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.

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 18 September 2019.  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 Officer 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 Officer (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 3 registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.  A written statement,  which the chair read out, had also been received.

Ms Elizabeth Knowles a resident of Longfield Terrace spoke on agenda item 5.  She explained that when resident parking had  initially been proposed in 1988, there were a number of objections from several Guest Houses. Numbers 1-19 had remained a non-controlled parking area, surrounded by resident parking.  Over time the Guest Houses had closed, and are now owned by residential-families or couples. Parking for residents had become increasingly difficult, particularly recently as there had been a number of vehicles parked in that area long term. On behalf of residents of 1-19 Longfield Terrace, she requested that this application be accepted and proceeded with swiftly.

Mr Tim Kendal,Local resident of Longfield Terrace also spoke about agenda item 5, the non-controlled parking section at numbers 1-19 Longfield Terrace.  He highlighted concerns regarding congestion due to use by residents who did not want to pay for a parking permit and non-residents parking in that area which is used as parking for people visiting the city.  This had resulted in difficulty in parking for residents, their visitors, deliveries and tradespeople working in the area.  Non-resident parkers had frequently parked with little regard to residents, blocking vehicles,  leading to potentially dangerous situations.  He supported the previous speakers request that this application be accepted and proceeded with swiftly.

Cllr Crawshaw spoke in relation to agenda item 5 in support of the officer recommendation to consider resident parking in a number of areas.  He highlighted the need to consider different applications together, as different areas had different concerns which would impacted on surrounding areas.  Residents in Balmoral Terrace had wanted a scheme that was different from Bishopthorpe Road as it was residents or visitors at Bishopthorpe Road that were parking on Balmoral Terrace.  This would need to be considered in that context. 

As regards parking considerations for Lower Ebor Street, he expressed concern as to potential impact of the new Hotel at that  location.  Although the Hotel had been subject to a planning condition, this had been in relation to how guests would park in respect of a resident parking zone.  In the absence of a controlled parking zone, it would not be possible to enforce that condition.  A further parking consideration for the area surrounding Lower Ebor Street was that the area was particularly busy at weekends, therefore, parking restrictions would need to cover seven days rather than Monday to Friday.

Cllr Crawshaw spoke about the double yellow lines at Hamblesham Road and Clock Works Street along a large segment (or stretch of Road, does it join them? I don’t know) Residents had expressed concern that this had limited parking for their visitors when its objective was to prevent commuter parking.  Furthermore, with no cars parked there due to yellow lines, it could potentially lead drivers to increase their speed.

A written  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

This report seeks to develop a pilot providing winter treatment on a defined off adopted highway cycle route as part of the regular winter treatments.

Resolved: 

(i)      That Option 1: a limited pilot of winter treatment on cycle routes that are not currently treated as per the map in Annex A, be approved and that delegated authority be given to the Assistant Director Transport Highways and Environment, to vary the route for the pilot.

(ii)     That the reviewed winter maintenance plan as found in Annex B be approved.

Reason:     To confirm the council’s formal winter maintenance plans and enable the council to trial different treatment options and their effectiveness to reduce risks for those walking and cycling.

The Executive Member for Transport considered a report outlining the development of a pilot providing winter treatment on a defined off adopted highway cycle route as part of the regular winter treatments.  The pilot would trial practical treatment options and establish a cost base for further consideration by members as to whether to make a larger cycle route treatment a permanent part of the council’s winter gritting programme.

James Gilchrist, Assistant Director Transport, Highways and Environment was in attendance to answer questions regarding the proposed pilot. 

In response to questions the Assistant Director Transport, Highways and Environment clarified that ‘gator’ was a larger type quad bikes with a flat bed at the base.  The focus of the pilot would be on sections of the High Road.  Bridges would not be included within this pilot as they would require a different type of treatment due to the metal. 

It was noted that grit bins are available on the Highway for individuals to use as necessary.

Resolved: 

(i)      That Option 1: a limited pilot of winter treatment on cycle routes that are not currently treated as per the map in Annex A, be approved and that delegated authority be given to the Assistant Director Transport Highways and Environment, to vary the route for the pilot.

(ii)     That the reviewed winter maintenance plan as found in Annex B be approved.

Reason:     To confirm the council’s formal winter maintenance plans and enable the council to trial different treatment options and their effectiveness to reduce risks for those walking and cycling.

This report summarises the results of consultation with regard the speed management scheme at the junction of Hempland Avenue and Hempland Lane and asks the Executive Member to decide how to proceed with the scheme.

