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 George Hudson Board Room - 1st Floor West Offices (F045). View directions

Contact: Bartek Wytrzyszczewski  Democracy Officer

Webcast: video recording

Items
No. Item

80.

Declarations of Interest

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.

 

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 declared several interests, all of which were personal and non-prejudicial, as listed below:

·        in relation to the agenda item 4 (Annual Review 2017-18: Traffic Regulation Order Representations), due to the fact that his father-in-law (a blue badge holder) used the doctor’s surgery on Moorcroft Road;

·        in relation to agenda item 6 (North York Bus Improvement Scheme), due to him being a bus number 6 user 1

·        in relation to the agenda item 6 (North York Bus Improvement Scheme), due to his past employment with FirstGroup and as a bus operator.

 

1[Amended at meeting on 14 June 2018 as this bullet point originally referred to item 4 instead of item 6]

81.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 203 KB

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

Minutes:

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

82.

Public Participation pdf icon PDF 214 KB

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 16 May 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 ten registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme. Additional speakers had been put on the waiting list and encouraged to send written representations published as a supplement to the agenda. Subject to time for public participation not exceeding 30 minutes in total, the Executive Member made the decision to let all the registered participants speak during the meeting.

 

Dave Lane spoke in relation to the agenda item 4 (Annual Review 2017-18: Traffic Regulation Order Representations) in his capacity as a local resident. He objected to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) on Dodson Terrace/Barlow Street, referring to the high parking pressure in the vicinity. He highlighted that numerous objections to the proposal had been received and that there was already a shortfall of parking spaces in the area. He noted that the proposal would remove ten additional parking spaces which would considerably increase the shortfall.

 

Mark Ibbotson, a local business owner, also spoke in relation to the agenda item 4, talking in favour of the restrictions at Clifton Moor Industrial Estate. He reported the following supporting reasons:

·        the width of the roads in the estate, which was not wide enough for cars to park on both sides;

·        the fact that people who parked their cars in the estate were not local residents or workers;

·        the fact that the parked cars made the road inaccessible, which resulted with local businesses suffering due to loss of trade.

 

Glen Allan then spoke in relation to the agenda item 4 in his capacity as a local resident. He objected to the TRO on Geldof Road which would result with him and his wife having to park some distance away. He explained that this was not feasible due to his health and potential difficulties with his car insurance.

 

Mr Hearn, a local resident, also spoke in relation to the agenda item 4, objecting to some of the proposals on waiting restrictions on Melrosegate. He called for the proposal’s extension up to Alcuin Avenue, including double lines on both sides of the road. He highlighted that, due to the cars parking at both sides of Melrosegate, traffic often needed to go down the pavements and the emergency services were sometimes not able to efficiently navigate through the road. He also added that the car obstruction created danger for cyclists and children coming out of the nearby field.

 

Cllr D’Agorne then spoke in relation to item 4 of the agenda, supporting the TRO on Barbican Mews and Farrar Street. He also spoke about item 6 (North York Bus Improvement Scheme), emphasising the following:

·        future needs of residents moving to the Nestlé South development should be looked at;

·        increase of car movement in the network area could result with further journey delays;

·        anything that could discourage cyclists from the North York zone should be avoided;

·        displacement of bus stops should not take place unless the proposed locations were more convenient  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

83.

Annual Review 2017/18 Traffic Regulation Order Representations pdf icon PDF 170 KB

The Executive Member is asked to consider the representations made during the formal advertising period for a set of Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO’s) and determine the course of action to take for those items objected to (list in Annex A). These proposals were approved for advertising by the Executive Member for Transport and Planning at the September 2017 meeting.

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved:

a)   That the following restrictions be implemented as advertised (see Annex B of the report):

·        St Olave’s Road (amendment to time of residents’ parking bay operation);

·        Barbican Mews;                          

·        Farrar Street;

·        Pasture Farm Close;                  

·        St Leonard's Place;

·        Windsor Drive / Ripley Gr;

·        Dodsworth Avenue (x5);

·        Melrosegate (near Harington Ave);

·        Redmires Cl. / Ebsay Dr;

·        Esk Drive;                 

·        White Rose Way Lay-by;

·        St James Place.

b)   That the following restrictions be implemented to a lesser extent than advertised (see Annex C of the report):

·        Copmanthorpe Ln/ Kirkwell;                

·        Main Street, Fulford;

·        St Saviour’s Place R43;                      

·        Clifton Moor industrial estate;

·        North Field Lane;

·        The Village, Wigginton.

c)   That the objection for the following restrictions be upheld and no further action be taken OR that the following restrictions be included in the next review for further investigation (see Annex D of the report):

·        St Olave's Road (at the double bend);        

·        Moorcroft Road;

·        Barlow Street;                    

·        Railway Terrace;

·        Shipton Road / Manor Lane;              

·        Barley Rise, Strensall (shops);

·        Geldof Road.

