Agenda, decisions and minutes

At this point in the meeting, the Executive Member is asked to declare:

·        any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests

·        any prejudicial interests or

·        any disclosable pecuniary interests

which 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. He declared that he had none.

To approve and sign the minutes of the Decision Session held on 9 March 2017.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the last Decision Session held on 9 March 2017 be signed and then approved by the Executive Member as a correct record.

At this point in the meeting, members of the public who have registered their wish to speak at the meeting can do so. The deadline for registering is Wednesday 12 April 2017 at 5:00pm. 

Members of the public may speak on an item on the agenda or an issue within the Executive Member’s remit,

Filming, Recording or Webcasting Meetings

Please note this meeting may be filmed and webcast or audio

recorded and that includes any registered public speakers, who

have given their permission. This broadcast can be viewed at

http://www.york.gov.uk/webcasts. or, if recorded, this will

be uploaded onto the Council website following the meeting.

Residents are welcome to photograph, film or record Councillors

and Officers at all meetings open to the press and public. This

includes the use of social media reporting, i.e. tweeting. Anyone

wishing to film, record or take photos at any public meeting

should contact the Democracy Officer (whose contact details are

at the foot of this agenda) in advance of the meeting.

The Council’s protocol on Webcasting, Filming & Recording of

Meetings ensures that these practices are carried out in a

manner both respectful to the conduct of the meeting and all

those present. It can be viewed at

http://www.york.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11406/protocol_for_webcasting_filming_and_recording_of_council_meetings_20160809.pdf

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

Three Members of Council had also registered to speak. One Member of Council had been unable to attend but requested that his statement be included within the minutes.

Councillor Doughty commented on Agenda Item 4 (Strensall Road Petition for Speed Limit Reducation). He gave the following statement:

I am pleased that the Traffic Team Leader is not recommending option 1 which was to take no action but am concerned that referring the proposal to consideration as part of a wider periodic ‘accident reduction process’ (option 3) could mean the issue being lost amongst other schemes and for want of a better description, ‘being kicked into the long grass.’ I am therefore asking that serious consideration is given to approving option 2, to approve the advertising of a 40mph speed limit on this section of road.

Option 2 is the wish of the residents who signed the petition, including residents who live on Strensall Road and was a direct request in the interest of safety. Not one single person throughout the process thus far has shown any indication other than this. It is also the will of Earswick Parish Council, through which the road passes and also of neighbouring Strensall with Towthorpe Parish Council, the residents of which would also be protected by a speed reduction.

The report indicates that “there may be a justification for considering a reduction in the speed limit to 50mph” and later states further investigation would also consider the potential for the implementation of a 40mph speed limit 'if appropriate'. While a reduction of 10mph would be better than nothing, I do not believe it would provide the required benefit and could muddy the waters in adding yet another speed limit level to the current 30, 40 and 60 sections that currently exist between Earswick and Strensall settlements. Far better in my opinion to have the 60 section reduced to 40mph and the fully built up part of each village at 30mph which is the norm and much less complicated for motorists to understand and adhere to.

Coupled with this, suggestions of further investigating a scheme after an initial alteration to possibly change again would not appear to make financial sense? Particularly as the report suggests cost as a factor in decision making. Cost over safety as a reason for decision would concern me in any event. In this respect, I would be interested to receive a cost estimate of the scheme as replacement of speed roundels on signage posts that already exist, could surely not be excessive? While I accept there will always be a small and irresponsible minority who flout limits regardless of limits set, the majority of road users do follow guidelines and this would see a safer Strensall Road in my opinion.  

The Officer has provided a map with indication of the 6 most recent recorded accidents, 3 each in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

This report informs the Executive Member of the receipt of a petition requesting the reduction of the speed limit to 40mph on the rural road between Earswick and Strensall.

Resolved: That the petition be noted and that the issue be considered as part of the annual accident and prevention measures across the city.

Reason:   To respond to residents concerns in a practical manner whilst prioritising the resources available to the reduction of injury on the highway in the authority area.

The Executive Member considered a report which informed him of the receipt of a petition which requested the reduction of the speed limit to 40mph on the rural road between Earswick and Strensall.

In making reference to comments made by Councillor Doughty, the Executive Member felt that Strensall Road should be added to the list of streets in the annual accident and prevention measures.

Officers confirmed that it would be added in this year.

Resolved: That the petition be noted and that the issue be considered as part of the annual accident and prevention measures across the city.

Reason:   To respond to residents concerns in a practical manner whilst prioritising the resources available to the reduction of injury on the highway in the authority area.

This report informs the Executive Member of the receipt of a petition requesting the introduction of waiting restrictions in the back lane to Claremont Terrace, off Gillygate.

Resolved: That;

(i)           The Claremont Terrace Access Only Traffic Regulation Order be rescinded.

(ii)          The residents parking scheme be changed to a zone entry scheme with the same times and conditions as now.

(iii)        A proposed additional parking space as put forward in the previous recommendation with a 30 minute maximum stay be advertised.

(iv)        These changes be carried out as part of the next annual review of city wide traffic regulation orders expected to be brought forward in early summer.

Reason: To resolve the issue of vehicles obstructing the back lane without the need for yellow lines.

The Executive Member considered a report which informed him of the receipt of a petition which requested the introduction of waiting restrictions in the back lane to Claremont Terrace, off Gillygate.

The Executive Member considered all the comments made by the public speaker. He felt that there were further new options which could be explored, which could satisfy residents and deal with the problem.

Resolved: That;

(i)           The Claremont Terrace Access Only Traffic Regulation Order be rescinded.

(ii)          That the residents parking scheme be changed to a zone entry scheme with the same times and conditions as now.

