Agenda, decisions and minutes

At this point in the meeting, the Executive Member is invited 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 any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests or any prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interests he might have had in the business on the agenda. No additional interests were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the Decision Session held on 14 April 2016.

Resolved: That the minutes of the last Decision Session held on 14 April 2016 be approved and then signed as a correct record 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 Wednesday 11 May 2016 at 5:00pm.                  

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_webcast

ing_filming_and_recording_of_council_meetingspdf

It was reported that there had been eleven registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme. One speaker did not attend the meeting, however a summary of his letter was read out by Officers.

The following speakers spoke with regard to Agenda Item 4 (Consideration of Objections Received for Proposed Amendments to the York Parking, Stopping and Waiting Traffic Regulation Order 2014) about particular schemes:

Moorland Road (Disabled Parking Amenity)

Jane Hustwit, whose front path edged the applicant’s (Hamlynn Health) land, objected to making the two advisory disabled parking bays mandatory as they had already been accepted as disabled bays by residents. She felt that parking facilities adjacent to the clinic should be paid for by the clinic  and highlighted the lack of use of the bays by their clients.

Kevin Hughes a local resident, also highlighted the lack of usage of the bays. He wanted to keep the status quo. He commented how there had been some conflict over parking in the bays.

Lynn Byass, the proprietor of Hamlynn Health informed the Executive Member of the services offered by the clinic. It had been redesigned around disabled access, however disabled parking could not be provided on the site itself and so therefore they had requested advisory disabled parking bays. However the disabled parking had not always been honoured and disabled clients had to park further down the road to access the clinic.

James Byass, the manager of York remedial therapy, who ran a clinic at Hamlynn Health spoke about how the provision of parking spaces made a difference to those people who had mobility problems. The extended disabled bays were for ramps, and it was difficult to find a space in the car park for this. He commented that by not making these bays mandatory, traffic problems might intensify.

Sarah Daniel offered neurophysical therapy at Hamlynn Health. She spoke about how the disabled parking bays reduced the distance of walking into the property.

St Olave’s Road

Julie Hughes spoke against the proposal to remove a respark space in front of her house as she felt it would result in faster traffic along the road and because accessing her drive would as a result be dangerous. She commented that as there was currently a blind corner on St Olave’s Road, that drivers were more cautious with a parking space in situ and did not tend to cut the corner and use the road as a rat run.

Lastingham Terrace/Hartoft Street

Anthony Day requested that the double yellow lines on the western side not be implemented. He felt that inserting 2 metres of double yellow lines would reduce the number of car parking spaces.

Junction of Nunthorpe Crescent and Nunthorpe View

Stephen Foster who had registered to speak, was unable to attend the meeting due and his son attended in his place. His son read out a letter in which his father requested that the no waiting at any time on Nunthorpe  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

Proposals to introduce various amendments to the York Parking, Stopping and Waiting Traffic Regulation Order 2014 (TRO) were advertised on 28th January 2016. Objections have been received to fourteen of the proposals in ten different wards. This report requests the Executive Member to consider objections received and make a decision on each item.

Resolved; That;

St OIaves Road (Clifton Ward)

Resolved:That a decision on the advertised proposed as requested be deferred to the annual review.

Reason: To allow for further points raised at the meeting to be investigated.

Aintree Court/Mayfield Grove (Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Ward)

Resolved: That Option a) to implement the proposal of no waiting at any time restrictions on Mayfield Grove for 10m either side of the Aintree Court junction, plus 25m into Aintree Court be approved.

Reason:   To remove obstruction issues from around the immediate junction area.

Broadway, (junction with private access road from shops and flats) Fishergate Ward

Resolved: That Option a) to implement a short length of “no waiting at any time” (double yellow line) restrictions and protect the tactile dropped kerb (provided for pedestrian crossing) with white keep clear bar marking be approved.

Reason:   To protect the junction area and pedestrian crossing areas from obstructive parking and improve sight lines.

Hartoft Street and Access Road to rear of Lastingham Terrace, Fishergate Ward

Resolved:  That Option b)To uphold objections and implement an amended restriction of shorter lengths as outlined in the report be approved.

.

Reason:   We are able to improve road safety in the area whilst reacting positively to the concerns of residents the proposals will affect.

Moorland Road (Disabled Parking Amenity), Fishergate Ward

Resolved: That Option b) that no further action be taken at this time and that the disabled parking space be left on the street as an advisory bay.

Reason:   We consider the advisory bay to be working effectively which allows us to react positively to the concerns of residents.

The Outgang, Heslington, Fulford and Heslington Ward

Resolved: That option b) to take no further action be approved.

Reason: This allows the Parish Council to explore other options.

