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: Remote Meeting

Contact: Democratic Services 

Items
No. Item

6.

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.

 

The Executive Member for Transport confirmed that he had a prejudicial interest in agenda item 4, FS-17-23 Bikehanger Pilot Scheme, in that he had instigated the funding and trial for the project as the Ward Member. He confirmed that he would withdraw from the meeting for this item and that Cllr Waller, Executive Member for Economy and Strategic Planning, would take the decision.

 

The Executive Member also declared a personal non prejudicial interest in agenda item 5, Consideration of Representations received in response to advertised amendments to the Traffic Regulation Order, annex C3, Moorcroft Road, in that he attends the dentist surgery located on that road.

7.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 135 KB

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 22 June 2020.

Minutes:

Resolved:  That the minutes of the Decision Session of the Executive Member for Transport held on 22 June 2020 be approved as a correct record and be signed by the Executive Member at a later date.

8.

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 Friday 17 July 2020.  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 Officer for the meeting, on the details at the foot of the agenda.

 

To register to speak please contact Democratic Services, on the details at the foot of the agenda. You will then be advised on the procedures for dialling into the remote meeting.

 

Webcasting of Remote Public Meetings

 

Please note that, subject to available resources, this remote public meeting will be webcast including any registered public speakers who have given their permission. The remote public meeting can be viewed live and on demand at www.york.gov.uk/webcasts.

 

During the coronavirus pandemic, we've made some changes to the way we run council meetings. See our coronavirus updates (www.york.gov.uk/COVIDDemocracy) for more information on meetings and decisions.

 

 

Minutes:

It was reported that there had been 8 registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme but that only 7 spoke at the meeting. It was also noted that 3 written representations had also been received.

 

Cllr Dave Taylor, Ward Member for Fishergate submitted a written representation regarding agenda item 4, FS-17-23 Bikehanger Pilot Scheme. Although he supported the pilot scheme and felt it should become a permanent feature, he queried if the hanger could be moved a few feet towards the junction with Cemetery Road, to free-up more space for parking.

 

The following spoke on agenda item 5, Consideration of Representations received in response to advertised amendments to the Traffic Regulation Order.

 

Joy White, a local resident, spoke and provided a written representation regarding Annex K, Mount Vale Drive. She highlighted her concerns with regard to parked cars that often put road users and pedestrians in jeopardy, particularly around the Mount Vale Drive and Moorgarth Avenue junction. Although the proposed scheme would go some way to mitigating this, she felt the consultation suggested by the Ward Councillors would be ideal and should identify a longer term, more comprehensive and a safer solution.

 

Keith Topping, a local resident, spoke and provided a written representation regarding Annex L, Meadowbeck Close. He highlighted the parking problems located around Meadowbeck Nursing Home and it was noted that cars often parked on the pavement in places which were most likely to obstruct delivery vehicles.

 

Helen Morritt, a local resident, spoke on Annex M2, Oakdale Road. She highlighted the traffic problems in the area and felt that the proposed parking restrictions outlined were a good compromise and would make Oakdale Road much safer, whilst still allowing for a few cars to be parked.

 

Cllr Fenton, Ward Member for Dringhouses & Woodthorpe spoke on Annex C. He thanked officers in the Highways team for their work in responding to residents’ requests for action to tackle problem parking at a number of locations around his Ward and he raised concerns relating to Moorcroft Road. He stated that motorists parking on both sides of the road, outside the dentist and GP surgery, caused restricted access, particularly for the number 12 bus. He raised resident’s frustrations and stated that enforcement was going to be crucial if the recommendation was approved and the double yellow lines were installed.

 

Two written representations were also received in response to agenda item 5, Consideration of Representations received in response to advertised amendments to the Traffic Regulation Order.

 

L Gonsalves wrote regarding Annex M2. She raised her concerns regarding Bransholme Drive, stating that the proposals could make it hard for some residents to see when pulling out of their drives onto Oakdale Road.  She felt a no waiting sign, Monday – Friday, 8am to 5pm, would be more effective in reducing the number of parked cars.

 

Mr R Boldison confirmed that his original objection still stood and that he hoped for the sake of all residents, the result went the right  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

FS-17-23 Bikehanger Pilot scheme pdf icon PDF 280 KB

This report summarises the results of the pilot scheme, and asks the Executive Member to consider the views raised in objection to the proposal through a petition, and the comments of support, prior to making a decision on whether to make the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) permanent.

