Agenda and minutes

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 consider the exclusion of the press and public from the meeting during consideration of Annexes A and B (including Annexes 1-12) relating to Cabinet Minute 119 (The Community Stadium: Business Case) on the grounds that they contain information relating to the financial or business affairs of particular persons.  This information is classed as exempt under paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as revised by The Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006).

Cllr Alexander moved, and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded:

“That the press and public be excluded from the Chamber during discussion on Annexes A and B (including Annexes 1-12) of agenda item 7 (Community Stadium: Business Case), on the grounds that the discussion will include reference to information relating to the financial or business affairs of particular persons, which is classed as exempt under paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as revised by The Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006).”

RESOLVED:             That the above motion be approved and that the press and public be excluded from the Chamber during consideration of the recommendations on the Community Stadium: Business Case.

To approve and sign the minutes of Council meetings held on 8 December 2011 (attached) and 23 February 2012 (to follow).

RESOLVED:       i)                That the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 8 December 2011 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record subject to:

                                                The addition in Minute 43 (Declarations of Interest) of the declaration of a personal non prejudicial interest by Cllr Levene in Agenda items 9. Report of Cabinet Member and 13. Questions to the Cabinet Leader and Cabinet Members relating to terms and conditions and Union members as a member of Unite. ^1.

ii)              That the minutes of the Budget Council meeting held on 23 February 2012 (circulated at the meeting) be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

The Lord Mayor asked Members to join him in thanking Bill Woolley, the Director of City Strategy for all his work for the city over a number of years and wishing him well in his retirement.

The Lord Mayor reported receipt of the civic gift of a framed certificate from the Maritime Theatre Missile Defense Forum awarded in appreciation of their visit to the Mansion House.

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 28 March 2012.

The Lord Mayor announced that six members of the public had registered to speak at the meeting.

Reuban Mayne spoke as lead petitioner in support of retaining the Beckfield Lane Recycling Centre. He expressed his thanks to the 2,870 signatories, and referred to feedback received from concerned users at the proposed closure of the site. He acknowledged the hard working staff on site and assistance they gave to residents using the facility. It was also noted that there had been no on site injuries since opening. Reference was also made to the affect any closure would have on vulnerable residents and the environment and he urged members to reverse their closure decision.

Harry Telfer spoke on behalf of the Badger Hill Community Group, in relation to the excessive on street parking by university students on their estate roads. Access to emergency vehicles was impeded as parking prevented two way traffic. He therefore requested members to consider extending the experimental traffic regulation order within the southern part of the ‘Traffic-Count Zone 9’ at Badger Hill to the whole of Zone 9.

Mike Fisher spoke as owner of a local business in relation to the Community Stadium proposals, particularly to the four years taken to produce the business case. Reference was made to the reports reliance on a rise in attendance figures at the stadium and increasing income when gate numbers were falling for clubs. Concerns were also expressed that the report was not objective and contained flawed information.

Denise Craghill also spoke in respect of the business case for the Community Stadium and her concerns at its content and preparation prior to consideration of the planning application. She questioned the lack of information as to how the provision would benefit the city and if this was the most suitable location for a community hub. There was still insufficient information provided on which to make a decision and she urged members to defer further consideration pending receipt of further information.

Matthew Greenwood also spoke on the business case for the Stadium expressing concern at the monetary case put forward prior to consideration of a planning application. In particular he referred to the suggested returns from Waterworld following the recent opening of a number of competing gym facilities in the area. There was a lack of research and financial information in the report and no fall back plan if required.

Suzanne Lawson spoke in support of the petition, to be presented later in the meeting, for the gating of the alley between Nunmill Street and part of Bishopthorpe Road. Reference was made to a number of recent burglaries in the area and that 66% of the areas residents supported gating of the alley which would provide security, and safety for families.

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

·     A petition to be presented by Cllr Fraser on behalf of residents of Nunmill Street and part of Bishopthorpe Rd calling for the gating of the alley between the two streets.

·        A petition to be presented by Cllr Levene on behalf of Heslington residents regarding the proposed Field Lane-University Road changes.

·        A petition to be presented by Cllr Barnes on behalf of Badger Hill residents group.

