Agenda item
Public Participation - Decision Session
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
Minutes:
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 2013 and 2016. One of these falls within the current 60mph section, one very near to the boundary of the 60 into 30 at the Earswick end and 4 at the Towthorpe crossroads. I believe this strengthens an argument that large drops from 60 to 40 at Towthorpe and 60 to 30 at Earswick results in some drivers continuing at speeds above the lower levels well beyond and likewise act as an encouragement to step up the gas long before entering the higher limits.
I would also somewhat question the report description of this being a rural road and residents being familiar with surroundings and dangers. Strensall has the population of a small town comparable with Malton or Pocklington, it is a really busy road and while many residents will know the road, not all do. There are several guest houses and a small caravan site behind one of the properties all within the 60mph section, with caravans, motorhomes and agricultural vehicles all requiring to emerge into the highway. Not to mention the residents who find it difficult at times for an appropriate gap in traffic. The map does not in my opinion best reflect that for a large part of the 60mph section, there is a row of properties along one side with some more widely spaced properties on the opposite side of the carriageway.
I reiterate the reasons why there has been support for the petition and a call for a safer speed limit on Strensall Road:-
1. Traffic has increased considerably in recent years.
2. It is difficult and dangerous for those living in properties to get out of driveways as well as for visitors staying at the Guest houses and caravan site.
3. Crossing the road is difficult and dangerous for pedestrians and those using the bus service.
4. The route is extremely dangerous for cyclists and we are particularly concerned for schoolchildren. Ward Councillors (and both Parishes) have previously pressed for a safe cycle route linking Strensall with Huntington through Earswick but this has not yet been possible due to the significant finance required.
5. The 60mph national speed limit is giving a false sense of security about the potential hazards along this route. Some drivers and motorcyclists are prone to exceeding the current high limit and thought to cause danger by accelerating and braking when leaving or entering the 30mph and 40mph zones at either end.
6. ** The reduction in the speed limit is supported by Earswick Parish Council and Strensall with Towthorpe Parish Council **
The CYC Chief Executive refreshed the ‘Council Values’ last week and as a listening Council that purports to "support and enable our communities" and suggests our communities and residents "guide us in day to day situations as well as our decision-making processes", I ask, as a ward representative, that the Council ‘listens’.
Please give serious consideration to option 2 and the reduction to 40mph.
Barrie Stephenson of Claremont Terrace Residents’ Association spoke in relation to Agenda Item 5 (Claremont Terrace Petition). He thanked the Executive Member for considering the petition and informed him that he felt that all options to resolve the problems of parking had been tried before. He added that the Residents’ Association had contacted North Yorkshire Police who had advised them that the Council’s powers were greater for enforcing parking offences. He welcomed a creative solution as business owners could currently not park on Claremont Terrace due to the area being a residents only parking zone.
In regards to Agenda Item 6 (Speed Management 16-17 Experimental Traffic Orders, Speed Limits Copmanthorpe, Dunnington, Hopgrove and Murton) the following speakers spoke:
Stuart Kay Chair of Dunnington Parish Council and the Friends of the Activity Park, strongly objected to the proposals for Common Road Dunnington. He felt that a number of lower cost actions could be taken but understood that national guidelines suggested that it was not appropriate for this particular part of the road. He outlined that the 40mph speed limit would finish closer to the centre of the village and that the Sports Club located on Common Road was used extensively at the weekend. He commented that the level of resident support for the proposals was low.
Another registration to speak had been received but the speakers did not attend.
Councillor Brooks spoke about how the 30mph signs on Common Road had been moved too far towards the village and visibility was restricted due to the bend in the road. The lack of pavement on the right side of the east side of the green meant that children who would be using the Sports Club would be crossing at the limit of the 30mph and 40mph zone. She added that traffic accessing Common Road to use the Industrial Estate from the A166 did not realise that they were passing a Sports Club, and requested that a speed indicator be installed.
Councillor Warters questioned why the proposal for Murton was dropped due to lack of support but the Common Road was recommended for approval. He felt that the further meaningful engagement should be carried out with the Parish Councillors and Ward Members within the next three months.
Councillor Orrell spoke in regards to the Hopgrove Lane South proposal, he informed the Executive Member how tailbacks had been problematic since the opening of the Vangarde Shopping Centre. He asked for careful consideration of the junction to look into how it could be improved.