Agenda, decisions 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 Members declared personal, non-prejudicial interests in respect of agenda items 6. (Secondary Education Provision on the East side of the City and the Future of Burnholme Community College) and 7. (Implementing the Review of the City of York Council’s Residential Care Homes for Older People) :

·        Cllr Simpson-Laing, as a member of Unison and as her daughter was in Year 7 at Millthorpe School

·        Cllr Williams, as a member of Unison and Unite

·        Cllr Gunnell, as a member of Unison

·        Cllr Merrett, as his daughter was in Year 7 at All Saints’ School and as a Millthorpe School Governor

·        Cllr Fraser as a member of the retired sections of Unison and Unite (TGWU/ACTS)

·        Cllr Alexander, as a member of GMB

Councillor Simpson-Laing also declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in respect of Agenda item 10 (Developing a Thriving Voluntary Sector in the City of York) asan employee of a charity.

Councillor Gunnell also declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in relation to Agenda item 10 (Developing a Thriving Voluntary Sector in the City of York) as a member of the Management Committee of the Welfare Benefits Unit.

To consider the exclusion of the press and public from the meeting during consideration of the following annexes to reports:

Annex B to Agenda Item 7 (Implementing the Review of the City of York Council’s Residential Care Homes for Older People) and Annex 3 to Agenda Item 8 (Oliver House Elderly Persons Home - Options for the future use of the Property) 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).

RESOLVED:             That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of Annex B to Agenda item 7 (Implementing the Review of the City of York Council’s Residential Care Homes for Older People) and Annex 3 to Agenda item 8 (Oliver House Elderly People’s Home – Options for the future use of the Property) 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 12 A to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as revised by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006).

To approve and sign the minutes of the last Cabinet meeting held on 3 April 2012.

RESOLVED:             That the minutes of the last Cabinet meeting held on 3 April 2012 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

At this point in the meeting, members of the public who have registered their wish to speak regarding an item on the agenda or a matter within the Cabinet’s remit can do so.  The deadline for registering is 5:00 pm on Monday 14 May 2012.

It was reported that there had been thirteen registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme and that three Members of Council had also requested to speak.

The following spoke in respect of Agenda item 6 (Secondary Education Provision on the East side of the city and the Future of Burnholme Community College):

Adrian Fisher spoke on behalf of Dawn Leatt, Gary Douglas and Darren Whittaker of the Burnholme Community College Parents Forum. He expressed their disappointment at the proposed closure which would not protect vulnerable children in a disadvantaged local community. They questioned how community services would continue from the site following closure of the school. Upkeep of the buildings and decommissioning costs were also questioned. The Parents Forum felt that all options had not been examined, especially as the College was only half way through a 5 year recovery plan to increase the number of students applying for places. They pointed out that this was not a failing school its results were improving year on year and the College had received numerous awards. It was pointed out that, as Archbishop Holgate’s the adjacent secondary school was now full, Burnholme was the only school in the catchment area with space which would cause issues in the future following closure. Members were asked to look at the bigger picture and vote against the proposed closure.

Nicole Naismith, a pupil of Burnholme CC, expressed concern that the wishes of school pupils were being ignored. Following the development of the Derwenthorpe site and an increase in birth rate she questioned where pupils would go. Burnholme College was an excellent school where everyone was known by name and where pupils made great progress but no one appeared to be listening or taking note of this.

Simon Gumn, Head Teacher of Burnholme CC, thanked officers for their in depth report on the proposals. He referred to the projected savings and future uncertainties and asked that if closure was agreed that the reasons put forward were certainties as he had no wish to upset staff or the education of his pupils if additional school places were required in the future. He requested that any closure should be dignified, causing least disruption to all concerned and he requested a future community injection for the area.

Simon Breare, Teacher at Burnholme CC made reference to the number of school places required year on year, both with closure of the College and without. Indicating that the limit would be breached with or without closure of the College. He expressed concerns at a possible future surge in demand for school places which could be disastrous for children in York. He felt that the authority should be planning for expansion rather than closure.

Stephen Hodgson, Chair of Governors Burnholme CC, expressed his agreement with the points raised by the parent’s forum. He confirmed that damage had been caused to the school following a second round of speculation in respect of the schools future. He asked members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 139.

Members received and noted details of those items listed on the Forward Plan for the next two Cabinet meetings at the time the agenda was published.