·        A petition to be presented by Cllr Boyce on behalf of Heworth ward residents for the replacement of a seat on Hempland Lane.

·        A petition to be presented by Cllr Reid on behalf of residents objection to the closure of the Beckfield Lane Household Waste Recycling Centre.

Under Standing Order 7, petitions were presented by:

i)             Cllr Fraser on behalf of residents of Nunmill Street and part of Bishopthorpe Rd calling for the gating of the alley between the two streets.^1.

ii)            Cllr Levene on behalf of Heslington residents regarding the proposed Field Lane-University Road changes. ^2.

iii)          Cllr Barnes on behalf of Badger Hill residents group regarding parking in the area. ^3.

iv)          Cllr Boyce on behalf of Heworth ward residents requesting the replacement of a seat on Hempland Lane. ^4.

v)           Cllr Reid on behalf of residents objection to the closure of the Beckfield Lane Household Waste Recycling Centre. ^5.

vi)          Cllr Brooks on behalf of Dunnington residents requesting the provision of lighting to a snicket at Holly Tree Croft, Dunnington. ^6.

RESOLVED:       That the above petitions be referred to the Cabinet or appropriate committee.

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

A written report was received from the Cabinet Leader, Cllr James Alexander, on the work of the Cabinet.

A         Questions

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

(i)                From Cllr Barton

“Will the cost of the improved gifts to international visitors come from the new Innovation Fund personally controlled by Cllr Alexander and what is likely to be the revised annual cost?”

  The Leader replied:

“No. You have misunderstood the purpose of the delivery and innovation fund.

What I have said in my report is not about increasing the cost of diplomatic gifts to international dignitaries, it is about bringing this council’s processes and procedures on this matter in line with cities across the UK and showcasing York products and businesses to an international market. At meetings of the internationalisation group I have set up, your Group Leader Councillor Gillies has agreed with me on this.” 

(ii)        From Cllr Ayre

“How much money does he believe taxpayers should be paying for gifts?”

The Leader replied:

“It is appropriate that we are culturally sensitive to international visitors and the markets we are trying to attract. In many cultures the exchange of gifts is important for fostering relationships. I am not expecting anything expensive but something that says something about York and is of quality. We are not currently doing this in a systematic way. This is not about paying more for diplomatic gifts, it is about working with businesses across our city and ensuring their products are showcased to key international markets.”

(iii)       From Cllr Warters

“Whilst congratulating the Council Leader for the expedient removal of the ftr buses, would he demonstrate that this is not just a political gesture and commit to the removal of the other equally unsuitable, equally dangerous and equally damaging bendy buses from York’s streets?”

The Leader replied:

“The FTR buses had specific negative impacts on our city due to their size, poor fuel consumption and weight. The integrity of our city’s roads was affected and heavy maintenance costs incurred as a result.

We listened to residents’ complaints and addressed this issue. We have had no such complaints, nor seen the same impacts from the ‘bendy’ buses.”

(iv)       From Cllr Firth

“As the Leader has claimed credit for terminating the number 4 FTR service, could he tell us what representations he has made to First regarding the future of the 20 staff who have been made redundant as a result of his decision?”

The Leader replied:

“I have asked the Cabinet Member for transport, in conjunction with council officers, to lobby for redeployment where possible. As a result, six conductors have already been redeployed. We will continue these efforts.

I do not agree with the Liberal Democrats calling for council taxpayers’ money to fund these redundant posts.”

(v)        From Cllr Ayre

“Can the Leader state whether he believes the shift from FTR to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

To consider a report and motion from the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services to approve the Pay Policy Statement for 2012/13 relating to the pay of the Council’s senior staff, to fulfil the requirements of Sections 38 – 43 of the Localism Act 2011.

Cllr Gunnell, as Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, presented a written report presenting the Pay Policy Statement for 2012/13 relating to the pay of the Council’s senior staff, to fulfil the requirements of Sections 38-43 of the Localism Act 2011.

Cllr Gunnell then moved a motion to approve the Pay Policy Statement, which was seconded by Cllr Alexander.

RESOLVED:             That the motion in respect of the Pay Policy Statement for 2012/13 be approved.

