Local democracy during coronavirus

During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates for more information on meetings and decisions.

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: The Thornton Room - Ground Floor, West Offices (G039). View directions

Contact: Louise Cook and Catherine Clarke (job-share)  Democratic Services

Webcast: video recording

Items
No. Item

16.

Declarations of Interest

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 may have in respect of business on this agenda.

 

Minutes:

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. He confirmed he had none.

 

17.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 232 KB

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 12 July 2018.

Minutes:

Resolved:  That the minutes of the Decision Session of the Executive Member for Transport and Planning held on 12 July 2018 be approved and signed by the Executive Member as a correct record.

18.

Public Participation

At this point in the meeting, members of the public who have registered to speak can do so. The deadline for registering is 5.00pm on Wednesday 15 August 2018.  Members of the public can speak on agenda items or matters within the Executive Member’s remit.

 

To register to speak please contact the Democracy Officers for the meeting, on the details at the foot of the agenda.

 

Filming, Recording or Webcasting Meetings

Please note that, subject to available resources, this meeting will be filmed and webcast, or recorded, including any registered public speakers who have given their permission. The broadcast can be viewed at http://www.york.gov.uk/webcasts or, if recorded, this 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, i.e. tweeting. Anyone wishing to film, record or take photos at any public meeting should contact the Democracy Officers (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

 

https://www.york.gov.uk/downloads/file/11406/protocol_for_webcasting_filming_and_recording_of_council_meetings_20160809

 

 

Minutes:

It was reported that there had been four registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

 

Three residents spoke in relation to agenda item 5 (Consideration of Two Residents’ Parking Petitions) with regard to the petition calling for the introduction of residents parking on Main, First and Second Avenue in Heworth.

 

Gareth Simpson, a local resident, spoke in objection to the introduction of residents parking on Second Avenue. He stated that there were sufficient places to park on both Second and Main Avenue and there was a clear consensus from residents against residents parking. He expressed the view that if it was introduced, people would have to look for parking places on neighbouring streets making traffic busier around the primary school, it could also lead to problems for people, especially the elderly, accessing  Heworth’s local amenities if there was nowhere to park.

 

Amy Reynolds, another local resident, also spoke in objection to the introduction of residents parking on Second Avenue . She pointed out that the petition represented the views of only a small minority of households and questioned whether all residents had been aware of the petition. She also expressed concern that restricting parking could threaten the thriving community of independent cafes, shops, post office and amenities in Heworth Village.

 

Kerry Gregory, a local resident read out a statement on behalf of the lead petitioner explaining their reasons for putting the petition forward. It stated that, as commuter parking increased, residents found it increasing difficult to park near their homes and sometimes had to park on neighbouring streets; this caused problems especially for older residents. It raised concerns that cars were sometimes parked for a number of days without being removed and expressed the view that there was a need for a more coordinated residents parking scheme.

 

Brian Bartle, of Bartles Ltd Chartered Surveyors, addressed the Executive Member in relation to agenda item 8 (Submission of Definitive Map Modification Order). He spoke on behalf of local objectors of the proposed change of Grange Lane to Rufforth Airfield from footpath to restricted byway. He stated that there was no unequivocal evidence of the route in the past, plans had never been found, there was no evidence of users and the routes highlighted were under two different names with different widths, the route did not connect highways and there was no benefit to changing the status of this route.

19.

EPetition: Approve More Houses for Lower Income Residents in York pdf icon PDF 237 KB

This report outlines the approach proposed to respond to an EPetition entitled ‘Approve more houses for lower income residents in York’, which was submitted by a local resident.

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved: That the petition be noted.

Reason:     It is considered that the policy position in the emerging Local plan, which is based on a sound evidence base,  will guide development and inform the consideration and determination of  planning applications.

 

Minutes:

The Executive Member considered a report which outlined the proposed approach to an EPetition entitled ‘Approve more houses for lower income residents in York’ which was submitted by a local resident on 12 April 2018. The petition called for the council to adjust planning rules to restrict the amounts of luxury flats and student accommodation in the city and focus more on housing mix for affordable housing and family homes.

