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.

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.

Councillor Gillies declared a personal non prejudicial interest in agenda item 7 (Fossgate Traffic Management Consultation) as a Member of the Merchant Adventurers Guild. He confirmed that he had not been involved in any consultation which had taken place.

Councillor Cannon declared a personal non prejudicial interest, having registered to speak as Ward Councillor with regard to agenda item 8 (Consideration of the results of the consultation process reference Residents’ Priority Parking in Holgate Central), as a resident of the local area.

Councillor D’Agorne declared a personal non prejudicial interest having registered to speak as Ward Councillor with regard to agenda item 10 (Danesmead Estate Residents’ Parking Petitions) as a resident of Broadway West which was on the fringe of the area in question.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 11 May 2017.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the last decision session held on 11 May 2017 be approved as a correct record and then signed 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 21 June 2017. 

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. This 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, it will

be uploaded onto the Council’s 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 e.g. 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/download/downloads/id/11406/protocol_for_webcasting_filming_and_recording_of_council_meetings_20160809.pdf

It was reported that there had been a number of registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme. The Executive Member advised that he would take registered speakers during consideration of each agenda item rather than at this point in the meeting for purposes of clarity.

Members are asked to consider alterations to the following junctions that are required to allow replacement of life-expired signalling assets: Tadcaster Road / St Helens Road; Heworth Road / Melrosegate; Rougier Street / Tanner Row.

Resolved:

i) That the proposed design for Tadcaster Road/St Helens Road junction be approved.

Reason: The recommended design offers the best solution to allow replacement of the asset in line with current design standards, whilst improving pedestrian facilities without significantly impacting vehicular traffic. It includes a minor improvement to safety.

ii) That the proposed design for Heworth Road/Melrosegate junction be approved.

Reason: The recommended design offers the best solution to allow replacement of the asset in line with current design standards, whilst minimising the impact on pedestrians and vehicular traffic. It includes a minor improvement to safety.

iii) That Design Option A be approved for Rougier Street/Tanner Row junction.

Reason: Design Option A offers the best solution to allow replacement of the asset in line with current design standards, whilst minimising the impact on pedestrians, vehicular traffic and air quality. It includes a minor improvement to safety.

The Executive Member considered a report which proposed alterations to the Tadcaster Road/St Helens Road, Heworth Road/Melrosegate and Rougier Street/Tanner Row junctions to allow replacement of life-expired signalling assets.

He considered a written representation which had been received from Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Ward Councillors in relation to the Tadcaster Road/St Helens Road junction which stated that residents and councillors were supportive of the proposals. It put forward the following points: removing the island on the southern arm would remove the need to replace damaged railings at regular interval; adding a crossing on the northern arm would be most helpful for pedestrians; and that residents would welcome further consultation on the exact location of the control box in relation to potential noise from beepers.

The Executive Member considered the following options detailed in the report:

Tadcaster Road/St Helens Road

Option 1 – to approve the recommended design for these junctions

Option 2 – not to approve the proposed junction design

Heworth Road/Melrosegate

Option 1 – to approve the recommended design for these junctions

Option 2 – not to approve the proposed junction design

Rougier Street/Tanner Row

Option 1 – to approve design option A junction design

Option 2 – to approve design option B junction design

Option 3 – not to approve either proposed junction design

The Executive Member accepted the reasoning behind recommended option A for the Rougier Street/Tanner Row junction which included a change in road alignment and the introduction of a ‘no left turn’ out of Tanner Row.

Resolved:

i) That the proposed design for Tadcaster Road/St Helens Road junction be approved.

Reason: The recommended design offers the best solution to allow replacement of the asset in line with current design standards, whilst improving pedestrian facilities without significantly impacting vehicular traffic. It includes a minor improvement to safety.

ii) That the proposed design for Heworth Road/Melrosegate junction be approved.

Reason: The recommended design offers the best solution to allow replacement of the asset in line with current design standards, whilst minimising the impact on pedestrians and vehicular traffic. It includes a minor improvement to safety.

iii) That Design Option A be approved for Rougier Street/Tanner Row junction.

Reason: Design Option A offers the best solution to allow replacement of the asset in line with current design standards, whilst minimising the impact on pedestrians, vehicular traffic and air quality. It includes a minor improvement to safety.

