Agenda and minutes

At this point Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on this agenda.

Members were invited to declare at this point in the meeting any personal or prejudicial interests they might have in the business on the agenda.

The following personal interests were declared:

To approve and sign the minutes of the Special and Ordinary Council meetings held on 9 December 2010 and the Budget Council meeting held on 24 February 2011.

With reference to Minute 48 of the Ordinary meeting of Council on 9 December 2010, Cllr Merrett asked that his personal interest in agenda item 13(iv) be amended to read ‘employed by a company that does most of its work for the public sector’.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Special and Ordinary Council meetings held on 9 December 2010 and of the Budget Council meeting held on 24 February 2011 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of each meeting, subject to the amendment of Cllr Merrett’s declaration of interest under Minute 48, as indicated above..

At this point in the meeting, any member of the public who has registered to address the Council, or to ask a Member of the Council a question, on a matter directly relevant to the business of the Council or the City, may do so.  The deadline for registering is 5:00pm on Wednesday 6 April 2011.

The Lord Mayor reported that six members of the public had registered to speak at the meeting.  Each was invited to speak for three minutes, in accordance with the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

Ceri Owen spoke in support of the petition due to be debated under item 5(b) on the agenda.  She drew particular attention to the potential effects of cuts in the budget for the mental health support line, as well as other services to vulnerable people, and urged Members to write to the York MPs in the terms outlined in the petition.

Owen Clayton spoke in support of the petition at item 5(b), with particular reference to public transport cuts, which would disproportionately affect disabled people.

Stephen Bentley also spoke in support of the petition at item 5(b), drawing attention to changes in the benefits system which would have a detrimental effect upon disabled people.

Lilian Black, Chair of the Holocaust Survivors’ Friendship Association, accompanied by her father Eugene Black, a Holocaust survivor, spoke in objection to the reduction in funding for Holocaust Memorial Day approved at the Budget Council meeting and urged that this decision be re-considered.

Eamonn Keogh, of the York and North Yorkshire Chamber, spoke in relation to the Executive recommendations on the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (agenda item 6).  He expressed concern at the approach to housing provision in the Core Strategy, which he considered to be unsound, on the basis that the evidence supported the provision of at least 800 additional homes per year in York.

Janet Hopton, Chair of the World Heritage for York Steering Group, spoke in support of the urgent motion to be moved by Cllr Taylor regarding York’s bid to become a World Heritage Site.  She expressed disappointment that the bid had not been successful but thanked all those who had contributed and noted that work had now begun on a revised bid.

a)                 To consider any petitions received from Members in accordance with Standing Order No.7.  To date, notice has been received of one such petition, as follows:

·        A petition to be presented by Cllr Aspden on behalf of local residents calling for additional road markings on Selby Road, Fulford.

b)                 To consider a petition submitted on-line and to the Council meeting on 24 February 2011, together with a briefing report from the Director of Adults, Children & Education.  The petition relates to support for vulnerable people and has more than 1,000 signatories.

A note on the process for dealing with petitions will be circulated to Members before the meeting.

a)            Petitions Submitted by Members

Under Standing Order 7, petitions were presented by:

(i)                 Cllr Aspden, on behalf of local residents calling for additional road markings on Selby Road, Fulford.¹

(ii)               Cllr Potter, on behalf of residents in and around Eboracum Way, objecting to the illuminated sign at the new ‘Go Outdoors’ store. ²

RESOLVED: That the above petitions be referred to the Executive or appropriate committee. ^1-2

b)            Petition Submitted by Residents

Members considered a petition in respect of support for vulnerable people, which had been submitted to the Budget Council meeting on 24 February 2011 and as an e-petition, together with a background report from the Director of Adults, Children & Education.  The petition had been signed by more than 1,000 people and had therefore been brought to Council for debate, in accordance with the agreed process.  Following debate, it was

RESOLVED: That the petition be referred to the Executive to determine any appropriate action. ³

The Lord Mayor announced that she intended to deal at this point with an urgent motion, of which notice had been given and the wording circulated around the Chamber.

Cllr Taylor then moved, and Cllr Waller seconded that:

"Council recognises the work of the Steering Group for World Heritage for York and appreciates that there is overwhelming community support for York obtaining World Heritage Site status.  Council further notes that, as an outcome of the bid, that the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport encourages the city to re-submit a bid for recognition as a UNESCO World Heritage Site which would recognise the whole of our historic city above, as well as below, ground.

