Agenda, decisions and minutes

At this point in the meeting, Members are asked to declare:

·        any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests

·        any prejudicial interests or

·        any disclosable pecuniary interests

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

At this point in the meeting, the Executive Member was asked to declare any personal, prejudicial or pecuniary interests he may have in the business on the agenda. None were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 18^th June 2015.

Resolved:           That the minutes of the last Decision Session held on the 18^th June 2015 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 their wish to speak at the meeting can do so. The deadline for registering is 5:00pm on  Wednesday 22^nd July                  2015. 

Members of the public may speak on an item on the agenda or an issue within the Cabinet Member’s remit,

Filming or Recording Meetings

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 (whose 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 http://www.york.gov.uk/downloads/download/3130/protocol_for_webcasting_filming_and_recording_of_council_meetings

It was reported that there had been four registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme and that two Members of Council had also registered to speak.

Mr Allan Allison spoke in respect of agenda item 4 (Residents Parking on Aldreth Grove).  He spoke in support of the petition that had been presented and stated that he believed that surrounding streets should also be consulted, as there would also be an impact on parking in the wider area.

Mr Hugh Bentley also spoke in respect of agenda item 4 (Residents Parking on Aldreth Grove).  He stated that he was in favour of a Residents’ Priority Parking Scheme and believed that such a scheme should be extended to the whole of the South Bank.  He drew attention to the difficulties and stated that the situation was exacerbated by visitors to a B&B and commercial vehicles.

Mr James Hogg spoke in respect of agenda item 6 (Murton Neighbourhood Plan) on behalf of Murton Business Park.  He spoke against Option 1 in the report and detailed reasons why he did not believe it appropriate for the Murton Neighbourhood Plan to include the Murton Business Park.   Mr Hogg drew attention to the contribution made by the Business Park, for example in regards to employment and business rates and he stated that the objectives of the Business Park and the Parish Council differed.  He was particularly concerned regarding the Parish Council’s stance regarding planning applications.

Councillor Denise Rothwell spoke in respect of agenda item 6 (Murton Neighbourhood Plan) on behalf of Murton Parish Council.  She spoke in support of Option 1 and stated that the Parish Council was not against the Business Park and wished to support businesses and job creation.  The Parish Council had previously sought to arrange meetings with the Business Park but had been unsuccessful.  Councillor Rothwell reiterated the Parish Council’s support for Option 1.

Councillor Jenny Brooks, Ward Member, spoke in respect of agenda item 6 (Murton Neighbourhood Plan) and stated that the other Ward Member was unable to be present but was also in support of Option 1 in the report.  She drew attention to relevant sections of the Town and Country Planning Act and stated that any development on the Business Park would have an impact on residents in the area and hence it was important that it was included within the Neighbourhood Plan.  Councillor Brooks urged that Option 1 be approved in order that the Parish as a whole, including the Business Park, could contribute.

Councillor Andrew Waller, Ward Member, spoke in respect of agenda item 7 (Petition – Safe School Crossing on Askham Lane).  He spoke in support of the petition and Option 1 within the report.  He explained the road safety issues on Askham Lane and stated that the intention was not to replace the much respected school crossing patrol but to assist her and improve safety for pedestrians.  Councillor Waller urged that Option 1 in the report be approved.

This report presents a 17 signature petition requesting that City of York Council consults with residents on Aldreth Grove to introduce a Residents Priority Parking Scheme.

Resolved:           That Option 1 be approved i.e. to move to a formal consultation with Aldreth Grove (petition received) and also the surrounding streets (currently not signed a petition). This includes Cameron Grove, St. Clements Grove and Bishopthorpe Road (part).

Reason:              Although not common procedure when dealing with requests for new Residents Parking Schemes, due to the location and consequent concerns from nearby residents, currently not petitioned, it would be more practicable on this occasion to consult with both Aldreth Grove and the surrounding streets at the same time.

The Executive Member considered a report which outlined a response to a 17 signature petition, representing 54% of properties on Aldreth Grove, York, requesting that the Council consult with residents on introducing a Residents Priority Parking Scheme (ResPark).

Consideration was given to the following options:

Option 1:    To undertake consultation with a wider area including Aldreth Grove, Cameron Grove, St Clements Grove and Bishopthorpe Road (part).

Option 2:    To consult with Aldreth Grove residents only.

Option 3:    To consider the level of support is not sufficient at this time to warrant further consultation.

The Executive Member stated that he was mindful that to implement such a scheme in one street could move the problem elsewhere. 

Resolved:  That Option 1 be approved i.e. a formal consultation with Aldreth Grove (petition received) and also the surrounding streets (currently not signed a petition). This includes Cameron Grove, St. Clements Grove and Bishopthorpe Road (part).

Reason:     Although not common procedure when dealing with

requests for new Residents Parking Schemes, due to the location and consequent concerns from nearby residents, currently not petitioned, it would be more practicable on this occasion to consult with both Aldreth Grove and the surrounding streets at the same time.

This report advises the Executive Member of a Public Spaces Protection Order which has been requested by local residents, North Yorkshire Police, Safer York Partnership and Councillors.

Resolved:           That Option 1 be approved i.e. sealing and making operative the draft Public Spaces Protection Order (Annex 1 of the report).

Reasons:     (i)    The Council has a duty under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to implement crime reduction strategies in an effort to reduce overall crime in their administrative area. This order will support that obligation.