 

Reason:              a) To resolve the concerns put forward in the original request for restrictions.

b) To try to resolve the issues brought to our attention and to respond to the concerns put forward during the advertising period.

c) To respond the concerns put forward in during the advertising period.

Minutes:

The Executive Member considered a report with the representations that had been made during the formal advertising period for a set of Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs), which asked him to determine the course of action to take for the items that had been objected to. Those proposals had been approved for advertising by the Executive Member for Transport and Planning at the September 2017 meeting.

The Executive Member considered each TRO separately, taking into account the comments made by public speakers, Officers’ recommendations as well as responses to the objections received. The following was noted:

·        Dodsworth Avenue: a letter with objection had been received from a local residents’ association. The letter suggested that a 24 hour both sides no waiting area was excessive and that other proposals would simply move the problem further along the street. It was reiterated that the proposals aimed at keeping junctions clear which would provide an increased opportunity for passing vehicles without significantly impacting on local residents and their visitors.

·        a number of comments relating to the possibility of parking at the junctions were received. It was noted that, according to the Highway Code (UK), parking at the junctions was not allowed. Therefore, objections that had been received on that matter could not be deemed valid.

 

The Executive Member decided to amend the Officers’ recommendations in relation to the following two cases:

·        St Olave’s Road: in light of public participation, Ward Councillors’ support and the objections received, to take no action at that time but to reconsider the case if further concerns were raised and to take appropriate steps to bring the TRO restrictions in line with the conditions on the street on the opposite side of the road.

·        Moorcroft Road: in light of public participation, the objections received and Ward Councillors’ request to delay the proposal until the survey results were known, to take no action at that time but to reconsider the case in the next annual review if further concerns were raised.

 

It was then

Resolved:

a)   That the following restrictions be implemented as advertised (see Annex B of the report):

·        St Olave’s Road (amendment to time of residents’ parking bay operation);

·        Barbican Mews;                          

·        Farrar Street;

·        Pasture Farm Close;                  

·        St Leonard's Place;

·        Windsor Drive / Ripley Gr;

·        Dodsworth Avenue (x5);

·        Melrosegate (near Harington Ave);

·        Redmires Cl. / Ebsay Dr;

·        Esk Drive;                 

·        White Rose Way Lay-by;

·        St James Place.

b)   That the following restrictions be implemented to a lesser extent than advertised (see Annex C of the report):

·        Copmanthorpe Ln/ Kirkwell;                

·        Main Street, Fulford;

·        St Saviour’s Place R43;                      

·        Clifton Moor industrial estate;

·        North Field Lane;

·        The Village, Wigginton.

c)   That the objection for the following restrictions be upheld and no further action be taken OR that the following restrictions be included in the next review for further investigation (see Annex D of the report):

·        St Olave's Road (at the double bend);        

·        Moorcroft Road;

·        Barlow Street;                    

·        Railway Terrace;

·        Shipton Road / Manor Lane;              

·        Barley Rise, Strensall (shops);

·        Geldof Road.

Reason:              a) To  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

84.

Lumley Rd / St Luke's Grove Ward Committee Scheme, Parking Restrictions - Traffic Regulation Order pdf icon PDF 242 KB

This report provides details of objections raised to the recent advertisement of no waiting and no stopping restrictions in Lumley Road and St Luke’s Grove, Clifton.It also reports the receipt of a petition requesting that residents’ parking is offered as an alternative to the advertised restrictions.

Additional documents:

Decision:

 Resolved:                    That Option 2:

 

Acknowledge receipt of the petition and objections. Offer the residents of both streets a final ballot on the options of either providing residents’ parking or implementing the proposals as advertised (Annex D of the report) with the minor amendments shown in Annex F of the report. Pre-approve the next step dependent on the result of the vote as set out below:

 

a)           If residents’ parking is favoured, approve advertisement of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) with any objections reported back to Executive Member Decision Session.

 

b)           If the restrictions scheme is favoured, approve making of the order and installation of the restrictions.

 

be approved.

 

Reason:                        To provide residents with an opportunity to make an informed decision as to how they would like to address the parking problems in their streets, following receipt of a petition calling for residents’ parking.

Minutes:

The report providing details of objections raised to the recent advertisement of no waiting and no stopping restrictions on Lumley Road and St Luke’s Grove (Clifton) was presented to the Executive Member.It was noted that the receipt of a petition requesting that the Residents’ Parking Scheme (RPS) was offered as an alternative to the advertised restrictions had also been received.