To consider the following recommendations for approval from the Audit and Governance Committee:

A       Changes to the Constitution

As Chair of the Audit & Governance Committee, Cllr Jeffries moved, and Cllr Barnes seconded, the following recommendations contained in Minute 54 of the meeting of that committee held on 13 February 2012:

“[That Council]approve the following Constitutional changes:

                                                                     i.        Remove references to Member Champions from the Constitution.

                                                                   ii.        Merge the terms of reference for the Effective Organisation Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Scrutiny Management Committee from the start of the next municipal year.

                                                                  iii.        Note the abolition of the Young People’s Working Group with a recommendation to Cabinet for the retention of a Mansion House Advisory Group.

                                                                  iv.        Welcome the establishment of a Corporate Parenting Board and to agree that membership should be formalised at each annual meeting.

                                                                   v.        Agree that the Procurement Strategy, the HR Strategy and the Risk Management Strategy no longer be treated as part of the Council’s policy framework.

                                                                  vi.        Agree to the removal of the HR Procedure Rules and the ICT Procedure Rules from the Constitution.

                                                                vii.        Retain the requirement for Officer decisions to be recorded within the Officer decision log with an amendment to the Constitutional wording to record only the decisions which the decision makers consider to be exceptionally noteworthy.

                                                              viii.        Remove provisions for pre-decision call in.”

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

RESOLVED:       That the recommendations in Minute 54 of the Audit & Governance Committee meeting held on 13 February 2012 be approved. ¹

B       Constitutional Changes

Cllr Jeffries then moved, and Cllr Barnes seconded, the following recommendations contained in Minute 57 of the meeting of that committee held on 19 March 2012:

“i)                [That Council] agree to remove references to Cabinet Member decision sessions from the Constitution

   (ii)            That Council note the above comments in respect of  the Mansion House and Mayoralty Advisory Group.

(ii)           That Council note the above comments in respect of the proposed Constitutional provisions for Ward Committees.”

Cllr Cuthbertson then moved, and Cllr Runciman seconded, an amendment to the recommendations, as follows:

“On page 313 of Council Papers, removal of recommendation (i) from the minutes.”

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

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

RESOLVED:       That the recommendations in Minute 57 of the Audit & Governance Committee meeting held on 19 March 2012 be approved. ²

To consider the following recommendations for approval from the Standards Committee:

As Vice Chair of the Standards Committee, Cllr Scott moved, and Cllr Taylor seconded, the following recommendations contained in Minute 18 of the meeting of that committee held on 16 March 2012:

“[That Council] be recommended:

(i)                 To adopt an interim Code of Conduct, whereby the existing Code continued with the addition of a requirement to register and declare Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, until Council was in a position to adopt a new Code at its meeting on 19 July 2012.

(ii)                To establish a joint Standards Committee with parish councils.  The membership to be as follows:

·                 4 City of York Councillors (one from each of the main political groups)

·                 3 Parish Councillors with voting rights (nominations to be made by the Local Association)

(iii)              The Standards Committee to have the power to co-opt non-voting community members if this benefits the work of the Committee.

(iv)                 The Chair of the Committee to be appointed by the Committee at its first meeting of the municipal year.

(v)         That two independent persons be appointed to undertake the functions set out in the Act and the draft procedures.”

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

RESOLVED:       That the recommendations in Minute 18 of the Standards Committee meeting held on 16 March 2012 be approved. ^1.

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

(ii)          To consider the following recommendations for approval from the Scrutiny Management Committee:

A         Report of the Scrutiny Management Committee

Council received a report from Councillor Galvin, Chair of the Scrutiny Management Committee, on the work of the committee.

B       Amalgamation of the Effective Organisation and Scrutiny Management Committees

Cllr Galvin then moved, and Cllr Alexander seconded, the following recommendations contained in Minute 17 of the meeting of the Scrutiny Management Committee held on 27 February 2012:

“(i)        [That Council] approves the proposed merger of Scrutiny Management Committee and Effective Organisation Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

(ii)        [That Council] approves the terms of reference as revised by any applicable comments received by the Chair and other Members of this Committee and taking into account the comments detailed above.”

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

RESOLVED:       That the recommendations in Minute 17 of the Scrutiny Management Committee meeting held on 27 February 2012 be approved. ^1.

