Agenda and draft minutes

At this point in the meeting, Members and co-opted members are asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary interest, or other registerable interest, they might have in respect of business on this agenda, if they have not already done so in advance on the Register of Interests. The disclosure must include the nature of the interest.

An interest must also be disclosed in the meeting when it becomes apparent to the member during the meeting.

[Please see attached sheet for further guidance for Members]

At this point in the meeting, Members and co-opted members are asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary interest, or other registerable interest, they might have in respect of business on this agenda, if they have not already done so in advance on the Register of Interests.

Cllr Fisher noted, in relation to item 4 (Called-in item, Bus Service Review), that he was in possession of a bus pass.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 12 February 2024.

Resolved:            That the minutes of the last meeting held on 12 February 2024 be approved as a correct record.

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, in order to facilitate the management of public participation at our meetings.  The deadline for registering at this meeting is 5:00pm on Thursday, 07 March 2024. 

To register to speak please visit www.york.gov.uk/AttendCouncilMeetings to fill in an online registration form.  If you have any questions about the registration form or the meeting, please contact Democratic Services.  Contact details can be found at the foot of this agenda.

Webcasting of Public Meetings

Please note that, subject to available resources, this meeting will be webcast including any registered public speakers who have given their permission. The meeting can be viewed live and 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.

It was reported that there had been four registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

Caleb Pell spoke on Item 4 (Called-in item: Bus Service Review) and raised concerns regarding cuts in bus services and the impact that could have on modal shift.  He noted that cuts to services did not support the council’s objective to reduce car journeys.

Barbara Boyce, a former Sheriff, spoke in relation to Item 5 (Called-in item: Civic Protocols Review).  She made a number of recommendations including reducing the role of Sheriff, a more economical vehicle, a reduction in the number of Guild events, the role of Lord Mayor (LM) should be more secular, and being prescriptive with the LM charities should be avoided.  She also raised the possibility of the Mansion House being managed externally.

David Carr, a former LM, also spoke in relation to Item 5.  He cautioned against any reduction in allowances for the civic party as this could lead to the role being filled only by those that could afford to do it, he also suggested the limousine could be sponsored ‘discretely’.  He raised concerns that the elected Mayor for York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority may overshadow the role of LM.  Finally, he suggested that the civic party could be reduced to two people; the LM and Sheriff.

Honorary Alderman Brian Watson, a former LM,  also spoke in relation to Item 5 (Called-in item: Civic Protocols Review).  He raised concerns regarding the operation of the Mansion House as the LM’s official residence and questioned the fire risk assessment relating to the use of the lift.

This report outlines the reasons for the call-in of the decision made by the Executive on 20 February 2024, in respect of the Bus Service Review.  The report also sets out the powers and role of the Corporate Services, Climate Change and Scrutiny Management Committee (Calling-In) in dealing with the call-in.

Members considered a report which set out the reasons for the call-in of the decisions made by the Executive on 20 February 2024 in respect of the above matter, along with the committee’s remit and powers in relation to the call-in.

The decisions were contained in the extract from the relevant Decision Sheet at Annex 1 to the report.  The original report and associated annexes A to F were attached at Annex 2.  The decisions had been called in by Cllrs Pearson, Steward and Hollyer for the following reasons:

·       The stated policy objective of the Draft Local Transport strategy is to increase bus patronage by 50% – the consultation that has been produce for the Local Bus Service Update shows that this decision would result in a reduction in bus patronage. It only proposes modifications to the services and makes no attempt to deliver on patronage uplift required in the administration’s draft transport strategy.

·       The Executive rushed through the consultation over the Christmas period which reduced the amount of engagement with the public that the consultation had generated. The report shows that the cuts proposed will lead to a reduction in patronage and the views of residents and bus users have been ignored in the decision making process.