Council therefore invites all four Party Leaders to sign a letter of support to the Steering Group in its continuing efforts." ¹

On being put to the vote, the motion was declared CARRIED unanimously and it was

RESOLVED: That the above urgent motion be approved. ¹

To receive and consider a written report from the Leader on the work of the Executive, and the Executive recommendations for approval, as set out below:

A written report was received from the Executive Leader, Cllr Andrew Waller, on the work of the Executive.

Cllr Waller then moved, and Cllr Runciman seconded, the following recommendation contained in Minute 148 of the Executive meeting held on 18 January 2011:

“That Council approve the revised Income Policy at Annex A to the [Executive] report, subject to the revision of paragraph 13 of the policy to remove the reference to planning fees as an example of charges set nationally by government.”

On being put to the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED: That the recommendation in Minute 148 of the Executive meeting on 18 January 2011 (Revised Income Policy) be approved.¹

Cllr Waller then moved, and Cllr Runciman seconded, the following recommendations contained in Minute 173 of the Executive meeting held on 1 March 2011:

“(i)       That Council approve the Core Strategy, as amended (Annex A), subject tothe inclusion of the further suggested amendments set out in Annex H to the report, along with supporting information, for publication and submission for public examination.

REASON:      In order to progress the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and to ensure that it encourages the development of a City respectful of both its historic built heritage and its natural environment, with high employment levels, increased opportunities for leisure activities and an improved transport system.

(ii)        That the final version of the Core Strategy Submission Document be placed on the Council’s website.”

1^st amendment

Cllr Gillies then moved, and Cllr Hudson seconded, an amendment to the recommendations, as follows:

“Change the numbering of the second recommendation from ‘(ii)’ to ‘(iii)’.

Insert a new recommendation (ii), as follows:

“(ii)      That Officers review and look to increase levels of density for student housing accommodation in order to provide more dedicated student accommodation and therefore reduce pressure on private housing being turned in to Houses in Multiple Occupation.’”

On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared CARRIED.

The recommendations, as amended, now read as follows:

“(i)       That Council approve the Core Strategy, as amended (Annex A), subject to the inclusion of the further suggested amendments set out in Annex H to the report, along with supporting information, for publication and submission for public examination.²

REASON:      In order to progress the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and to ensure that it encourages the development of a City respectful of both its historic built heritage and its natural environment, with high employment levels, increased opportunities for leisure activities and an improved transport system.

(ii)        That Officers review and look to increase levels of density for student housing accommodation in order to provide more dedicated student accommodation and therefore reduce pressure on private housing being turned in to Houses in Multiple Occupation.³

(iii)       That the final version of the Core Strategy Submission Document be placed on the Council’s website.”⁴

2^nd amendment

Cllr Merrett then moved, and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded, a further amendment to the recommendations,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

To consider the following recommendation for approval from the Audit & Governance Committee:

As Chair of the Audit & Governance Committee, Cllr Brian Watson moved the recommendation contained in Minute 53 of the meeting of that Committee held on 6 December 2010, as follows:

“That Council be asked to consider the recommendations of the Audit and Governance Committee in respect of the Petitions Scheme, including the suggestion that the number of signatures be 750 rather than the 1000 suggested in the draft scheme.”

Cllr Runciman then moved, and Cllr Gillies seconded, that the matter be referred back to Officers for further refinement of the Petitions Scheme.

On being put to the vote, the referral back was declared CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED: That the Petitions Scheme be referred back to Officers for further refinement. ¹

Cllr Brian Watson then moved, and Cllr Brooks seconded, the following recommendation contained in Minute 68 of the meeting of the Audit & Governance Committee held on 14 February 2011:

That Council approve the proposals contained in the report [to the Committee] for implementation after the May election.

On being put to the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED: That the recommendation in Minute 68 of the Audit & Governance Committee meeting held on 14 February 2011 (Transition to New Style Leader and Cabinet Model) be approved. ²

To receive a report from Councillor Galvin, the Chair of the Scrutiny Management Committee (SMC) on the work of the SMC.

A written report was received from Cllr John Galvin, the Chair of the Scrutiny Management Committee (SMC) on the work of the SMC since the last report to Council, on 9 December 2010.

In moving his report, Cllr Galvin corrected an error at paragraph 20, noting that the recommendations from the Taxi Licensing Scrutiny Review would be presented to the Licensing & Regulatory Committee and not to the Audit & Governance Committee.

To receive a written report from the Executive Member for City Strategy, and to question the Executive Member thereon, provided any such questions are registered in accordance with the timescales and procedures set out in Standing Order 8.2.1.