To receive a written report from the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Social Inclusion and to question the Cabinet Member thereon, provided any such questions are registered in accordance with the timescales and procedures set out in Standing Order 8.2.1.

Council received a written report from Cllr Crisp, Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Social Inclusion.

Notice had been received of eighteen questions on the report, submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders. The first four questions were put and answered as follows and Members agreed to received written answers to their remaining questions, as set out below:

 (i)     From Cllr Gillies

“Will you be allocating extra funding for Illuminating York, and if so how much?”

Cabinet Member replied:

“No.”

(ii)      From Cllr Burton

“Can the Cabinet Member inform Members what is happening concerning public art at West Offices?”

Cabinet Member replied:

 “The developer’s contribution has enabled the public art element of the new headquarters to be secured. I have ensured that this contribution is used to support and develop the work of our local creative sector.  From the inception of the public art work we have focused on ensuring that new and emerging talented artists from York and Yorkshire have the opportunity and support to contribute works to our new headquarters.  Their brief is not only to make the public spaces welcoming and friendly but also to delight. 

We are working with six York and Yorkshire artists and John Newling, Emeritus professor of Public Art at Nottingham Trent University.  While I cannot yet unveil the details of the works I can say that they range from glass pieces through to digital and light works.  I am a member of the Public Art Steering Group and have been closely involved since the selection of the artists in steering the work and ensuring the budgets are kept to.  There have been some delays as there inevitably are with building projects but I have been working with the staff team and the artist to make sure all obstacles of this nature have been overcome. 

John Newling is working with the Staff team at the council to continue the creative legacy of this project.  He has kindly offered to organise a session for Council Members if we would like to attend.”

(iii)     From Cllr Aspden

“Can the Cabinet member outline which events in the York 800 programme would not have happened if it had not been York 800 and which would have occurred anyway?”

Cabinet Member replied:

 “While I have many powers I cannot see into alternative universes.  As a City of Festivals we have many fantastic events year on year but the response in support of York 800 has been fantastic from all across the creative cultural and voluntary sector in terms of new events. 

As we are only a third of the way through the year it will be hard to answer this accurately but I would hope by the end of 2012 everyone in the city and a good many of our visitors will have experienced and enjoyed York 800 activities.  This morning I launched the York Stories project and we have already got the website populated with stories from across the city.  Cllr Aspden could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

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://democracy.york.gov.uk/ecCatDisplay.aspx?sch=doc&cat=489&path=0

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

·        Without Walls – Minutes – 8 February 2012

·        York NHS Trust – Minutes – 21 December 2011

·        Fire Authority – Minutes – 7 December 2011

·        Safer York Partnerships – Minutes – 30 January 2012

·        York & North Yorkshire Waste Management – Minutes – 30 January 2012

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 meetings had been made available for Members to view on the Council’s website:

·         Without Walls – Minutes – 8 February 2012

·         York NHS Trust – Minutes – 21 December 2011

·         Fire Authority – Minutes – 7 December 2011

·         Safer York Partnerships – Minutes – 30 January 2012

·         York & North Yorkshire Waste Management – Minutes – 30 January 2012

No questions had been submitted to representatives on outside bodies.

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

A – Motions referred from the Cabinet in accordance with Standing Order 12.1(a)(copies of the relevant report to the Cabinet and an extract from the Cabinet minutes are attached)

None

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

(i)           From Cllr Simpson-Laing

“Council expresses concern over the introduction of the Local Housing Allowance which will financially impact York residents on low incomes.

Council notes that the allowance is sub-regionally calculated which results in an average allowance that falls short of even the lowest 30% priced private sector housing costs in the City.

Council is concerned that:

a.           many residents will be faced with possible homelessness, with the cost falling on the Council.

b.           there will be no housing for low paid workers who will be forced out of the City.

c.           the Housing Benefit cut will result  in poor social cohesion and a lack of mixed communities.

Council requests the Chief Executive to write to Grant Shapps requesting that areas of high rent, such as the City of York Council, are given special consideration so that the Local Housing Allowance is not affected by lower rent in the sub -regional area.”