·       The report makes no reference to the consultation on the reduction in patronage and there is no policy discussion on the effects of the reduction in bus patronage. The Bus Service Review was available in December but was not consulted on. The review contained a number of factual errors, and omissions in key details which are not a basis on which to make an informed decision. It judges accessibility just on the bus stop locations served and frequency of calls and not about where the buses go and the journeys people want to make at the times they need to make them, it does not mention or refer to the increased transport deprivation this change would cause. There is also no reference or consideration given to the 10 to 15 year plan that the council has to submit to government on their long term vision for buses in York.

The Calling-in Members, Cllr Pearson, Steward and Hollyer, each addressed the committee in turn, expanding on their reasons for the call-in and then responding to questions from Members.

The Deputy Leader and Executive Member for Economy and Transport then addressed the committee regarding his decisions, and responded to questions.  Officers responsible for the report to Executive spoke to clarify aspects of their report and to answer questions. 

[5.59 – 6.01pm, Cllr Steels-Walshaw left the meeting]

Finally, Cllr Pearson summed up on behalf of the Calling-in Members and the Executive Member summed up the Executive position.

During the above process, it was confirmed that:

·       There was no government funding for concessionary fares.

·       The 1100 responses to the consultation was considered by officers to be a reasonable return, and in line with other consultations.

Under the provisions of the council’s constitution at the time  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

This report outlines the reasons for the call-in of the decision made by the Executive Member for Finance, Performance, Major Projects and Equalities in consultation with the Executive Leader including Corporate Services, Policy, Strategy and Partnerships on 21 February 2024, in respect of the Civic Protocols Review.  The report also sets out the powers and role of the Corporate Services, Climate Change and Scrutiny Management Committee (Calling-In) in dealing with the call-in.

Members considered a report which set out the reasons for the call-in of the decisions made by the Executive Member for Finance, Performance, Major Projects and Equalities in consultation with the Executive Leader including Corporate Services, Policy, Strategy and Partnerships on 21 February 2024 in respect of the above matter, along with the committee’s remit and powers in relation to the call-in.

[7.02 pm Cllr Rose re-joined the meeting.]

The decisions were contained in the extract from the relevant Decision Sheet at Annex 1 to the report.  The original report was attached at Annex 2.  The decisions had been called in by Cllrs Mason, Steward and Orrell for the following reasons:

·       Key Decision This should have been a key decision as a minimum; the Lord Mayoralty affects all wards and all members of the council. They are by statute the first citizen of the city and York’s Lord Mayor is second only to the City of London, holding the title Right Honourable (which only York and London do within England). The ancient right to appoint a Mayor comes from royal charters dating back to 1212 and the office is of immense standing in York, the UK and internationally. Any change to how the office operates is significant to our city and the country. In regard to the office of Sheriff, York is one of only a small number of cities who retain the right to appoint a sheriff independently of the Crown. This right comes from royal charters and letters patent. The office of Sheriff of York dates back to 1396 and its current legal standing is as a “Local Officer of Dignity”. 

The paper makes changes to the roles of the Lord Mayor and Sheriff which affect the constitution in regard to their duties, in particular “To act as an ambassador for the City locally, nationally and internationally”, “actively promoting and supporting local business and economic activity”, “actively promoting and supporting local tourism”, “residency in the Mansion House”. This alone should have meant a full council decision. 

Article 7, 3.2 of the constitution helps define Key Decisions as:

c) whether the decision is likely to be a matter of political or other controversy

d) the extent to which the decision is likely to result in or attract substantial public interest.

It was clear such significant changes to the Mayoralty and Shrievalty of England’s second civic city, which had no consultation whatsoever, would meet the above criteria.  

·       Consultation and Analysis  Lack of consultation is of great concern. There are only 3 members of the council with any experience of civic office, none were consulted. Other interested parties were not engaged with, including the Civic Trust and former Lord Mayors and Sheriffs. Indeed, no group leaders, councillors or the public, charities or businesses were consulted. There was no consultation with other CYC officers in terms of the Lord Mayor’s and Sheriff’s roles in promoting economy development or with organisations such as Visit York in regard to tourism. The only consultation was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.