Resolved: 

(i)           That Option 1: to implement the scheme as shown in Annex C, be approved.

Reason: To help reduce vehicle speeds in an existing 20mph speed

limit on Hempland Avenue.

Ben Potter, Engineer Transport Projects, introduced the above report which summarised the results of consultation with regard the speed management scheme at the junction of Hempland Avenue and Hempland Lane. 

Concerns regarding the 30mph speed limit in Hempland Lane had been raised by residents and new ward councillors.  The Executive Member expressed his support of a 20mph speed restriction at the turning off point at Hempland Lane.

Resolved: 

(i)           That Option 1: to implement the scheme as shown in Annex C, be approved.

Reason: To help reduce vehicle speeds in an existing 20mph speed

limit on Hempland Avenue.

To report the receipt of seven petitions and determine what action is appropriate in each case.

Resolved:

To approve the following:

(i)           Option 3: to include the addition of Bishopthorpe Road (part) and Rectory Gardens to the waiting list and to combine the consultation of this with the consultation for Balmoral Terrace which is already on the waiting list.

Reason: Because this will respond to the residents’ concerns over

a wider area in a more timely fashion.

(ii)         Option 3: to include the addition of Kilburn Road to the residents parking waiting list and to consider the extent of the potential consultation area when it reaches the top of the list.

Reason: Because this will respond to residents’ concerns in the

order they are raised and can be progressed depending on funding available each year.

(iii)        Option 3: to include the addition of Wellington/ Gordon/Willis/Wolsey Streets to the residents parking waiting list and to consider the extent of the potential consultation area when it reaches the top of the list.

Reason: Because this will respond to residents’ concerns in the

order they are raised and can be progressed depending on funding available each year.

(iv)        Option 2: advertising extending the existing zones that surround Longfield Terrace and lower Ebor Street (two small areas) on the same terms as the existing schemes.

Reason: Because these small areas are entirely within existing

zones and the extension to those zones will be on the basis of the existing restrictions and this has the potential to resolve this matter is a more timely fashion.

(v)         Option 3: the addition of the Revival Estate to the residents parking waiting list.

Reason: Because this will respond to residents’ concerns in the

order they are raised and can be progressed depending on funding available each year.

The Executive Member for Transport considered a report documenting seven resident parking petitions. 

It was reported that a staff resource and additional funding of £30k had been made available to progress the backlog of resident parking requests. 

Officers explained that where several requests in one area had been received, they would be considered together to ensure that these applications were processed swiftly. 

Officers confirmed that parking requests for areas such as Longfield Terrace and Lower Ebor Street, that were surrounded by controlled parking zones would be processed with the same conditions as the area surrounding them.  This would mean that these proposals could go straight to advert without having the prior consultation period, which would speed up the processing of these applications.

The Executive Member noted that the Fulford Cross application had been received at the same time as the Danesmead Estate application which was due for implemented this month.  Fulford Cross had been delayed in relation to an adopted highway concern.  Now that this concern had been resolved it was expected that the Fullford Cross application would be progressed as soon as possible.

Resolved:

To approve the following:

(i)           Option 3: to include the addition of Bishopthorpe Road (part) and Rectory Gardens to the waiting list and to combine the consultation of this with the consultation for Balmoral Terrace which is already on the waiting list.

Reason: Because this will respond to the residents’ concerns over

a wider area in a more timely fashion.

(ii)         Option 3: to include the addition of Kilburn Road to the residents parking waiting list and to consider the extent of the potential consultation area when it reaches the top of the list.

Reason: Because this will respond to residents’ concerns in the

order they are raised and can be progressed depending on funding available each year.

(iii)        Option 3: to include the addition of Wellington/ Gordon/Willis/Wolsey Streets to the residents parking waiting list and to consider the extent of the potential consultation area when it reaches the top of the list.

Reason: Because this will respond to residents’ concerns in the

order they are raised and can be progressed depending on funding available each year.

(iv)        Option 2: advertising extending the existing zones that surround Longfield Terrace and lower Ebor Street (two small areas) on the same terms as the existing schemes.

Reason: Because these small areas are entirely within existing

zones and the extension to those zones will be on the basis of the existing restrictions and this has the potential to resolve this matter is a more timely fashion.

(v)         Option 3: the addition of the Revival Estate to the residents parking waiting list.

Reason: Because this will respond to residents’ concerns in the

order they are raised and can be progressed depending on funding available each year.