 

The Executive Member acknowledged that the proposals had not been implemented since September 2016 when the initial meeting with residents had been held to discuss the relevant options. It was also acknowledged that 53% of the residents had not supported the introduction of RPS during the ballot held in November 2014. The Executive Member emphasised that the gap between those voting for and against the implementation in 2014 was minimal and that organising additional ballot would be an opportunity to highlight the concept and benefits of RPS to local residents.

 

With this in mind, it was

 

Resolved:                     That Option 2:

 

Acknowledge receipt of the petition and objections. Offer the residents of both streets a final ballot on the options of either providing residents’ parking or implementing the proposals as advertised (Annex D of the report) with the minor amendments shown in Annex F of the report. Pre-approve the next step dependent on the result of the vote as set out below:

 

a)           If residents’ parking is favoured, approve advertisement of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) with any objections reported back to Executive Member Decision Session.

 

b)           If the restrictions scheme is favoured, approve making of the order and installation of the restrictions.

 

be approved.

 

Reason:                        To provide residents with an opportunity to make an informed decision as to how they would like to address the parking problems in their streets, following receipt of a petition calling for residents’ parking.

85.

North York Bus Improvement Scheme pdf icon PDF 391 KB

This Decision Session paper sets out a scheme to improve the reliability of bus services on Wigginton and Haxby Roads and requests permission from the Executive Member to go out to consultation on the scheme with local residents, businesses and other effected stakeholders.

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved:                     That permission for the further development of the scheme set out in this paper – specifically that the scheme now goes forward to public consultation and engineering development with a final decision to be taken on whether to proceed with the scheme after the Summer – be given.

 

Reason:                        This will allow the scheme to be delivered in early 2019.

Minutes:

The Executive Member considered a paper setting out a scheme to improve the reliability of bus services on Wigginton and Haxby Roads and requesting permission to go out to consultation on the scheme with local residents, businesses and other affected stakeholders.

 

The Executive Member agreed with the recommendations, noting in particular delays occurring during the hospital visiting times, when vehicles queuing to enter the hospital car park caused congestion on Wigginton Road. As a regular user of the number 6 bus, he disagreed with the suggestion that buses waited at the Fountayne Street stops for longer than necessary for passenger to board and alight, but accepted the need to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists as well as ongoing work with York District Hospital on overall traffic reduction. The written representations had been submitted by York Cycle Campaign and York Bus Forum and it was confirmed that those organisations would be welcome to participate in any further public consultations on the scheme.

 

It was

 

Resolved:                     That permission for the further development of the scheme set out in this paper – specifically that the scheme now goes forward to public consultation and engineering development with a final decision to be taken on whether to proceed with the scheme after the Summer – be given.

 

Reason:                        This will allow the scheme to be delivered in early 2019.

86.

York Road, Haxby Pedestrian Crossing Petition pdf icon PDF 214 KB

This report acknowledges receipt of a 1052 signature petition requesting the provision of a zebra or pelican crossing on York Road, Haxby.  The report also seeks approval for officers to investigate whether a formal crossing would be appropriate using the current guidance and if so, whether there is a suitable location for such a crossing on the section of road in question.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved:                     That Option 1:

 

Acknowledge receipt of the petition and give approval to Officers to investigate whether a crossing is justified on the section of York Road as suggested and, if a crossing is justified, to identify whether there is a suitable location. The outcome of this work will be brought back to the Executive Member for further approvals as appropriate.

 

                                      be approved.

 

Reason:                        To note the wishes of the signatories and to undertake the necessary investigative work to determine whether a formal crossing is justifiable and feasible.

Minutes:

A report acknowledging receipt of a 1052 signature petition requesting the provision of a zebra or pelican crossing on York Road (Haxby) was presented to the Executive Member. The report also sought approval for Officers to investigate whether a formal crossing would be appropriate using the current guidance and, if so, whether there was a suitable location for such a crossing on the section of the road in question.

 

The Executive Member thanked the Officers and the public participants for highlighting the concerns and it was

 

Resolved:                     That Option 1:

 

Acknowledge receipt of the petition and give approval to Officers to investigate whether a crossing is justified on the section of York Road as suggested and, if a crossing is justified, to identify whether there is a suitable location. The outcome of this work will be brought back to the Executive Member for further approvals as appropriate.

 

                                      be approved.

 

Reason:                        To note the wishes of the signatories and to undertake the necessary investigative work to determine whether a formal crossing is justifiable and feasible.

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page