Local democracy during coronavirus

During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates for more information on meetings and decisions.

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: The George Hudson Board Room - 1st Floor West Offices (F045). View directions

Contact: Robert Flintoft 

Webcast: Watch or listen to the meeting online

Items
No. Item

18.

Declarations of Interest

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.

 

Minutes:

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.

 

The Executive Member did not that item 4. Consideration of results from the consultation to extend the existing R20 Fishergate Residents Parking Zone, was within his Ward and that he had discussed the matter with residents within this capacity.

 

19.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 233 KB

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 22 June 2021 and 20 July 2021.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Resolved:  That the minutes of the Decision Session of the Executive Member for Transport and Planning held on 22 June 2021 and 20 July 2022 be approved and signed by the Executive Member as a correct record.

20.

Public Participation

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, in order to facilitate the

management of public participation at our meetings. The deadline

for registering at this meeting is at 5.00pm on Friday 17

September 2021.

 

To register to speak please visit

www.york.gov.uk/AttendCouncilMeetings to fill in an online

registration form. If you have any questions about the registration

form or the meeting please contact Democratic Services on the

details at the foot of the agenda.

 

Webcasting of Public Meetings

Please note that, subject to available resources, this meeting will

be webcast including any registered public speakers who have

given their permission.

 

The meeting can be viewed live and on demand at

www.york.gov.uk/webcasts. During coronavirus, we've made some

changes to how we're running council meetings. See our

coronavirus updates (www.york.gov.uk/COVIDDemocracy) for

more information on meetings and decisions.

Minutes:

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

 

Cllr Myers presented a petition from the residents of Burton Stone Lane regarding increased traffic and the speed of traffic on the street. He outlined the measures taken by residents and Ward Councillors to monitor and highlight these issues, he noted that Ward funding was agreed to be used in May/June of 2019 but action to mitigate these issues had not been undertaken by the Council. He asked that an update on progress and any delays be given to residents and for greater collaboration between the Council, Residents, and Ward Councillors in relation to these issues.

 

Katherine Crocker presented a petition requesting residents parking be installed on Alma Terrace, she noted that while the 50% threshold had not been meet with responses, of those that did respond 87% were in favour when the Council balloted residents. She noted other streets that would have residents parking and additional student accommodation being built and due to this impact requested that Alma Terrace be included in a residents parking scheme.

 

Margerat James also requested that Alma Terrace be included in a residents parking scheme. She noted the additional parking that currently happens on the street and the impact on the streets residents. She noted the residents petition which had 18 responses with 13 in favour and 5 against.

 

Anthony May spoke on behalf of York Civic Trust, he raised concerns that cycling in York had declined in 2019 by a sixth but had risen national by 10%. He questioned why some council schemes and others deferred until next year. He outlined that he believed the Council misinterpreted government guidance resulting in schemes not being taken forward. he noted his concern that current policy would not prevent a decline in cycling and asked that changes be made and faster schemes be taken forward.

 

Cllr Melly raised concerns that projects to improve cycle provisions lacking progress. She noted that schemes from two years prior had yet to receive preliminary work. She asked whether feasibility work had been completed on a city centre cycling travel route and an update on the use of funding to remove barriers to cycling. She also asked what progress had been done regarding a cycling project on Wigginton Road which she stated was not included in the report.

 

Cllr Douglas raised concerns that a digital only parking permit scheme proposed for residents parking schemes would provide a equalities issue effecting some residents ability to use the scheme. She also noted that some residents have concerns about how a digital scheme could be enforced, she asked whether a digital scheme would prevent carers from parking on a street, where with paper permits the resident would be able to supply them with a permit for the length of their stay. She also noted with digital it would be hard for residents to raise potential non-resident parking in the area.

 

Anwen Hughes requested that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

21.

