B to the report), to operate as a full time scheme.

(ii)      That approval be given to implement the advertised proposal to amend the York Parking, Stopping and Waiting Traffic Regulation Order to introduce Residents’ Priority Parking Area for Grange Garth as outlined in Option One (Annex A & Annex B to the report) ,to operate as a part time scheme from 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday only.

Reason: To progress the majority views of the residents of Grange Garth and Rosedale Street.

The Executive Member considered a report that highlighted the objections received within the legal consultation period to the introduction of Residents' Priority Parking on Rosedale Street and Grange Garth.

He acknowledged the comments made by two local residents in opposition to the proposals and two detailed written submissions from local residents, one in opposition to the scheme and the other raising particular requests with regard to operation times and discounts for low emission vehicles.

The Executive Member considered three options: to overrule the objections and implement as advertised; to undertake an additional consultation about the times of operation of the scheme with the residents of Grange Garth and Rosedale Street with authority to implement a scheme with the times of operation to reflect the results of the consultation; or to uphold the objections and take no further action. He noted that there were several people in support and several people in objection to residents parking

In response to concerns raised by a speaker with regard to the figures used in the report, officers confirmed that all the figures were correct and clarified that, for a scheme to be taken forward, there was a requirement for a 50% return of questionnaire sheets and that the majority of those returned were in support, and confirmed these figures had been achieved for both Rosedale Ave and Grange Garth.

Officers also explained that, even though petition had been submitted by Rosedale Street residents, the decision had been taken to extend the consultation to include neighbouring streets due to past concerns about migration of parking into adjoining streets, but that any decision to introduce residents parking would be considered on a street by street basis. 

The Executive Member  noted that, while Rosedale Street residents had expressed a preference for a full time scheme, views of residents of Grange Garth had been mixed with half preferring a full time scheme and the other half favouring a scheme which would operate Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm. In view of this, he agreed that the Rosedale Street scheme should be full time but that the Grange Garth Scheme should operate Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm and if residents then experienced problems on a weekend, it could be expanded.

Resolved:

(i)      That approval be given to implement the advertised proposal to amend the York Parking, Stopping and Waiting Traffic Regulation Order to introduce a Residents’ Priority Parking Area for Rosedale Street as outlined in Option One (Annex A & Annex B to the report), to operate as a full time scheme.

(ii)      That approval be given to implement the advertised proposal to amend the York Parking, Stopping and Waiting Traffic Regulation Order to introduce Residents’ Priority Parking Area for Grange Garth as outlined in Option One (Annex A & Annex B to the report) ,to operate as a part time scheme from 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday only.

 (iii)    That officers be authorised to re-consult in the adjacent areas of Farndale Street, Levisham Street, Hartoft Street  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

The Executive Member is asked to consider the representations received to a recently advertised proposal to change the parking amenity within the R33 Respark zone on Sycamore Place, Sycamore Terrace, Bootham Terrace and Longfield Terrace.

Resolved: That option three be approved:

(i)      To implement, as advertised, the removal of the Bert Keech Bowling Green development from the R33 Residents’ Priority Parking Zone.

(ii)      To implement the revocation of Guest House Parking and Household Parking to be replaced with No Waiting at any Time on Sycamore Place to provide vehicle access to new property.

(iii)     To uphold the objections and take no further action on the rest of the proposal as advertised.

(iv)    To advertise an alternative proposal for the revocation of 6m of no waiting at any times restrictions on Longfield Terrace and replace with an R33 GM space for the use of Guest House parking only (as detailed in Annex D to the report)

Reason: To progress the majority views of the residents.

The Executive Member considered the representations received to a recently advertised proposal to change the parking amenity within the R33 Respark zone on Sycamore Place, Sycamore Terrace, Bootham Terrace and Longfield Terrace.

The Executive Member considered the three options detailed in the report and acknowledged comments made by a local resident and the Clifton Ward Councillor during public participation.

Officers acknowledged that both speakers on this report had expressed their support for the recommended option 3. With regard to the proposal to implement the revocation of Guest House Parking and Household Parking to be replaced with No Waiting at any Time on Sycamore Place to provide vehicle access to new property, and the question of how much space was required for access to the new property, officers advised that the measurements of revocation could be a lesser length than advertised and this would be achieved on implementation if possible.

With regard to the proposal to advertise an alternative proposal for the revocation of 6m of no waiting at any times restrictions on Longfield Terrace and replace with an R33 GM space for the use of Guest House parking only (as detailed in Annex D to the report), and speakers’ suggestions to consult on more options for Longfield Terrace, rather than just one, officers advised that the proposal maintained the status quo for the agreed Guest House parking allocation by replacing the one space lost with one space at an alternative location.

Resolved: That option 3 be approved:

(i)      To implement, as advertised, the removal of the Bert Keech Bowling Green development from the R33 Residents’ Priority Parking Zone.

(ii)      To implement the revocation of Guest House Parking and Household Parking to be replaced with No Waiting at any Time on Sycamore Place to provide vehicle access to new property.

(iii)     To uphold the objections and take no further action on the rest of the proposal as advertised.

(iv)    To advertise an alternative proposal for the revocation of 6m of no waiting at any times restrictions on Longfield Terrace and replace with an R33 GM space for the use of Guest House parking only (as detailed in Annex D to the report)

Reason: To progress the majority views of the residents.

This report sets out progress to date on schemes in the 2018/19 Economy & Place Transport Capital Programme, and proposes adjustments to scheme allocations to align with the latest cost estimates and delivery projections.

Resolved:

i)             That the amendments to the 2018/19 Economy & Place Transport Capital Programme be approved.

ii)            That the decrease to the 2018/19 Economy & Place Transport Capital Programme, subject to approval by the Executive, be noted.

iii)          That the proposed improvements to cycle routes on the approaches to the new Scarborough Bridge footbridge be approved (with the St. Mary’s ramp allocation increased to £45k) to allow the schemes to be implemented as part of the footbridge replacement scheme.

Reason: To implement the council’s transport strategy identified in York’s third Local Transport Plan and the Council Priorities, and deliver schemes identified in the council’s Transport Programme.

The Executive member considered a report that set out progress to date on schemes in the 2018/19 Economy & Place Transport Capital Programme, and proposed adjustments to scheme allocations to align with the latest cost estimates and delivery projections.

Officers provided an update on major schemes and transport schemes for 2018-19. With regard to the Scarborough Bridge Route Improvements, they advised that the cost for the replacement of the steps between St Mary’s to St Mary’s Lane with a ramp should be £45,000 but this this increase could be accommodated in the overall underspend for the bridge.

The Executive Member noted that a separate report on Scarborough Bridge would be prepared for his consideration at a future meeting.

Resolved:

i)             That the amendments to the 2018/19 Economy & Place Transport Capital Programme be approved.

ii)            That the decrease to the 2018/19 Economy & Place Transport Capital Programme, subject to approval by the Executive, be noted.

iii)          That the proposed improvements to cycle routes on the approaches to the new Scarborough Bridge footbridge be approved (with the St. Mary’s ramp allocation increased to £45k) to allow the schemes to be implemented as part of the footbridge replacement scheme.

Reason: To implement the council’s transport strategy identified in York’s third Local Transport Plan and the Council Priorities, and deliver schemes identified in the council’s Transport Programme.