Decisions
08/05/2024 - Highways Annual Maintenance Programme 2024-25 ref: 7126 Decision Made
Decision Maker: Corporate Director of Place
Decision published: 08/05/2024
Effective from: 08/05/2024
Decision:
The Highways Annual Maintenance Report details
the range of highways assets that are managed by the Highways Asset
Management service, the ways in which their needs based maintenance
is assessed and how the available funding is targeted to deliver
the wide range of maintenance and renewal works completed by the
service in 2024-25.
The attached report, its annexes and the accompanying scheme
booklets have been provided to the Corporate Director of Place for
approval.
Decision:
Corporate Director, based on the information provided,
approved:-
(i) The allocation of budgets for 2024-25.
(ii) The implementation of the proposed programme as outlined in
the attached report and annexes.
To ensure delivery of highway maintenance services in an efficient
and cost effective manner.
Wards affected: (All Wards);
Lead officer: Neil Ferris
03/05/2024 - Recovery of expenses due to extraordinary traffic linked to the Derwenthorpe development on Fifth Avenue ref: 7125 Decision Made
Decision Maker: Corporate Director of Place
Decision published: 03/05/2024
Effective from: 03/05/2024
Decision:
City of York Council, the Joseph Rowntree
Housing Trust (JHRT) and David Wilson Homes (DWH) have agreed a
contribution from DWH to compensate the Council for the repairs
which are required on Fifth Avenue as a result of the extraordinary
traffic linked to the Derwenthorpe development site.
DWH have offered a contribution of £120,000 to the Council.
This offer and the works required to bring the street back to an
acceptable standard have been reviewed by the Council’s
Highway Maintenance team. The review concluded that the amount
offered would cover the cost of making the additional repairs,
which are now required as a result of years of construction traffic
using the street to access the development site.
The decision is therefore to accept DWH’s offer of
£120,000 for the Council to recover expenses due to
extraordinary traffic linked to the Derwenthorpe development on
Fifth Avenue. A legal agreement will be drawn up between the
interested parties to accept the sum offered and discharge the
developer of its obligation with regards to the repairs required on
Fifth Avenue due to the extraordinary traffic.
Once the contribution is received, the Council will organise the
work with suppliers, in line with the Council’s procurement
policy. As Fifth Avenue provides access to a primary school and
developer funded works are already planned at the junction of Fifth
Avenue and Tang Hall Lane for summer 2024, works are likely to be
undertaken during school holidays in the first half of 2025 to
reduce the impact of the works on school access.
Wards affected: Heworth Ward;
Lead officer: James Gilchrist
01/05/2024 - Home For Ukraine – budget update ref: 7124 Decision Made
Decision Maker: Corporate Director of Place
Decision published: 03/05/2024
Effective from: 01/05/2024
Decision:
Agreed budget provision as outlined in Option
1 below and within the attached report.
Wards affected: (All Wards);
Lead officer: Neil Ferris
01/05/2024 - Approval of the: York Mansion House, St Helens Square, York , YO1 9QL State room Dining room Silver Galleries Historic Kitchens Drawing room to be used as a venue for the solemnization of Marriages and Registration of Civil Partnership. The period ref: 7123 Decision Made
Decision Maker: Director of Customer & Communities
Decision published: 01/05/2024
Effective from: 01/05/2024
Decision:
Approval of the: York Mansion House, St Helens
Square, York , YO1 9QL
State room
Dining room
Silver Galleries
Historic Kitchens
Drawing room
to be used as a venue for the solemnization of Marriages and
Registration of Civil Partnership. The period covered is from 13th
June 2024 and continue, subject to revocation until the 12th June
2027.
This decision has been made under the provisions of Section 26(1)
(9b) of the Marriage Act 1949 and Section 6 (3A) (a) of the Civil
Partnerships Act 2004.
