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 might have in respect of business on this agenda.

At this point in the meeting, the Executive Member was asked to declare if he had any personal, prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interests in the business on the agenda. He declared that he had none.

To approve and sign the minutes of the Decision Sessions held on 7 and 14 January 2016.

Resolved: That the minutes of the Decision Sessions held on the 7 and 14 January 2016 be signed and approved by the Executive Member.

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 10 February 2016. 

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

Filming, Recording or Webcasting Meetings

Please note this meeting may be filmed and webcast or audio recorded and that includes any registered public speakers, who have given their permission.  This broadcast can be viewed at http://www.york.gov.uk/webcasts. or, if sound recorded, this will be uploaded onto the Council 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 (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/file/6453/protocol_for_webcasting_filming_and_recording_of_council_meetingspdf

It was reported that there had been eleven registered speakers under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

Tony Fisher from Strensall and Towthorpe Parish Council spoke regarding road safety. He advised the Executive Member that adding cycle lanes on to York Road would not ease the traffic problems encountered there, and that a pelican crossing was needed. He raised concerns that funding was only allocated to locations where accidents had already occurred and he considered that this was a reactive rather than proactive approach. He felt that only a small number of residents were being consulted on highway items in the area. He considered that the residents and the Parish Council were not being consulted appropriately and that their concerns were being ignored. He wanted to work co-operatively with the Council and the Executive Member to identify the source of the problems addressing road safety in the area.

One of the registered speakers did not attend.

The following speakers spoke regarding Agenda Item 4 (Monkgate Parking Changes):

Paul Bushnell spoke about how he had safety concerns regarding the current parking layout. He stated that when the car parking bays were full that a situation called ‘bay diving’ occurred, when cars rushed from one side to another down the street. Double parking occurred when cars waited for a space. This was particularly bad on the southern side of Monkgate, and was very hazardous for cyclists. He wanted more parking spaces to be to introduced. He urged the Executive Member to select the do nothing option and to seek an alternative arrangement.

Joy Plaskitt expressed concerns that the time of the Decision Session had been rescheduled in that it would not allow for people who worked to attend. She gave an example of how removing the car parking spaces affected her in that she had to use the Monk Bar Car Park overnight when returning home from evening classes as there were no spaces outside of her house. She pointed out the car parking spaces on Monkgate were oversubscribed. She suggested that an alternative proposal would be to use marked bays on the road to avoid people abandoning their cars and to allow space for two cars instead of one.

Anita Adams stated that the photographic evidence used by Officers had been taken during the day when most residents were not at home. She questioned why Council Highways Officers did not voice concerns when planning permission was granted for new developments in the area, when they were aware of visibility problems at the Agar Street junction.

Vanessa Smith spoke on behalf of residents of Orchard Court. She stated that it was dangerous exiting Agar Street with a vehicle since the cycle lane had been put in as cyclists thought they had right of way. She added that it was regrettable that in order to implement a safety measure that residents only parking spaces had to be removed, but if nothing was done and if there was an accident there might be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

This report summarises the response to a recent consultation and Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) advertisement regarding proposed changes to the parking layout on Monkgate.

Resolved: (i)   Approve the parking proposals as shown in Annex A but take into account the changes that may come about as a result of the procurement from the Parking Review report that is considered by Executive.

(ii)  That the installation of cycle parking stands in the two parking spaces on the south side of Monkgate be approved.

Reason:   To enhance road safety by improving visibility for drivers emerging on to Monkgate.

The Executive Member considered a report which asked him to approve changes to the parking layout on Monkgate.

Officers reported that they endorsed calls from Councillor Looker to revisit parking zones in Monkgate and the Groves and comments made by Paul Bushnell about double parking. This particular issue had not been brought to their attention before. They also stated that they had to balance the use of the road by various users. They also informed the Executive Member that a report into a Parking Review at a city wide level which would be considered at the next Executive meeting, would look into various options for residents parking across the city.

Resolved: (i)     Approve the parking proposals as shown in Annex A noting the changes that may come about as a result of the procurement from the Parking Review report that is considered by Executive.

(ii)  That the installation of cycle parking stands in the two parking spaces on the south side of Monkgate be approved.

Reason:   To enhance road safety by improving visibility for drivers emerging on to Monkgate.