 

Subject to the decision on the ETRO the Executive Member is also asked to consider the retention of the cycle shelter for rental by the residents.

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved:

 

(i)      That option 1 be approved:

 

To consider the objections/representations and approve making the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) permanent.

 

(ii)      That the shelter be routinely cleaned and maintained, by the supplier, including the removal of graffiti.

 

Reason: To continue to provide secure cycle parking for residents and help reduce the number of thefts of cycles.

Minutes:

In respect of this item, the Executive Member for Economy and Strategic Planning substituted for the Executive Member for Transport.

 

At 10:03am the Executive Member for Transport withdrew from the meeting and the Executive Member for Economy and Strategic Planning joined the meeting.

 

The Acting Transport Projects Manager gave an update and informed the Executive Member that as part of the ward scheme programme, officers were requested to investigate and install a Bikehanger cycle shelter as part of a free trial at a location on Heslington Road within the Fishergate ward.  The shelter was provided by Cyclehoop Limited for an initial trial period of 6 months and a decision was now required on whether to make the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) permanent and retain the cycle shelter for rental by residents.

 

The Executive Member considered the report and annexes, which summarised the results of the Bikehanger pilot scheme, including the views raised in objection to the proposal through a petition and the comments in support.

 

In answer to some questions raised by the Executive Member, it was noted that:

·        The location of the shelter had been carefully considered and deemed to be the most suitable. The chosen position offered adequate space within the footway to allow the door to be opened and cycles to be safely placed within the shelter.

·        The trial had been successful and the shelter had 100% occupancy during the 6 months.

·        Should the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) be made permanent, Cyclehoop would continue to manage the rental scheme and routinely clean and maintain the shelter on a six monthly basis.

 

The Executive Member considered the options put forward in the report, he thanked officers for their update and

 

Resolved:

 

(i)      That Option 1 be approved:

 

Option 1: To consider the objections/representations and approve making the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) permanent.

 

(ii)    That the shelter be routinely cleaned and maintained, by the supplier, including the removal of graffiti.

 

Reason: To continue to provide secure cycle parking for residents and help reduce the number of thefts of cycles.

 

At 10:18am, the Executive Member for Transport returned to the meeting and the Executive Member for Economy and Strategic Planning withdrew from the meeting.

10.

Consideration of Representations received in response to advertised amendments to the Traffic Regulation Order pdf icon PDF 230 KB

The Executive Member is asked to consider the representations received, in support and objection, to advertised proposals to amend the Traffic Regulation Order.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved:

 

(i)  That the recommended approach for each request, as identified in Annexes A, B,C, D, E, F, H, I, J, L, M, N, O, be approved.

 

(ii)     Regarding Annex G, that option 2 of the officer’s report, to over-rule the objection and implement as advertised, be approved.

 

(iii)     Regarding Annex K, that option 1 of the officer’s report be approved, including an additional request that Ward Members consult with residents regarding the implementation of a residents’ parking scheme (ResPark) in the area.

 

Reason: To ensure that appropriate changes are made to traffic  restrictions to address concern raised.

 

 

Minutes:

The Executive Member for Transport received a report that asked him to consider the representations received, in support and objection, to advertised proposals to amend the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO).

 

The Assistant Director of Transport, Highways and Environment gave an update and the Acting Traffic Team Leader informed the Executive Member of the original proposals for each issue together with the representations received, as highlighted in the annexes to the report.

 

The Executive Member considered the following options for each annex:

 

a)   Implement as advertised

 

b)   Uphold the objections and take no further action

 

c)   Uphold the objections in part and implement a lesser restriction that advertised

 

d)  Other options relevant to the proposal and representations received.

 

The Executive Member thanked officers for their update and

 

Resolved: 

 

(i)            That the recommended approach for each request, as identified in Annexes A, B,C, D, E, F, H, I, J, L M, N,O, be approved.

 

(ii)         Regarding Annex G, that Option 2 of the officer’s report, to over-rule the objection and implement as advertised, be approved.

