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, 9 May 2025.

 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 16 registrations to speak at the session under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

10 people spoke on item 5 () and six people spoke on the item of Urgent Business from April 22 decision session (“Urgent Review of Parking Charges”).

·       Steve Boden spoke on item 5 supporting the scheme but discussing reasons for the low response rate and suggesting that the methodology of the officers had not been democratic.

The Executive Member noted that clearer communication of the methodology was being addressed.

·       Jacqueline Tomkinson spoke on item 5 – expressing concern at how restrictions would impact people with disabilities and those who do not own a car. She felt that daily ticketing would adversely impact people on reduced means.

The Executive Member confirmed that there were mitigations and she would ask officers to respond via email to specific concerns raised.

·       Pippa Cole spoke on item 5 – stating that she was disappointed in the recommendation not to take further action following a low response rate to the consultation. She noted that the majority of respondents had supported residents parking.

·       Michael Kearney spoke on item 5 – in support of the Respark scheme. He noted that local residents were often unable to park due to commuter parking and people attending events at the Barbican in the evening, due to the area providing free parking. He suggested that R66 would also encourage more sustainable transport usage.

·       Lucy Shaw spoke on item 5 – in favour of the scheme, suggesting that the scheme would improve pedestrian and cyclist safety as well as the congestion and traffic flow on Fulford Road and Cemetery Road. She pointed out that the area was well served by university buses and noted that where residents had objected it had largely been with regard to the perceived cost, but she felt the benefits outweighed this cost.

·       Phillip Collins spoke on item 5 - speaking as a local resident of 30 years he commented on current car parking pressures – said it has got worse in recent years. When university raised its parking prices it suggested that people come and park there. He felt with the Barbican site now being turned into 240 apartments this could only have an adverse effect on parking.

·       Hazel Qureshi spoke on item 5 – speaking against respark as unnecessary cost and not needed in her particular area, though she acknowledged that those in the R66 area closer to town generally were more in favour. She suggested the area be split on a geographic area so that the residents closer to town could have Respark and those closer to Heslington could choose not to.

The Executive Member clarified that it was possible to implement a split scheme where there is a clear geographic division of opinion. 

·       Sarah Busby spoke on item 5 – she clarified that the decision at hand was whether or not to drop the R66 plan, as opposed to whether or not to implement it now. She noted that subsequent to the consultation, many people in the R66 area were changing their minds due to the council’s decision to add 240 flats to the area with only 62 allocated parking spaces. She also noted that the number of students and landlords in the area skewed the response rate.

·       Guy Hogarth spoke on item 5 – opposing the scheme.  He discussed how these changes would represent a significant cumulative cost to those in his residence, and he sought further clarity of what the changes would entail.

·       Jacqueline Christensen spoke on item 5 – opposing the scheme. She did not understand why she should pay to park outside her own home. She said that she never had a significant problem parking near her home and felt that her council tax had already been increased with no visible benefit, so did not wish to pay further unnecessary fees.

·       Cllr Jane Burton brought to the Executive Member’s attention an online petition created by local traders on Bishopthorpe Road regarding the increase in parking charges and its adverse impact on their business. She suggested viewing the car park as more of a community car park than a city centre one.

The Executive Member accepted this petition.

·       John Hayes spoke on this same item – speaking as a local resident, trader and campaigner. He suggested that the recent transport decisions, however well intentioned, needed to be reviewed, especially the 500% tariff increase and its impact on local shops in Bishopthorpe Road. Under statutory guidelines the traders wished to exercise their right to challenge guidelines under the Traffic Management Act 2004 through the petition previously presented by Cllr Burton, but Mr Hayes also presented a formal letter outlining this legal challenge and requesting a review.

The Executive Member accepted the letter.

·       Todd LePage spoke on this same item – speaking as a local resident and businessman. He spoke of the significant impact on his retail business and that of other local traders, which had been subject to a sudden and unannounced immediate downturn when the fees were imposed. He requested that the charges be reset to a level that benefits all stakeholders.

·       Joe Nasson spoke on the same item – as a local resident and trader. He objected to the price rise in parking charges, stating that though he personally was not part of the pro-car lobby and 80% of shoppers travel to Bishopthorpe Road sustainably, some people did make a conscious choice to use the car park rather than go to out of town supermarkets. All shoppers will be impacted by the changes. Since the price rises, he noted that affluent commuters could still afford the fees but typical shoppers who use Bishopthorpe Road could not afford the new fees and were being priced out, costing the shops their trade. If shops are forced to close it will lead to job losses.

·       Ruth Phillips spoke on the same item – as a local business owner. She stated that businesses were no longer in growth and traders mental health was being impacted. She raised the lack of consultation with local businesses prior to the Council making this decision. She noted the low percentage of respondents to the initial consultation supporting parking fee increases and officers’ acknowledgement of the adverse impact on those with protected characteristics.

·       Heather Walsh spoke on the same item – as a local resident, parent and local shopper. She stated her disgust with the 500% price rises for parking in the area where she did her food shop, used the hairdresser and socialised. She condemned the sudden price rise in a cheap and accessible 3-hour car park which allowed people to support local businesses. She emphasised that this was a local area in which people could support their local community.

The Executive Member addressed the people who had spoken on Bishopthorpe Road (and other) parking charges, recognising the strength of support for the speakers’ position. She confirmed that many emails had been exchanged and that she had met with local traders.

The Executive Member said that she had reviewed the budget decision from February, and the pricing model agreed as part of this budget. She recognised that the increase in some areas that traditionally had much lower parking fees had been “too much, too soon” and the council were looking to propose a more consistent and pragmatic amendment which would ultimately phase out different pricing around the city.

She stated that officers were now assessing the budgetary impact of any potential changes and looking at how any shortfall in the budget would be addressed if those changes were to come into place.

She confirmed that meetings would be held with local high street traders in different areas of the city within the week, to discuss possible options around amendments and to gather feedback on how changes may be implemented.

She clarified that the council would not be making individual localised arrangements around parking, but that there was a genuine desire to find a solution and work with local businesses and residents.