Consideration of results from the consultation to extend the existing R20 Residents Parking Zone pdf icon PDF 622 KB

To report the consultation results, in response to a proposal to extend R20 Fishergate Residents Parking Zone, and determine what action is appropriate.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved:

 

                      i.         That Kexby Avenue which had been considered as part of the University Residential Parking Scheme be consulted on with residents again following a petition from residents;

                     ii.         That approval be given to advertise an amendment to the York Parking, Stopping and Waiting Traffic Regulation Order to introduce Residents’ Priority Parking for Kilburn Road, Alma Terrace, and Alma Grove;

                    iii.        Officers to consider and consult with the Executive Member whether Kilburn Road, Alma Terrace, and Alma Grove should be added to the R20 Residential Parking Scheme or to another scheme due to geographical locations of R20 to the location of the additional streets.

 

Reason:   To implement adequate parking management in line with the council’s objectives as stated in the Local Transport Plan and the stated preferences of residents from the streets consulted.

Minutes:

While not part of the consultation to extend the existing R20 Residents Parking Zone the Executive Member requested an update on Kexby Avenue. Officers noted that Kexby Avenue was scheduled to be considered by the Executive Member in October and was part of the University Residential Parking Scheme following a petition from residents and could be taken out for consultation.

 

In regards to the consultation to extend the existing R20 Residents Parking Zone, officers noted that due to only one street meeting the 50% threshold of responses, their recommendation was therefore for Kilburn Road to be added to residents parking zone.

 

The Executive Member noted concerns raised by the public participants about the potential impact on streets not included within the scheme and those streets that came close to the 50% threshold of responses. Regarding Edgeware Road it was noted that as a majority of residents voted against joining the residents parking zone and as a unadopted road the council could not add limits to the road. It was confirmed that the Edgeware Road could be reconsulted following the inclusion of Kilburn Road to the residents parking zone if they bring a petition forward.  

 

Alma Terrace and Alma Grove were considered due to the high number of residents in favour of those that responded, but having missed out on the 50% threshold, was not recommended for inclusion. The Executive Member noted that due to the geography of both streets and the large number of responses, he requested that both streets be advertised to join the residents parking zone.

 

With the new student accommodation in the area Fredrick House it was confirmed that the developers had to survey before and after the development on parking. The Executive Member also enquired about whether R20 was the right Residents Parking Zone for these streets to join and asked that this be reviewed.

 

Resolved:

 

                      i.         That Kexby Avenue which had been considered as part of the University Residential Parking Scheme be consulted on with residents again following a petition from residents;

                     ii.         That approval be given to advertise an amendment to the York Parking, Stopping and Waiting Traffic Regulation Order to introduce Residents’ Priority Parking for Kilburn Road, Alma Terrace, and Alma Grove;

                    iii.        Officers to consider and consult with the Executive Member whether Kilburn Road, Alma Terrace, and Alma Grove should be added to the R20 Residential Parking Scheme or to another scheme due to geographical locations of R20 to the location of the additional streets.

 

Reason:   To implement adequate parking management in line with the council’s objectives as stated in the Local Transport Plan and the stated preferences of residents from the streets consulted.

22.

Vehicle Activated Speed (VAS) Indicator Signs Trial Update pdf icon PDF 356 KB

This report updates the Executive Member on the results of a SID (Speed Indicator Device) Trial which was approved in 2019. 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved:

 

                      i.         Approved Option 2 in the report: to change the VAS Policy to include Speed Indicator Devices as an alternative sign, which provide feedback to drivers as follows:

·        A vehicle’s speed and thank you message for vehicles travelling at or below the posted speed limit.

·        The speed limit roundel and a slowdown message for vehicles exceeding the speed limit.

 

All VAS/SID sites must still meet the criteria established in the existing policy. The change to the policy would only be applied to new sites or existing

sites where replacement is required due to failure, unless external funding is available.

 

Reason:      To provide an alternative sign type at VAS sites as requested by many Ward and Parish Councillors.

Minutes:

Officers introduced the report and the Executive Member noted that he was happy to approve option 2.

 

Resolved:

 

                      i.         Approved Option 2 in the report: to change the VAS Policy to include Speed Indicator Devices as an alternative sign, which provide feedback to drivers as follows:

·        A vehicle’s speed and thank you message for vehicles travelling at or below the posted speed limit.

