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 any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests or any prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interests that he might have had in the business on the agenda. He declared that he had none.

To approve and sign the minutes of the Decision Session held on 12 May 2016.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the last Decision Session held on 12 May 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 8 June 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 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 four registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme and that a Member of Council had requested to speak.

Agenda Item 4- Review of Enhancements to the University Road Pedestrian Crossing and Cycle Route Scheme

Jon Philip, who represented the University of York, was against the proposals to relocate the westbound bus stop into a nearby lay-by as he felt it could block a fire exit and therefore would be less safe. He highlighted that there were no other locations for deliveries to the University apart from the lay-by. He felt the other enhancements would not improve traffic flows and were opposed by the Police.

The Executive Member read out comments received from Councillor Aspden, the Ward Member prior to the meeting. These included comments that local residents were frustrated on progress on an agreement to use the lay-by to allow buses to pull in. In addition, a zebra crossing had also been suggested by Heslington Parish Council to replace the current crossing refuge and speed table.

Agenda Item 6- Objections received to the Advertised Residents Priority parking Scheme to include Aldreth Grove, Norfolk Street and Bishopthorpe Road (Part)

Martin Hoey, a resident of St Clements’ Grove felt that residents should not have to pay to park on their street, particularly as the tickets did not guarantee parking spaces. In addition, the surrounding streets which did have Respark, were not patrolled by Council Officers. He suggested that the hours of residents only parking be limited to 10 am- 4pm to allow for visitor parking and to use Rowntree Park and Bishopthorpe Road shops.

Alan Allison had registered to speak at the meeting but withdrew his registration at the meeting.

Agenda Item 10- Better Bus Area Fund-Clarence Street Bus Improvement

Councillor Craghill referred to the previous scheme that was approved by the Executive Member in November 2014. She felt that extending the lanes on the inbound approach to Clarence Street/Lord Mayor’s Walk/Gillygate Junction, would be an improvement for both cyclists and pedestrians. She felt that it would be hard to see how bus times would be improved by removing a short stretch of narrow cycle lane to allow sufficient space for vehicles to turn right out of Lord Mayor’s Walk into Clarence Street at the same time that vehicles were turning left from Clarence Street into Lord Mayor’s Walk. She questioned why there was no comparable analysis between the previously approved scheme from 2014 and the proposed scheme.

Dave Merrett suggested that the Executive Member reconsidered the previously approved scheme, as he felt it gave the potential for improving traffic flows by widening lanes and also the scale of this would allow for a separate bus lane. In his opinion, the current proposal was dangerous for traffic, particularly cyclists. He felt that the previous scheme although more expensive, was also safer.

Councillor Looker withdrew her registration to speak before the meeting.

This report presents a review of how the scheme is currently operating following implementation of a number of enhancements in the autumn of 2015.  It also considers the relocation of the westbound bus stop into the nearby lay-by.

Resolved:  That the findings of the report be noted and the scheme be retained in its present form.

Reason:     Council Officers and the University consider that the existing layout is improving the safety of all road users, in particular university students crossing University Road, and encouraging greater use of the new cycle route. The suggestion to relocate the bus stop into the lay-by is not supported by bus operators or the University.

The Executive Member considered a report which presented him with a review of the operation of the University Road Pedestrian and Cycle Route Scheme following a number of enhancements. It also considered the relocation of the westbound bus stop into the nearby lay-by.

Officers responded to comments made by the public speaker and by points highlighted in Councillor Aspden’s email. They stated that a zebra crossing required good visibility and they felt it would not be ideal to place it close to the bus stop.

The Executive Member commented that as there had been evidence of a slight reduction in average speeds and no accidents he was happy to approve the scheme in its present form.

Resolved: That the findings of the report be noted and the pedestrian crossing and cycle route scheme be retained in its present form.

Reason:   Council Officers and the University consider that the existing layout is improving the safety of all road users, in particular university students crossing University Road, and encouraging greater use of the new cycle route. The suggestion to relocate the bus stop into the lay-by is not supported by bus operators or the University.