This report describes the future provision of secondary education on the east side of the city and in particular Burnholme Community College. Responses to public consultation regarding the future of the College, the arguments for and against its retention together with the conclusion that the educational interests of children and young people in the city would be best served by a phased closure of the College are all detailed in the report.

RESOLVED:       That Cabinet agrees to:

i)             Publish Public Notices in accordance with Section 15(1) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, to discontinue Burnholme Community College from 31 August 2014.  This to be followed by a six week statutory representation period, after which the LA must  consider any further observations and comments received and decide whether to proceed with the proposals summarised below:

·               It is proposed that Burnholme Community College will remain open until 2014 when students on the roll at the school in the current Year 9, Year 10 and Year 11 have completed their secondary education;     

·               It is proposed that current Year 8 students will continue their education at the Burnholme Community College until the summer of 2013, and will then transfer to other schools.  This means that they will be in their new schools for their year 10 and 11. For students currently on roll at Burnholme Community College in Year 7, it is proposed that they will stay at the school until the summer of 2014, and will then transfer to other schools for their Year 10 and 11.  Detailed transition arrangements will be agreed between schools and in consultation with parents;

·               For students currently on roll at Burnholme Community College in Year 7 and Year 8, transport assistance will be provided if their new school is over two miles from their home residence once they have transferred in 2014 and 2013, respectively;

·               For families of transferring students to receive assistance at the transferring stages with the purchase of new school uniform as required at the receiving school;

·               With the agreement of the governing body of Archbishop Holgate’s CE School, it is proposed that the existing catchment area of Burnholme Community College will be merged with the catchment area of Archbishop Holgate’s CE School.  Those seeking a non faith based school will be offered an alternative secular school.

ii)            Note that the LA will work closely with the governing body of Burnholme Community College and other schools to develop a comprehensive package of support for the school, and  a detailed transition plan for students and staff, that seeks to ensure the best possible education throughout the phased closure.

iii)          Note that the LA will work with Applefields School and other secondary schools in order to relocate the satellite class that has been successfully established at Burnholme Community College.

iv)      Note that the LA, with the York Education Partnership, will continue to develop further proposals that address the projected demand for school places across the city over the next decade, arising from predicted housing development and from the increase in the birth-rate.

v)           Initiate a further specific consultation focussing upon the potential future use of the Burnholme site in the event of the closure of the school.  The recent consultation on the future of Burnholme Community College has highlighted particular concerns about the future of highly valued community services that are based at the College, including the Kids Club, the Burnholme Day Nursery, and Sports Provision  ...  view the full decision text for item 141.

Consideration was given to a report which set out details of the future provision of secondary education on the east side of the city and in particular Burnholme Community College (BCC). The report considered the arguments for and against maintaining the College, particularly in light of the projected future demand for secondary school places in the city.

Background information including student numbers and details of the public consultation undertaken were set out at paragraphs 7 to 39 of the report and annexes. The proposals for current pupil transfers and assistance that would be provided was also outlined. Proposals to include the BCC catchment area within that of Archbishop Holgate’s School together with the financial implications of maintaining or closure of the College were also explained in detail in the report.

The Cabinet Member confirmed her support for many of the points raised by earlier speakers but explained that a decision was now required to end the uncertainty for the College, its pupils and parents. She pointed out that, with falling numbers, it was proving difficult to sustain the school and maintain a full curriculum which required a number of specialist facilities which could not be provided. All the options had been examined and Archbishop Holgate’s had given their commitment to support the pupils and their long term future. It was confirmed that the satellite provision would continue, albeit at a different location in the city.

The Leader referred to a meeting with parents, prior to the Cabinet meeting, to answer their questions. He confirmed that this had been a very difficult decision to make however it had been shown that education at BCC could not be sustained in the longer term. Based on the evidence presented in the report it was

RESOLVED:       That Cabinet agrees to:

i)             Publish Public Notices in accordance with Section 15(1) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, to discontinue Burnholme Community College from 31 August 2014.  This to be followed by a six week statutory representation period, after which the LA must  consider any further observations and comments received and decide whether to proceed with the proposals summarised below:

·               It is proposed that Burnholme Community College will remain open until 2014 when students on the roll at the school in the current Year 9, Year 10 and Year 11 have completed their secondary education;     

·               It is proposed that current Year 8 students will continue their education at the Burnholme Community College until the summer of 2013, and will then transfer to other schools.  This means that they will be in their new schools for their year 10 and 11. For students currently on roll at Burnholme Community College in Year 7, it is proposed that they will stay at the school until the summer of 2014, and will then transfer to other schools for their Year 10 and 11.  Detailed transition arrangements will be agreed between schools and in consultation with parents;

·               For students currently on roll at Burnholme Community College in Year 7  ...  view the full minutes text for item 141.