This report seeks approval of a scheme to extend an existing 20mph zone on Gale Lane to include a section of Thanet Road past the Lidl supermarket to just beyond St James Place.

Resolved: That the proposed scheme, shown in Annex C of the report, be approved for implementation with the following amendment:

·        The bus lay-by will not be in-filled,  but a slight change will be made to the positioning of the speed cushions plus some hatch road markings added (as shown on drawing TP/150019/THRD/GA/01C)

·        Visibility from side accesses will be reviewed prior to implementation. 

·        Post-implementation monitoring will take place to assess the effectiveness of the scheme.

Reason:     To address a road safety concern identified on Thanet  Road. The proposal to fill-in the lay-by was to stop it being available for drivers to bypass the adjacent speed cushions. However, having reviewed the design, it was felt that the addition of some hatch road markings, coupled with a slight adjustment of the cushions positions, would make this unlikely to become a problem.

The Executive Member considered a report which sought approval of a scheme to extend an existing 20mph zone on Gale Lane to include a section of Thanet Road past the Lidl supermarket to just beyond St James Place.

He took into account written representations which had been received from Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Ward Councillors, Councillor Andrew Waller and local resident Mr Steve Galloway.

Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Ward Councillors expressed general support for the revised scheme stating that they were pleased to see that proposals to fill in the south bound bus lay-by had been removed as this would have reduced visibility for cyclists crossing from Kingsway West and would have caused tailbacks across the roundabout if traffic had to wait behind a bus. They expressed the view that filling in the northbound lay-by at the present time would be premature as buses stopping on the carriageway would also reduce visibility for those using the crossing and if buses were waiting at both bus stops, traffic would be halted in both directions. They confirmed that their preference would be to retain both lay-bys and for the situation to be monitored.

Councillor Waller’s submission stated that he was glad that officers had recognised the problems that cyclists would face coming from Kingsway West if the southbound layby was removed and noted that issues relating to traffic exiting Acorn Ruby Club would occur if the northbound lay-by was removed. He stated that there were already issues with cable boxes obscuring cars coming from the Chaloners Road junction on Thanet Road which would be complicated further by buses stopping on the highway.

Mr Galloway’s submission presented the view that the proposed changes represented an “over engineered” solution to what he felt was a poorly defined problem and questioned whether traffic speed was in fact a principle cause of reported accidents as current traffic speed figures were not included in report, noting that three junctions, roundabouts and pedestrian crossings along Thanet Road, along with congestion, tended to reduce speeds. He expressed concerns that the proposals had only been advertised by lamppost notices and had not been accessible on the council’s website, nor circulated to local residents’ associations. He reiterated points already made with regard to the infilling of the bus laybys and suggested that a solution to accidents caused by pedestrians randomly crossing road would be to provide guard rails with intention of directing pedestrians to safest crossing point and a lower speed limit of 20mph may be appropriate where there was a particular accident risk such as by the Lidl store.

Mrs Sue Galloway addressed the Executive Member, under the public participation scheme,  on behalf of the Foxwood Residents’ Association in relation to the proposals. She urged the Executive Member not to agree to filling in the layby, advised that she would prefer no speed bumps but noting that a 20mph limit would be acceptable. She asked that barriers be considered first, then a 20mph speed limit as well as looking at sight  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

This report presents the consultation results for four different areas (South Bank Avenue; St Aubyn’s Place; Beresford Terrace area; St Peter’s Quarter, Martins Court and Carleton Street) undertaken between February and April and determines what action is appropriate.

Resolved:

That  an amendment to the York Parking, Stopping and Waiting Traffic Regulation Order, to introduce Residents’ Priority Parking Areas for the following, be advertised for the following areas:

South Bank Avenue – (Option 1 be agreed, to advertise an amendment to the Traffic Regulation Order to extend the existing R57 residents priority parking scheme to include No’s 1 – 108 South Bank Avenue, 64 Nunthorpe Grove and 147 – 149 Bishopthorpe Road, to create a new larger zone boundary as per plan in Annex A1(A) in addition convert the whole zone to Community – R57C, this enables businesses to purchase permits for the zone. 