The purpose of this report is to inform the Executive Member of the outturn position for the 2015/16 CES Transport Capital Programme, any variations between the budget and the outturn, and the progress of schemes in the year.

Resolved: That the progress in delivering schemes be noted and the proposed funding carryovers be approved, as set out in paragraphs 23 to 31 of the Officer’s report.

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

The Executive Member received a report which informed him of the outturn position for the 2015/16 City and Environmental Services Transport Capital Programme, any variations between the budget and the outturn, and the progress of schemes in the year.

Resolved: That the progress in delivering the capital programme schemes be noted and the proposed funding carryovers be approved, as set out in paragraphs 23 to 31 of the Officer’s report.

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

The purpose of this report is to consider the formal objections made to the advertising of a Traffic Regulation Order to implement a residents parking scheme covering Aldreth Grove, Cameron Grove, St Clements Grove, Norfolk Street and Bishopthorpe Road (Part).

Resolved:      That the objections be overturned and the scheme be implemented as advertised- to introduce a 24 hour Community Residents Priority Parking area (to be known as R58) to include Aldreth Grove, Cameron Grove, St Clements Grove, Bishopthorpe Road (No’s 106 to 154) and Norfolk Street to have two dual zone bay to include R6 and R58.

Reason:      This is in line with a well established procedure when dealing with requests for new Residents Parking Schemes. From past experience if one street is left unrestricted, in the middle of a zone, residents generally tolerate the increase of parking within that street for a short time before seeking to become part of a residents parking zone, this is normally due to the increase of parking takingplace being the only unrestricted street in an area.

The Executive Member considered a report which informed him of formal objections made to the advertising of a Traffic Regulation Order to implement a residents parking scheme covering Aldreth Grove, Cameron Grove, St Clements Grove, Norfolk Street and Bishopthorpe Road (Part).

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

Resolved:      That the objections be overturned and the scheme be implemented as advertised- to introduce a 24 hour Community Residents Priority Parking area (to be known as R58) to include Aldreth Grove, Cameron Grove, St Clements Grove, Bishopthorpe Road (No’s 106 to 154) and Norfolk Street to have two dual zone bay to include R6 and R58.

Reason:      This is in line with a well established procedure when dealing with requests for new Residents Parking Schemes. From past experience if one street is left unrestricted, in the middle of a zone, residents generally tolerate the increase of parking within that street for a short time before seeking to become part of a residents parking zone, this is normally due to the increase of parking takingplace being the only unrestricted street in an area.

This report presents an evidence-based 5 year programme for managing repair and restoration on York City Walls. 

Resolved: That the findings of the report be noted and the scheme programme be approved.

Reason:   Council officers and the appointed structural engineer have identified and ranked the urgent structural defects affecting the Bar Walls. In particular three schemes have been identified for repairs this financial year, Micklegate Bar Roof, Monk Bar Steps, Tower 32.

The Executive Member considered a report which presented him with an evidence based 5 year programme for managing repair and restoration on York City Walls.

The Executive Member commented that the city underplayed the value of its walls to the tourist economy. Officers added that the walls underpinned civic life and it was hoped that they would be enjoyed for another 2000 years.

Resolved: That the findings of the report be noted and the scheme programme be approved from 2016/2017 to 2020-2021.

Reason:   Council officers and the appointed structural engineer have identified and ranked the urgent structural defects affecting the Bar Walls. In particular three schemes have been identified for repairs this financial year, Micklegate Bar Roof, Monk Bar Steps, Tower 32.

This report presents a review of how the current concrete column stock is deteriorating, how the street lighting team are currently managing the risk and proposes the implementation of a replacement programme of age expired concrete columns.

Resolved: That the findings of the review be noted and the column replacement programme in its present form be approved.

  Reason:  Council Officers and the specialist structural engineer consider that the identified columns represent a credible risk of structural failing or collapse. The manufacturers’ serviceable life of a concrete column is 20 years. The City of York Council has not installed any concrete columns since 1997 and there are no records of installation dates.  However from testing information some columns date back to 1970.