  (ii)    Two formal representations concerning the draft order have been received, however following a site meeting with residents and Guildhall Councillors it is considered that the concerns raised from the representations have been addressed.

(iii)     With due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, the Council has identified that there is one positive and six negative impacts of this gating scheme which involve mobility and access issues.  Some of the negative impacts can be mitigated by design and installation options. Public Spaces Protection Orders must also be reviewed every three years, or on demand, which can accommodate any change in local circumstances.  It may be considered that the positive impact of additional security to residents increasing peace of mind and providing a safe area to the rear of the properties justifies the negative impacts.

The Executive Member considered a report which advised of a request to introduce a Public Spaces Protection Order which had been requested by local residents, North Yorkshire Police, Safer York Partnership and Councillors in order to reduce the detrimental effect that the persistent crime and anti social behaviour currently associated with the alleyway was having on the quality of life of those in the locality.

Consideration was given to the following options:

Option 1:    Seal the draft Gating Order.

Option 2:    Do not seal the draft Gating Order

Resolved:           That Option 1 be approved i.e. the sealing and

making operative of the draft Public Spaces Protection Order.

Reasons:     (i)    The Council has a duty under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to implement crime reduction strategies in an effort to reduce overall crime in their administrative area. This order will support that obligation.

  (ii)    Two formal representations concerning the draft order have been received, however following a site meeting with residents and Guildhall Councillors it is considered that the concerns raised from the representations have been addressed.

This report recommends that the application by Murton Parish Council for a Neighbourhood Plan boundary is approved in order to allow the Plan to progress.

Resolved:           That Option 1 be approved i.e. the application for a Murton Neighbourhood Plan, including the proposed boundary (attached at Annex A of the report), be approved.

Reason:              To allow Murton Parish Council to progress the Neighbourhood Plan.

The Executive Member considered a report which recommended that the application by Murton Parish Council for a Neighbourhood Plan Boundary be approved in order for the plan to progress.

Consideration was given to the following options:

Option 1:    Approve the application for a Murton Neighbourhood

Plan, including the proposed boundary (Annex A of the report)

Option 2:    Approve the application subject to amendments

suggested by the Murton Business Park Association to the Neighbourhood Plan boundary (Annex C of the report)

Option 3:    Defer the application at this stage to allow for further

discussions between the Parish Council and Murton Business Park.

The Executive Member sought clarification as to whether the Business Park could put in place its own Neighbourhood Plan. Officers stated that this would not be possible as it was within a parished area.

Referring to the concerns that had been raised by the representative of the Business Park in respect of the Parish Council’s stance regarding planning applications, the Executive Member stated that each planning application was judged on its own merits by the Planning Committees.

Officers gave details of the arrangements that would be in place to ensure the Neighbourhood Plan was balanced, including the consultation process, public scrutiny and consideration by an independent inspector.

The Executive Member stated that, as the Business Park was part of the neighbourhood, it was important that it was included within the plan.  He urged all parties to work together to develop a successful plan.

Resolved:  That the Murton Neighbourhood Plan application

                   be approved.

Reason:   To allow Murton Parish Council to progress the

               Neighbourhood Plan.

The purpose of this report is to consider a 174 signature petition requesting City of York Council to establish a pedestrian crossing on Askham Lane in the vicinity of Westfield School.

Resolved:           That Option 1 be approved i.e. to investigate the feasibility of a pedestrian crossing across Askham Lane in the vicinity of Westfield School.

Reason:              To determine whether a pedestrian crossing would be appropriate at this location and, if so, how this would be achieved both in terms of design and funding.

The Executive Member considered a report which presented a 174 signature petition requesting that the Council establish a pedestrian crossing on Askham Lane in the vicinity of Westfield School.

Consideration was given to the following options:

Option 1:    Investigate whether a formal crossing was appropriate and if so, undertake feasibility work to determine how to deliver such a scheme.  This work would include consultation with affected parties and identification of a funding source.  If a feasible scheme was identified a further report would be brought to an Executive Member Decision Session for consideration.

Option 2:    Note the petition but take no further action.

Resolved:  That Option 1 be approved i.e. to investigate the

feasibility of a pedestrian crossing across Askham Lane in the vicinity of Westfield School.

Reason:     To determine whether a pedestrian crossing would be

                  appropriate at this location and if so, how this would be

                  achieved both in terms of design and funding.

The purpose of this report is to inform the Executive Member of the outturn position for schemes in the 2014/15 CES Capital Programme, including the budget spend to 31 March 2015, and the progress of schemes in the year.

Resolved:           (i)      That the progress achieved in delivering

schemes in the capital programme as indicated in the annexes to the report be noted.

(ii)      That the proposed carryovers as outlined in

paragraphs 19 to 25 of the report be approved, subject to the approval of Executive.

Reason:              To enable the effective management and monitoring of the Council’s capital programme.

The Executive Member considered a report which advised of the outturn position for schemes in the 2014/15 City and Environmental Services Capital Programme, including the budget spend to 31^st March 2015 and the progress of schemes in the year.

Officers updated the Executive Member on progress on some of the schemes.

Resolved:  (i)      That the progress achieved in delivering

schemes in the capital programme as indicated in the annexes to the report be noted.

(ii)      That the proposed carryovers, as outlined in

paragraphs 19 to 25 of the report, be approved subject to the approval of the Executive.

Reason:              To enable the effective management and monitoring of the Council’s capital programme.