(iii)        That a proposed additional parking space as put forward in the previous recommendation with a 30 minute maximum stay be advertised.

(iv)        That these changes be carried out as part of the next annual review of city wide traffic regulation orders expected to be brought forward in early summer.

Reason: To resolve the issue of vehicles obstructing the back lane without the need for yellow lines.

This report seeks approval to implement experimental Traffic Regulation Orders at up to four sites on the 2016/17 speed management programme.

Resolved: That;

(i)           Implementation of experimental Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) to relocate the start of the 30mph speed limit at the three proposed sites be approved:

·        Hopgrove Lane South, Hopgrove

·        Tadcaster Road, Copmanthorpe

Reason: To trial the proposal to relocate the speed limit with the aim of achieving improved compliance with the 30mph speed limit within the built up areas.

(ii)          Officers report back the results of the trials to a future meeting, with a recommendation on either making the TROs permanent or returning to the existing arrangements.

Reason: The experimental order is limited to a maximum of eighteen months, and a decision will be required on making each speed change permanent.

(iii)        That an experimental speed limit order is progressed at Common Road, Dunnington with the change between the 30 and 40 mph positioned close to the Vehicle Activated Sign.

Reason:     To trial the proposal to relocate the speed limit with the aim of achieving improved compliance with the 30mph speed limit within the built-up areas.  

(iv)        That additional signs are provided at the Sports Club to mark out its position to vehicles.

Reason: To increase the visual impact of the Sports Club.      

(v)         Changing the existing 30mph speed limit start point on Murton Way, Murton be re-considered when the results from the initial trial sites are known.

Reason: Consultation has shown there is currently no support for including Murton Way as one of the initial trial sites.

The Executive Member considered a report which sought approval to implement experimental Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) at up to four sites on the 2016/17 speed management programme.

The Executive Member considered all the comments made by the public speakers and all written representations received.

Common Road, Dunnington

The Executive Member felt that he could not ignore the strength of public feeling when making his decision and asked Officers to re-examine the recommendation. He noted that it was a temporary order and that time needed to be given to see whether the order was effective.

Officers commented that they could trial the speed limit change near the Sports Club, whilst retaining the existing VAS, and speed data could be monitored and reported back to the Executive Member.  Additional signage would be provided at the Sports Club to highlight its location.

The Executive Member added that this option be trialled for six months and requested that Officers kept in contact with Parish Councillors and Ward Members.

Hopgrove Lane South

The Executive Member considered the comments made by Councillor Orrell under Public Participation.

Officers confirmed that there would be a package of road improvements included within the Monks Cross Plan.

Tadcaster Road

The Executive Member considered a written representation made by Peter Whitfield. In response to the representation, he felt that when traffic entered a built up area they were more likely to slow down.

Resolved: That;

(i)           Implementation of experimental Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) to relocate the start of the 30mph speed limit at the three proposed sites be approved:

·        Hopgrove Lane South, Hopgrove

·        Tadcaster Road, Copmanthorpe

Reason: To trial the proposal to relocate the speed limit with the aim of achieving improved compliance with the 30mph speed limit within the built up areas.

(ii)          Officers report back the results of the trials to a future meeting, with a recommendation on either making the TROs permanent or returning to the existing arrangements.

Reason: The experimental order is limited to a maximum of eighteen months, and a decision will be required on making each speed change permanent.

(iii)        That an experimental speed limit order is progressed at Common Road, Dunnington with the change between the 30 and 40 mph positioned close to the Vehicle Activated Sign.

Reason:     To trial the proposal to relocate the speed limit with the aim of achieving improved compliance with the 30mph speed limit within the built-up areas.  

(iv)        That additional signs are provided at the Sports Club to increase the visibility of the facility to drivers on Common Road.

Reason: To increase the visual impact of the Sports Club.      

(v)         Changing the existing 30mph speed limit start point on Murton Way, Murton be re-considered when the results from the initial trial sites are known.

Reason: Consultation has shown there is currently no support for including Murton Way as one of the initial trial sites.

This report seeks formal approval to confirm to the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG) that the Authority will invest the proposed increase the National Planning Application Fee rates in the City of York, by 20% from July 2017 into the planning service.

Resolved: (i) That the CLG offer to the 20% increase in planning fees be accepted and it take effect in July 2017, with any additional income reinvested in the Development Management function.

                (ii) The principles of reinvesting £128k into the planning service as set out in Paragraph 10 of the Officer’s report be approved.

Reason: The increase in planning fees relates to the Council’s corporate priorities by enhancing frontline services to help to ensure acceptable planning proposals are delivered on site more expediently.    

The Executive Member received a report which asked him to confirm to the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG) that the Authority will invest the proposed increase in the National Planning Application Fee rates in the City of York, by 20% from July 2017 into the planning service.

Officers reported that fees had not increased since 2012 and were set at a national level of 20%. It was noted that all Local Authorities were increasing their Planning Application Fee rates. The increase in monies would allow for more investment in back office functions, specialist services such as conservation and highways.

The Executive Member commented that York as a city had particular challenges with heritage in regards to planning applications and the timeframe for determination of applications. If further investment could help overcome this, some of the issues could be corrected at the beginning of the process.

Resolved: (i) That the CLG offer to the 20% increase in planning fees be accepted and it take effect in July 2017, with any additional income reinvested in the Development Management function.

                (ii) The principles of reinvesting £128k into the planning service as set out in Paragraph 10 of the Officer’s report be approved.

Reason: The increase in planning fees relates to the Council’s corporate priorities by enhancing frontline services to help to ensure acceptable planning proposals are delivered on site more expediently.