Agenda and minutes

At this point in the meeting, Members are asked to declare:

·        any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests

·        any prejudicial interests or

·        any disclosable pecuniary interests

which they may have in respect of business on this agenda.

At this point in the meeting, members were asked to declare any personal, prejudicial or pecuniary interests they may have in the business on the agenda. None were declared.

At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered their wish to under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme may do so.  The deadline for registering is 5.00pm on Monday 1^st February 2016.

Members of the public may register to speak on:

·        An item on the agenda

·        An issue within the remit of the Task Group

Filming, Recording or Webcasting Meetings

Residents are welcome to photograph, film or record Councillors and Officers at all meetings open to the press and public. This includes the use of social media reporting, i.e. tweeting.  Anyone wishing to film, record or take photos at any public meeting should contact the Democracy Officer (whose contact details are at the foot of this agenda) in advance of the meeting.

The Council’s protocol on Webcasting, Filming & Recording of Meetings ensures that these practices are carried out in a manner both respectful to the conduct of the meeting and all those present.  It can be viewed at https://www.york.gov.uk/downloads/file/6453/protocol_for_webcasting_filming_and_recording_council_meetingspdf

It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak under the Council’s public participation scheme.

This report provides information in support of objectives (ii) & (iii) of the review remit for the Goose Management scrutiny review, and asks the Task Group to agree what,  if any, further information is required in support of those objectives.

Members considered a report which provided information in support of objectives (ii) & (iii) of the review remit for Goose Management scrutiny review and asked the task group to agree what if any further information is required in support of those objectives.

Objectives being considered were as follows:

ii.     To examine best practice nationally and elsewhere.

iii.    To consider technical options for dropping removal, the associated costs and external funding possibilities.

Members referred to the information contained in the agenda and the fact that Wandsworth Borough Council appeared to have had some degree of success in managing geese by using a mixture of techniques and had developed an integrated management strategy for the Borough’s parks. It was noted that the information was a number of years old. Members suggested that further up to date information from Wandsworth Borough Council would be useful to find out if they are still currently managing geese successfully and by what methods.

Members agreed that the first step for York should be to understand the scale of the problem and that it would be useful for a survey to be undertaken at the start of the geese nesting season to look at the numbers of nests. This could be carried out by a contractor subject to the necessary funding being sourced. Using the scrutiny budget was discussed but it was noted that it may not be appropriate to use it for that purpose.  It was suggested that the following areas should be included in any such survey:

·        The Ouse from  Poppleton to Bishopthorpe

·        The Foss to Strensall

·        Becks – St. Nicholas incorporating private gardens to Hull Road Park

·        Other waterbodies such as fisherman’s ponds.

Members then looked at other methods of geese management to be used alongside egg treatment and made the following comments:

·        Chemicals – Officers confirmed they would be interested in a free trial of chemicals to use on grassed areas, details of which were tabled at the meeting. The Chair agreed he would contact the chemical companies to see if they would be willing to provide the Council with a free sample. It was suggested that a test area could then be identified, possibly in Memorial Gardens, to test if the chemicals were effective.

·        Audio methods – it was agreed that the super sonic audio methods would not be suitable for use in public parks but officers were interested in exploring the use of ultra sound methods. Officers agreed to look into these methods and report back to the next meeting.

·        Visual methods – Officers confirmed that Merchant Adventurers Hall had trialled the use of a fake fox as a deterrent to geese but were not aware of the outcome and how effective this had been. It was agreed that the use of visual deterrents could be useful in smaller localised locations but probably not suitable for larger public spaces where they could be tampered with by the public.

·        Education – It was confirmed that the University uses signage to discourage students from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.