This report provides financial model options following the decision to proceed with the development of the three sites to replace the council’s existing Elderly Persons’ Homes. The report also seeks approval in principle including borrowing requirements and decisions on the way forward over the next four years.

RESOLVED:   i)   That Cabinet agree in principle to Option 4, to provide the care on the Fordlands and Haxby Hall developments only, with care on the Lowfield site being provided by an independent operator (subject to further financial consideration and Full Council approval), that is:

a)    That the Council fund and operate the new residential care home to be built on the Fordlands Road site by engaging a design team and then entering a formal tender process to procure a builder.

b)     That the Council states its intention to operate the new residential care home to be built on the site of the existing CYC care home at Haxby subject to financial affordability in Autumn 2013 when a firm decision on that particular home is required.

c)    That the Council seeks to procure a partner through a tendering process to fund, build and operate a ‘community village for older people’ (including 90 residential care beds) on the Lowfield site in Acomb.  The council’s own in-house service will be able to compete for this work.

 ii)  That Cabinet receive further reports outlining the outcome of the tenders for both the Fordlands and Lowfield village developments, with updated financial implications on all areas, to assess the affordability of the proposals.

REASON:             The Council’s review of its existing elderly persons homes highlighted the need for changes to the current provision and how the homes could be replaced by modern facilities. There was overwhelming support in the consultation of the need for change and the vision of the new facilities in the city. After conducting a detailed analysis of a number of options both practical and financial along with considering the outcome of the public consultation Option 4 offers the best fit solution with least risk to the Council to create these modern facilities.

Members considered a report which provided financial model options arising from the decision made by Cabinet in January to proceed with the development of the three sites to replace the council’s Elderly Persons’ Homes (EPH).

Further information on progress with the closure of Oliver House and Fordlands Residential Care Home and deployment of the staff was set out at paragraphs 3 to 8 of the report. The Lowfield Care Village proposals including feedback on the soft market testing exercise were set out at paragraphs 9 to 24 and at Annex A of the report.

It was confirmed that a key assumption to the planning had been that the EPH modernisation programme would be self sufficient as there was no new long term money available for the project. The report provided an analysis of the following options put forward for consideration:

Option 1 - the three new developments have care provided by independent sector operators

Option 2 - the council provides the care on the three new developments

Option 3 - the council provides the care on the Fordlands development only.  Care on Lowfield and Haxby Hall is provided by an independent sector operator

Option 4 - the council provides the care on the Fordlands and Haxby Hall developments only.  Care on Lowfield is provided by an independent operator

The Cabinet Member confirmed the significance of the financial undertaking the development of the three sites would be for the authority and to the extensive consultation exercise undertaken. As mentioned the ideal option would have been for the council to provide care on all the developments however this had been found to be the least affordable option.

RESOLVED:   i)   That Cabinet agree in principle to Option 4, to provide the care on the Fordlands and Haxby Hall developments only, with care on the Lowfield site being provided by an independent operator (subject to further financial consideration and Full Council approval), that is:

a)     That the Council fund and operate the new residential care home to be built on the Fordlands Road site by engaging a design team and then entering a formal tender process to procure a builder. ^1.

b)    That the Council states its intention to operate the new residential care home to be built on the site of the existing CYC care home at Haxby subject to financial affordability in Autumn 2013 when a firm decision on that particular home is required.

c)     That the Council seeks to procure a partner through a tendering process to fund, build and operate a ‘community village for older people’ (including 90 residential care beds) on the Lowfield site in Acomb.  The council’s own in-house service will be able to compete for this work. ^2.

 ii)   That Cabinet receive further reports outlining the outcome of the tenders for both the Fordlands and Lowfield village developments, with updated financial implications on all areas, to assess the affordability of the proposals. ^3.

REASON:             The Council’s review of its existing elderly persons homes highlighted the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 142.

This report seeks the Cabinets decision as to the future use of the former Elderly Persons Home (EPH) at Oliver House, which is becoming available as part of the EPH review.