Councillor Richardson presented two petitions in November 2015 requesting that the Council implement parking restrictions in Ableton Grove and South Lane. This report details the background and options that could be taken.

Resolved: That the matters are closed and no further action be taken.

Reason:   Both areas were included and considered earlier this year as part of the 2015 Review of Waiting Restrictions. A recommendation of no further action was confirmed by the Director of City and Environmental Services. Extracts from this report are attached as Annex A (Abelton Grove) and Annex B (South Lane).

The Executive Member received a report which detailed the options that could be taken in response to two petitions submitted by Councillor Richardson in respect of implementing parking restrictions on Abelton Grove and South Lane.

The Executive Member reported that he had received an email from Councillor Richardson requesting more meaningful engagement with residents.

Officers stated that they had investigated the reported requests  but they advised the Executive Member that the situation was similar across the city.

The Executive Member suggested that residents could put a white line in front of their properties and residents parking could be investigated, and that Haxby Town Council might wish to come up some proposals to submit to Officers.

Resolved: That the matters are closed and no further action be taken.

Reason:   Both areas were included and considered earlier this year as part of the 2015 Review of Waiting Restrictions. A recommendation of no further action was confirmed by the Director of City and Environmental Services. Extracts from this report are attached as Annex A (Abelton Grove) and Annex B (South Lane).

This report concerns a proposal for a Residents Parking Bay on East Mount Road.

Resolved: That Option B be approved: to uphold the objections (in part) and implement the changes outlined as (a) to convert the parking bay adjacent to 49A East Mount Road to R1C (Community Bay) and (c) Change the 60 minute parking for non permit holders to 10 minutes to bring it in line with the rest of the zone; the white bar marking to remain in situ.

Reason:   To take on board residents concerns whilst still achieving an improvement to the parking amenity for residents of 50 East Mount Road.

The Executive Member considered a report which concerned a resident parking bay on East Mount Road.

Resolved: That Option B, to uphold the objections (in part) and implement the changes outlined as (a) and (c) in paragraph 6; the white bar marking to remain in situ, be approved.

Reason:   To take on board residents concerns whilst still achieving an improvement to the parking amenity for residents of 50 East Mount Road.

This report concerns a petition from the residents of 110-128 requesting Residents’ Priority Parking.

Resolved: That the formal consultation be approved.

Reason:    The documentation package we provide enables residents to make an informed decision.

The Executive Member considered a report which asked him to approve a formal consultation with residents in response to a request for Residents Priority Parking for the properties of 110-128 Broadway.

The Executive Member read out the written representation received from Councillor Aspden, which was attached at the annex of written representations.

Officers stated that they would not normally enter into direct contact with the Ministry of Defence or other organisation themselves on behalf of residents.

Resolved: That the formal consultation be approved.

Reason:    The documentation package we provide enables residents to make an informed decision.

The purpose of this report is to set out progress to date on schemes in the 2015/16 City and Environmental Services (CES) Capital Programme, including budget spend to the end of December 2015. The report also proposes adjustments to scheme allocations to align with the latest cost estimates and delivery projections.

Resolved: That the amendments to the 2015/16 City and Environmental Services Capital Programme as set out in Annexes 1 and 2 be approved.

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

The Executive Member considered a report which set out progress to date on schemes in the 2015/16 City and Environmental Services (CES) Capital Programme, including budget spend to the end of December 2015.

In response to comments raised under Public Participation by Councillor Craghill, the Acting Director of City and Environmental Services informed the Executive Member that the speed survey undertaken could be redone at a cost of £300-£400. The Executive Member agreed to this being carried out.

Resolved: (i)That the amendments to the 2015/16 City and Environmental Services Capital Programme as set out in Annexes 1 and 2 be approved.

                (ii) That a speed survey be undertaken on Navigation Road/Walmgate.   

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

This report seeks approval of a detailed 15/16 Casualty Reduction programme, following initial consultation, and identifies three packages of work – Schemes, Minor Works and Studies.

Resolved: (i) That Option (i), i.e to approve in principle the schemes of Hull Road/Tang Hall Lane, Cornlands Road/Gale Lane and Tudor Road/Kingsway West and authorise Officers to undertake further local consultation and advertisement of traffic orders as necessary, and implement the schemes if necessary are received be approved. Any insurmountable objections will be reported back to the Executive Member for a decision.