Wards affected: Guildhall Ward;
Lead officer: Pauline Stuchfield
26/04/2024 - To award York College £169k from the UK Shared Prosperity Fund to run a project supporting young people at risk of becoming NEET in the Further Education system. ref: 7122 Decision Made
Decision Maker: Corporate Director of Place
Decision published: 26/04/2024
Effective from: 26/04/2024
Decision:
York has been allocated £5.1m from the
UK Shared Prosperity Fund to deliver an agreed Investment Plan
submitted in August 2022 and approved by Government in January
2023. This Plan included funding to support over 16’s who
are, or are at risk of becoming, economically inactive. The York
UKSPF Partnership Board have identified an emerging issue for young
people who are in the Further Education (FE) system at York College
and Askham Bryan College. Young people in FE have moved from a
school setting and may not have strong links with the teaching and
pastoral staff at college, leading to a high risk that they might
leave courses in the early weeks of an academic year. This project
seeks to address that problem by increasing provision for such
people, training college staff in life coaching and mentoring, and
providing opportunities for the young people to explore what might
be their best options.
Following discussion at the November 2023 York UKSPF Partnership
Board, York College were invited to submit a proposal for a
project, working with Askham Bryan College, to put innovative
provision in place to help address these issues. The Colleges
presented their proposal to the Partnership Board at its April 2024
meeting and have received the support of the Board for their
project.
At its meeting on 12th October 2023, CYC Executive agreed that the
revised investment plan is implemented by extending the current
delegation to the Corporate Director of Place in consultation with
the Executive Member for Economy and Transport and taking advice
the York SPF Partnership Board.
In order to implement this project, a formal decision from the
Corporate Director of Place is therefore now required to formally
allocate £169k to York College from the 2024-2025 York UKSPF
funding.
Decision: To commission York College and Askham Bryan
College’s Futures Foundation 4U project, with York College as
the accountable body, and allocate £169k from the York UKSPF
Investment Plan (intervention E33) to the work.
Wards affected: (All Wards);
Lead officer: Neil Ferris
24/04/2024 - To award a UK Shared Prosperity Fund grant to Aesthetica Magazine Limited for their Reignite the City: Parts I to III project ref: 7121 Decision Made
Decision Maker: Corporate Director of Place
Decision published: 26/04/2024
Effective from: 24/04/2024
Decision:
York has been allocated £5.1m from the
UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) to implement the investment plan
that was agreed by DLUHC in January 2023. In October 2022, CYC
Executive gave delegated authority to the Corporate Director of
Place to implement this Investment Plan, in consultation with the
relevant Executive Members and the York UKSPF Partnership
Board.
Wards affected: (All Wards);
Lead officer: Neil Ferris
25/04/2024 - Household Support Fund 5 ref: 7120 Decision Made
Purpose of Report: To approve/ratify the councils household support fund 5 scheme to support residents with the ongoing cost of living crises.
The Executive will be asked: To approve the scheme.
Decision Maker: Decision Session - Executive Member for Finance, Performance, Major Projects and Equalities
Made at meeting: 25/04/2024 - Decision Session - Executive Member for Finance, Performance, Major Projects and Equalities
Decision published: 25/04/2024
Effective from: 03/05/2024
Decision:
Resolved:
i. Approved the HSF5 scheme as set out at paragraph 12 – 17 within the report and in further detail within Annex B.
Reason: To help alleviate the ongoing cost of living pressures being experienced by financially vulnerable residents.
Wards affected: (All Wards);
Lead officer: David Walker
18/04/2024 - Complaint against a Member of a Council covered by the Joint Standards Committee (1:32pm) ref: 7116 Decision Made
Decision Maker: Joint Standards Committee Hearings Sub-Committee
Made at meeting: 18/04/2024 - Joint Standards Committee Hearings Sub-Committee
Decision published: 25/04/2024
Effective from: 18/04/2024
Decision:
City of York Council Constitution Appendix 29: Joint Standards Committee Procedures
Paragraph 34 Decision Notice (Hearing)
Dated: 18/04/2024
Date of Complaint
|
23/08/2023 |
|
Date of Initial Assessment by DMO |
30/08/2023
|
|
Hearing Date |
18/04/2024
|
|
Independent Person
|
Joe Leigh |
|
Panel The Panel comprised Councillor K Lomas (Chair), Councillor T Fisher and Parish Councillor C Chambers. The Panel is not required to be politically balanced.
The Independent Persons’ views were provided to the Panel and taken into account at all relevant times in the procedure. The Independent Persons were not voting members of the Panel.