RESOLVED:             That Cabinet approve the granting of a 20 year lease to a Voluntary Sector Management Group, at a commercial rental to be confirmed through a formal valuation, and to be reviewed every 5 years. This would cover the cost of prudential borrowing in lieu of a capital receipt, with a subsequent review of selling the property. The lease will be on full repairing and insuring terms. It will also be contracted out of the security of tenure provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

REASON:                  This option will achieve the income stream required to cover the increased revenue cost of the Elderly Persons Homes review, and contribute to the priorities set out in the Council plan whilst retaining the asset in the long term.

Members considered a report which detailed options for the future use of the former Elderly Persons Home (EPH) at Oliver House, which was becoming available as part of the EPH review. It was reported that this was a valuable, high profile city centre property with potential for both sale or an alternative use for the site.

Further information in relation to the options to sell or retain and the potential future uses; a Health and Social Care Hub, student accommodation or for affordable housing were set out in paragraphs 10 to 24 of the report.

Consideration was given to the following options:

Option 1 – Health and Social Care Hub

The property will be let to a Voluntary Sector Management Group for a term of 20-25 years at a commercial rent with a 5 yearly review of the rent to cover the cost of the prudential borrowing in lieu of a capital receipt. The groups who would use the site currently pay sufficient rent to meet the costs but would need to secure some investment funding to convert the building for their use. This could come from borrowing or grant funding.

Option 2 – Student Accommodation

The property would be let to YSJU for a term of 5 years, with the option to break at the end of the 3^rd year. YSJU have indicated that they would be able to meet the required level of rental income with the proviso of a 6 months rent free period to fund the refurbishment.

Option 3 – Affordable Housing

Option 4 – Sale

Clarification was sought in relation to the timescales, if the property was let to a Voluntary Sector Management Group. Officers confirmed that it was envisaged that the property would be in use in around 9 months, however this detail had yet to be confirmed.

RESOLVED:          That Cabinet approve the granting of a 20 year lease to a Voluntary Sector Management Group, at a commercial rental to be confirmed through a formal valuation, and to be reviewed every 5 years. This would cover the cost of prudential borrowing in lieu of a capital receipt, with a subsequent review of selling the property. The lease will be on full repairing and insuring terms. It will also be contracted out of the security of tenure provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act. ^1.

REASON:                  This option will achieve the income stream required to cover the increased revenue cost of the Elderly Persons Homes review, and contribute to the priorities set out in the Council plan whilst retaining the asset in the long term.

This report provides Cabinet with a summary of the recent options appraisal and heritage significance / views analysis study undertaken for the Guildhall complex. It requests members to confirm their support for running a Royal Institute of British Architects RIBA Open Ideas Competition exercise to stimulate ideas to explore the opportunities afforded by this unique setting.

RESOLVED:       That Cabinet agree option 1 as set out in the report, to proceed with an RIBA Open Ideas Competition.

 REASON:           To facilitate the exploration of options for the future of the Guildhall in an innovative and cost effective way – that will generate publicity for the City and the site; facilitate a level of consultation and with the potential for securing interest in progressing a solution.

Cabinet Members considered a report which summarised the recent options appraisal and heritage significance/views analysis study undertaken for the Guildhall complex. Support was also required for the running of a Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Open Ideas Competition in the form of a design exercise to stimulate ideas to explore the opportunities afforded by the Guildhalls unique setting.

The report provided further information on the consultation undertaken and an appraisal of the suggested options available in paragraphs 23 to 36 of the report with the format of the competition set out at Annex 1.

The Cabinet Member confirmed that this was an opportunity to seek innovative solutions to secure the future of the Guildhall complex for the city.

Consideration was then given to the following options:

Option 1 – to note the options appraisal work carried out by PMT and agree the proposal to proceed with an RIBA Open Ideas Competition.  An officer group working would prepare a detailed brief for the RIBA Open Ideas Competition to be launched in September 2012.

Option 2 – to note the options appraisal work carried out by PMT and commission further detailed studies as suggested to investigate the potential for future uses and ownership options by directly commissioning additional feasibility work.

Option 3 – to note the options appraisal work and take no further action.

RESOLVED:        That Cabinet agree option 1 as set out in the report, to proceed with an RIBA Open Ideas Competition. ^1.

 REASON:           To facilitate the exploration of options for the future of the Guildhall in an innovative and cost effective way – that will generate publicity for the City and the site; facilitate a level of consultation and with the potential for securing interest in progressing a solution.

This report outlines progress towards the production of a Voluntary Sector Strategy for the City of York. The report summarises developments so far and details forthcoming consultation events leading to the development of the final strategy.