·        The speed limit roundel and a slowdown message for vehicles exceeding the speed limit.

 

All VAS/SID sites must still meet the criteria established in the existing policy. The change to the policy would only be applied to new sites or existing

sites where replacement is required due to failure, unless external funding is available.

 

Reason:      To provide an alternative sign type at VAS sites as requested by many Ward and Parish Councillors.

23.

Delivery Plan for Active Travel Fund Programme pdf icon PDF 251 KB

This report summarises the current position of the ‘Active Travel Programme’ (ATP), which is a subset of the overall ‘Transport Capital Programme’. Annex A provides a summary of the Programme where the projects are grouped into the financial year they are projected to be delivered. The ATP primarily consists of pedestrian and cycling related schemes, with the majority of the projects on the programme being funded by external government grants.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved:

 

                      i.         Noted the update on the Active Travel Programme contained within this report and accompanying annexes;

                     ii.         To delegate to the Director of Environment Transport and Planning to implement a traffic regulation order on the main carriageway for allowance of pedestrian access;

                    iii.        Noted that a further funding bid has been submitted and we are awaiting the outcome. For those items on the programme where it is noted “subject to successful bid”, these schemes will only be progressed as part of this programme if the bid is successful;

                   iv.        Noted the programme status summary, will be included in future Capital Monitoring Reports, to provide updates on the status of the programme.

 

Reason:     To note the progress of the Active Travel Fund Programme ,and to ensure safe passage on University Road for pedestrians on the main carriageway.

Minutes:

Officers outlined the report and noted that they would look into cycling on Wigginton Road raised under public participation. They also noted the work being undertaken regarding the consultation on My City Centre that is linked to the Executive decision on the footstreets. They also highlighted that £100,000 had been allocated by Executive to examine barriers in the city that impact cycling, they did not however, that barriers were often installed to reduce anti-social behaviour raised by residents and a balance should be considered if considering there removal or alteration.

 

It was noted that the Heslington to Wheldrake scheme was scheduled for January 2023 to November 2023. Officers noted that their focus was on delivery of schemes, but highlighted challenges such as land ownership that can affect the ability to deliver. They also noted that the Council’s understanding was that government funding outlined for schemes would not be withdrawn, and would therefore still be in place for the delivery of schemes outlined in the program.

 

The Executive Member welcomed an approach being focused on the delivery of schemes and noted the potential of York as a flat city for more active travel opportunities. He also noted concerns that timescales for delivery had been to slow and that to many single occupancy car journeys took place across the city. He noted that he approved of quarterly updates but asked that additional detail be added whether in conjunction with the capital reports or separately. He also outlined the need to speed up the delivery of schemes and hoped that this would be reflected in in future reports timescales of schemes delivery.

 

Discussion took place around the delivery of a number of schemes within the report including University Road, the Executive Member noted his concern that the scheme had significant expenditure attached and enquired as to whether road space could be allocated to make the scheme simpler to complete and more cost effective. Officers noted the current challenges to the scheme and outlined that delegation to the Director of Environment Transport and Planning could be given to explore the use of a traffic regulation order on the main carriageway for allowance of pedestrian access.

 

 

 

Resolved:

 

                      i.         Noted the update on the Active Travel Programme contained within this report and accompanying annexes;

                     ii.         To delegate to the Director of Environment Transport and Planning to implement a traffic regulation order on the main carriageway for allowance of pedestrian access;

                    iii.        Noted that a further funding bid has been submitted and we are awaiting the outcome. For those items on the programme where it is noted “subject to successful bid”, these schemes will only be progressed as part of this programme if the bid is successful;

                   iv.        Noted the programme status summary, will be included in future Capital Monitoring Reports, to provide updates on the status of the programme;

                     v.        That officers are to consult with Ward Councillors at the  preliminary design stage.

 

Reason:     To note the progress of the Active Travel Fund Programme ,and to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page