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 item

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 19 December 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 11 registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

 

Two residents had registered to speak on issues within the general remit of the Executive Member.

 

Katherine Crocker, a local resident, urged the Executive Member and officers to proceed without delay with consideration of a petition from residents which had been handed in by Cllr D’Agorne  3 days previously in support of the introduction of residents parking on part of Alma Terrace and on Alma Grove. Officers advised that it was likely that this petition would be considered by the Executive Member around February time.

 

Lucie Wake, also a local resident, spoke to advise the Executive Member of problems that residents  had encountered with access to their properties on Slingsby Grove, off Tadcaster Road.  She stated that it was a narrow road with commercial properties at the end of it and, on a number of occasions, ambulances, delivery vehicles and refuse lorries had not been able to access properties on the street. She explained that she had canvassed the whole street and the majority of residents supported the introduction of a residents parking scheme and asked that this be considered by the council. Officers confirmed that they had received the request but were unable to confirm a date at this point when this could be considered.

 

There were 4 registrations to speak in relation to agenda item 6 (2016-17 Speed Management Programme – Relocation of Speed Limits – Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders)

 

Stuart Kay, addressed the Executive Member, on behalf of Dunnington Parish Council and Dunnington Playing Fields Association and Sports Club. He voiced their objections to the current trial in Dunnington which had moved the 30mph speed limit signs closer to the built up areas. He expressed concerns that traffic was now travelling faster past the entrance to the sports club  and stated that the suggestion to extend the 40mph stretch so that the 30mph limit started closer to the village green was unacceptable.

 

Councillor Carr spoke as Ward Member for Copmanthorpe and Parish Council Member to express the views of Copmanthorpe residents with regard to the experimental traffic regulation order at Tadcaster Road, Copmanthorpe. He advised that residents wished the 30mph sign to be returned to its original position at the start of the built up area as there was no evidence that the new experimental position of the sign had had any effect on vehicle speeds. He asked the Executive Member to agree to move the signs back to their original positions, warning that if the experimental TRO position was agreed as permanent, access to a development site on land adjacent to Tadcaster Road, where 170 houses were proposed, would be outside the 30mph limit.

 

Cllr Warters spoke as Osbaldwick and Derwent Ward Councillor and expressed dismay that the council had proceeded with the experimental location for the start of the 30mph limit at Common Lane, Dunnington after opposition from Dunnington Parish Council. He suggested that concerns about speed were in fact due to the volume of traffic rather than the speed of vehicles, and felt this could be controlled by the introduction of traffic lights at the Common Lane/Hull Road junction. He also advised that there would be opposition to any change to the start position of the existing 30mph speed limit on Murton Way in Murton,

 

Cllr Brooks  also spoke as Osbaldwick and Derwent Ward Councillor and Dunnington Parish Councillor and echoed the comments made by Cllr Warters. She explained that the Parish Council had reluctantly agreed to the trial scheme on the basis that, if it didn’t work, the 30mph signs would revert back to their original positions and she stressed that this should be made clear as an option when making a recommendation to the Executive Member. She stressed the importance of retaining a  speed monitor with the ability to move it around the village to monitor vehicle speeds.

 

Michael Hammill spoke in relation to agenda item 7 (R20 Howard Street: Proposed Amendment to the Traffic Regulation Order, consideration of objections received) on behalf of Yorbuild  Ltd, the developer for 79 Fulford Road in relation to proposals to reduce the length of two resident parking bays on Howard Street to provide better vehicle access to the development and provide a better passing facility on Howard Street. He circulated photographs showing the narrowness of the street and the 2 parking zones in question, one which was he felt was too short as a 3 car zone and the other which was very generous as a 2 car zone. He advised that even though development had not yet started on site, they had already experienced difficulties in manoeuvring vehicles and felt that the proposals would go some way to alleviating any potential incidents.

 

Two registrations had been received in respect of agenda item 8 (Consideration of objections and comments received to an advertised proposal to extend the R20 Residents’ Priority Parking Zone to include Rosedale Street and Grange Garth)

 

Anthony Day, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the introduction of a residents parking scheme on Rosedale Street and Grange Garth which he felt would lead to displacement parking in neighboring streets, which were also very full with parked vehicles. He advised that adjoining streets had already been surveyed and had opposed the scheme but noted however that it was not current council policy to refuse a resident parking scheme on one street because of its effect on neighboring streets.

 

Linda Davis, a local resident, also spoke against the introduction of  a residents parking scheme on Rosedale Street. She explained that she was new to the area but felt residents needed to accept that they didn’t have a right to park directly outside their own house, and that there was always space to park nearby, even if it was not directly outside their own property. She raised concern that the figures presented in the report were misleading in terms of the percentages of residents in favour of a scheme and whether it should be a full or part time scheme. She urged the Executive Member not to find in favour of the officer recommendation to implement residents priority parking in the area.

 

Two registrations had been received in relation to agenda item 9 (Consideration of objections and comments received to an advertised proposal to amend the parking amenity within the R33 Residents’ Priority Parking Zone).

 

Darren Shaw, a local resident of Sycamore Place and a guest house owner advised that he hadn’t objected to the Bert Keech Bowling Green development planning application as he had been assured there would be no change to parking arrangements. He addressed the recommended option 3 as set out in paragraph 24 of the report.  He expressed his support for part a;  in relation to b, he questioned the need for 10m entry for 1 dwelling; did not object to part c, but opposed the proposals at part d, advising that there needed to be a rational basis for the decision and asked that consultation be extended to consider a wider range of options for parking on Longfield Terrace.

 

Cllr Danny Myers, spoke as Ward Councillor for Clifton. He expressed concern with regard to above inflation increases in ResPark charges which he felt were unfair to residents. He expressed his support for the recommended option 3 and commented that with regard to (b) he felt that the length of space needed for entry to the development could be reviewed and that with regard to (d) the whole area could be revisited to determine whether the GM (guest houses and multiple occupancy) places were in the correct place.

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page