Reason: This is the recommended option because it reflects the majority view of all residents consulted as a whole and removes the likelihood of problems relocating further up South Bank Avenue.

St Aubyn’s Place – (Option 1 be agreed, to advertise an amendment to the Traffic Regulation Order to include a Residents’ Priority Parking Area for St Aubyn’s Place to operate between 9am and 5pm, 7 days a week.

Reason: This is the recommended option because it reflects the majority opinion.

Beresford Terrace area – (Option 1be agreed, to advertise an amendment to the Traffic Regulation Order to extend the existing R58C residents parking zone to include the whole consultation area. This would create one large zone as per plan in Annex C1(A).

Reason: This is the recommended option as it reflects the majority view of all residents consulted as a whole. By introducing one large zone this increases the on street parking available to residents.

St Peter’s Quarter, Martins Court and Carleton Street – (Option 1 be agreed, to advertise an amendment to the Traffic Regulation Order to include a Residents Priority Parking Area for the St Peter’s Quarter development only.

Martins Court and Carleton Street; No further action at this time.  If residents of these streets raise a petition requesting resident parking within 18 months of any implementation of a scheme on St Peter’s Quarter we request authorisation to undertake additional consultation at that time with a view to adding them to the same scheme.

Advertise a proposal to include No Waiting at any Time restrictions (double yellow lines) at the entrance to the development and in the fountain turning area as shown on the plan at Annex D4.

Reason: This is the recommended option because it reflects the majority view of residents from the streets consulted.

The Executive Member considered a report which provided the consultation results for the possible introduction of residents parking in South Bank Avenue; St Aubyn’s Place; Beresford Terrace area; and St Peter’s Quarter, Martins Court and Carleton Street. Consultation had been undertaken in all four areas between February and April 2017 to determine what action was appropriate.

Six people had registered to speak under public participation with regard to the results of the consultation.

Laura Kent spoke in support of the introduction of residents parking in response to parking issues in South Bank. As a residentof Bishopthorpe Road, she requested that house numbers 151 and 153 be included as she lived in a row of 3 houses and 149 had been included in the consultation but 151 and 153 had not.

Mike Bainbridge also spoke as a resident of Bishopthorpe Road in relation to residents parking. He expressed his support for the introduction of residents parking giving examples of abuse of on street parking which had occurred to date. 

Mrs Walker spoke in objection to the proposed changes on St Aubyn’s Place. As an elderly resident, she expressed concerns that, if a residents parking scheme was introduced, she would have to pay for people to be able to park to come and visit and provide her with help.

Peter O’Reilly spoke in support of the proposals for St Martin’s Court, St Peter’s Quarter. He stated that there had been several near accidents as a result of children playing out and although there were currently signs stating it was residents parking only, cars were frequently observed being left there by those working in the city centre.

Peter Emsley spoke in relation to Phoenix Boulevard in St Peter’s Quarter. He stated that there continued to be a safety issue and asked that this be kept under review and requested that speed restriction signs be considered.

Councillor Mary Cannon spoke as  Holgate Ward Councillor. She expressed her support for residents’ approach to the introduction of residents parking. She thanked officers for their hard work in relation to the proposals and gave her support for the implementation of 24 hour restrictions.

The Executive Member considered options as follows for each of the four areas:

South Bank Avenue

·        Option 1, to advertise an amendment to the Traffic Regulation Order to extend the existing R57 residents priority parking scheme to include No’s 1 – 108 South Bank Avenue, 64 Nunthorpe Grove and 147 – 153 Bishopthorpe Road, to create a new larger zone boundary as per plan in Annex A1(A) in addition convert the whole zone to Community – R57C, this enables businesses to purchase permits for the zone. 

·        Option 2, to advertise an amendment to the Traffic Regulation Order to extend the existing R57 residents priority parking scheme to include consulted properties up to Trafalgar Street only, the section of street that the petition represented. In addition convert the zone to Community – R57C, this enables included businesses to purchase permits for the zone.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The report presents the outcome of consultation carried out with residents and businesses in and off Fossgate in relation to potential traffic management changes.