 

(iii)          Regarding Annex K, that Option 1 of the officer’s report be approved, including an additional request that Ward Councillors begin consultation with residents to ascertain if there would be interested in a Residents Parking Scheme.

 

Reason: To ensure that appropriate changes are made to traffic restrictions to address concern raised.

 

An adjournment took place at 11:39am until 11:45am.

11.

ResPark for the area around the University of York pdf icon PDF 1 MB

This report seeks the Executive Member’s approval to consult with residents regarding the expansion of the existing residents’ parking in the area around the University of York to suit the proposed strategy for extending the coverage of residents parking in the area around the University of York, for which the University of York has agreed, in principal, to fund its implementation (including consultation with residents) and administrative costs for the issue of permits and the operation of the enforcement hotline.

Decision:

Resolved:

 

(i)           That option 1b be approved and the residents’ parking scheme, either as an extension to the R39 Zone or as an additional zone based on the R39 Zone, be progressed directly to the Traffic Regulation Order consultation stage, with the exemption of the unadopted streets and retail areas, where officers will further consult, to enable the scheme to meet the needs of the community, the results of which will be reported back to an Executive Member for Transport Decision Session.

 

(ii)         That the scheme be progressed on the basis that the University of York would fund the implementation process, the issue of permits and operation of the enforcement hotline, up to a maximum level of funding of £42,100.

 

(iii)        That the Assistant Director of Transport, Highways and Environment and the Executive Member for Transport consult on the zone areas and notifications to be issued.

 

Reasons: After several years of negotiation the University of York (UoY) has agreed, in principle, to fund the implementation (including public consultation) of extending the existing residents parking zone R39 to incorporate on-street parking survey zones 5-8 and fund the issue of permits and operation of the enforcement hotline, up to a maximum level of funding of £42,100, from this point in time onwards until 15 years after the first occupancy of the Site (i.e. until 30 September 2024 as Goodricke College was first constructed and occupied in September 2009).

 

Failure to approve this option would result in further protracted negotiation with the UoY pertaining to the impact of UoY related parking on residential streets, the need for mitigation and the mitigation measures required, which is likely to lead to no mitigation being put in place prior to the time limiting period of 15 years after the first occupancy of the site in which to implement mitigation measures expiring.

Minutes:

The Executive Member considered a report that sought his approval to expand the existing residents parking in the area around the University of York (UoY), for which the University had agreed, in principal, to fund its implementation and administrative costs of the issue of permits and the operation of the enforcement hotline.

 

The Principal Development Control Engineer gave a brief introduction and highlighted the parking surveys that had taken place over the years including the negotiations with the University of York.

 

Officers answered the Executive Members questions and he noted that this had been a long standing issue in the area. He considered the options put forward in the report and confirmed he was keen to implement the scheme quickly, so as to avoid any delay in the implementation of this scheme, he  

 

Resolved:

 

(i)           That option 1b be approved and the residents’ parking scheme, either as an extension to the R39 Zone or as an additional zone based on the R39 Zone, be progressed directly to the Traffic Regulation Order consultation stage, with the exemption of the unadopted streets and retail areas, where officers will further consult, to enable the scheme to meet the needs of the community, the results of which will be reported back to an Executive Member for Transport Decision Session.

 

(ii)         That the scheme be progressed on the basis that the University of York would fund the implementation process, the issue of permits and operation of the enforcement hotline, up to a maximum level of funding of £42,100.

 

(iii)        That the Assistant Director of Transport, Highways and Environment and the Executive Member for Transport consult on the zone areas and notifications to be issued.

 

Reasons:   After several years of negotiation the UoY has agreed, in principle, to fund the implementation (including public consultation) of extending the existing residents parking zone R39 to incorporate on-street parking survey zones 5-8 and fund the issue of permits and operation of the enforcement hotline, up to a maximum level of funding of £42,100, from this point in time onwards until 15 years after the first occupancy of the Site (i.e. until 30 September 2024 as Goodricke College was first constructed and occupied in September 2009).

 

Failure to approve this option would result in further protracted negotiation with the UoY pertaining to the impact of UoY related parking on residential streets, the need for mitigation and the mitigation measures required, which is likely to lead to no mitigation being put in place prior to the time limiting period of 15 years after the first occupancy of the site in which to implement mitigation measures expiring.

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page