A written report was received from Cllr Steve Galloway, the Executive Member for City Strategy.

Notice had been received of ten questions on the report, submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders.  The first seven questions were put and answered as follows:

(i)         From Cllr Merrett:

“With regard to local bus patronage remaining stable overall, would theExecutive Member indicate the numbers of fare paying passenger tripsin each year of Local Transport Plan 2 (LTP2)?”

The Executive Member replied:

“With regard to local bus patronage remaining stable overall, would theExecutiveMember indicate the numbers of fare paying passenger tripsineach year of Local Transport Plan 2 (LTP2)?”

Total patronage

2009/10                    14,774,492

2008/09                    15,334,448

2007/08                    14,853,143

2006/07                    15,144,371

2005/06                    14,493,549

Unfortunately I am unable to provide a breakdown of the actual percentage of concessions for each of these years at this short notice, suffice it to say that our figures show that slightly over 50% of bus patronage is made up of concessions.”

(ii)        From Cllr Holvey:

“With reference to the Local Transport Plan, what powers does the Council have to prevent operators from choosing the type of bus used on commercial services in the City? In particular could the Executive member confirm that when the current ftr usage agreement expires in June 2011 it will be a matter to First to decide whether to continue to use the vehicles or to make changes to the number of ftrs used in the City?”

The Executive Member replied:

“The Council has very limited powers to specify vehicle types on commercial services. If a Low Emission Zone was put in place then this may be used to restrict access to certain vehicles including buses. Height/weight/length restrictions can be applied which would limit vehicle types. First could remove the ftr fleet at the end of the current agreement.”

(iii)       From Cllr Merrett:

“With regard to the substantially reduced 575 homes a year target figure and the up to 1000 jobs a year growth figure in the proposed LDF, would theExecutive Member indicate what the consequenceswill be of high job growth and low new housing provisionon already high house prices and private sector rents in York, on pressure for town cramming in the main urban area,on displacement of low earning indigenous residents toWest, South andEast Yorkshire, and also on additional long distance commutingand transport related greenhouse gas emissionsand local congestion?”

The Executive Member replied:

“The 1000 figure is a maximum. Over the last 10 years around 300 new (additional) jobs have been created in the City on average each year. The 575 new homes is more than adequate to deal with such growth.

If there are those that think that the City can grow by 1000 jobs every year then they envisage a very major change which would see the City change beyond recognition. It would involve massive immigration to fill the vacancies and York has only a small pool of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

Minutes of the following meetings of outside bodies, received since the last meeting of Council, have been made available for Members to view via the Council’s website at

http://sql003.york.gov.uk/mgListOutsideBodies.asp?bcr=1

Copies may also be obtained by contacting Democracy Support Group at the Guildhall, York (tel. 01904 551088)

·  Quality Bus Partnership – meeting on 15 December 2010

Members are invited to put any questions to the Council’s representatives on the above bodies, in accordance with Standing Order 10(b).

Minutes of the following meeting had been made available for Members to view on the Council’s website:

• Quality Bus Partnership – meeting on 15/12/10

No questions had been submitted to representatives on outside bodies.

To consider the appointments and changes to membership of committees and outside bodies set out on the list attached to this summons.

RESOLVED: That the appointments to, and changes to membership of, committees, outside bodies and working groups set out in the list at page 153 of the Council papers (and attached as an annex to these minutes) be approved.

To consider the following Notices of Motion under Standing Order 12:

A – Motions referred from the Executive in accordance with Standing Order 12.1(a)

None

B – Motions submitted for consideration directly by Council, in accordance with Standing Order 12.1(b)

(i)         From Cllr Kirk

“Council notes the concerns raised by local residents and health professionals in regard to the Government’s proposed reforms to the NHS contained in the Health and Social Care Bill and the petition collected by Defend Our NHS York.

Council is especially concerned by the introduction of a market based approach to the NHS and the impact this could have on decisions about local patient care. Council is also concerned that the proposals do little to improve on the current lack of local accountability for health care decisions.

Council supports the suggestions made in the amendments agreed at the recent Liberal Democrat conference, including ensuring elected local councillors have a strong role in making services accountable to local people, and believes these changes should be incorporated into the Bill by the Government.

Council therefore asks the Chief Executive to write to the city’s MPs asking them to support amendments to the Bill in order to address the concerns of residents and safeguard health services for local people.”

