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. Please note that our registration

deadlines have changed to 2 working days before the meeting, in

order to facilitate the management of public participation at our

meetings. The deadline for registering is 5.00pm on Tuesday 10 February 2022 Members of the public can speak on agenda items or matters within the remit of the committee.

 

To register to speak please visit

www.york.gov.uk/AttendCouncilMeetings to fill out an online

registration form. If you have any questions about the registration

form or the meeting please contact the Democracy Officer for the

meeting whose details can be found at the foot of the agenda.

 

Webcasting of Public Meetings

Please note that, subject to available resources, this public

meeting will be webcast including any registered public speakers

who have given their permission. The public meeting can be

viewed on demand at www.york.gov.uk/webcasts. During

coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running

council meetings. See our coronavirus updates

(www.york.gov.uk/COVIDDemocracy) for more information on

meetings and decisions.

Minutes:

Public Participation

 

It was reported that there had been 11 registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme. However, two were unable to attend the meeting.

 

Tony May questioned the Council’s current policy of pedestrian crossing signal technology. He spoke in favour of the far side crossing signals being used and asked if sufficient consideration was used when considering signals at junctions and those not at junctions.

 

Roger Pierce spoke on behalf of Walk York who he noted preferred far side crossing signal technology. He noted the results of a public consultation which showed a preference in York for far side signals. He also outlined concerns that some blind or partially sighted residents had noted that they found far side signals better to use.

 

David Skaith raised concern about the current layout of Blossom Gate Junction for pedestrians. He noted the long wait for pedestrians at the large junction and that the narrowness of areas to wait to cross meant it was difficult to see the near side crossing technology.

 

Cllr Melly expressed concern about the reduction in the Acomb Road Active Travel Scheme. She noted that when meetings with Ward Councillors had taken place they had not included the reduction of the scheme and raised concerns that the remainder of the scheme was being outlined for a different program which had no budget or timeline for when work would begin.

 

Rob Ainsley noted that York Cycle Campaign were disappointed in the reduction of the Acomb Road Active travel Scheme and noted that the Council should deliver long continuous schemes instead of broken up routes. He also noted that Active Travel England providing funding would expect full schemes that promoted cycling by delivering good cycle infrastructure.

 

Cllr Lomas stated that residents in Acomb Ward wanted to cycle on safe routes and noted her disappointment in the Acomb Road Active Travel Scheme being reduced. She noted that this would leave the most dangerous part of the route for cyclists outside of the scheme. She also suggested that the scheme shouldn’t be reduced if complaints had been made by Westfield Ward Councillors to the scheme.

 

Cllr Waller outlined that Westfield Ward Councillors were not opposed to the Acomb Road Active Travel Scheme but noted that a public consultation was required on the scheme. He noted work the Ward Councillors had undertaken locally around cycling and a report provided to the Council in June 2020. He also raised concerns that York High School and Westfield Primary were not listed for consultation on the scheme.

 

Kristian Gregory noted their disappointment in the reduction to the Acomb Road Active Travel Scheme. He outlined that the benefit of these cycle schemes should be to deliver safe long interrupted routes, however, the reduction would leave areas of danger along the route that would discourage residents from cycling.

 

Cllr K Taylor noted his frustration about the York Road and Acomb Road Active travel Schemes. He stated that he felt Councillors in Westfield Ward had opposed the Acomb Road Active Travel Scheme and therefore the scheme had be reduced. He asked that the Executive Member reinstate the whole scheme.

 

Written Comments

 

Written comments below were received regarding agenda item 7. Position on use of signalled controlled pedestrian crossing technology:

 

Diana Robinson noted support for far side pedestrian crossing signals and noted the challenges of visibility of busy crossings with near side signals.

 

Chris Webb outlined his support for the use of far side pedestrian crossing signals and noted that a majority of those consulted had also supported far side signals.

 

Written comments below were received regarding agenda item 8. Active Travel Programme – Project Scope:

 

Jim McGurn on behalf of Get Cycling wrote that he felt insufficient progress had been made on the A19 cycle scheme.

 

Cllr Craghill wrote in relation to the junction of Ogleforth, Goodramgate and Aldwark. She noted concerns of the use of terms such as ‘out of scope’ and asked that an holistic approach be used for potential schemes outside the Active Travel Programme bring together different potential funding pots.

 

Barry Treanor noted his disappointment that the length of the Acomb Road scheme had been reduced. He also noted on the A19 Bootham Cycle Scheme that he felt too much of the Active Travel budget was being spent on design work for this area and noted previous designs that had been rejected.

 

Dorinda Gear wrote in relation to a number of schemes. she noted disappointment in reduction of the length of Acomb Road scheme, as well as, concern that she felt insufficient progress had been made on Active Travel schemes. 

 

John Mackle noted disappointment that the Acomb Road scheme had been reduced in length and noted dangerous parts of the route for cyclists which would be left out of the scheme.

 

Mark Roman asked that the Council go to design stage for the whole of the Acomb Road scheme and asked that progress be made on A19 Cycle Scheme rather than new planning and survey work being undertaken.

 

Neal Hawman noted disappointment in current progress of the Active Travel Programme and that he felt the ambition of the schemes were decreasing.

 

Tim Pheby also noted disappointment in the progress of the programme and requested that the progress of the schemes in annex 1 be colour coded to show those on schedule. He also made a number of other comments regarding the schemes. 

 

 

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page