Resolved:

(i)      That Option 4 be approved, to take forward  an Experimental traffic regulation order for up to 18 months to create a pedestrian zone except for access and pedal cycles 8am to 6pm, 7 days a week and to reverse the direction of the one way traffic flow.

Reason:  Because there is a good level of support indicated from the consultation and an Experimental scheme enables the council to respond rapidly to any unexpected issues that might arise during the experiment period; and

(ii)      That Option 7 be approved, to give delegated authority to  officers to:

(a)         determine where street cafes can be positioned between the hours of 11am and 5pm.

(b)         advertise a proposal to amend the York Parking Stopping and Waiting Traffic Order 2014 to include a no loading restriction for 10-15 metres at the Pavement end of Fossgate.

Reason: To further enhances the pedestrian priority in the street and provide good flexibility within the experimental period.

The Executive Member considered a report which detailed the outcome of consultation carried out with residents and businesses in and off Fossgate in relation to potential traffic management changes including making the street a pedestrian zone, reversing the one way traffic flow and re-allocating road space for street cafes.

The Executive Member considered two written representations which had been received from Councillor Andrew Waller and Mr Paul Hepworth on behalf of Cycling UK.

Councillor Waller’s written statement expressed concern that the reversal of traffic flow without an improvement to the safety of turning right from Coppergate into Piccadilly would lead to safety issues for cyclists. It stressed the importance of having a comprehensive cycling and pedestrian strategy for the city in order that a holistic approach could be considered whenever traffic flows on individual roads were being considered.

Mr Hepworth’s written statement welcomed the proposal to retain daytime access for cyclists in Fossgate and advised that the proposals would provide a useful test bed for the current DfT guidance on sharing space in Vehicle Restricted Areas and suggested looking at the streetscape design included in guidance. He advised caution in regard to the need to be realistic and accept that some cyclists may continue to misuse Fossgate by riding the wrong way along it. He asked that the extent to which this occurred should be monitored during the trial, with a view to considering legalising two way cycling in the future, both in Fossgate and Merchantgate.

Two people had registered to speak under the public participation scheme.

Mr John Pybus addressed the meeting on behalf of the Fossgate Association and as landlord of the Blue Bell pub in support of the proposals. He advised the Executive Member that the Fossgate Association had organised festivals in the street which had helped the street to become a better place and increased footfall had helped retailers. He felt that proposals would enable Fossgate to become a more vibrant and pedestrian friendly place to be but expressed some concerns about how the new rules would be enforced.

Councillor Denise Craghill spoke as Ward Councillor. She expressed her support for the proposals and felt that the recommended options represented a good balance of the consultation responses and that an experimental period would allow any concerns arising to be responded to. With regard to enforcement, she asked for assurances that the council would work with the police from an early stage. With reference to capital investment being announced, she questioned how it was intended to take forward the physical improvements needed (consultation and timescales) and how this would link with traffic management.

The Executive Member considered the following options:

A pedestrian zone except for access and pedal cycles, plus reversal of the one way traffic flow.

·        Option 1, take no further action.

·        Option 2, to approve taking forward a permanent TRO to create a pedestrian zone except for access and pedal cycles.

·        Option 3, to approve taking forward a permanent TRO as option 2  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The report summarises the consultation results for Holgate Central undertaken in February and determines what action is appropriate.

Resolved: 

That approval be given to advertise an amendment to the York Parking, Stopping and Waiting Traffic Regulation Order, to introduce a Residents’ Priority Parking Area, as outlined in Option 1 of the report as detailed below:

(a)     Advertise an amendment to the Traffic Regulation Order to extend the R60 Residents’ Priority Parking Area to operate Monday to Saturday as outlined on the plan at Annex F of the report (excluding private streets and St Paul’s Mews).

(b)     St Paul’s Mews to be reconsidered for inclusion in the scheme if further representations are made within a 18 month period from implementation of any neighbouring scheme.

(c)     The bays on Watson Street to be marked and signed individually to allow 2 hour parking for non-permit holders.

(d)     Advertise an amendment to the eligibility requirements of Commercial Permits to allow staff from St Paul’s Nursery School and St Paul’s CE Primary School to purchase permits to park.

