Agenda, decisions and minutes

At this point in the meeting, the Executive Member is asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary interest or other registerable interest they might have in respect of business on this agenda, if they have not already done so in advance on the Register of Interests.

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 2022.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the Decision Session of the Executive Member for Transport held on 15 November 2022 be approved and signed by the Executive Member as a correct record, with the amendment to item 38. To include ‘Officers reported maintenance was based on the predominant use of the road with the first part serving both residential and agricultural users with the second part of the lane being referred to as a ‘green lane’ and used mainly for agricultural vehicle access.’

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 are set at 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 5:00pm on Friday 9 December 2022.

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. Contact details can be found at the foot of this 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 made some changes to how we ran council meetings, including facilitating remote participation by public speakers. See our updates (www.york.gov.uk/COVIDDemocracy) for more information on meetings and decisions.

It was reported that there had been five registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme. However, two public participation were unable to attend.

Cllr Hook welcomed that some repair work had been undertaken on Butteracre Lane and the recommendation for a 20mph zone in Rufforth but noted a desire to see a buffering zone encouraging speed reduction leading up to the village.

John Henderson noted that he felt the Council was misrepresenting the position regarding Butteracre Lane’s surface and that he had an outstanding FOI request and that two Section 56 notices had been submitted. He asked that the Executive Member reject option 1 in the report.

Nicholas Murray spoke as Vice Chair of Rufforth and Naburn Parish Council and welcomed the 20mph change in Rufforth and asked that the Parish be kept up to date with future considerations. He noted concerns in the area with speeding and asked that a buffering zone encouraging speed reduction leading up to the village.

This report details options for Butteracre Lane, Ashkam Richard. This item was deferred from the Decision Session held on 15 November 2022.

Resolved:

                      i.         Approved Option 1, which is to continue as per the HSIM and HIAMP meaning that annual safety inspections will be carried out to identify immediate issues and repairs will be authorised in accordance with the current classification of the Carriageway, its use and the priority. In addition annual surveys from a proactive perspective will occur with specific asset needs prioritised against the entire network

Reason:     This approach recognises that the Western Section has a different use and need to the remainder of the Carriageway. In particular, there is evidence that the Western Section is used by both non-agricultural and agricultural vehicles, whereas the remainder of the Carriageway appears to be used principally by agricultural vehicles. As a result, the condition and level of maintenance varies across the length of the Carriageway. This is likely to necessitate more interventions in regard to routine maintenance but is unlikely to escalate to a capital scheme when compared to other carriageway assets within CYC and in accordance with the HIAMP principles, noting that currently the prioritisation process does not bring any works at this location into the funded element of the programme. The HIAMP also includes the annual survey which is used to prioritise capital expenditure for all carriageway assets across the CYC area, noting that currently the prioritisation process does not bring any works at this location into the funded element of the programme. Finally, the implementation of this option would ensure compliance

with the statutory duties of the Highways Authority.

Officers introduced the report and noted that, following the items deferred from the last meeting, they had been able to consider the additional information provided. The role of proactive and reactive maintenance in keeping the highway to standard was explained. It was confirmed that the use of the term ‘green lane’ at the previous meeting to describe part of Buttacre Lane was only descriptive as there was not a legal definition of the term. Finally Officers confirmed that an FOI regarding previous officer involvement with the maintenance of the highway had been received and would be responded to within the statutory timescales.

The Executive Member confirmed he had visited the lane and could see the different sections and their use. He welcomed maintenance work that had been undertaken and acknowledged the Council’s methodology for assessing where work would be carried out and agreed to the officer recommendation.

Officers also confirmed that standard wording had been included in the report in error, referencing that an Equalities Impact Assessment had been undertaken, however, this was not the case and was noted as such.  The report correctly states that equalities are considered when working on any schemes within the Highway maintenance programme and as an overarching approach to Highway asset management.

Resolved:

                      i.         Approved Option 1, which is to continue as per the HSIM and HIAMP meaning that annual safety inspections will be carried out to identify immediate issues and repairs will be authorised in accordance with the current classification of the Carriageway, its use and the priority. In addition annual surveys from a proactive perspective will occur with specific asset needs prioritised against the entire network

Reason:     This approach recognises that the Western Section has a different use and need to the remainder of the Carriageway. In particular, there is evidence that the Western Section is used by both non-agricultural and agricultural vehicles, whereas the remainder of the Carriageway appears to be used principally by agricultural vehicles. As a result, the condition and level of maintenance varies across the length of the Carriageway. This is likely to necessitate more interventions in regard to routine maintenance but is unlikely to escalate to a capital scheme when compared to other carriageway assets within CYC and in accordance with the HIAMP principles, noting that currently the prioritisation process does not bring any works at this location into the funded element of the programme. The HIAMP also includes the annual survey which is used to prioritise capital expenditure for all carriageway assets across the CYC area, noting that currently the prioritisation process does not bring any works at this location into the funded element of the programme. Finally, the implementation of this option would ensure compliance

with the statutory duties of the Highways Authority.