(ii)          From Cllr Richardson

“Council acknowledges that the changes to ward funding provisions incorporated as part of CYC’s new “Neighbourhood Working” model will have the effect of reducing ward funding to York’s outer villages and will therefore significantly impact those activities this funding has previously supported, in particular local youth provisions in rural and suburban areas which rely on ward budget grants for most of their operating expenses.

Council therefore asks officers to prepare two reports for Cabinet:

Firstly, to examine how and where replacement money can be found to continue to fund youth provisions in York’s outer wards, given that these wards will no longer be able to rely upon ward-specific grants to fund their activities; and

Secondly, to review the issue of the funding of youth provisions on a council-wide basis to correct any anomalies which have developed over time between the funding of youth organisations within the city centre wards and those in the council’s outer wards in order to insure parity of funding for youth provisions throughout the city.”

(iii)        From Cllr Reid

“Council notes the significant improvement in the proportion of waste that has been recycled under the previous Liberal Democrat administration, from 12% in 2003 to 45% in 2011.

Council supports the principle that waste collection and recycling should be convenient and fair to residents across the city.

In light of the fact that the Budget 2012/13 has deleted the provision of a Recycling and Reuse Centre in the west of the city, Council requests that the Cabinet halts the closure plan for Beckfield Lane Household Waste Recycling Centre.

Council also supports the principle of the provision of a free receptacle for the collection of waste to all residents across the city requests  ...  view the full agenda text for item 76.

(i)           Local Housing Allowance

It was moved by Cllr Simpson-Laing and seconded by Cllr Boyce that:

“Council expresses concern over the introduction of the Local Housing Allowance which will financially impact York residents on low incomes.

Council notes that the allowance is sub-regionally calculated which results in an average allowance that falls short of even the lowest 30% priced private sector housing costs in the City.

Council is concerned that:

a.           many residents will be faced with possible homelessness, with the cost falling on the Council.

b.           there will be no housing for low paid workers who will be forced out of the City.

c.           the Housing Benefit cut will result  in poor social cohesion and a lack of mixed communities.

Council requests the Chief Executive to write to Grant Shapps requesting that areas of high rent, such as the City of York Council, are given special consideration so that the Local Housing Allowance is not affected by lower rent in the sub -regional area.”

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

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

(ii)          Neighbourhood Working Funding

It was moved by Cllr Richardson and seconded by Cllr Galvin that:

“Council acknowledges that the changes to ward funding provisions incorporated as part of CYC’s new “Neighbourhood Working” model will have the effect of reducing ward funding to York’s outer villages and will therefore significantly impact those activities this funding has previously supported, in particular local youth provisions in rural and suburban areas which rely on ward budget grants for most of their operating expenses.

Council therefore asks officers to prepare two reports for Cabinet:

Firstly, to examine how and where replacement money can be found to continue to fund youth provisions in York’s outer wards, given that these wards will no longer be able to rely upon ward-specific grants to fund their activities; and

Secondly, to review the issue of the funding of youth provisions on a council-wide basis to correct any anomalies which have developed over time between the funding of youth organisations within the city centre wards and those in the council’s outer wards in order to insure parity of funding for youth provisions throughout the city.”

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

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

(iii)        Waste Collection and Recycling

It was moved by Cllr Reid and seconded by Cllr Runciman that:

“Council notes the significant improvement in the proportion of waste that has been recycled under the previous Liberal Democrat administration, from 12% in 2003 to 45% in 2011.

Council supports the principle that waste collection and recycling should be convenient and fair to residents across the city.

In light of the fact that the Budget 2012/13 has deleted the provision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

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

(i)        To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Social Inclusion, from Cllr Doughty:

“With reference to the Cabinet meeting of 6 March, Agenda item 7 (Neighbourhood Working – A New Approach), Part 7(d), Page 46 refers to 'Locating staff within wards, making them a 'hub' for local information so they can work more effectively with communities.' How will this work in reality when staffing numbers in the Neighbourhood Management Unit have been significantly reduced?”