(ii)        From Cllr Alexander

“Council notes the Liberal Democrat Yorkshire Manifesto commitment to increase the number of police officers in Yorkshire and the Humber by 200. Instead North Yorkshire alone is set to lose 200 police officers due to Conservative Liberal Democrat funding cuts.

Council requests the Chief Executive to write to the Deputy Prime Minister to request him to halt planned police cuts.”

(iii)       From Cllr Wiseman

“Whereas:

There are 11 children’s heart surgery units in the UK, but the NHS is proposing under its ‘Safe and Sustainable’ review to reduce this to 6 or 7 specialist hubs undertaking 400 operations per year;

and

The choice facing the NHS review team will be to retain either the Children’s Heart Surgery Unit at Leeds General Infirmary or the unit at Newcastle to serve the north;

and

Leeds serves a major population catchments area of 14 million people in Yorkshire and the Humber, Lincolnshire and North Derbyshire, has the capacity to expand and has centralised the whole of its children’s services operations on one site;

and

Leeds General Infirmary is at the forefront of work on inherited cardiac conditions and has an excellent record for providing safe, high quality children’s heart surgery;

Council asks Members to join with local MPs and community groups to express all-party support for keeping open the Children’s Heart Unit at Leeds General Infirmary  and asks the Chief Executive to write to the Department of Health to ask for the retention of  the Leeds Children’s Heart Unit as the centre best placed to serve as the specialist hub for the needs of young cardiac patients in Yorkshire and the north of England.”

(iv)       From Cllr Crisp

“Council notes the council has received a 13.3% funding cut this  ...  view the full agenda text for item 80.

(i)         Health and Social Care Bill

It was moved by Cllr Kirk  and seconded by Cllr Aspden that:

“Council notes the concerns raised by local residents and health professionals in regard to the Government’s proposed reforms to the NHS contained in the Health and Social Care Bill and the petition collected by Defend Our NHS York.

Council is especially concerned by the introduction of a market based approach to the NHS and the impact this could have on decisions about local patient care. Council is also concerned that the proposals do little to improve on the current lack of local accountability for health care decisions.

Council supports the suggestions made in the amendments agreed at the recent Liberal Democrat conference, including ensuring elected local councillors have a strong role in making services accountable to local people, and believes these changes should be incorporated into the Bill by the Government.

Council therefore asks the Chief Executive to write to the city’s MPs asking them to support amendments to the Bill in order to address the concerns of residents and safeguard health services for local people.” ¹

Cllr Simpson-Laing then moved, and Cllr Boyce seconded, an amendment to the above motion, as follows:

“After the first paragraph add: ‘Council believes the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government has no mandate to carry out a costly and damaging re-organisation of the NHS as the plan was not listed in either party’s manifesto. Adversely the coalition’s programme for government stated the coalition would ‘stop the top-down reorganisations of the NHS.’

Delete the last paragraph and insert ‘The Labour opposition and Conservative support for the Conservative Liberal Democrat Government’s NHS reforms is clear. The position of the Liberal Democrats is not. Council therefore asks the Chief Executive to write to all Liberal Democrat MPs asking them to support amendments to the Bill in order to address concerns of residents and safeguard health services for local people.’”

On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared LOST

The original motion was then put to the vote and declared CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED: That the above notice of motion be approved. ¹

(ii)        Police Funding Cuts

It was moved by Cllr Alexander  and seconded by Cllr Potter that:

“Council notes the Liberal Democrat Yorkshire Manifesto commitment to increase the number of police officers in Yorkshire and the Humber by 200. Instead North Yorkshire alone is set to lose 200 police officers due to Conservative Liberal Democrat funding cuts.

Council requests the Chief Executive to write to the Deputy Prime Minister to request him to halt planned police cuts.”

On being put to the vote, the above motion was declared LOST and it was

RESOLVED: That the above notice of motion not be approved.

(iii)       Leeds Children’s Heart Unit

Council having consented to an alteration to the notice of motion as originally submitted (as highlighted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

To deal with the following questions to the Executive Leader and / or other Executive Members, in accordance with Standing Order 11.3(a):

(i)         To the Executive Leader, from Cllr Merrett

“What would the Council’s liability be for air quality fines should the EU fine the UK Government and this be passed onto councils?”

(ii)        To the Executive Leader, from Cllr Sunderland

“Can the Executive Leader give an update on progress with finding a funding solution for the Leeman Road Flood defence project?”

(iii)       To the Executive Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Crisp

“York has 14 libraries and the Leader of the Council has said publicly the Executive’s plans will maintain 14 libraries. A new library is suggested to be built with the new community stadium. Which library will this replace?”