This report asks the Executive Member to approve progression of the scheme to detailed design and construction, based on one of the four scheme proposals described within this report. The scheme proposals are included at Annexes A to D of the report.

Resolved:

                      i.         Approved progression of the scheme to detailed design and construction, based on Option C ‘Renewal of Traffic Signal Equipment with additional Toucan Crossing Introduction’.

Reason:     In order to progress the design and construction of the TSAR scheme at Malton Road / New Lane.

Officers confirmed that the item had come forward due to the need to replace the life expired traffic signal equipment and outlined the options and cost of proposals to improve the junction. The Executive Member considered the options and agreed to support Option C which he noted had the support Ward Members. Option C would introduce an additional Toucan Crossing for pedestrians. The Executive Member recognised this option did not improve cycle provisions and noted that future work on New Lane could include improvements.

Resolved:

                      i.         Approved progression of the scheme to detailed design and construction, based on Option C ‘Renewal of Traffic Signal Equipment with additional Toucan Crossing Introduction’.

Reason:     In order to progress the design and construction of the TSAR scheme at Malton Road / New Lane.

To report investigations carried out into requests for changes to several speed limits.

Resolved:

                      i.         No change be implemented at the following sites (details shown on plans in Annex C):

·        Haxby Road, Foss Park Hospital (Origin – CYC/Foss Park Hospital; YSJU - 95 Alive Campaign);

·        Hull Road, Black Bull to Tranby Avenue (Origin – local resident);

·        Burdyke Avenue (Origin – Ward Councillor and a local resident);

·        B1222 Naburn Church to Moreby Lodge (Origin – Ward Councillor and a local business) but keep under review and discuss with relevant parties the introduction of additional warning signs;

·        B1224 Rufforth – North-Western approach (Origin – Ward Councillor) but keep under review and discuss with relevant parties the introduction of countdown signs to speed limit change.

Reason:     Because the road environment is not consistent with a lower speed limit and there is little prospect of achieving a reduction in vehicle speeds.

                     ii.         Agreed toAdvertise a revised speed limit for the following sites (details shown on plans in Annex C):

·        Sutton Road, Wigginton Extend 40mph (Origin – local residents/business);

·        A59 Upper Poppleton Extend 40mph (Origin – Ward Councillor);

·        Montague Road Estate, Bishopthorpe 20mph Zone (Origin – local resident);

·        Haxby Road (Clarence Gardens) 20mph (Origin – local resident);

·        Wetherby Road Rufforth (Primary School) 20mph (Origin – Parish and Ward Councillors) and extend the 20mph zone to include the streets Maythorpe, Laborum, View tree Close, and Middlewood Close;

·        Bradley Lane, Rufforth (Origin – Ward Councillor).

Reason:    Because the indications are these are appropriate speed limits due to the surrounding environment, to respond to residents’ concerns and to reduce the risk of traffic incidents and injuries.

The Executive Member considered the investigations carried out into requests for changes to several speed limits. He agreed for no implementations on Haxby Road, Foss Park Hospital, Hull Road, Black Bull to Tranby Avenue, and Burdyke Avenue.

The Executive Member also agreed to not implement on B1222 Naburn Church to Moreby Lodge but asked that officers continue to review and discuss with relevant parties the introduction of additional warning signs. B1224 Rufforth – North-Western approach was also agreed for no implementation be advertised  but asked that officers keep this under review and discuss with relevant parties the introduction of countdown signs to the speed limit change.

The Executive Member considered and agreed to the recommendations for advertisement on Sutton Road, Wigginton Extend 40mph, A59 Upper Poppleton, Montague Road Estate, Bishopthorpe, Haxby Road (Clarence Gardens), and Wetherby Road Rufforth (Primary School) 20mph and extend the 20mph zone to include the streets Maythorpe, Laborum, View tree Close, and Middlewood Close. Finally the Executive Member also asked officers to advertise Bradley Lane. He noted the recommendation to not implement which officers noted was because enforcement rather than speed changes would likely address concerns, but noted that due to a fatality in 2019 he wished to follow the request from Ward Members.

Resolved:

                      i.         No change be implemented at the following sites (details shown on plans in Annex C):

·        Haxby Road, Foss Park Hospital (Origin – CYC/Foss Park Hospital; YSJU - 95 Alive Campaign);

·        Hull Road, Black Bull to Tranby Avenue (Origin – local resident);

·        Burdyke Avenue (Origin – Ward Councillor and a local resident);

·        B1222 Naburn Church to Moreby Lodge (Origin – Ward Councillor and a local business) but keep under review and discuss with relevant parties the introduction of additional warning signs;

·        B1224 Rufforth – North-Western approach (Origin – Ward Councillor) but keep under review and discuss with relevant parties the introduction of countdown signs to speed limit change.