(ii)      To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Social Inclusion, from Cllr Doughty:

“Part 7(e)of the report at Agenda item 7 of the Cabinet meeting of 6 March, (Neighbourhood Working – A New Approach), refers to 'introducing Facebook and Twitter and regularly getting messages out into the community.' I acknowledge social media might be a useful tool to assist in engaging with what will probably be a small number of younger people in the City but how does the Cabinet Member envisage the majority of the City's residents will be kept informed, particularly as the number of assisted Ward meetings and publications are being cut?”

(iii)     To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Social Inclusion, from Cllr Doughty:

“With reference to the £130K portion of the Neighbourhoods budget, can the Cabinet please explain if a fee or percentage will be payable to the 'standalone third sector management 

organisation' who will be administering the bids and funding? How much will this be and will it be funded from the £130K portion?”

(iv)     To the Cabinet Member for Communities and Neighbourhoods, from Cllr D’Agorne:

“Which gritting routes and locations are to be removed from the network to achieve the budget savings and what criteria will be applied to determine which ward funded grit bins should be retained or removed?”

(v)      To the Cabinet Member for City Strategy, from Cllr D’Agorne:

“What further delays are anticipated in  implementing Labour's manifesto commitment to introduce a 20mph limit in all residential areas in the city?”

(vi)     To the Cabinet Member for Communities and Neighbourhoods, from Cllr Galvin:

“Regarding the Beckfield Lane Waste Disposal Site, how many accidents to members of the public have there been in the past ten years and what were the circumstances of said accidents (if any)?”

(vii)   To the Cabinet Member for Communities and Neighbourhoods, from Cllr Galvin:

“Has the likely increase in fly tipping near the Beckfield Lane Waste Disposal Site been considered as a result of its closure and if so what measures will be taken to deal with this eventuality?”

(viii)  To the Cabinet Member for Communities and Neighbourhoods, from Cllr Galvin:

“Have there been any consultations or surveys of users of the BeckfieldLane Waste Disposal facility prior to the decision to close this site?”

(ix)     To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Social Inclusion, from Cllr Barton:

“Could the cabinet member tell us if  ...  view the full agenda text for item 77.

Thirty five questions had been submitted to the Cabinet Leader and Cabinet 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 Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Social Inclusion, from Cllr Doughty:

“With reference to the Cabinet meeting of 6 March, Agenda item 7 (Neighbourhood Working – A New Approach), Part 7(d), Page 46 refers to 'Locating staff within wards, making them a 'hub' for local information so they can work more effectively with communities.' How will this work in reality when staffing numbers in the Neighbourhood Management Unit have been significantly reduced?”

Reply:

“There are clearly assumptions being made here which are not in any way founded in fact, as the staffing review is yet to be undertaken by the Director of Communities and Neighbourhoods in consultation with myself.

As I don’t know what the new structure of the NMU will be yet, meaning you also don’t know, then the second part of your question is not relevant.

The staff team will work effectively with other ward-based staff such as estate managers in Housing and Street Environment Officers sharing their community contacts and streamlining working arrangements.  In this way they will share intelligence and information.  The ward team meetings will provide additional opportunity for this. The new arrangements represent a much more efficient use of staff time and the Council’s resources.”

(ii)      To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Social Inclusion, from Cllr Doughty:

“Part 7(e)of the report at Agenda item 7 of the Cabinet meeting of 6 March, (Neighbourhood Working – A New Approach), refers to 'introducing Facebook and Twitter and regularly getting messages out into the community.' I acknowledge social media might be a useful tool to assist in engaging with what will probably be a small number of younger people in the City but how does the Cabinet Member envisage the majority of the City's residents will be kept informed, particularly as the number of assisted Ward meetings and publications are being cut?”

Reply:

 “Committee meetings per year. Councillors will be assisted at every meeting of the Ward Committee - up to 3 per year. One will be the Ward Committee AGM and a further 2 meetings will be arranged if requested by the Ward Committees.

This is not a significant change to the number of meetings and publications that presently exist, albeit the formats will be different.  And although many people may not use Facebook and Twitter, many more people are online and will access information through the council’s website.”

(iii)     To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Social Inclusion, from Cllr Doughty:

“With reference to the £130K portion of the Neighbourhoods budget, can the Cabinet please explain if a fee or percentage will be payable to the 'standalone third sector management 

organisation' who will be administering the bids and funding? How much will this be and will it be funded from the £130K  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.