 

The Development Officer drew the Executive Member’s attention to the written representation which had also been submitted by the petitioner  stating that while he was pleased with some of the steps the council was taking, he outlined his continued concerns about housing mix and proposed that the council implement a local scheme to promote local needs first in terms of affordable housing.

 

She advised that officers recognised that issues raised in petition had close links to Local Plan which had been submitted for independent examination and its contents and evidence base were being considered. She explained that, in line with national policy, the local plan sought to provide sufficient homes to meet the city’s needs both in quantum and the types and mix of properties that were to be delivered. The issue had been considered in detail through the evidence base underpinning the plan and in the strategic housing needs assessment and that suggested that there was a continued need for both family housing and affordable homes as well as mix and range of properties.

 

The Executive Member acknowledged that issues raised in the petition were ones that were being dealt with through the local plan examination and the inspectors would be considering relevant policies to this petition, its evidence base and any consultation comments previously raised in relation to housing need, affordable housing and types and mix of properties. He noted that if the inspector made any changes to the policies, the council would then undertake consultation on those changes so there would also be further opportunity for members of public to comment.

 

Resolved: That the petition be noted.

 

Reason:     It is considered that the policy position in the emerging Local plan, which is based on a sound evidence base,  will guide development and inform the consideration and determination of  planning applications.

20.

Consideration of Two Residents Parking Petitions: Main, First & Second Avenues and Balmoral Terrace pdf icon PDF 1 MB

To report the receipt of two petitions, one in relation to Main, First and Second Avenues and the other in relation to Balmoral Terrace, and to determine what action is appropriate in each case.

Decision:

Resolved

 

(i)      That with regard to the petition relating to Main, First and Second Avenues, option 2 be approved and the streets be added to the residents parking waiting list and an investigation and consultation about any future scheme be carried out when they reach 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 with regard to the petition relating to Balmoral Terrace, option 4 be approved and the area be added to the residents parking waiting list and an investigation and consultation about any future scheme be 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.

 

Minutes:

The Executive Member considered a report which acknowledged receipt of two petitions and proposed appropriate action in each case. The first petition called for the council to consider establishing a suitable residents only scheme parking in Main, First and Second Avenue, Heworth and the second petition asked the Council to list Balmoral Terrace for consultation about becoming a priority residents parking zone.

 

The Council’s Traffic Team Leader drew the Executive Member’s attention to the list of written representations received which included comments received from local residents in objection to the petition relating to Main, First and Second Avenues. He explained the process for dealing with petitions requesting residents only parking schemes.

 

Officers confirmed that the reference to the Danesmead Close item in paragraph 3 of the report was an error and not part of the recommendation.

 

The Executive Member acknowledged the comments included in the written representations and those made by the three speakers under public participation. He agreed that both areas (Main, First & Second Avenues  and Balmoral Terrace) should be added to the residents parking waiting list so that an investigation and full consultation could be carried out with local residents about options for any future scheme.

 

Resolved

 

(i)      That with regard to the petition relating to Main, First and Second Avenues, option 2 be approved and the streets be added to the residents parking waiting list and an investigation and consultation about any future scheme be carried out when they reach 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 with regard to the petition relating to Balmoral Terrace, option 4 be approved and the area be added to the residents parking waiting list and an investigation and consultation about any future scheme be 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.

 

21.

Strensall to Haxby - Danger Reduction Scheme pdf icon PDF 299 KB

This report updates the Executive Member on the investigation into reducing the speed limit and introducing traffic calming on the rural roads between Haxby and Strensall, following receipt of a petition. It also includes the results of a consultation exercise with local ward and parish councillors with regard the proposed scheme.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved:  That option 2 be approved and the Executive Member agrees to the introduction of a reduced set of measures, as set out in Annex C to the report, which takes into account the comments from consultees.

 

Reason:     To highlight the presence of vulnerable road users and reduce the level of perceived danger for local residents and other road users.

 

Minutes:

The Executive Member considered a report which provided an update with regard to the investigation into reducing the speed limit and introducing traffic calming on the rural roads between Haxby and Strensall, following receipt of a petition. It also included the results of a consultation exercise with local ward and parish councillors with regard to the proposed scheme.