Reason:     Because the road environment is not consistent with a lower speed limit and there is little prospect of achieving a reduction in vehicle speeds.

                     ii.         Agreed toAdvertise a revised speed limit for the following sites (details shown on plans in Annex C):

·        Sutton Road, Wigginton Extend 40mph (Origin – local residents/business);

·        A59 Upper Poppleton Extend 40mph (Origin – Ward Councillor);

·        Montague Road Estate, Bishopthorpe 20mph Zone (Origin – local resident);

·        Haxby Road (Clarence Gardens) 20mph (Origin – local resident);

·        Wetherby Road Rufforth (Primary School) 20mph (Origin – Parish and Ward Councillors) and extend the 20mph zone to include the streets Maythorpe, Laborum, View tree Close, and Middlewood Close;

·        Bradley Lane, Rufforth (Origin – Ward Councillor).

Reason:     Because the indications are these are appropriate speed limits due to the surrounding environment, to respond to residents’ concerns and to reduce the risk of traffic incidents and injuries.

This report asks the Executive Member to approve the proposed St Georges Field Crossing  and Skeldergate schemes and scheme delivery arrangements as detailed in the annexes to the report.

Resolved:

                      i.         Approved Option 1 – Approve the proposed St Georges Field Crossing scheme and scheme delivery arrangements described within this report and presented in Annex A of this document.

Reason:     This option achieves the scheme objectives and is affordable within assigned budgets. Timing of the installation will be co-ordinated with the Castle Gateway development. Traffic is predicted to not be

significantly impacted, and the single-stage element of the crossing makes transition from pedestrian crossing to ’Toucan’ crossing achievable.

Resolved:

                     ii.         Approved Option 2 – Approve the proposed Skeldergate scheme and scheme delivery arrangements described within this report and presented in Annex E of this document.

Reason:     This option achieves the core aim of the scheme, which is to “improve safety, amenity and accessibility for cyclists on the routealong Skeldergate, and to reduce and/or remove conflict at buildouts”.

The Executive Member considered St Georges Field Crossing proposal and noted that the proposal should assist pedestrians crossing from St Georges Field Car Park. He acknowledged the minor impact on traffic that a new crossing could have and officers confirmed that crossing times at traffic lights were managed from the Council’s control centre. The Executive Member also noted the desire for far side indicators and asked if countdown crossing indicators could be installed and officers confirmed this could be considered as part of a wider scheme.

The Executive Member also approved the proposed Skeldergate scheme noting it would be an improvement to the cycle route. He discussed the visibility of the buildouts in the road and it was confirmed visibility would be considered by the design team in the next phase.

Resolved:

                      i.         Approved Option 1 – Approve the proposed St Georges Field Crossing scheme and scheme delivery arrangements described within this report and presented in Annex A of this document.

Reason:     This option achieves the scheme objectives and is affordable within assigned budgets. Timing of the installation will be co-ordinated with the Castle Gateway development. Traffic is predicted to not be

significantly impacted, and the single-stage element of the crossing makes transition from pedestrian crossing to ’Toucan’ crossing achievable.

Resolved:

                     ii.         Approved Option 2 – Approve the proposed Skeldergate scheme and scheme delivery arrangements described within this report and presented in Annex E of this document.

Reason:     This option achieves the core aim of the scheme, which is to “improve safety, amenity and accessibility for cyclists on the routealong Skeldergate, and to reduce and/or remove conflict at buildouts”.

This report asks the Executive Member to approve the recommendation to make the temporary restrictions for one way traffic on Coppergate (with contraflow provision for cyclists) permanent.

Resolved:

                      i.         Approved the recommendation to make the temporary restrictions permanent.

Reason:     To help reduce vehicle movements and minimise the

pedestrian and vehicle conflict in the street; and to improve levels of safety, whilst still allowing for two way cycle travel to continue.

Officers outlined the proposal to make the temporary traffic regulation order (TTRO) previously introduced in 2020 for Coppergate permanent. It was noted that four in five responses to the Council’s consultation had been in favour of a permanent order for Coppergate. The Executive Member welcomed the report and the responses to the advertisement, he agreed to make the temporary restrictions permanent and asked officers review the impact on York’s bus network due to displacement.

Resolved:

                      i.         Approved the recommendation to make the temporary restrictions permanent.

Reason:     To help reduce vehicle movements and minimise the

pedestrian and vehicle conflict in the street; and to improve levels of safety, whilst still allowing for two way cycle travel to continue.