Agenda item

·         Presentation of Past Projects  

·         Ward Budgets

·         Ward Priorities  

·        Have Your Say

Presentation of Past Projects

Councillor Craghill referred residents to the twenty projects set out in the agenda (totalling £24,992.22).  She also confirmed that additional funding (£16,000) was available to improve safety within the community (i.e. CCTV, fencing, neighbourhood watch etc).  The Highways capital funding (£134,000 spread over a four year period) could be used for local projects (i.e. bollards, road surfacing and a zebra crossing on Haxby Road).

Ward Budgets

Councillor Craghill then provided an update on the ward budget and, as funding was available, she asked residents for any ideas of projects or schemes which would benefit the local community.  She referred residents to the application forms (which were displayed on a nearby table) and asked them to contact Laura Redhead (Community Involvement Officer) if they had any ideas.

Ward Priorities

·         To increase recycling

·         Better maintenance of parks and green spaces

·         Reduction of antisocial behaviour

·         For children to be able to play out safely

·         Fewer people suffering from loneliness.

·         For people to embrace diversity in their communities

Councillor Looker said it was worth revisiting priorities as it was important to see ambitions with a rootedness in achievability and to decide if any could be better tweaked. 

One resident didn’t like the wording of the first priority but preferred ‘Creating a greener Guildhall’.

Another resident said there were too many priorities and felt that it would be better to have fewer priorities (i.e. mental health and safety) but with a greater focus on each one.

Councillor Craghill felt that although there had been improvements with regard to recycling, all of the priorities needed to be developed further.

One resident commented that the Fossgate redevelopment was a beautiful area but made everything else look dreadful.

Presentation from Planning Panel

Councillor Fitzpatrick then invited a representative from the Guildhall Planning Panel to speak.  The representative said that the panel discussed issues affecting local residents (i.e. traffic management parking, charging points etc).  Minuted meetings are held every three weeks to go through all the applications and although they are well attended they could to with more people coming along.

He went on to state that their views were quite conservative and generally consistent (but that they would welcome other views).  The Spark development generated the most dissent but ended up having majority support.

A resident asked how much influence the panel had with regard to decision making.  The representative confirmed that the panel was a formal consultative body (although without specific areas of expertise) and that the City of York Council was obliged to take their views on board. 

At this point, Councillor Fitzpatrick let residents know that they could also contact her (as a panel member) if they had any queries or concerns so she could raise them at future panel meetings.

A representative from the Walmgate Community Association commented that they were first established at the same as the Willow House application and that if they had been more organised they would have objected to the closure of the green space in the front (although they didn’t object to the use of the building).  Again, she reiterated the importance of communicating with residents in advance.   In response, the panel representative confirmed that the panel obtained residents views then disseminated them to City of York Council

Another resident pointed out that due to the current purdah, the representative should clarify what he meant by their views being “conservative”.  The representative assured everyone that the panel were not politically conservative.

At this point, three new members were voted in.