Current Eligibility: “A person who, in the course of that person’s business or calling, is required to visit residential or business premises within a zone.” These are issued for use away from the normal place of work.  Recommended Addition: “Any staff member of an education establishment for 0 to 18 year olds that doesn’t have off street parking provision at the time the residents parking zone is implemented.”

(e)     Replace and add street name plates for Enfield Crescent and Wilton Rise to include wording “Private Street, Resident Parking Only”

Reason: To progress the majority views of the residents consulted and to take into consideration the needs of the schools and churches in the area

The Executive Member considered a report which provided details of the consultation results for Holgate Central undertaken in February 2017 and sought to determine what action was appropriate.

The Executive Member considered written representations from Councillor Sonja Crisp and Richard Knowles, Headteacher of St Paul’s C of E Primary School.

Councillor Sonja Crisp’s written representation expressed concerns regarding the issue of altering the current practice regarding eligibly for ResPark permits to include teachers and employees of schools such as St Paul’s Primary. While acknowledging sympathy for them, she noted the difficulties faced by residents in finding parking in streets near their own homes in this area. She expressed concerns that providing permits to as many as 25 school staff would push residents over into neighbouring streets which had no ResPark (despite having paid for ResPark themselves) and therefore causing problems elsewhere. She requested that if the decision was taken to allow school staff passes, that these be restricted to working hours so that staff were not able leave their cars there during evenings and weekends when parking spaces should be available for residents.

Richard Knowles, Headteacher of St Paul’s, advised that the school would support option 1, allowing the school to purchase a number of commercial permits which would allow the school’s staff and visitors to be able to park vehicles in the vicinity of the school. However he expressed concern that the proposed cost for a commercial permit,  which was higher than what they had been lead to believe, was excessive for St Paul’s to bear and asked that this be reviewed in light of their unique situation. On the understanding that these permits were not for a particular vehicle registration but for use by any staff member or visitor needing to park in the vicinity of the school, he advised that the school would require up to 20 transferable commercial permits.

The following 6 people addressed the meeting under public participation with regard to the consultation process:

Philip Hunter spoke on behalf of St Paul’s Church with regard to the effect the proposals would have on the church, located off St Paul’s Terrace. He advised the Executive Member that the area suffered from commuter parking by those who travelled from the rail station or who worked in town. He advised that there were only 3-4 spaces available for church users who were encouraged to car share or walk to the church. He expressed a preference for the restrictions to be time limited to allow those attending church services to park on street when needed.

Jenny Hartland, a resident of St Paul’s Terrace, spoke in support of the proposals. She advised that the streets were now used as a free car park for those using the city centre, rail station and those visiting the National Railway Museum with some using the streets for long term parking for up to a week at a time. She also noted an increase in the regularity of parcel deliveries which had led to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Two separate petitions have been received calling for works to be carried out to the highway at The Horseshoe and Muncastergate. The Executive Member for Transport and Planning is recommended to note the petitions and consider the detail of this report as well as the conclusions drawn.

Resolved:

(i)      That the petitions detailed in paragraph 5 of the report be noted.

(ii)      That the detail of the report  and the conclusions drawn in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the report be noted.

Reason:To ensure the effective delivery of funding to address key  priorities across the cities highway network

The Executive Member considered a report which provided an update in relation to two petitions which had been received calling for works to be carried out to the highway at The Horseshoe in Dringhouses and Muncastergate.

Councillor Mason addressed the meeting as Ward Councillor for Dringhouses and Woodthorpe in relation to The Horseshoe petition. He advised that residents had been concerned about the safety in the Horseshoe for some time but were concerned that it would take some time to get to the top of the list and requested that action be taken as soon as possible.

The Executive Member considered the outputs of the inspections shown at Annex 1 and detailed in paragraphs 9 to 12 of the report. He noted that a further review would take place following the 2017 inspection and any identified schemes would be considered for the 2018/19 highways programme. He acknowledged that routine highway safety inspections would identify any actionable defects that required repairs and routine maintenance funding would address these defects but that no further work was scheduled in the 2017/18 highways programme at both locations and no further options were available at this time.

Officers explained that inspections in respect of next year’s programme would take place over the next few months. The Horseshoe and the adopted section of Muncastergate would be looked at again as part of consideration of the results of the annual conditions surveys.