(iv)       To the Executive Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Aspden

“How many schools in York have achieved the ARTSMARK quality award and how does this compare to the national average?”

(v)        To the Executive Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Hyman

Can the Executive Member give details of the numbers of visitors to the city’s various festivals over the past 8 years?”

(vi)       To the Executive Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Firth

“Can the Executive Member give an update on the progress towards bringing the Mystery Plays back to Museum Gardens next year?”

(vii)      To the Executive Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Orrell

“Can the Executive Member give Council an update on the work that the Inclusive Arts team has done since it was created in 2009?”

(viii)     To the Executive Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Hogg

“Can the Executive Member comment on how participation in sport and active leisure has changed over the past five years and how this compares to national trends?”

(ix)       To the Executive Member for Health & Adult Social Services, from Cllr Fraser

“Please explain why City of York Council is continuing to let private care providers run Adult Social Care Services in the City when at least one of them is deemed not to be working to the standards of the agreed contract.  Will this provider be given a final date for when the services have to meet standards or the service brought back in house?”

(x)        To the Executive Member for Health & Adult Social Services, from Cllr Hyman

“Can the Executive Member describe the Council’s investment in Telecare and the benefits the system brings?”

(xi)       To the Executive Member for Health & Adult Social Services, from Cllr Waudby

“How many sheltered and extra care housing units were there in 2003 and how many are available now?”

(xii)      To the Executive Member for Health & Adult Social Services, from Cllr R Watson

“Can the Executive Member explain the impact of the ‘every child a talker’ project and the benefits it has brought to young children in the city?”

(xiii)     To the Executive Member for Neighbourhoods & Housing, from Cllr  ...  view the full agenda text for item 81.

Eighteen questions had been submitted to the Executive Leader and Executive Members under Standing Order 11.3(a).  The guillotine having fallen at this point, Members agreed to receive written answers to their questions, as set out below:

(i)         To the Executive Leader, from Cllr Merrett

“What would the Council’s liability be for air quality fines should the EU fine the UK Government and this be passed onto councils?”

Reply:

There is not currently a mechanism for this to happen, and therefore it would be speculation.

(ii)        To the Executive Leader, from Cllr Sunderland

“Can the Executive Leader give an update on progress with finding a funding solution for the Leeman Road Flood defence project?”

Reply:

The programme for a scheme for improvement of the Flood Defences at Leeman Road/Water End are working their way through the Environment Agency’s internal approval system. With the additional resource of £1 million from the council, and support through the Local Levy for Yorkshire which has been recommended for approval on 21^st April meeting of the Regional Flood Defence Committee. Therefore there is opportunity for the plans to progress with the current plan for delivery in 2012/13.

(iii)       To the Executive Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Crisp

“York has 14 libraries and the Leader of the Council has said publicly the Executive’s plans will maintain 14 libraries. A new library is suggested to be built with the new community stadium. Which library will this replace?”

Reply:

I appreciate Cllr Crisp’s concern for library provision in Huntington.  No doubt this is drawing on the extensive local knowledge her ward colleague Cllr Alexander developed when collecting 6% of the vote there in the 2003 local elections.  The long term pledge the Leader made was to maintain 14 libraries and did not in any way preclude an increase in the number of libraries.  We are looking to increase the number of libraries to 15 by opening a new book cafe in Rowntree Park.  The nearest library facing closure is probably Easingwold, so any Explore Centre at the Community Stadium could be seen to be a replacement for that.

(iv)       To the Executive Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Aspden

“How many schools in York have achieved the ARTSMARK quality award and how does this compare to the national average?”

Reply:

Over the life of the award, since 2002, over 52 schools have achieved the award. Each award is valid for 3 years and currently 44 schools hold a valid award.  The work of our Arts Consultants and our Theatre, museums and other cultural organisations have been key in ensuring that the level of success for our local authority stands at 68% while the national average is only 18%.

(v)        To the Executive Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Hyman

Can the Executive Member give details of the numbers of visitors to the city’s various festivals over the past 8 years?”

Reply:

The very nature of festivals makes precise numbers for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

To consider any announcements made by the Lord Mayor in respect of Civic business.

Having previously indicated her intention to vary the order of business so as to deal with this item at the end of the meeting, the Lord Mayor announced that eleven Members of Council would not be seeking re-election on 4^th May.  She asked Council to join with her in placing on record their thanks to these Members, who had between them given 130 years of service to the City, and in extending good wishes to those who would be standing for re-election.