Agenda, decisions and minutes

At this point, Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interest 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 Members declared personal, non prejudicial interests in agenda item 8 (Final Report of the Education Scrutiny Committee – School Governors), as governors of schools in the City of York area:

• Cllr Waller – York High School
• Cllr Runciman – Joseph Rowntree School and New Earswick Primary School
• Cllr Reid – Woodthorpe Primary School.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 4 November 2008.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Executive meeting held on 18 November 2008 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record, subject to the addition of Cllr Runciman’s name to the list of those Members who declared a personal interest in agenda item 7 as members of the York Credit Union.

At this point in the meeting, members of the public who registered their wish to speak regarding an item on the agenda or an issue within the Executive’s remit can do so.  The deadline for registering is 5:00 pm on Monday 17 November 2008.

It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

To receive details of those items that are listed on the Forward Plan for the next two Executive meetings.

Members received and noted details of those items that were currently listed on the Forward Plan for the next two Executive meetings.

This report presents the minutes of recent meetings of the Social Inclusion Working Group and the Young People’s Working Group and asks Members to consider the advice given by the Groups in their capacity as advisory bodies to the Executive.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Social Inclusion Working Group and the LDF Working Group, attached as Annexes A and B to the report, be noted.

REASON:      In accordance with the Constitutional role of Working Groups as advisory bodies to the Executive.

Members considered a report which presented draft minutes of the following meetings of Working Groups:

• Social Inclusion Working Group – meeting on 17 September 2008 (Annex A)
• Young People’s Working Group – meeting on 22 October 2008 (Annex B).

The minutes contained no recommendations requiring the specific approval of the Executive at this stage.  With reference to Minutes 13 and 14 of the Young People’s Working Group, the Executive Member for Children and Young People’s Services noted that a bid would be submitted in the next round of funding for a MyPlace venue, following careful consideration of the preferences of young people consulted, and that the issue of the UK Youth Parliament would be discussed again at the Group’s next meeting before being brought to the Executive Member and Advisory Panel (EMAP) meeting.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Social Inclusion Working Group and the LDF Working Group, attached as Annexes A and B to the report, be noted.

REASON:      In accordance with the Constitutional role of Working Groups as advisory bodies to the Executive.

This report asks Members to approve the City of York Local Transport Plan Mid-Term Report for submission to the Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber, and ultimately the DfT, by the required deadline.

Note:  Annex A to this report has been made available to view on the website but copied to Members only, as a separate document.  Copies can be obtained on request from Democratic Services (contact details at the foot of this agenda).

RESOLVED: That the draft LTP2 Mid-Term report be approved for submission to the Government Officer for Yorkshire and the Humber (GOYH) in December 2008 and that authority be delegated to the Director of City Strategy and the Executive Member to approve the final report.

REASON:      To ensure that the report can be submitted by the deadline set by GOYH.

Members considered a report which presented for their comment and approval a draft version of the City of York Local Transport Plan Mid-Term Report, prior to submission of the final Report to the Government Office for Yorkshire and Humber, and subsequently to the Department for Transport (DfT), by the required deadline.

The draft Report had been circulated to Members and made available on the Council’s website.  Guidance from the DfT stated that the Mid-Term Report should be ‘a concise analysis of the progress of an authority in implementing its second Local Transport Plan.’  Authorities were required to review delivery of their Local Transport Plan (LTP) during the first two years of the LTP2 period (April 2006 to March 2008) and to look forward to the remainder of the period, up to March 2011.  The Mid-Term Report therefore provided an opportunity for the Council to review its progress against the aims of LTP2 and to consider the changes that had affected York since its publication and the issues and opportunities for the remainder of the LTP2 period.

Members commented that the Report was generally satisfactory, with trends in the City showing above average improvement.  Traffic levels had risen by only 4% in the past ten years, targets for walking and cycling to work had been achieved two years ahead of schedule and there had been a steady reduction in road casualties.

Having noted the comments of the Shadow Executive on this item, it was

RESOLVED: That the draft LTP2 Mid-Term report be approved for submission to the Government Officer for Yorkshire and the Humber (GOYH) in December 2008 and that authority be delegated to the Director of City Strategy and the Executive Member to approve the final report.¹

REASON:      To ensure that the report can be submitted by the deadline set by GOYH.

This report presents the conclusions of the Barbican Ad-hoc Scrutiny Committee on their review of the sale of the Barbican and asks Members to approve the recommendations arising from the review, as previously agreed by Scrutiny Management Committee.