Granville Terrace (off Lawrence Street), Guildhall Ward

Resolved: That option a) to propose limited lengths of “no waiting at any time” (double yellow line) restrictions at the sensitive corners on Granville Terrace only be approved. The restrictions limited to 5m to leave as much parking amenity for residents as possible.

Reason:   To remove obstruction issues from around the junction and bend areas and improve manoeuvrability for larger vehicles.

Junction of South Lane and Headland Close, Haxby and Wigginton Ward

Resolved: That option a) to propose lengths of “no waiting at any time” (double yellow line) restrictions to prevent vehicles parking too close to the junction of South Lane/Headland Close be approved.

Reason: To remove obstruction issues around the junction area.

Junction of Fourth Avenue and Bad Bargain Lane, Heworth Ward

Resolved: To uphold objections and take no further action at this time.The junction will be referred back to the 2016 review with other areas of concern.

Reason:   To ensure resources are directed to where they are most needed.

Wood Street, Heworth

Resolved: That Option a) to extend waiting restrictions by 5m to give a 10m length of junction protection and provide an adequate turning circle to give vehicle access to a property be  ...  view the full decision text for item 75.

The Executive Member considered a series of proposals to introduce various amendments to the York Parking, Stopping and Waiting Traffic Regulation Order 2014 (TRO) in ten different wards.

Following considerations of the individuals objections received the Executive Member resolved that;

St OIaves Road (Clifton Ward)

Resolved:That a decision on the advertised proposed as requested be deferred to the annual review.

Reason: To allow for further points raised at the meeting to be investigated.

Aintree Court/Mayfield Grove (Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Ward)

Resolved: That Option a) to implement the proposal as advertised be approved with the area to be reviewed after implementation.

Reason:   To remove obstruction issues from around the immediate junction area.

Broadway, (junction with private access road from shops and flats) (Fishergate Ward)

Resolved: That Option a) to implement the proposal as advertised be approved.

Reason:   To protect the junction area and pedestrian crossing areas from obstructive parking and improve sight lines.

Hartoft Street and Access Road to rear of Lastingham Terrace, (Fishergate Ward)

Resolved: That Option b) to uphold objections and implement an amended restriction of shorter lengths be approved.

Reason:   We are able to improve road safety in the area whilst reacting positively to the concerns of residents the proposals will affect.

Moorland Road (Disabled Parking Amenity), (Fishergate Ward)

In response to comments raised by the speakers, Officers stated that the disabled advisory bays were generally provided for people with mobility issues so that ramps could be used, however they highlighted that the bays were not for their sole use. They reported that they had received no feedback from residents on traffic problems that had been encountered since the insertion of the bays.

The Executive Member stated that he had listened to all the views expressed in coming to his decision.

Resolved: That Option b) that no further action be taken at this time and that the disabled bay remain on the street in an advisory capacity

Reason:   We consider the advisory bay to be working effectively which allows us to react positively to the concerns of residents.

The Outgang, Heslington, (Fulford and Heslington Ward)

Resolved: That option b) to take no further action be approved.

Reason: This allows the Parish Council to explore other options.

Granville Terrace (off Lawrence Street), (Guildhall Ward)

Resolved: That option a) to implement the proposal as advertised be approved.

Reason:   To remove obstruction issues from around the junction and bend areas and improve manoeuvrability for larger vehicles.

Junction of South Lane and Headland Close, (Haxby and Wigginton Ward)

Resolved: That option a) to implement the proposal as advertised with further consideration of additional restrictions in this area to be investigated in the 2016 review be approved.

Reason: To remove obstruction issues around the junction area.

Junction of Fourth Avenue and Bad Bargain Lane, (Heworth Ward)

Resolved: That Option a) to implement the proposal as advertised with further consideration of additional restrictions to be investigated in the 2016 review.

Reason:   To ensure junction and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

The purpose of this report is to consider a petition by 29 residents of Mill Lane Heworth requesting that the Council take action to dramatically reduce traffic into Mill Lane Heworth.

Resolved:  That Option 1 be approved-

To carry out a vehicle count/speed survey and undertake diffusion tube monitoring prior to construction of the new link road and again within 12 months after completion at a cost of £1250.

Reason:    To gauge the current number and speed of vehicles using the highway. To also obtain air quality information for Mill Lane. This information can then be used to identify any changes that may be required once the new link road is completed.

The Executive Member received a report which asked him to consider a petition signed by 29 residents of Mill Lane Heworth requesting that the Council take action to reduce traffic into Mill Lane Heworth.

Resolved:  That Option 1 be approved-

(i)           Take no immediate action to restrict vehicles using Mill Lane.