The Executive Member received a report which presented him with a review of how the current column stock was deteriorating and how the street lighting team were currently managing the risk. The review proposed the implementation of a replacement programme of age expired concrete columns.

The Executive Member took into consideration a written representation, submitted by Councillor Ayre prior to the meeting. This was a petition which called for the removal of a lamp post from its current location due to safety concerns. Officers stated that they would bring a report back to a future meeting regarding the petition.

Resolved: That the findings of the review be noted and approval given to the column replacement programme as outlined.

  Reason:  Council Officers and the specialist structural engineer consider that the identified columns represent an increased but not immediate risk of structural failing or collapse. The manufacturers’ serviceable life of a concrete column is 20 years. The City of York Council has not installed any concrete columns since 1997 and there are no records of installation dates.  However from testing information some columns date back to 1970.

This report presents a review of how the LED lantern replacement scheme is currently performing, it also sets out the pending LED lantern conversion programmed for the summer of 2016.

Resolved: That the findings of the report be noted the LED lantern conversion programme for 2016/17 be approved.

Reason:   The rationale is to reduce energy costs and improve the carbon footprint. Upgrading the older technology lighting with LED units will achieve energy savings on an annual basis. This should offset any increase in future energy costs. Changing our remaining street lighting stock to LED technology will achieve an annual energy saving year on year.

The Executive Member received a report which presented him with a review on the performance of the Light Emitting Diode (LED) lantern replacement scheme and also on the pending LED lantern conversion.

Resolved: That the findings of the report be noted and approval given to the Light Emitting Diode (LED) lantern conversion programme for 2016/17.

Reason:   The rationale is to reduce energy costs and improve the carbon footprint. Upgrading the older technology lighting with LED units will achieve energy savings on an annual basis. This should offset any increase in future energy costs. Changing remaining street lighting stock to LED technology will achieve an annual energy saving year on year.

This report updates the Executive Member with progress on the Clarence Street bus improvement scheme, particularly with how it has been revised to provide better value for money for City of York Council and minimise disruption during construction.  It also sets out when the scheme will be delivered in the 2016/17 year.

Resolved: (i) That the progress with the scheme be noted and the proposal to proceed with the revised, better value and less disruptive scheme be supported.

                (ii)The scheme shall be amended so that the cycle feeder lane remains in place on Lord Mayor’s Walk and that a separately signalled left turn out of Clarence Street is not delivered at this stage but the operation of the junction is kept under review and a report brought back to enable a further decision to be taken if warranted by increased demand in the area.

Reason:     To deliver a higher capacity junction whilst maintaining the existing cycle lane arrangements.

The Executive Member considered a report which updated him with progress on the Clarence Street bus improvement scheme, in particular how it had been revised in order provide better value for money and minimise disruption during construction.  The report also set out when the scheme would be delivered in 2016/17.

Officers reported that although they wished to incorporate the cycle lane the cost would be prohibitive and not represent value for money as it would mean the expensive relocation of electrical and communication cables and closing the Gillygate and Lord Mayor’s Walk Junction. Widening of the lanes would however still be possible under the new scheme, but not sufficient if a cycle lane is incorporated to prevent conflict due to the type of vehicles that turned out of Lord Mayor’s Walk.

Following consideration of the public speakers, additional written representations and the Officer’s report the Executive Member commented that the junction had been problematic for many years. He therefore suggested an amendment of the Officer’s original recommendation and ;

Resolved: (i) That the progress with the scheme be noted and the proposal to proceed with the revised, better value and less disruptive scheme be supported.

                (ii)The scheme be amended so that the cycle feeder lane remains in place on Lord Mayor’s Walk and that a separately signalled left turn out of Clarence Street is not delivered at this stage but the operation of the junction is kept under review and a report brought back to enable a further decision to be taken if warranted by increased demand in the area.

Reason:     To deliver a higher capacity junction whilst maintaining the existing cycle lane arrangements.