The Executive Member acknowledged that all roads in the city were assessed and prioritised on a regular basis to ensure that required work was carried out in a fair manner.

Resolved:

(i)      That the petitions detailed in paragraph 5 of the report be noted.

(ii)      That the detail of the report and the conclusions drawn in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the report be noted.

Reason:To ensure the effective delivery of funding to address key priorities across the cities highway network

The report acknowledges the receipt of a petition and determines what action is appropriate.

Resolved:

(i)      That Option 3 be approved and that the Danesmead Estate and Fulford Cross Area be added to the Residents parking waiting list and an investigation carried out when it reaches the top of the list.

Reason: Because this will respond to residents concerns in the order they are raised and can be progressed depending on funding available each year.

(ii)      That a strategic review of the Residents Parking policy be undertaken

Reason: To provide a more strategic and effective response to residents parking concerns in the city.

The Executive Member considered a report which informed him of the receipt of a petition which requested that “dangerous and inconsiderate parking on the estate by tackled by double yellow lines and residents parking”

Officers advised that they had received another petition from the Fulford Cross area which was adjacent to the Danesmead Estate. This had been anticipated in the preparation of the Danesmead petition report with option 3 putting forward the possibility of widening the consultation area depending on circumstances at the time. They therefore recommended that consultation on a single residents parking scheme covering both petition areas be carried out in due course.

Councillor D’Agorne addressed the meeting as Ward Councillor for Fishergate. He advised that the current proposals would have an effect on the Steiner School which was why Fulford Cross Area needed to be considered at the same time. He advised that there was evidence of commuter parking in the area with commuters then walking or cycling into town to work and welcomed the inclusion of Fulford Cross in the consultation. He expressed concern that delaying the Beresford Terrace scheme would have a knock on effect and could exacerbate problems on the Danesmead Estate and Fulford Cross, noting that some displacement would occur. He expressed the opinion  that a scheme covering Monday to Friday 9am – 5pm would gain most support.

The Executive Member considered the following options:

·        Option 1, to note the petition but take no action.

·        Option 2, to approve the initial consultation.

·        Option 3, to give approval to progress an investigation when the area reaches the top of the waiting list along with the option of widening the consultation depending on circumstances at the time.

Resolved:

(i)      That Option 3 be approved and that the Danesmead Estate and Fulford Cross Area be added to the Residents parking waiting list and an investigation carried out when it reaches the top of the list.

Reason: Because this will respond to residents concerns in the order they are raised and can be progressed depending on funding available each year.

(ii)      That a strategic review of the Residents Parking policy be undertaken

Reason: To provide a more strategic and effective response to residents parking concerns in the city.

The report acknowledges the receipt of a petition and determines what action is appropriate.

Resolved:

(i)      That the petition, requesting that consideration is given to yellow lines at the entrance to the Mews and the implementation of a resident only parking scheme,  be noted

(ii)      That the information be added to the Annual Review but that no further action be taken at this time.

Reason:  Because the issue is already on the Annual Review of traffic regulation order requests list for investigation.

The Executive Member considered a report which informed him of the receipt of a petition which asked the City of York Council to “address inconsiderate parking in Barbican Mews” and put forward two proposals to alleviate the problem

a)   Yellow lines at the entrance to the Mews

b)   The implementation of a residents’ only parking scheme to be extended along the full length of Barbican Mews.

Councillor D’Agorne spoke as Ward Member acknowledging residents’ concerns in relation to parking problems on Barbican Mews.

The Executive Member considered the following options:

·        Option 1, to note the petition and add the information to the annual review but take no further action at this time.

·        Option 2, to approve the investigation and consultation to be carried out as a one off item.

Officers advised that concerns about parking at the entrance to the Mews had already been brought to their attention and confirmed that the Mews was already included in the Annual Review of Traffic Regulation Order Requests list for investigation.

Resolved:

(i)      That the petition, requesting that consideration is given to yellow lines at the entrance to the Mews and the implementation of a resident only parking scheme, be noted

(ii)      That the information be added to the Annual Review but that no further action be taken at this time.

Reason:  Because the issue is already on the Annual Review of Traffic Regulation Order Requests list for investigation.