(ii)          To carry out a vehicle count/speed survey and undertake diffusion tube monitoring prior to construction of the new link road and again 12 months after completion at a cost of £1250.

Reason:    To gauge the current number and speed of vehicles using the highway. To also obtain air quality information for Mill Lane. This information can then be used to identify any changes that may be required once the new link road is completed.

This report details the review of Wig-Wags used at school crossing patrol sites across the city. It also seeks a decision on a programme of removals and replacements of Wig-Wags including moving forward with the procurement of new units under a remote management system. 

Resolved: That Option (i) to approve the Wig Wag policy as described in Paragraph 20 of the Officer’s report.

o  Wig-Wags (flashing amber warning lights) in association with the school warning sign (Diag No. 545) should be used to indicate the presence of a School Crossing Patrol unless the patrol operates on a controlled crossing.

o  The lights should only be active during the patrol’s working hours.

o  Wig-Wags may be used at sites without a School Crossing Patrol in extenuating circumstances, i.e. busy city centre school site which is not easily identifiable as a school.

That approval be given for a programme of work shown in Annex A of the Officer’s report. Including approval to carry out a procurement exercise based on providing a remote management system for the control of the Wig-Wag units.

Reason:       To rationalise the use of Wig Wags in relation to the school crossing patrol service and introduce a responsive online system to manage the activation of the lights, whilst improving safety and reducing ongoing maintenance costs.

The Executive Member received a report which detailed the review of Flashing Amber Warning Lights (Wig-Wags) used at school patrol sites across the city. It sought a decision on a programme of removals and replacements of these including moving forward with the procurement of new units under a remote management system.

Resolved: (i)        That Option (i) to approve the Wig Wag policy  as described below;

o  Wig-Wags (flashing amber warning lights) in association with the school warning sign (Diag No. 545) should be used to indicate the presence of a School Crossing Patrol unless the patrol operates on a controlled crossing.

o  The lights should only be active during the patrol’s working hours.

o  Wig-Wags may be used at sites without a School Crossing Patrol in extenuating circumstances, i.e. busy city centre school site which is not easily identifiable as a school.

(ii)     That approval be given for a programme of work shown in Annex A of the Officer’s report. Including approval to carry out a procurement exercise based on providing a remote management system for the control of the Wig-Wag units.

Reason:       To rationalise the use of Wig Wags in relation to the school crossing patrol service and introduce a responsive online system to manage the activation of the lights, whilst improving safety and reducing ongoing maintenance costs.

This report gives an update on progress with the 2015/16 Speed Management Programme and seeks decisions on schemes which have received objections at the public consultation stage.

Resolved: That;

                   Option (i) be approved;

·        The Chaloners Road Scheme be omitted from the speed management programme.

·        The deferral of Danebury Drive, Acomb to the 16/17 speed management programme.

·        The introduction of a new VAS on York Road, Strensall and the inclusion of investigatory work into crossing points on York Road including consideration of a zebra crossing close to Barley Rise.

·        Note the five schemes which are being progressed under officer delegations as no objections were received.

·        That the implementation of schemes, shown in Annexes B, C, F and G of the Officer’s report be approved.

·        That the advertising of speed limit orders to progress the proposals shown in Annexes A, D and E with implementation to follow if no substantive objections are received be approved. Any measures which receive objections would be reported back to the Executive Member for a final decision.

Reason: To deliver changes to the highway network with the aim of reducing vehicle speeds and reducing the likelihood and consequences of collisions for all road users.

The Executive Member received a report which updated him with progress on the 2015/16 Speed Management Programme. It also asked him to make decisions on a series of schemes which had received objections at the public consultation stage.

In regards to the site mentioned at Annex E, B1224 Wetherby Road, West of Beckfield Lane Junction, Officers reported that the Police had commented that they did not think that the speed limit would normally be set at 40mph. 

Resolved: That Option (i) be approved;

·        The Chaloners Road Scheme be omitted from the speed management programme.

·        The deferral of Danebury Drive, Acomb to the 16/17 speed management programme.

·        The introduction of a new Vehicle Activated Sign (VAS) on York Road, Strensall and the inclusion of investigatory work into crossing points on York Road including consideration of a zebra crossing close to Barley Rise.

·        Note the five schemes which are being progressed under officer delegations as no objections were received.

·        That the implementation of schemes, shown in Annexes B, C, F and G of the Officer’s report be approved.

·        That the advertising of speed limit orders to progress the proposals shown in Annexes A, D and E with implementation to follow if no substantive objections are received be approved. Any measures which receive objections to be reported back to the Executive Member for a final decision.

Reason: To deliver changes to the highway network with the aim of reducing vehicle speeds and reducing the likelihood and consequences of collisions for all road users.