RESOLVED: (i)         That the contents of the final report of the Barbican Ad-Hoc Scrutiny Committee on their review of the sale of the Barbican be noted.

                        (ii)        That the following be agreed as a summary of the Executive’s response to the recommendations arising from the review, detailed in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the covering report:

REASON:      To enable the introduction of appropriate measures in response the Scrutiny Committee’s findings and recommendations.

Members considered a report which presented the conclusions of the Barbican Ad-Hoc Scrutiny Committee on their review of the sale of the Barbican. 

The Committee’s final report, attached as Annex A, had been considered by the Scrutiny Management Committee (SMC) at their meeting on 15 September 2008.  The SMC had agreed the Committee’s recommendations subject to some suggested changes to the wording, which had since been made.  The agreed recommendations were set out in paragraph 5 of the covering report.  Some further amendments, suggested by the Head of Audit & Risk Management in order to strengthen the second recommendation, were set out in paragraph 6.  These changes had now been approved by the Chair of the Barbican Ad-Hoc Scrutiny Committee, who was in attendance to respond to any questions on the review and the Committee’s report.

Members queried the motives and objectivity of some of the members of the Scrutiny Committee, in view of the comments reported in the local media.  The Scrutiny Committee Chair responded that the final report, including the comments in respect of ‘best value’, represented the unanimous view of the whole Committee.

Having noted the comments of the Shadow Executive on this item, it was

RESOLVED: (i)         That the contents of the final report of the Barbican Ad-Hoc Scrutiny Committee on their review of the sale of the Barbican be noted.

                        (ii)        That the following be agreed as a summary of the Executive’s response to the recommendations arising from the review, detailed in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the covering report:

REASON:      To enable the introduction of appropriate measures in response the Scrutiny Committee’s findings and recommendations.

This report presents the conclusions of the Education Scrutiny Committee on their review of School Governors and asks Members to approve the recommendations arising from the review, as previously agreed by Scrutiny Management Committee.

RESOLVED: (i)         That the contents of the final report of the Education Scrutiny Committee on their review of School Governors be noted.

                        (ii)        That the following be agreed as the Executive’s response to the recommendations arising from the review:

REASON:      To enable the introduction of appropriate measures in response the Scrutiny Committee’s findings and recommendations.

                        (iii)       That the report be referred to the Social Inclusion Working Group for discussion.

REASON:      In the interests of broadening the pool of potential school governors and increasing the number of applicants from minority groups.

Members considered a report which presented the conclusions of the Education Scrutiny Committee on their review of School Governors.  

The final report of the Education Scrutiny Committee, attached as Annex A, had been considered by the Scrutiny Management Committee (SMC) at their meeting on 15 September 2008.  The SMC had endorsed in full the recommendations arising from the review, as set out in paragraph 7 of the covering report.

RESOLVED: (i)         That the contents of the final report of the Education Scrutiny Committee on their review of School Governors be noted.

                        (ii)        That the following be agreed as the Executive’s response to the recommendations arising from the review:

REASON:      To enable the introduction of appropriate measures in response the Scrutiny Committee’s findings and recommendations.

                        (iii)       That the report be referred to the Social Inclusion Working Group for discussion.⁵

REASON:      In the interests of broadening the pool of potential school governors and increasing the number of applicants from minority groups.

This report seeks the Executive’s support for the Golden Triangle Mortgage Rescue Scheme, due to be launched in December 2008 by the Golden Triangle Partnership, and seeks approval for administration of the Mortgage Rescue Scheme to be delegated to Leeds City Council.

RESOLVED: (i)         That the development and launch of the Golden Triangle Partnership Mortgage Rescue Scheme be noted.

                        (ii)        That the delegation of the administration of the Mortgage Rescue Scheme to Leeds City Council, which will include LCC acting as banker for the Scheme, be approved.

                        (iii)       That authority be delegated to the Head of Civic, Democratic and Legal Services to approve and sign off the delegation arrangements and contract documentation for the Mortgage Rescue Scheme and any further scheme on behalf of the Council, where the scheme has been approved by the Golden Triangle Partnership Board.

REASON:      In order to give support to a scheme which will assist home owners during a difficult financial time and to ensure that York receives a share of the allocated funding.

Members considered a report which sought their support for the Golden Triangle Mortgage Rescue Scheme, due to be launched in December 2008 by the Golden Triangle Partnership (the Partnership).