RESOLVED:       That Cabinet approve:

·               The outcomes set out in paragraph 9 of the report as the basis for further work on developing the Voluntary Sector Strategy.

·               The outline criteria set out in paragraph 13 of the report, as the basis for developing detailed funding criteria for the combined voluntary sector funding pot.

·               3 year funding agreements for York CVS, York CAB and the Welfare Benefits Unit as set out in paragraph 15 of the report.

REASON:           To strengthen the fabric of the voluntary sector in the city.

Consideration was given to a report which outlined progress towards the production of a Voluntary Sector Strategy for the City of York. Recommendations around the future funding criteria and management arrangements for the merged Voluntary Sector funding pots within the CANS directorate were also set out.

As part of the consultation process the Cabinet Member had attended an open meeting with voluntary sector representatives in March. Feedback from the consultation event had indicated that the production of a Citywide Voluntary Sector strategy should help to inform the agenda of key strategy partnerships. Details of the proposed outcomes were set out at paragraph 9 of the report.

Further consultation would be undertaken to secure city wide agreement on a Strategy and 3 Year Action Plan by September 2012.

The Cabinet Member confirmed that the proposals would provide desirable, measurable outcomes which supported the Council Plan.

RESOLVED:       That Cabinet approve:

·               The outcomes set out in paragraph 9 of the report as the basis for further work on developing the Voluntary Sector Strategy.

·               The outline criteria set out in paragraph 13 of the report, as the basis for developing detailed funding criteria for the combined voluntary sector funding pot. ^1.

·               3 year funding agreements for York CVS, York CAB and the Welfare Benefits Unit as set out in paragraph 15 of the report. ^2.

REASON:           To strengthen the fabric of the voluntary sector in the city.

This report outlines the changes in legislation leading to policing and community safety being overseen by a Police and Crime Commissioner, supported by a Police and Crime Panel for each police force area.

RESOLVED:             That Cabinet approve:

i)          Option 3, to work with the Community Safety Partnerships in North Yorkshire in advance of the elections to develop an options paper setting out a framework for delivery of community safety in York and North Yorkshire that can be presented to the Police and Crime Commissioner post November 2012.

ii)         Determination of who the two CYC appointments to the Police & Crime Panel should be and recommend to Annual Council for appointment.

REASON:                  To ensure that Safer York Partnership’s experience and reputation as a successful Community Safety Partnership is not lost in the process of change to establishment of structures for the force area of York and North Yorkshire.

Cabinet considered a report which outlined the changes in legislation leading to policing and community safety being overseen by a Police and Crime Commissioner, supported by a Police and Crime Panel for each police force area. Details of work undertaken in York in preparation for these changes together with the proposals to continue development of a framework for community safety delivery in both York and North Yorkshire were set out.

It was reported that the City of York’s Chief Executive had been designated as the Police Authority Returning Officer for the North Yorkshire Police Authority area. Information relating to the establishment of the Police and Crime Panel and their associated duties, memberships and support required were set out in paragraphs 14 to 27 of the report. The potential impact of the changes in York and on community safety delivery for York and North Yorkshire were also reported.

The Cabinet Member further informed members of the proposed arrangements. He confirmed that concern had been expressed to the government in respect of the limited information provided for residents on the election. Particularly as many did not have computer access, further consideration was therefore required on publicity. Reference was also made to the opportunities to develop a model in partnership with Selby to provide shared services.

Consideration was then given to the following options:

Option 1 – To appoint via annual council two council nominations to represent CYC on the Police & Crime Panel.

Option 2 – To await the establishment of community safety delivery processes for York and North Yorkshire police force area after the election of PCC in November 2012.

Option 3 – To work with the CSPs in North Yorkshire in advance of the elections to develop an options paper setting out a framework for delivery of community safety in York and North Yorkshire that can be presented to the PCC post November 2012.

RESOLVED:             That Cabinet approve:

i)          Option 3, to work with the Community Safety Partnerships in North Yorkshire in advance of the elections to develop an options paper setting out a framework for delivery of community safety in York and North Yorkshire that can be presented to the Police and Crime Commissioner post November 2012. ^1.

ii)         Determination of who the two CYC appointments to the Police & Crime Panel should be and recommend to Annual Council for appointment. ^2.

REASON:                  To ensure that Safer York Partnership’s experience and reputation as a successful Community Safety Partnership is not lost in the process of change to establishment of structures for the force area of York and North Yorkshire.