 

The Acting Transport Projects Managerupdated the Executive Member and advised that the investigations and consultation showed that there were no problems with the road layout, no accident problem and the speed limit was complied with, however there was a perceived danger for some more vulnerable road users. The Executive Member noted that concern had been expressed about  increasing the amount of street clutter therefore a reduced set of measures was recommended with supplementary information to be provided on warning signs referring people to vulnerable road users as well as refreshed road markings.

 

Resolved:  That option 2 be approved and a reduced set of measures, as set out in Annex C to the report, be introduced taking into account the comments from consultees.

 

Reason:     To highlight the presence of vulnerable road users and reduce the level of perceived danger for local residents and other road users.

 

22.

Consideration of results from the consultation in Sussex Road and immediate area following a petition received requesting Residents' Priority Parking pdf icon PDF 188 KB

The report sets out the consultation results undertaken in May for Sussex Road, Sussex Close and the affected properties which have frontages/access onto the proposed area.

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved:  That no further action be taken towards the implementation of Residents Priority parking on Sussex Road and immediate area and the consulted area be removed from the Residents Parking waiting list.  

 

Reason:     The required response rate has not been met along with the close percentage vote received for and against the scheme. 

 

Minutes:

The Executive Member considered a report which provided the results of consultation undertaken in May for Sussex Road, Sussex Close and the affected properties which have frontages/access onto the proposed area following receipt of a petition requesting residents priority parking.

 

The Council’s Traffic Team Leader confirmed that the required 50% response rate had not been achieved for the consultation  for the scheme to be taken forward and those responses received showed that numbers for and against a scheme were very close. Therefore their recommendation was to take no further action for the reasons set out in the report.

 

The Executive Member acknowledged that all residents had had the opportunity to respond to the consultation but that the response rate had been below the 50% response rate required.

 

Resolved:  That no further action be taken towards the implementation of Residents Priority parking on Sussex Road and immediate area and the consulted area be removed from the Residents Parking waiting list.  

 

Reason:     The required response rate has not been met along with the close percentage vote received for and against the scheme. 

 

23.

Submission of Definitive Map Modification Order "The Council of the City of York Public Footpath, Knapton No.4 (Grange Lane to Rufforth Airfield)"to the Secretary of State for Determining also requests that the Secretary of State change the Order Route from Footpath to Restricted Byway. pdf icon PDF 166 KB

The report advises the Executive Member that a number of objections have been received to the above Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) on the grounds that Grange Lane was a public road and should properly be recorded on the definitive map as a restricted byway rather than a footpath. The Executive Member is asked to request that the secretary of state modifies the order to show Grange Lane as a public restricted byway when it is sent to the Planning Inspectorate for determining.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved:  That approval be given to submit the order to the secretary of state asking that the order be modified to record the route as a restricted byway. All evidence and representations received by the council would be included when the order was submitted.

 

Reason:     All the available evidence indicates that this route was a public road. Rights for mechanically propelled vehicles were removed by the NERC Act 2006. However, all other public rights for pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists, and horse and cart remain.

 

Minutes:

The Executive Member considered a report which advised him that a number of objections had been received to the above definitive map modification order on the grounds that Grange Lane was a public road and should properly be recorded on the definite map as a restricted byway rather than a footpath.

 

The Definitive Map Officer stated that there was sufficient evidence to show this route had previously been a road and that no steps had been taken to remove any existing rights from the old road.

 

The Executive Member acknowledged the comments made by Mr Bartle under public participation and also the comments submitted by another local resident as a written representation. He noted that a pack of evidence, including the views of Mr Bartle and the resident who had submitted a written representation, would be sent to the Secretary of State for consideration with the modification order.

 

Resolved:  That approval be given to submit the order to the secretary of state asking that the order be modified to record the route as a restricted byway. All evidence and representations received by the council would be included when the order was submitted.

 

Reason:     All the available evidence indicates that this route was a public road. Rights for mechanically propelled vehicles were removed by the NERC Act 2006. However, all other public rights for pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists, and horse and cart remain.

 

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page