The Partnership, created in 2004, had an overall remit to develop initiatives to increase the amount of affordable housing across the high demand areas of York, Harrogate and North Leeds.  Funding was provided by the Regional Housing Board (RHB) and in 2008/09 included £450k for new initiatives, including a mortgage rescue scheme.  An Executive Board for the Partnership had recently been formed, comprising the Chief Housing Officers and Portfolio Holders of the three authorities, to oversee and direct the work of the Partnership’s Officers.  In-principle support for the Mortgage Rescue Scheme, together with approval to delegate administration of the Scheme to Leeds City Council, was being sought at this stage from the three authorities, because delaying matters until the formal constitution of the Board could put the RHB funding at risk.

Details of the Mortgage Rescue Scheme, which would involve housing associations taking equity stakes in the homes of eligible applicants at risk of repossession, were set out in paragraphs 9 to 15 of the report, and in Annex A.

RESOLVED: (i)         That the development and launch of the Golden Triangle Partnership Mortgage Rescue Scheme be noted.

                        (ii)        That the delegation of the administration of the Mortgage Rescue Scheme to Leeds City Council, which will include LCC acting as banker for the Scheme, be approved.¹

                        (iii)       That authority be delegated to the Head of Civic, Democratic and Legal Services to approve and sign off the delegation arrangements and contract documentation for the Mortgage Rescue Scheme and any further scheme on behalf of the Council, where the scheme has been approved by the Golden Triangle Partnership Board.¹

REASON:      In order to give support to a scheme which will assist home owners during a difficult financial time and to ensure that York receives a share of the allocated funding.

This report recommends amendments to the officer scheme of delegation in the Council’s Constitution, to allow one of the Directors to be identified as the officer who will deputise for the Chief Executive in their absence.

RESOLVED: (i)         That approval be given to amend the officer scheme of delegation, in so far as it relates to Executive functions, to enable a member of the board of Directors of the authority, designated by the Chief Executive to exercise all the powers and functions of the Chief Executive when they are absent from the authority.

                        (ii)        That the Monitoring Officer be authorised to make the necessary amendments to the scheme of delegation to give effect to the above resolution.

REASON:      To ensure that the Council is not left without a deputy when the Chief Executive is on scheduled leave or other business.

[See also under Part B Minutes]

Members considered a report which recommended amendments to the Officer scheme of delegation in the Constitution, to allow one of the Directors to be identified as the Officer who would deputise for the Chief Executive in their absence.

The report asked Members to approve the amendments in so far as they related to Executive functions and to refer the report to Full Council for consideration of the amendments in respect of Council functions.

Members commented that, in future, better co-ordination of holiday leave would be needed at Chief Officer level as August was no longer a ‘quiet’ month.

Having noted the comments of the Shadow Executive on this item, it was

RESOLVED: (i)         That approval be given to amend the officer scheme of delegation, in so far as it relates to Executive functions, to enable a member of the board of Directors of the authority, designated by the Chief Executive to exercise all the powers and functions of the Chief Executive when they are absent from the authority.

                        (ii)        That the Monitoring Officer be authorised to make the necessary amendments to the scheme of delegation to give effect to the above resolution.¹

REASON:      To ensure that the Council is not left without a deputy when the Chief Executive is on scheduled leave or other business.

RECOMMENDED:(i) That Council approve the amendment of the officer scheme of delegation, in so far as it relates to Council functions, to enable a member of the board of Directors of the authority, designated by the Chief Executive when they are absent from the authority.

                                    (ii)        That Council authorise the Monitoring Officer to make the necessary amendments to the scheme of delegation to give effect to the above recommendation.

REASON:      To ensure that the Council is not left without a deputy when the Chief Executive is on scheduled leave or other business.

[See also under Part A Minutes]

Members considered a report which recommended amendments to the Officer scheme of delegation in the Constitution, to allow one of the Directors to be identified as the Officer who would deputise for the Chief Executive in their absence.

The report asked Members to approve the amendments in so far as they related to Executive functions and to refer the report to Full Council for consideration of the amendments in respect of Council functions.

Having noted the comments of the Shadow Executive on this item, it was

RECOMMENDED:(i) That Council approve the amendment of the officer scheme of delegation, in so far as it relates to Council functions, to enable a member of the board of Directors of the authority, designated by the Chief Executive when they are absent from the authority.

                                    (ii)        That Council authorise the Monitoring Officer to make the necessary amendments to the scheme of delegation to give effect to the above recommendation.

REASON:      To ensure that the Council is not left without a deputy when the Chief Executive is on scheduled leave or other business.