The Hearing The Panel resolved to exclude the Press and Public from the meeting due to the consideration of exempt information defined as “Information relating to any individual” and “Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual”. They noted that such information is exempt information if the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. Whilst the Panel was aware the subject member had expressed that they did not require the matter to be kept confidential, the Panel were mindful that there were other individuals involved, and that there was a need to maintain public confidence in the ability to raise complaints.
The Complaint On 23 August 2023 the Monitoring Officer received a complaint from an officer of the Council alleging that Cllr Mark Warters had breached the Code of Conduct by using racially discriminatory language and behaving in a manner that was disturbing, disrespectful and upsetting. The officer further alleged that Cllr Warters had shared confidential information about a customer with a third party, and that he had displayed aggressive and discourteous behaviour to the wider team over a period of time. The complainant maintained that these actions and behaviours were contrary to the City of York Council Code of Conduct.
Decision – Findings of fact on the balance of probability
The Panel members considered the evidence gathered by the Investigating Officer from the complainant. The Investigating Officer explained that Cllr Warters had initially agreed to meet to be interviewed; having changed the date of the interview Cllr Warters then advised via email that he would not meet or correspond with the Investigating Officer. In that email, Cllr Warters provided an explanation for his use of the term that the complainant claimed was racially offensive. The Panel accepted that the subject member had been provided with ample opportunity to contest both the alleged facts and the issue of whether those facts amounted to a breach of the Code. The Panel noted that Cllr Warters refused to co-operate further with the investigation process, however they were prepared to accept a number of late submissions received by Cllr Warters in the days leading up to the Hearing. The Panel adjourned for 15 minutes to allow all members the opportunity to read the submissions received. The Panel considered the submissions did not offer mitigation for the issues referred to by the complainant, and that some of the submissions strengthened the case of the complainant. The Panel accepted the investigating officer’s analysis of the facts with and concluded as follows:
We make the following findings on the balance of probabilities:
1. The use of the term referred to by the complainant can be considered a breach of the Code of Conduct due to its potential to cause distress, irrespective of its factual nature. 2. Councillor Warters’ aggressive and discourteous communication, while rooted in frustration, is a breach of the Code of Conduct's emphasis on respectful behaviour. 3. While the sharing of address information might be deemed justifiable in the given circumstances, it raises concerns regarding privacy and confidentiality expectations. The Council's data breach reporting process is therefore the appropriate route to thoroughly assess and determine the implications of this issue.
Was there a breach?
Members of the Panel considered the LGA guidance set out in the report and the facts set out by the Investigating Officer as well as the late submissions provided by Cllr Warters. The Panel were unanimous in their decision that the Code of Conduct had been breached in the following respects:
· Rule 1 (Respect) · Rule 2 (Bullying, harassment and discrimination as a Councillor) · Rule 5 (Disrepute as a Councillor) · Rule 8 (Complying with the Code of Conduct as a Councillor)
Decision – Sanction
Where a Hearings Panel makes a finding of breach of the Code it may impose one or more of the sanctions listed in the case handling procedure (p726 Constitution) or impose no sanction.
The Panel considered the investigating officer’s recommendation on sanctions and heard the Independent Persons’ views.
The Panel agreed that it was proportionate and appropriate to apply the following sanctions:
i. Cllr Warters will be requested to attend appropriate Equalities and Diversity training.
ii. A restriction will be placed on Cllr Warters’ ability to communicate directly with staff in the relevant team. The Monitoring Officer is delegated to determine, in consultation with the Chief Operating Officer, the level of seniority of staff within the team with whom Cllr Warters will be permitted to communicate. This restriction will be for an initial period of six months, and the Monitoring Officer is delegated to extend the restriction after the initial term, should he consider it necessary to do so.
The Independent Person For transparency, the Independent Persons’ views were that there had been a breach of the code and sanctions should be imposed.
There is no internal right of appeal against this decision.
All parties will be notified of the Hearing Panel’s decision.