The report acknowledges the receipt of a petition and determines what action is appropriate.

Resolved:

(i)      That Option 3 be approved and Rosedale Street be added to the Residents parking waiting list and an investigation carried out when it reaches the top of the list.

Reason: Because this will respond to residents concerns in the order they are raised and can be progressed depending on funding available each year.

(ii)      That a strategic review of the Residents Parking policy be undertaken.

Reason:  To provide a more strategic and effective response to residents parking concerns in the city. 

The Executive Member considered a report which informed him of the receipt of a petition requesting that “the City of York Council Parking Enforcement include Rosedale Street in the R20 Residents Parking Scheme”

Two people had registered to speak at the meeting under public participation.

Councillor D’Agorne addressed the meeting as Ward Member for Fishergate. While he acknowledged that the normal process was to consult with every resident of the street, he asked if there was  an opportunity in this case to speed up the process as every resident of the street had already indicated via the petition that they wanted a ResPark scheme.

Officers noted his comments but advised that residents would still need to be consulted formally as they would need to be made aware of the financial implications of the scheme before confirming their views.

Michael Conboy, a resident of Rosedale Street, addressed the meeting in support of residents parking in Rosedale Street as a continuation of R20. He explained that parking congestion in Rosedale Street was exacerbated by double yellow lines on the corners of junctions as well as by the introduction of permit parking in Grange Street, which now had several empty spaces, with some Grange Street residents choosing to park for free in Rosedale Street instead of paying for a permit to park in their own street. He advised that he had spoken to fellow residents of Rosedale Street, all of whom were in favour of a permit scheme.

The Executive Member considered the following options:

·        Option 1, to note the petition but take no action.

·        Option 2, to approve the initial consultation.

·        Option 3, to give approval to progress an investigation when the area reaches the top of the waiting list along with the option of widening the consultation depending on circumstances at the time.

Resolved:

(i)      That Option 3 be approved and Rosedale Street be added to the Residents parking waiting list and an investigation carried out when it reaches the top of the list.

Reason: Because this will respond to residents concerns in the order they are raised and can be progressed depending on funding available each year.

(ii)      That a strategic review of the Residents Parking policy be undertaken.

Reason:  To provide a more strategic and effective response to residents parking concerns in the city. 

This report seeks permission to undertake a tendering exercise for the provision of specialist traffic signal engineering design services to support internal resources in the Transport Team. This is the retendering of an ongoing provision and is required to support the continued successful delivery of the Traffic Signals Asset Renewal (TSAR) Programme.

Resolved:           That the tendering and subsequent award of engineering design support services, to support the delivery of the Traffic Signals Asset Renewals (TSAR) Programme up to a value of £300,000 over four years, be approved.

Reason:     To provide specialist traffic signal engineering design services to support CYC staff in the ongoing delivery of the remaining four years of the TSAR Programme. This service is required to provide capability in the design and implementation of traffic signals schemes in addition to the general highways and civil engineering design and construction support provided internally by the Highways and Projects Teams.

The Executive Member considered a report which sought permission to undertake a tendering exercise for the provision of specialist traffic signal engineering design services to support internal resources in the Transport Team, noting that this was the retendering of an ongoing provision and was required to support the continued successful delivery of the Traffic Signals Asset Renewal (TSAR) Programme. 

The Executive Member considered the following options:

·        the appointment of an external provider as proposed above, or

·        Create and fill additional posts on the Council staffing structure to deliver the required services.

Officers confirmed that the best option was to buy in services from a consultant as they were not needed on a continual basis The Executive Member noted that this arrangement would allow the council to renew and improve traffic signals and, in turn, improve traffic flow in the city.

Resolved:  That the tendering and subsequent award of engineering design support services, to support the delivery of the Traffic Signals Asset Renewals (TSAR) Programme up to a value of £300,000 over four years, be approved.

Reason:     To provide specialist traffic signal engineering design services to support CYC staff in the ongoing delivery of the remaining four years of the TSAR Programme. This service is required to provide capability in the design and implementation of traffic signals schemes in addition to the general highways and civil engineering design and construction support provided internally by the Highways and Projects Teams.