Agenda item

At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered to speak can do so. Members of the public may speak on agenda items or on matters within the remit of the committee.

Please note that our registration deadlines have changed to 2 working days before the meeting. The deadline for registering at this meeting is at 5.00pm on Friday 24 May 2024.

 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.

It was reported that there had been 9 registrations to speak at the session and 3 written representations under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

Cllr Waller spoke regarding item 4, Annex Q. He welcomed the officer recommendations for Annexes Q1 and Q2. Regarding Q3 residents had requested he make representation that the initial issue had now been resolved. He also requested a review of the TRO process to ensure swifter resolution going forwards.

Cllr Nelson spoke regarding item 4, Annex Q3. She stated that ward councillors had worked with residents to resolve the initial signage issue and that the outstanding issue concerned one particular resident’s pavement parking, which had also been dealt with informally by residents, therefore a TRO was not necessary here. She suggested that small issues could be resolved by working with people not using the council’s resources.

Christopher Tregellis spoke regarding item 4, Annex C3. He advised that the officer recommendation was universally supported among residents. He suggested residents may be minded to ask for further review but conceded that the TRO application had already taken a long time.

Susan Ayres spoke regarding item 4, Annex J2. She provided the executive member and officers with photographs to illustrate her point that there were not two road spaces outside each house in the area being considered. She advised that both she and her husband were in their 60s and relied on their daughter for support. She asked the member to reconsider this proposal.

Judith Pinder spoke regarding item 4, Annex K4.  She asserted that the proposed double yellow lines would have a detrimental effect on her as a cancer patient with mobility issues. She explained that she required her support team to be able to park outside her house, and noted that the TRO had been instigated by one prior resident who felt inconvenienced, and this person had since passed away.

Wayne Glaister spoke regarding item 4, Annex J3. He expressed concern that further enforcement action would mean residents and their relatives would be unable to park outside their own houses.

Christina Chelin spoke regarding item 4, Annex M2. She expressed frustration that her past complaint and petition had not been actioned due to a conflict with the council’s blue badge policy, but she felt this proposal addressed her earlier concerns and supported the recommendation. She encouraged the member and officers to consider further review of this TRO in the future.

Rachel Gilbert-Cornish spoke regarding item 5, in support of option 2. She represented a group of residents who opposed the R23 zone on Govt House Road/Water End slipway. She said that council parking spaces on Government House Road had not been determined and that this nullified the point of the report. She felt that the recommended option sought to revert the cul de sac into a private road which seemed wrong to her. She also pointed out concerns over parking on the slip road and dangers to pedestrians and cyclists.

Andrew Beattie spoke regarding item 5, in support of option 1. He stated that the vast majority of residents of Government House Road were in favour of the report’s recommendations and felt the council’s analysis of the problem was very sensible. He cited further examples of access issues on the road which would be mitigated by approving the recommended option.

The executive member read the following written representation from Cllr Stephen Fenton on item 4, Annex E;

I’m not able to attend the Transport Executive Member Decision Session on 28^th May, but would like to put in writing my support for the officer recommendations in relation to the proposals relating to Dringhouses & Woodthorpe ward.

The executive member read the following written representation from Cllr Mark Warters on item 4, Annex N1;

I wish to submit under public participation the following to be read out by the chair and included in the papers for the meeting on the 28th May;

The officer proposals to introduce double yellow line parking restrictions as detailed are a direct response to parking problems expressly created by previous failures of Highway Development Control to listen to local representations and apply common sense when commenting on recent planning applications in the area.

This failure to listen and apply common sense will, if these restrictions are passed simply be repeated again resulting in a parking problem created by the activities of one business being moved further along Murton Way to the detriment of residents and just moving the unnecessary road hazard further along for motorists to contend with.

Highways officers have been offered a solution to all the parking issues in the immediate area which was double yellow line parking restrictions on Outgang Lane and Urban Clearway restrictions extended both ways on Murton Way and along Osbaldwick Link Rd.

Restrictions that would deal with the problems CYC Highways and Planning have created in the area, which had the support of residents living on Murton Way and could be carried out in a more aesthetically appropriate manner.

So why have Highways Officers pressed ahead with their proposals and ignored local representations?

I can only conclude, coupled with the complete absence in this agenda of any ‘fast tracked’ proposals to deal with the other CYC created parking fiasco on Tranby Avenue that CYC are working with the aim of creating as much parking chaos as possible in Osbaldwick and Murton in furtherance of the imposition of revenue raising Respark schemes.

I would of course be pleased to be proved wrong if the Executive Member was to instruct Highways Officers to pursue the local solution to the issues in N1.

The executive member read the following written representation from Cllr Lucy Steels-Walshaw on item 4, Annex K1;

I would like to raise the following objections to the prosed TRO on Brunel Court on Holgate on behalf of residents who live in the proposed area.

The residents are aware that the person who originally raised the concerns has now moved from the area and residents believe that the full proposal as advertised was probably not as they originally requested.

There are 4 residents who have raised objections, and these are the 4 residents out of 5 who would be directly impacted by the proposed changes. Residents have cited reasons for the TRO not to go ahead including restricting their ability to have guests visit, deliveries being unable to attend the address, tradespeople not being able to attend in order to carry out maintenance and probably mainly their objection is that there have not been any previous issues with parking in the small cul-de-sac that they are aware of.

The residents have advised that if there has ever been any discussion about parking disagreements which have been extremely rare, then this has been amicably sorted out amongst residents and indeed if there were any new issues to arise, I would work with the community of this street to resolve this at a local level.

I have discussed the lesser restriction as shown in the documents that are recommended and supported by some of the residents, but the question still remains whether these are necessary for a street of residents none of whom supported the initial application and have previously not reported any issues.