               (ii)   That the other elements of the 2015/16 programme as set out in Annex F (Minor Works) and Annex G (Studies) be approved.

Reason:   To improve the overall level of safety in the city and reduce the number of casualties.

The Executive Member received a report which sought approval of a detailed 2015/16 Casualty Reduction programme, following initial consultation which indentified three packages of work- Schemes, Minor Works and Studies.

Resolved: That Option (i), i.e to approve in principle the schemes of Hull Road/Tang Hall Lane, Cornlands Road/Gale Lane and Tudor Road/Kingsway West and authorise Officers to undertake further local consultation and advertisement of traffic orders as necessary, and implement the schemes if necessary are received be approved. Any insurmountable objections will be reported back to the Executive Member for a decision.

Reason:   To improve the overall level of safety in the city and reduce the number of casualties.

The purpose of this report is to consider the objections received to the proposal for Nunthorpe Grove to become a Residents’ Priority Parking area.

Resolved: That the scheme be implemented as advertised, and a 24 hour Residents Priority Parking area on Nunthorpe Grove be introduced.

Reason:   This is in line with a well established procedure when dealing with requests for new Residents Parking Schemes; however the return percentages are very close to the implementation limits.

The Executive Member considered a report which informed him of the objections received to the proposal to make Nunthorpe Grove a Residents Priority Parking area.

Resolved: That the scheme be implemented as advertised, and a 24 hour Residents Priority Parking area on Nunthorpe Grove be introduced.

Reason:   This is in line with a well established procedure when dealing with requests for new Residents Parking Schemes; however the return percentages are very close to the implementation limits.

This report provides an update on the take up of the free weekend bus travel offer as agreed by the Executive Member at his Decision Session on 9^th December 2015.

Resolved: That the free travel offer be finished at the end of February but instead of extending the scheme, money be made available to Officers to work with the Youth Council and other relevant groups of young people to investigate measures which would increase bus use by young people.

Reason:   (i) The scheme has not generated increased bus use in the target market (children and young people).

                 (ii) To find out the views of young people in respect of bus travel.

The Executive Member considered a report which provided him with an updated on the take up of the free weekend bus travel offer as agreed by him at his Decision Session on 9 December 2015.

In response to Councillor Levene’s comments raised under Public Participation, Officers responded that the trial was advertised on buses.

The Executive Member stated that he was disappointed when he saw the take up figures. He informed Officers and those present that he had recently met with the Youth Council and had asked if they would work with Council Officers and the bus companies to investigate a way to encourage more young people to use the bus more often. He said that he would make a small amount of funding available for them, and that he was happy to work with the Youth Council rather than extending the scheme as it was in its current form.

Resolved: That the free travel offer be finished at the end of February but instead of extending the scheme, money be made available to Officers to work with the Youth Council and other relevant groups of young people to investigate measures which would increase bus use by young people.

Reason:   (i) The scheme has not generated increased bus use in the target market (children and young people).

                 (ii) To find out the views of young people in respect of bus travel.

This report concerns two petitions that have been received relating to highway condition and adoption of private streets;

•  A petition was raised at the 8 October 2015 Council Meeting by Cllr Ayre on behalf of 49 residents in the Langdale Avenue and Rydal Avenue area regarding the condition of the areas highways.
• A petition from Cllr. Aspden was received at Full Council on 26 March 2015 representing 24 residents on Nevinson Grove, Stirling Grove, Wilsthorpe Grove in the Heslington Lane area.

Resolved: That the findings of the investigations surrounding the petitions be noted and the review of the existing policy for the adoption of private streets be approved.

Reason:  To ensure that the most appropriate policy is in place relating to the adoption of private streets.

The Executive Member received a report which concerned two petitions that related to highway condition and the adoption of private streets. It also asked him to approve a review of the existing policy for the adoption of private streets.

Officers informed the Executive Member that there were approximately 100 unadopted roads in York, and that residents would have to be in agreement before a street could be adopted. The responsibility for funding bringing a road up to adoptable standard rested with the frontagers of the street with a potential contribution from the Council under the existing policy. Funding for the future maintenance of the street would be allocated from Council resources once it was adopted by the Council.

Resolved: That the findings of the investigations surrounding the petitions be noted and the review of the existing policy for the adoption of private streets be approved.

Reason:  To ensure that the most appropriate policy is in place relating to the adoption of private streets.