A decision notice will be published on the Council website within 5 working days of the Hearings Panel decision.
|
||
Signed |
Councillor K Lomas Chair of Hearings Panel |
|
18/04/2024 - Complaint against a Member of a Council covered by the Joint Standards Committee (3:13pm) ref: 7119 Decision Made
Decision Maker: Joint Standards Committee Hearings Sub-Committee
Made at meeting: 18/04/2024 - Joint Standards Committee Hearings Sub-Committee
Decision published: 25/04/2024
Effective from: 18/04/2024
Decision:
City of York Council Constitution Appendix 29: Joint Standards Committee Procedures
Paragraph 34 Decision Notice (Hearing)
Dated: 24/04/2024
Date of Complaint
|
16/10/2023 |
|
Date of Initial Assessment by DMO |
20/10/2023
|
|
Hearing Date |
18/04/2024
|
|
Independent Person
|
Joe Leigh |
|
Panel
The Panel comprised Councillor K Lomas (Chair), Councillor T Fisher and Parish Councillor C Chambers. The Panel is not required to be politically balanced.
The Independent Person’s views were provided to the Panel and taken into account at all relevant times in the procedure. The Independent Person was not a voting member of the Panel.
The Hearing
The Panel resolved to exclude the Press and Public from the meeting due to the consideration of exempt information defined as “Information relating to any individual” and “Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual”. They noted that such information is exempt information if the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. Whilst the Panel was aware the subject member and one complainant had expressed that they did not require the matter to be kept confidential, the Panel were mindful that there were other individuals involved, and that there was a need to maintain staff and public confidence in the ability to raise complaints.
The Complaint
On 16th October 2023 the Monitoring Officer received a complaint from an officer of the Council (Officer A) alleging that Cllr Warters had breached the Code of Conduct by arranging by copying a number of members of the public and Parish Councillors into a formal complaint that he had made about the officer’s conduct.
On the same day, Officer B, who is Officer A’s line manager, also made a complaint to the Monitoring Officer. The complaint related to the same incident i.e. the copying of the complaint about Officer A to third parties, but gave greater detail as to why this was considered to be a breach of both the Member/Officer Protocol and the Member Code of Conduct.
Decision – Findings of fact on the balance of probability
The Panel members considered the report of the Investigating Officer and the supplementary pack comprising two additional emails presented by the subject member and one email from officer A.
The Panel heard from the Investigating Officer that Cllr Warters had declined to contribute to the investigation and declined to attend the hearing. The subject member made no representations challenging the facts contained in the investigating officer’s report and consequently witnesses were called.
The Panel accepted the investigating officer’s analysis of the facts and concluded as follows:
1. Cllr Warters intentionally copied a number of members of the public into correspondence relating to the complaint against Officer A;
2. In doing so, Cllr Warters acted in breach of para 4.4 of the Protocol for Officer / Member Relations;
3. The actions of Cllr Warters created a real possibility that the reputation of Officer A would be damaged and their working relationship with the persons copied into the email would be undermined.
Was there a breach?
Members of the Panel considered the LGA guidance set out in the report and the facts set out by the Investigating Officer as well as the supplementary pack. The Panel were unanimous in their decision that the Code of Conduct had been breached in the following respects:
Cllr Warters acted in breach of rule 1 of the Code of Conduct in failing to treat Officer A with respect.
Decision – Sanction
Where a Hearings Panel makes a finding of breach of the Code it may impose one or more of the sanctions listed in the case handling procedure (p726 Constitution) or impose no sanction.
The Panel considered the investigating officer’s recommendation on sanctions and heard the Independent Persons’ views.
In particular, it took into account the following factors:
· Cllr Warters is an experienced member of more than one local authority and can be taken to be familiar with the requirements in relation to officer/member relations;
· Cllr Warters has not acknowledged that there may have been a breach of the Code;
· The lack of engagement with the investigation process;
· The absence of any commitment to avoiding similar breaches in the future.
The Panel agreed that it was proportionate and appropriate to apply the following sanctions:
1. Formal censure; and
2. Restriction of communication with staff in the relevant service area to officers of Assistant Director level and above, such communication to be professional in tone and in all other respects in accordance with the principles set out in the Protocol on Officer Member Relations.
The Panel further recommended that the Monitoring Officer should carry out a review of the information security implications of the use by Cllr Warters of his personal email address for Council business and be authorised to take such action as is necessary to manage any information security risks identified.
The Independent Person For transparency, the Independent Persons’ views were that there had been a breach of the code and sanctions should be imposed.
There is no internal right of appeal against this decision.
All parties will be notified of the Hearing Panel’s decision.
A decision notice will be published on the Council website within 5 working days of the Hearings Panel decision.
|
||
Signed |
Councillor K Lomas Chair of Hearings Panel
|
|